Sitting of 19 March 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, an Account from the Commissioners of the Court of Requests, Westminster, of the Sums of Money paid into those Courts by Debtors, and remaining unclaimed by Creditors, from the 31st December 1821, to the 31 St of December 1851.
Petitions presented. By General PALMER, from Bath,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath—By Sir HYDE PARKER, from Cromer and two other Places, against Slavery; and from Thedwastry, Thingoe, and Roxbridge, for a Repeal of the Duty on Taxed Carts—By Mr. CUTHBERT RIPPON, from Gateshead, complaining of the Administration of the Affairs of their Corporations. By Colonel MABURLY, from Chatham, for the Emancipation of the Jews.—By Lord CLEMENTS, from Gowell, for the Abolition of Tithes; and from Carlisle and three Places in Ireland,—against the Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
On the Speaker calling on Mr. Powell Buxton, Lord Althorp rose to request his hon. friend not to bring forward to-night his Motion regarding the abolition of Slavery. He apprehended that it would be disadvantageous both to the question and to the House, if it were introduced at the present moment; he hoped, therefore, that his hon. friend would be induced to defer it, until the plan which his Majesty's Ministers had to propose could be made known.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonreplied, that no man was more conscious than he was how much better it would be for the subject to be introduced by Government, and he was willing to relinquish his Motion upon two conditions—First, if Ministers were prepared with a plan for the entire and immediate extinction of slavery; second, if they would name a day when they would state that plan to the House. He might be thought very obstinate, and he was far from wishing to impede the measures of Government, but he well knew his fate if he consented to abandon the ground he at present occupied. Until June next there was not a vacant day in the Order-book, and, after Easter, the great questions of the Bank of England, of the East-India Charter,

827
with the distress of England, Ireland, and Scotland, besides finance, would remain to be discussed. To postpone his Motion, therefore, would in effect be to abandon it. Now, he was convinced, that it was absolutely indispensable that this question should be settled; and further, that if it was not settled, and speedily settled, in that House, it would be settled elsewhere, in another and more disastrous manner. However painful, therefore, it might be to him to appear to be obstinate, and to resist a request which had been before made to him in private, and which was now in this manner urged publicly upon him, he must refrain from consenting to withdraw the Motion, unless the noble Lord would tell him that the Government agreed to two conditions. The first was, that the noble Lord should now state the nature of the plan which the Government intended to propose; and the second, that they should fix a day for the introduction of their measure on this subject into the House. If they did not do these things, he should feel himself compelled, in spite of all the objections he felt to such a course of proceeding, to enforce his right of bringing on the consideration of this subject immediately.
Lord Althorpobserved, that one of the conditions proposed by the hon. Member was that with which it was impossible he should comply; but with respect to the other—the naming of a day on which the Government proposed to lay their views on this subject before the House, he had no objection to state it. He should name, then, Tuesday, the twenty-third of April. He trusted, that the hon. Member would see that he should not be performing his duty if he were to state more at the present time.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, when he spoke of bringing on the question immediately, if the nature of the plan in contemplation of the Government was not then stated, he had used expressions which conveyed more than he meant to say. He only in tended to obtain from the Government a pledge that a measure should be speedily introduced, and he trusted that it would be safe and satisfactory. He was content to rely, in the meantime, on the assurance of the noble Lord, and should, therefore, withdraw his Motion for the present.
Motion postponed.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).
Lord Althorpmoved that the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill be read.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, that he should take this opportunity of moving, "that this House do suspend all further proceedings on the Irish Bill until the remedial measures proposed by his Majesty's Ministers be passed into a law."
The Speaker, interrupting the hon. Member, informed him, that he could not regularly propose an amendment, upon the question of reading the Order of the Day; he must wait till the noble Lord made the Motion to go into the Committee.
The Order of the Day read.
Lord Althorpmoved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, reverting to his Amendment, he must say, that he entertained the strongest fears that the remedial measures for Ireland would never become the law of the land; but that, as he had said before, was not his only reason for proposing his Amendment. They had now been assembled for nine weeks, and all that they had done in that time had been to get into the Committee upon this Bill. The great work of English legislation had been totally neglected for it; and, in his opinion, there was greater danger at present of public disturbances taking place in England, than there was of public disturbances taking place in Ireland. He knew that there was great discontent among many millions of our own countrymen, and knowing that, he called upon Ministers to pause in their proceedings upon this Bill, and to turn some part of their consideration to other subjects, besides that of applying coercive measures to Ireland. He thought that Ministers could entertain other subjects better now than they could a month ago, as every arrival from Ireland tended to prove that that country was now quiet. Was it not notorious that ten of the persons accused of the murder of Mr. Leonard were now in custody? Was it not notorious that Mr. Steele—by some deemed an agitator, by others one of the pacificators of Ireland—was now submitting to a legal prosecution? Did they not read in every newspaper, that at all the Assizes in Ireland business was going on well? Did they not read, that the Judges in their different charges, were congratulating the

829
Grand Juries that everything looked favourable; that Juries and witnesses were each and all performing their duty unshrinkingly and fearlessly, and that there was nothing like intimidation influencing their decisions? He, therefore, thought, that these coercive measures for Ireland might be postponed, in order to let English legislation go on. He could not see that any great injury would arise from the delay which he proposed; and if Gentlemen could only see this matter in the same light in which he saw it, they would postpone the further consideration of these coercive measures till the remedial measures had become the law of the land. If they did not see those remedial measures passed first, they might depend upon it that they would never see them passed afterwards. At any rate, as those measures were proposed as a boon they ought to proceed at least pari passu with those measures which were intended as a punishment. He then proposed his Amendment, but informed the Committee, that he would not give them the trouble of dividing upon it, unless he saw them actuated by a desire such as he felt, of placing their opinions on this subject upon record.
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he knew not what might be the private information received by the hon. member for Birmingham from Ireland, which induced him to suppose that that country was returning to a state of tranquillity; but the information which he received officially was, that the disturbed districts, instead of becoming quieter, were becoming more and more disturbed; and that, although great and sudden changes had taken place, with regard to the intimidation of witnesses and Jurors at these Assizes, so that some convictions had taken place, still the outrages were actually on the increase; and he was satisfied that every day they delayed to pass this Bill, they were rendering life and property less secure in that country. On that House, if it further delayed the measure, might be charged, not the loss of life, but the evil of increased outrages. He trusted, that the same reasons which had induced the House to consent to the introduction of a measure that must be repugnant to the feelings of every man, would induce them to support it now that it was introduced, and pass it with the least possible delay; so that they might give to Ireland, as soon as possible, the
830
certainty of that protection, which the peaceable inhabitants of the country did not now enjoy.
Mr. Harveycould not agree to the suggestion of the hon. member for Birmingham. He called upon Irish Members to withdraw their hostility to this Bill; and, by so doing, propitiate the feelings of the people of England, who all felt alike upon the subject of their opposition. He sincerely hoped, that the hon. Members who had so ably and so honestly opposed the Bill hitherto would cease their opposition, and allow it to pass, in order that the House might proceed to the discussion of those countless subjects on which the public mind was so stedfastly and so anxiously fixed. Let the responsibility of the measure be upon the heads of those who advised it, and by whose instrumentality it had passed into a law.
Mr. O'Connellwould not have said one word had it not been for the observations of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, and of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Colchester. He totally disclaimed the advice which his hon. and learned friend had given him to relax in his hostility to this Bill. He should feel himself guilty of a dereliction of positive duty were he to permit a single guard of the Constitution to be trampled under foot upon the tyrant's plea of necessity—a necessity, by-the-by, which did not exist—without appealing to the British public against the atrocious law which warranted it. As it was now to be proposed to the House to pass a clause abolishing the trial by Jury, and substituting the trial by Court-martial in its stead, he would not listen to any amendment, but would try the question fairly upon the principle. He would divide the Committee upon this point—"Trial by Jury, or no trial by Jury; Court-martial, or no Court-martial." In one instance he would confess that he was obliged to confirm the information which the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had just given the Committee; but in another instance he must totally contradict it. He denied, that outrages had recently increased in Ireland; but he was sorry to say that his information led him to believe that a worse spirit now existed in Ireland than had ever existed there before.; a spirit of detestation against all the upper classes now influenced the lower classes of Ireland, because they supposed that their superiors had entered

831
into a combination against them. He took that opportunity of warning the right hon. Secretary against producing by his measures a servile war in Ireland. He reminded the right hon. Secretary that Ireland was not the Isle of Wight nor the Isle of Man, but a country containing 8,000,000 of inhabitants, the most easily defensible of any country in the world, and filled with a brave population. On the heads of the Government be the responsibility of this measure. He was only doing his duty in announcing to the Ministers the malignant spirit by which the lower classes of Irishmen were animated against the higher, and the total want of confidence in the aristocracy, magistracy, and gentry which their present conduct in procuring such a law as this was producing in Ireland. As to the upper classes, he must say, that they were now executing the law with the utmost firmness—he might say with the utmost rigour. There had already been, at the late assizes, more than one conviction which had not been satisfactory to the Judges, for the Juries, instead of refusing to convict the guilty, were rushing into the opposite extreme, and were even convicting the innocent. There was no shrinking from their duty at the last assizes, either on the part of witnesses or Jurors. Indeed, there had been repeated convictions at the late assizes in Ireland which could not have taken place in any other part of the United Kingdom. Let him say this for his valued friend Mr. Steele, that though he was now bound to abide his trial at Kilkenny, one of the learned Judges who travelled that circuit had, in a case where two men had been found guilty of Whitefeet outrages, declared that he would transmit to the Government a favourable report of what Mr. Steele had stated on their behalf—namely, that they had given up their arms to him at his request before they were arrested on the charge upon which they had just been convicted.
Mr. Henry Grattanalso entered his protest against being interdicted by any hon. Member from opposing the present Bill. His opposition was in order to have that Bill amended, and save the present Government from the odious situation they would be placed in, if it passed with its obnoxious clauses untouched. If it so passed, the upper classes in Ireland would feel themselves most sensibly wounded, in
832
being reduced as it were to utter insignificance by the introduction of Courts-martial.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussoncoincided with the remarks that were made by the two last hon. and learned Members. He reprobated the idea of allowing any bill to pass without the House making it as unobjoctionable as possible. The House was not justified in throwing the responsibility of the measure on the Ministers if the House could improve it. It was their duty to amend the Bill, and the time for doing so was whilst it was passing through the Committee.
Amendment negatived. House went into Committee. Question put on the ninth clause of the Bill.
Mr. Stanley: The Committee was now arrived at that clause of the Bill which gave to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the proclaimed districts, with those additions of power which they had given to him in districts not proclaimed, to prohibit or suppress any meetings deemed by him to be dangerous to the public peace, or inconsistent with the due administration of the law—the power of not allowing any meeting for petitioning Parliament, or for discussing any alleged grievance in Church or State, without he received a previous written notice of ten days, specifying its object, and without he had given his assent to it. In framing this clause, Government had drawn this distinction between the proclaimed and the non-proclaimed districts, that, whereas in the districts not proclaimed, the Lord Lieutenant was to have the power of suppressing by this proclamation only such assemblies as he deemed to be dangerous to the public peace, or inconsistent with the due administration of the law, he was, in the proclaimed districts, to have the power of assuming that any large congregation of persons for the purpose of petitioning Parliament or discussing any alleged grievance, in which inflammatory topics might, and probably would be used, was primâ facie dangerous to the public peace, and could not be permitted, unless such an explanation of its objects were given in writing as would justify him in giving it his sanction. When this clause was on a former night under discussion, the hon. member for the town of Galway had pressed upon the Government, and Government had felt the justice of his suggestion—that there ought to be some

833
exception made in favour of meetings which had been duly summoned and convened by the High Sheriff or Lord Lieutenant of any county. It was, therefore, his intention to state at present the clause which Government had determined to propose, to carry the suggestion of the hon. member for the town of Gal-way into effect. Formally, indeed, it could not be proposed till the Committee had got through the existing clauses of the Bill; but the clause which Government intended to propose as the 10th clause of the Bill would make certain exceptions from the 1st and 9th clauses of the Bill. He would now read the clause which he intended to propose after this 9th clause. It was as follows:—"Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to prohibit, or to enable the Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of Ireland to prohibit, in any county, county of a city, or county of a town, whether in any proclaimed district or elsewhere in Ireland, any meeting which shall be duly convened by the High Sheriff, Lieutenant of such county, or by the Lieutenant or Chief Magistrate of such county of a city or county of a town." This proviso would apply equally to proclaimed and unproclaimed districts; but as the object of Government was, that there should be no restriction upon the right of petitioning, and that the inhabitants of every district should have the power of making their opinions known to the Legislature, it had been deemed right to introduce this limitation for the proclaimed districts: "Provided, nevertheless, that in any proclaimed district it shall not be lawful for any person not being resident within the county, barony, half barony, parish, or district for which such meeting shall be convened, to take part in, or be present at, any such meeting; and that any person taking part in, or being present at, such meeting, and not being resident as aforesaid (save and except any Magistrates, constables, or others charged with the preservation of the peace), shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of a misdemeanor." He thought it right to make this statement before the Committee entered upon the consideration of the 9th clause, as it might, perhaps, have some influence upon the opinions of hon. Gentlemen, and save the time of the Committee.
Mr. O'Connelldefied the right hon. Secretary, or any man else, to point out any disturbed district in which political meetings had been held. In those districts where political meetings had been held there had been no disturbances. There was no place in Ireland, or indeed in the United Kingdom, so peaceable as the city of Dublin, which had been the very focus of what was called political agitation. He was not inclined to recommend the holding of public meetings in the proclaimed districts, as they were calculated to create collisions between the army and the people. He objected to the words of the clause, "and the consent in writing of the Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors for holding such meeting, signified by such Chief or under Secretary." These words he considered altogether unnecessary, and he would move that they be omitted, though he would not take the sense of the House upon the question.
Amendment negatived, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The 10th clause empowering the Lord Lieutenant, or any person authorised by him, to commission officers of the army in Ireland, not being under the degree of a field-officer, to hold Courts-martial for the trial of offenders under the Bill, was then read.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that before they went into the consideration of this clause, he felt it incumbent on him to lay before the House several material provisions that had been resolved on, which, without diminishing the efficiency of the Bill, would meet some of the objections which hon. Members connected with Ireland had made to it. Those provisions were proposed in order to render military tribunals as little liable to be abused as possible. Two or three of those modifications had been already mentioned to the House. The first was, the removal from Courts-martial of officers of low standing and little experience. This was done by not permitting any officers to sit on Courts-martial who had not obtained the rank of Captain. He would announce another more important alteration. Great objections had been made to the officers of those tribunals, that their duty would lead them to seek out and apprehend culprits, and after being harassed night and day, they might, it was asserted, come to those tribunals deficient in that impartiality and coolness

835
which persons in a judicial capacity ought to possess. To meet those objections it was thought expedient that no officer on active regimental duty, who might be instrumental in having offenders apprehended, should sit on those Courtsmaitial, before which such offenders might be tried. The third alteration had already been stated by his noble friend beside him, and required that there should be a greater majority for conviction than the mere majority which was enough on ordinary Courts-martial. Moreover the courts were not to be empowered to adjudge the punishment of death; nor even to try for a capital offence, without the special leave of the Lord Lieutenant, and even then they were not, on a conviction, authorized to pass sentence of death. The proviso which would be introduced for this purpose would enact, that where the court should consist of nine members, seven should concur in the finding, and when there were less than nine, five at least should concur. This would be an additional security against the want of due consideration before the court agreed in its verdict. There would also be another difference between these and ordinary Courts-martial, that the sentence could in no instance be executed until the finding and sentence had been submitted for revision to a higher authority; and while referring to proceedings under former Courts-martial in Ireland, he would incidentally notice, at the request of the gentleman who had written to him on the subject, a statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, respecting the case of Sir Edward Crosbie. The hon. and learned Gentleman had road a letter purporting to be from the son of that gentleman, in which he thanked him for having vindicated the memory of his father. He had since received a letter from the son of Sir Edward Crosbie, in which be disclaimed having written any letter, or made any communication to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject. When he stated this, he by no means meant to accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of having stated anything which he himself did not believe to be true. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had read what bad been sent to him, he made no doubt. But the son of Sir Edward Crosbie denied having wished or authorized any hon. Member to
836
vindicate his father's memory, whilst he had sufficient proofs of being able to do so himself. Above all things, that gentleman did not desire that his father's innocence should be contaminated, as he deemed it would, by mixing it up with matters that related to political agitation. The Amendment to which he had called the attention of the Committee would do away with the danger of any such injustice, because no sentence whatever could be carried into execution by these tribunals, except with the sanction of a higher authority than themselves. He would now beg the Committee to turn to the 15th clause of the Bill, to which his Majesty's Government meant to move some Amendment. They thought where Amendments were necessary, or where they thought they could meet the wishes already expressed by Gentlemen, of making such Amendments as in their opinion did not depart from the principles on which the Bill was founded, that it would be best to propose the Amendments at once, rather than to wait till the different clauses came before them in the course of the discussion. He would, therefore, beg of them to turn to the fifteenth clause, which provides, "That it shall and may be lawful for every such Court-martial, from time to time, to issue such orders as to such Court shall seem fit, for bringing before them any person charged by order of the Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, or by some person duly authorized by him or them for that purpose, with any offence by this Act made cognizable by such Court, or for executing and carrying into effect any sentence, so confirmed as aforesaid, of any such Court respectively, which orders all Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, Gaolers, Constables, Officers, and Ministers of Justice, and other persons to whom the same shall be directed, and to whom the execution thereof shall rightfully and properly appertain, shall, and are hereby required, to execute, enforce, and obey." It had been objected to that clause, that it would be desirable that no executive power should be given to the Courts-martial (he would use that name in speaking of these tribunals, though, strictly speaking, they were not Courts-martial in their constitution), and his Majesty's Government concurred in thinking, that it would be proper to limit the jurisdiction of Courts-martial so far as that they should be Judges of

837
the fact and offence only, and proposed, therefore, that instead of leaving it to Courts-martial, to throw the whole power and responsibility on the Lord Lieutenant, or those persons directed by him, to bring-persons accused of offences before Courts-martial, leaving to the Courts-martial the power only of taking cognizance of such cases as might be brought before them. He would next go to the consideration of the class of offences to be brought before the Courts-martial. He admitted, that it was desirable that no jurisdiction should be given to them which might interfere with ordinary civil processes, and it was therefore proposed by his Majesty's Government, that all offences should be taken from under their jurisdiction which were not strictly of an insurrectionary character, or which were not accompanied by violence, or threats of violence, as well as all cases which involved complicated points of law—which it was always desirable should not be brought under the cognizance of a military tribunal. With that view they proposed to except from the operation of the 17th clause of the Bill (which made persons liable to be prosecuted for offences contrary to the 27th George 3rd), all offences, even if connected with conspiracy or insurrection, when these offences were committed without violence or threats. But Ministers not only intended to take from the Courts-martial the jurisdiction in that class of offences, but to take from them the jurisdiction in another class of offences, which were always nice and complicated—and they meant to take it from them, whether the offences were connected with seditious matters or not—he meant the jurisdiction in questions of libel, because his Majesty's Ministers thought, that questions on the Law of Libel were not, in any instance, fit to be brought before a military tribunal. They therefore proposed to exclude all the offences enumerated in the 21st clause of the Bill, which gave Courts-martial jurisdiction over them. He meant to propose, that after the 17th clause, the following-words should be inserted:—"Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing in this Act be considered to give power or jurisdiction to any Court-martial to try any person or persons charged, or to be charged, with publishing, or causing to be published, or hawking, selling, or disposing of any seditious handbill, paper, or pamphlet, in any proclaimed district,
838
or confederating or conspiring contrary to the provisions of an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland, in the 27th year of the reign of George the Third, or for the trial of any civil right, unless such confederacy or combination shall be accompanied with force, or threat of force." By this Amendment, they would not only exclude such offences as were not strictly insurrectionary from the operations of this Bill, but also such offences as were made capital under the Whiteboy Act; and persons guilty of them would remain liable to the operation of Common Law. Having made these Amendments, they then proposed to alter the beginning of the tenth clause, and instead of the words, "and for the speedy and effectual trial and punishment of the several offences mentioned or referred to in this Act," to insert—"And whereas the ordinary tribunals for the administration of justice in the proclaimed districts have been found inadequate for that purpose, be it therefore enacted," He believed he might say, that Courts-martial were likely to be put in requisition in very few districts, but the power of having such tribunals at the disposal of Government would of itself be of great service, and would tend to prevent the necessity on the part of Government of putting the more rigorous parts of the Bill in execution. He would not, however, enter into further defence of the Court-martial clause, but would leave it to the Committee, having stated the grounds and principles on which his Majesty's Government thought themselves justified in making the alterations which he should move at the proper time. He had then only to move the Amendment he had mentioned in the beginning of the clause.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if he had been aware of the statement which had been made by the right hon. Secretary, he should have brought down his letter-book, in order that he might show the right hon. Gentleman and the House the letter from Sir Edward Crosbie's son, on which he had founded his statement. He begged to ask the right hon. Secretary the name of the son who had written to him?
Mr. Stanleycould not then say, but he should be able to state to-morrow. It however was not of much consequence, as the same statement had been sent to several of the Irish papers, and appeared in them. The writer, he believed, stated

839
himself to be the eldest son of Sir Edward Crosbie.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the letter which he received was dated "Liverpool," and signed "Edward Crosbie," and that it contained a letter from the rev. Archibald Douglas, rector of Kilcullen, in Kildare. It mentioned that the writer was in distress. As Mr. Douglas was a clergyman high in the Church, and the brother-in-law of an Irish Peer, he thought that he was justified in making use of it; and it was impossible for him to suspect that it did not contain a true account of the writer.
Mr. Stanleydid not, in the slightest degree, impeach the statement of the hon. and learned Member. The writer had, however, requested of him to take an opportunity of making the statement which the letter contained, in his place in that House, and he had accordingly done so. He did not know any of the parties concerned, further than from the circumstance in question.
Amendment agreed to.
The Clause read.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonrose to oppose the whole of the clause. He should fail in doing justice to himself if he did not state, that he considered the introduction of that part of the Bill as entirely hostile to all the principles of the Constitution. It took away the trial by Judge and Jury—that boast and safety of every Englishman. He admitted, that a case might be made out of such urgent necessity as to justify the Government in doing away Trial by Jury for a time, but the consideration of such a case was not then imposed on them. He opposed the clause, in the first place, because there was no precedent for such a measure. It was true, that Martial-law had been introduced into Ireland during the rebellion, but it was only during the rebellion, which could supply no precedent for the present measure, for there was no instance of its being introduced at a time when there was not only no insurrection, but a state of profound peace. He, therefore, thought it his duty to oppose it on the score of precedent. It had been asked what tribunal could be adopted in place of Courts-martial? But it was unnecessary to consider that question, because a case had not been made out which warranted them in departing from the ordinary law tribunals. Not a letter, not a fact, not even the statement
840
laid before the House by the noble Lord, justified them in such a course. It had been admitted by the noble Lord, and the fact ought never to be forgotten by the House, that the noble Lord had not brought one case before them where Jurors had not done their duty. And there was only one case mentioned in which it was attempted to be shown that Jurors were intimidated or threatened. He begged the Committee to remember, that it was not sufficient to justify such a measure as that before them, to say, that Jurors were afraid (and even of that there was only one instance adduced), but it must also be made out that the Jurors were deterred from doing their duty by those fears. But no hon. Member had ventured to state, that in consequence of that intimidation, any Jurors had been induced to give a false verdict. He called, then, upon the House to pause before they agreed to that clause—a clause which abolished the Trial by Jury, that boast of Englishmen, and delivered over a large portion of their fellow-subjects to the power of a military tribunal. It was not sufficient to say, that there was a degree of insecurity of property in Ireland which was not felt in this country. Every man in Ireland felt, that neither life nor property was so secure as it was in other countries; but that was no sufficient apology for the abolition of the Trial by Jury. In order to justify such a step, intimidation of the Jurors was likewise necessary. And what evidence had been brought of that intimidation of Jurors? Only one case—that of Carrickshaugh; and any one reading over the evidence in that case, must be satisfied that the Jury could not help feeling a doubt as to the verdict they should give. He thought, then, that he had shown, that there was no evidence on which to rest a case which would justify the abolition of Trial by Jury. He would, therefore, go into the consideration of the jurisdiction of the Courts-martial which it was proposed to substitute in their stead. These Courts-martial could take cognizance of capital offences. He was much mistaken if they could not take cognizance of capital of Fences. [Mr. Stanley: They cannot take cognizance of capital offences, except by the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant.] The power to enable them to take cognizance of capital offences he would not give to the Lord Lieutenant. He objected to giving such a power to the Lord Lieutenant

841
or any other man. But Courts-martial were entitled to find parties guilty of capital offences; and the effect of that conviction was, the forfeiture of goods. So that, by this Act, these Courts-martial were to have the power, not only to banish, but to forfeit the goods of every culprit. The establishment of Courts-martial was objectionable in another view. It took away from the prisoner, not only Trial by an impartial Jury, but that assistance which every prisoner had a right to expect, and generally received from the experienced Judge before whom he was tried. This assistance was of great service to prisoners; and without if, he should consider the Trial by Jury almost a curse. And how was it in the Courts-martial? There was a Judge Advocate who was to assist the prisoner. But that Judge Advocate was the person who by law issued the warrant against the prisoner—he was the prosecutor—he had to examine the evidence before the warrant was issued—and it was on his opinion of that evidence that the prosecution took place. Was it likely that a man who had all these duties to perform should not be impressed with an unfavourable feeling towards the prisoner? Could he, at the same time, act as his prosecutor and assistant? On these grounds, he objected strongly to Courts-martial and he objected to them further, because he was afraid that the establishment of them might lead to the total subversion of Trial by Jury in that country. There was another part of the Bill to which he had strong objections, and that was the irresponsibility of those tribunals. By this Act they were declared irresponsible, for in the 26th clause it was stated "that all officers noncommissioned officers, and soldiers, who shall act under any such power and authority, shall, for and in respect of any thing done under such power or authority in any such proclaimed districts as aforesaid, be responsible to Courts-martial to be holden under any statute in force for holding Courts-martial, by which Courts-martial respectively they shall be liable to be tried and punished." So that these Courts-martial were to be specially exempted from the effects of any illegal acts they might commit under the Bill. That, they all knew, was not the case with ordinary Courts-martial, as those officers were responsible to the ordinary tribunals of the country for any illegal acts which they might commit in the exercise of their duties;
842
and there was at least one instance (that of Sir Charles Ogle, who was fined 1,000 l. for an illegal act) in which officers were punished for such conduct. But that responsibility was all done away with by the present Bill, and he felt astonished that his Majesty's Ministers should have thought it necessary to make such a provision. He considered the introduction of the Bill as the greatest blow ever given to the Constitution. No case similar to it had ever come before that House—no such powers had ever been introduced into an Act of Parliament. It had been said by the noble Lord, and by several of the hon. Gentlemen who supported him, that in making an inroad on the Constitution, the further they should go the better. He begged to declare, that in all the books he had ever read, and in all the speeches he had ever heard spoken in that House or elsewhere, he had never seen or heard any doctrine which astonished him more than that, or which was more contrary to the generally received opinions on the subject. He had always understood that the doctrine inculcated by those who understood the Constitution most thoroughly, was, that it should be carefully dealt with, and that where an inroad was occasionally necessary, it should be to the least extent possible. He was decidedly opposed to making such extensive infringements on the Constitution, and was very much in clined to believe, that they would not be received elsewhere with the implicit consent which they seemed to meet with here. The proposed system was abhorred by the Irish universally, from their recollection of the horrors it occasioned in former periods. If carried into effect, it would prove the most efficient method possible of wholly alienating the minds of the Irish people from us. It could not be expected that they would regard the army there as a guardian angel intent only on the preservation of peace and order, but on the contrary, it would be looked upon as the vindictive instrument of persecution.
Colonel Daviessaid, it was with much reluctance that he found himself compelled to support the Bill, in consideration of its absolute necessity. He could not, however, suppress his conviction, that if Government had resorted to the vigorous exercise of their power at the time when these unfortunate disturbances commenced, there would not have been the slightest necessity for the proposed measure. The Ministers

843
had no excuse to offer for this neglect. They had been urged, implored to do so, over and over, again and again, from every quarter. Not longer ago than last July there had been a representation made to the other House on the state of Ireland couched, almost totidem verbis, in the same language, as the representation on which his Majesty's Ministers had founded the present Bill. Not only had they refused to listen to these imploring representations—they had bitterly aggravated existing evils by the production of that most atrocious measure, the Bill for the compulsory recovery of tithes: and when they had thus brought the people to a state of despair, they came and asked the House for remedies of a nature against which every feeling of humanity revolted. But this was not a time to canvass the past conduct of Ministers. The great object was the present state of Ireland, a country where all order and tranquillity appeared to be at an end—the course of justice obstructed, jurymen assaulted. He only stated what he had heard. He did not say, that these representations had been proved; neither had he heard any proof to the contrary. At any rate it appeared that Jurors were intimidated, if not assassinated. Though he was opposed to the system of Courts-martial in general, yet let it be borne in mind that this was a case of no ordinary necessity. At the same time, he by no means saw that any such tremendous dangers were to be apprehended from the operation of Courts martial as hon. Members seemed to fear. They had protested against the violation of the Constitution, but could it be denied that the violation of the Constitution had commenced in Ireland? Who could read and hear of the appalling state of that country and doubt this? No man, he would repeat, regretted the necessity for establishing these tribunals more than he did, and nothing but a deep sense of their absolute necessity could have induced him to permit them. It was supposed that officers in the Army, from their education, their position, and their habits, must necessarily be inclined to despotic measures; he was far from concurring in these views. He thought that Gentlemen who were called upon to act in a country where they had no political or family connections, and who would be therefore free from party bias, he thought that such men would be much more likely to do
844
their duty impartially than men brought up in the midst of the factions of that unhappy country, and whose minds and judgments were never free from the most baneful party prejudices. He had been rather surprised at an inconsistency exhibited in argument by the hon. and learned member for Dublin. That hon. Member had objected to these officers on the ground that they would probably mix in social intercourse with the country gentlemen, and be biassed in their judgments accordingly. Whom did the hon. and learned Member propose to substitute? Why, those very country gentlemen themselves—nay, he proposed to enforce their attendance under the penalty of 500 l. It had been also objected that the gentlemen ill the Army laboured under legal incompetence; but this tribunal was not to try any questions of law, nor questions of property; nor was it to try political offences; but merely to try whether A or B had or had not engaged in illegal meetings. He thought the officers of the Army were at least as competent to judge of the law on that point as the small farmers. But the members of this tribunal were not left entirely to their own judgment, for they might have the advice of the Assistant Banister. He was as much attached to Trial by Jury as any man; he considered it the palladium of English liberty: but when he looked at the state of Ireland, he saw no liberty there and no remedy for the present state of disorder, but passing the present Bill. If it was impossible to find within the pale of the Constitution anything efficient, they must have recourse to an unconstitutional tribunal, which nothing would induce him to consent to bat the urgent necessity of the case. Hon. Members seemed to be afraid that the Ministers, if they once got this coercive measure, would no longer trouble themselves about remedial measures; but this fear was most unfounded, for the very existence of Government depended on fulfilling its pledges, and the Ministers were solemnly pledged to remedial measures.
Mr. Tayleureobserved, that some of the remarks made on the subject of those military tribunals appeared to have excited considerable irritation. If it had been asserted, or insinuated, that an English officer would act from a feeling of prejudice, such a remark ought, undoubtedly, to raise a feeling of indignation. At the

845
same time he must assert, that the capacity of men for one thing, and incapacity for another, entirely depended on their education and habits. Therefore, however undoubted the uprightness and purity of intention of the officers of the Army—and no person could doubt them—yet they were very likely to fall into unintentional errors on points of law. Officers in the army could not be suspected of corrupt motives or intentional partiality, but he was afraid that when obscure evidence was given in those military courts it was not at all unlikely that serious mistakes would occur. He feared, also, from the attachment of officers to the Government, that there would be a tendency to consider every accused man as a political adversary. In making these observations he merely wished to express the opinion that military men were not free from those infirmities of nature to which other individuals were subject.
Mr. Perrincould not give a silent vote on this part of the Bill. In his conscientious judgment he believed it to be unnecessary; in his conscientious judgment, he was convinced that it not only would not effect any good, but would be productive of the greatest mischiefs. He gave his Majesty's Ministers all due credit for the ground on which they brought the Bill forward placing their measure on the only basis of necessity; and he agreed, that, if they made out this case of necessity, if they established the fact that without the Bill there would be no protection for life and property, and no means of supporting social order, they were entitled to the Bill, or rather, not they, but the people were entitled to it. But the question was, whether this clause and the provisions connected with it were thus indispensably requisite? This alleged necessity was grounded upon evidence offered to the House, showing that Jurors had been intimidated, witnesses threatened; and it was therefore contended that these extraordinary tribunals must be resorted to. It was admitted, on all hands, that Courts-martial were a remedy which ought not to be resorted to, without absolute necessity called for them, as they were both arbitrary and unconstitutional. If this necessity could be proved, then Ministers had made out their case; but if it could not be proved, the measure was most grievously tyrannical. After giving due credit to all the statements relative to the alleged intimidation
846
of Jurors, he did not find that the Ministers had made out any case on this point, except as regarded the Carrickshaugh murders. This case he gave them credit for, but it stood alone; and was not its influence counteracted by the cases of Clare, of Queen's County, of Kilkenny, and by all the cases of the present Assize s. Was the solitary case of Carrickshaugh to outweigh all the others? Did Ministers think, that there was no efficacy in other provisions of the Bill? Were not the clauses already agreed to sufficient to put down agitation? Were they not sufficient to protect life and property, prevent midnight outrage, and secure tranquillity? They had made an immense increase in the military and constabulary force, and in the police, sufficient to preserve peace. If the other enactments were sufficient, what was the use of this clause of the Bill? If these powers were not efficient, what could the Courts-martial do? There was another Bill in progress—a Bill to which he should not refuse his consent—the Bill to change the Venue. These powers being obtained, what more could be wanted? With these they would have everything necessary to secure the due administration of justice. In no instance could it be proved that a Jury had failed in committing any individual under a criminal prosecution. The witnesses would not be less intimidated when Courts-martial were established than with ordinary Courts; and it surely was not intended to convict men without hearing witnesses? Other Courts had been suggested, but he was not favourable to Courts composed of barristers. He made no objection to Courts-martial on account of the officers not being men of honour and integrity; but he objected to summary tribunals. In the ordinary Courts the prisoner had the assistance of a learned and enlightened Judge—of a person who knew the laws and the rules of evidence. He objected to these Courts, that the officers were not fit to discuss and decide nice points of evidence and nice questions of law. What nicer questions could there be, in fact, to come before a Judge, than those which related to evidence. He sought for no other tribunals—he was willing to abide by the old tribunals of the country. They had been asked to suggest other Courts—he would suggest none; but he would say, let there be a continued Session of the Peace. Let there be barristers appointed

847
to relieve each other, and so the Sessions continued by regular adjournments, lie objected to this as a hazardous experiment; he respected the law, and he therefore objected to setting it aside by this Bill. He had been pleased by the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, that this law should not be executed unless it were necessary. He sincerely believed that declaration; but he had a right to infer from the admission, that the law was not immediately necessary. He did not like the precedent, though he knew it had been said that it was made so wide a departure from the Constitution, because it might not be followed, and that it would not be followed. But that doctrine had been held on other occasions. It had been often repeated, and often refuted by the events. This doctrine had been referred to in 1829, when Earl Grey had objected to the Bill then introduced; but what did he say, in his opening speech, when he introduced this Bill to the House? Why, that the part of it which related to seditious meetings was merely a renewal of the Act of 1829. Another question which had been put was, would lie submit to Courts-martial, or to I White feet and Volunteers? He would submit to neither. The law-was strong enough at present, if it were fairly, fully, duly and impartially administered. Man was always corrupted by power, and he objected to intrusting men with power which must make them disregard the common law of the land. It was the duty of that House to make the law not on the principle that it would not be abused by good men, but on the principle that it should not be perverted or misapplied by weak or wicked men.
Mr. Rolfewished to state the reason for his vote. He had been at first much and decidedly opposed to the clause, but, at length, after listening to the debates, he had become a reluctant convert to it, and meant to give it his support. He was prepared for the taunts implied in the cheers of hon. Members opposite, but he knew no silliness of folly equal to, and no cowardice greater, than that of persevering in error for the fear of being thought afraid. His conscience dictated the course he meant to pursue. The hon. Gentlemen opposite thought, by their taunts, and almost by their threats of asking what the people would think, to deter Members from their duty. Those who supported
848
the Bill were accused of being ignorant of Ireland, but the conduct of the Gentlemen who opposed it showed that they were ignorant of the feelings of England. If they were blinded by their antipathy to the Bill, to suppose that there was little feeling in England to support the measure, they were mistaken. There was a strong feeling in England—a feeling of indignation at the time the Bill had occupied. He did not go along with that feeling. He thought the Gentlemen who opposed the measure were bound to sift it and weigh it as much as possible. Another feeling certainly had existed; it was thought that this clause was a severe clause, but that feeling had died away. It was the duty of the Representatives to state why they supported this clause, and he would do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last had relieved him from one great difficulty. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that if there was not to be Trial by Jury, he did not know what better could be substituted. The hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed none, and said he knew none Letter than military tribunals. If that were admitted, on that reasoning, as soon as it was shown that Jury trials were not safe, then military tribunals were justified. If it were admitted that Jury-trial could not take place, and none other were suggested than military tribunals, they must be had recourse to. It was enough for him to satisfy himself that it might be necessary to find a substitute for Jury-trial, as the hon. member for Monaghan admitted, to justify the military courts. Might they not be necessary? That was the question. It was said, that it was not proved that Jurors had been intimidated; but it was the part of wisdom to be as well satisfied by a priori reasoning, as by the evidence of facts. Intimidation had been practised against all other classes; no man in Ireland was a free agent; and were, then, the Jurors the only class that were exempt from intimidation? But there was evidence of intimidation. Carrickshaugh was a case of this kind; but that was not enough; the administration of justice ought not to be suspected. The right hon. Secretary had mentioned that in Clonmel 288 names were called over before a Jury could be impanelled. The hon. member for Drogheda said, that it proved nothing more than that the Jurors would not come forward. If it were indolence

849
only, it might be excused; but when murder was stalking through the land, was not that an occasion when indolence should be overcome? Again, at Kilkenny, fines were levied to the amount of 20 l., 30 l., and 50 l. before the Jury could be compelled to attend. What was the cause? Was it anything but intimidation? At least, they could not get Juries, and not getting Juries, should they not provide some other means for the Administration of justice? He, for one, could not think of calling upon persons to administer justice at the risk of danger to their own persons. He, for one, had been slow to form the opinion that military courts might be substituted for Jury-trial, but he saw no other resource. He was aware of the reverence in which trial by Jury was held in England—a reverence which he did not wish to shake; but the source of that reverence was to be found in the fact, that over the Jury there presided a Judge, a venerable, respected man, who summed up the evidence, and made a charge to the Jury before they finally decided. He should wish, however, to see some modification of the clause. In Courts-martial there was a Judge Advocate, and he recommended that the Judge Advocate should be empowered to sum up and recapitulate the evidence, so as to fulfil in some measure the functions of a Judge when charging the Jury. He was justified, he thought, in supporting the clause; it was necessary to give the Government additional power, and he meant to make his vote conform to his opinion.
The Earl of Darlingtontook a different view of the subject from that taken by the hon. Member who had last addressed the House. He was not surprised at the jealousy exhibited upon the subject of Trial by Jury, but thought if they were to have Courts-martial at all, their efficacy should not be frittered away. The alterations introduced by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) appeared to him to render the Courts-martial nugatory. He did not think that these latter tribunals should be so far assimilated to Juries as to require anything approaching unanimity in their decisions. He admitted, that no class was more respectable than that from which Jurors were usually taken, but they were of a different class from officers in the army, who would not be so disposed to yield up their opinions to others, as would be the case with individual Jurors.
850
He objected also to the admission of Counsel into Courts-martial for professional purposes. The precedent which the Bill would in this way establish, might prove very injurious. It tended to alter the whole military law, as it related to—Courts-martial. If the alterations recently proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were to form part of the clause, he should certainly oppose it altogether.
Major Beauclerkopposed the clause. The members of Courts-martial were all more or less under the influence of the Horse Guards [No, no]. He would repeat the assertion, that all Courts-martial were indirectly under the influence of the Horse Guards [No, no]. He would prove his assertion ["It is impossible."] He would assert, that when first he went into the army there was a great difference between the decisions of Courts-martial and their decisions at present. He had often witnessed with the deepest indignation persons flogged till their flesh was torn from their backs. He asked if that were not the fact? Was it not true, that men were not now flogged as they were formerly? When he first joined his regiment at Halifax, there was scarcely a morning when he was not dragged from his bed to witness the men of his own regiment lashed till the flesh was torn from their backs, or when his sleep was not disturbed by the cries of men belonging to other regiments who were suffering the same torture. He asked, was that the case now? No. Where 100 lashes were inflicted formerly, not one was inflicted now. The Courts, however, were the same—the law was the same—and what, then, had produced the alteration in the decisions of the Courts? Orders, he asserted, orders from the Horse Guards. Formerly cruelty was thought praiseworthy—now it was discountenanced. But why? Because the humanity of the people of England had increased, and the people were against it. He remembered the exertions of the worthy Baronet opposite to denounce the hateful practice of flogging; and those exertions had led to issuing orders which had modified the decisions of Courts-martial, though the law remained the same, and the offence was the same. He knew that the same thing had taken place in the navy. He, then, would not give power to men who were under the influence of the Horse Guards. It would tend to establish a despotism, and bring ruin on

851
the country. He denied that the effect of the Bill would be what was anticipated, and instead of facilitating, it would impede the administration of justice in Ireland. He looked with as much horror to the scenes of bloodshed which were now visible in Ireland as any man, but military tribunals would provoke irritation and increase the disorder. He therefore must oppose this part of the Bill in particular, as indeed he opposed the whole measure. It might produce a temporary calm, but it would only be of short duration.
Lord Hothamreferred to the assertion of the last speaker, that Courts-martial were always under the influence of the Horse Guards, and left it to the House to decide whether what the hon. Member advanced had at all established his position. The subject of military flogging-had been improperly and unfairly introduced into the discussion, especially as the seventeenth clause of the Bill expressly prohibited the Courts-marlial from inflicting that species of punishment. He did not mean to complain that Ministers had thought it right to make very recent alterations in the Bill, the nature of which had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman; but at the same time, he did not think that they would make the measure more palatable to its opponents, while they would materially impair its efficiency by rendering the influenee of the military tribunals less powerful, and less extensive. It now appeared that a number of officers of rank were to be sent over to Ireland to aid in the trial of offenders, but it had not been stated in what way they were to aid those trials—whether they were to preside, or whether they were to form the whole body of the Court. Upon this point, therefore, further information was necessary before the House could decide upon the probable extent of their utility. At all events, he thought, since the militray tribunals were not in fact Courts-martial, that the (to some) objectionable term "Court-martial" might be omitted in the Bill. The constitution of the tribunal was in several respects different from that of a Court-martial, and it was a point not unworthy consideration, what effect might be produced upon soldiers by this new institution, which applied a different mode of administering the law to one class of the King's subjects to that which was applied to another. He (Lord Hotham) feared the effect of so wide a
852
distinction upon the minds of the military, and he begged to know from the Secretary at War, whether it was intended to introduce a corresponding alteration in the Mutiny Bill in favour of the army?
Mr. Edward Curteiscould not admit that the Horse Guards influenced, in any way, the decision of Courts-martial. He believed if the Horse Guards attempted any thing of the kind, these Courts would have come to the very opposite conclusion. He had himself served in three different regiments, and in all there had not been so much punishment inflicted during the whole time he served, as had been exercised in the single regiment mentioned by the hon. Member.
Mr. Warburtonwas not at all afraid lest by this Bill the soldier should be converted too much into a civilian, for he thought the effect of it would be the very reverse. A noble Lord had said, that Courts-martial were more enlightened tribunals than the ordinary Courts; but if such were the case, which he denied, still there was a strong and a vulgar prejudice, in England at least, in favour of a man being tried by his peers. A Lord liked to be tried by Lords, and a peasant felt more confidence in a Jury consisting of persons of his own station. It was true, that a sentence equally just might proceed from a military as from a civil tribunal; but it was not sufficient that the sentence should be equally just; it ought also to appear to the people to be likely to be equally just, in order that there might be general confidence in the tribunal. He doubted whether this confidence would be reposed in a military court; or, rather, he was satisfied that it would not. He asked why persons accused before Courts-martial were not to be allowed the benefit of counsel? In a marching regiment, where for military offences it was necessary to attain fesinum remedium, it might be inconvenient to allow of counsel for the accused; but he did not see that there existed a like difficulty in the case of civilians brought before a military court, which was held in a fixed place. He begged to take this opportunity of repeating a question he had put to the noble Lord (Althorp) on a former night, and to which it was important to have an answer before the Committee came to a decision on this clause—namely, whether the sentences of Courts-martial might be sent back for revision "? When political feelings were excited,

853
and the passions of men heated, it was more than ever necessary that persons accused should be surrounded with every species of protection, and the fitness of it was established by the celebrated case of Thomas Hardy.
Sir John Dalrymplesaid, that he did not remember to have heard it asserted on any former occasion that Courts-martial were under the influence of the Horse Guards. The gallant Officer (Major Beauclerk) had said, that he did not allude to individuals, but still it was the duty of every officer who had the interest of the service at heart, to protest against such statements when he knew them to be unfounded. It was very hard upon the Ministers now to blame them for the introduction of alterations which they had made at the suggestion of hon. Members on both sides of the Mouse, who had proposed them as improvements. No man could entertain stronger objections than he did to this measure; and it was only within these few days that he could bring himself to lend it his support. He felt convinced, however, from what he had heard as to the state of Ireland, in the course of the discussions upon this Bill, that it was necessary to intrust the Government with strong power.
Colonel Peelreprobated the assertion that Courts-martial were in any way influenced by the Horse Guards. It was not fair to draw any inference as to punishment in the army from what the gallant Officer (Major Beauclerk) witnessed in Halifax, for that gallant Officer then belonged to the worst regulated regiment in the whole service. The hon. Member had betrayed the greatest ignorance as to the constitution of Courts-martial. It was impossible that punishments could be at all times equal in severity for offences of the same kind. When it became necessary to make an example for the purpose of preserving discipline, a severer punishment might be inflicted than was usually apportioned to similar offences. He was as averse as it was possible to be to flogging in the army, and nothing could induce him to be reconciled to it but a conviction of its indispensable necessity. The gallant Officer had on a former evening when he was not present, stated that on Courts-martial junior officers were known to yield up their opinions to those of officers of superior rank. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had said, that Courts-martial, and officers of regiments generally, were sometimes influenced
854
by party feelings—that the Major had his party, and the Colonel his party. There was, however, no such thing in any well regulated regiment. If he were conscious of innocence, there was no tribunal he would sooner be tried by than by a Court-martial.
Lord Althorpsaid, with reference to the question of his hon. friend the member for Bridport, as to the course to be pursued in case the Lord Lieutenant disapproved of the sentence of a Court-martial, his answer was simply this—the Lord Lieutenant would have the power of decreasing the punishment, but not of increasing it. It had been asserted that he (Lord Althorp) not having brought forward any case of outrage against a Juror, had abandoned the argument to be derived from the intimidation of Jurors. That inference did did not follow; it was not necessary to come forward with a case of a personal attack on a Juror in order to justify the inference of intimidation and alarm sufficient to prevent the jurors from discharging their duties properly—an inference fairly deducible from the outrages and disturbances generally prevalent in Ireland, and which rendered it impossible to administer the law with effect by means of the ordinary tribunals. Besides, there might be intimidation even in cases where persons were, perhaps, properly acquitted, as in the Carrickshaugh trials. That case clearly showed intimidation of Jurors. But if the general mass of the people were intimidated, how were Jurors to escape the influence of the general feeling? If the class of farmers from which petty Jurors were selected, experienced the effects of intimidation, Jurors could not be exempt from apprehension. With respect to the present clause, it constituted the main part of the Bill, and if it were omitted, the adequate protection afforded by the quick punishment of offences would be entirely done away. Much had been said about the incompetency of military officers to decide such nice questions as might be submitted to them under the Bill; but he did not conceive that nice legal questions would ever come before them. What they would have to decide was, whether or not a man had been guilty of a particular offence; and it could not be pretended that it would require much legal subtlety or acumen to determine yes or no on a plain matter of fact. He saw nothing in the objection of the noble Lord

855
(Lord Hotham) with respect to the assumed discontented feelings of the military at seeing the distinction made between the operation of Courts-martial in civil and military cases, because soldiers would, in all cases still continue to be tried as usual. He frankly admitted the abolition of Jury-trials to be a great evil; it was a thing only to be defended on grounds of necessity, which had been clearly demonstrated in the present case. It was said that, at the present Assizes, Jurors attended and convictions took place; he was glad to hear it, but the circumstance did not form a conclusive argument against the Bill. The state of society in Ireland with respect to outrages and unlawful combinations continued such, that assuming no feeling of intimidation to exist among Jurors, at present (rather a violent assumption by the way), there was no security against a speedy revival of such feelings.
Mr. Sinclairreferred to the exemption of political offenders from trial by Courts-martial, and declared that it appeared to him a hard and unjust measure, to give one sort of tribunal to the rich and another to the poor. This was binding the poor in chains and the rich in cobwebs. With respect to the supposed necessity for the measure, he had seen no proof that the ordinary tribunals were inadequate to the enforcement of the law. He would vote against the clause.
Mr. Wynnhad not hitherto expressed an opinion as to this Bill, and he should not trespass on the attention of the House, did he not feel called upon to make some observations on the clause under consideration. He was aware that it was necessary for him to confine himself to the details of the Bill; but he begged leave to state, in a few words, his opinion as to the propriety of introducing this measure. When he remembered the arguments adduced by hon. Gentlemen on both sides—when he recollected the statement of his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland—fortified as it was by the statement of his noble friend, the member for Nottingham, (who had given, on this subject, the most important information) he felt bound to express his concurrence with the opinion of the majority of the House—that it was absolutely necessary to intrust the Government with the large additional powers they demanded. With respect to the particular clause under
856
consideration, he regretted that the term "Court-martial" had been applied to the tribunal about to be instituted. In point of fact, it was not a Court-martial, but a tribunal novel in its construction. He was not surprised that the observation of the hon. member for Surrey should have excited warm feelings in the breasts of Gentlemen belonging to the military profession; and he certainly was extremely surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman assert, that the officers of the array, sitting in those courts, were unduly influenced by the Horse Guards. Was it possible, that those who recollected the severity of the punishments in the army twenty years ago, and considered what they were now—and who reflected, also, how seldom, comparatively speaking, they heard of the infliction of punishment at all, could for one moment imagine that there was anything like a desire on the part of the officers of the army to curry favour, at the head-quarters of their profession, by pronouncing severe sentences? Did the gallant Member suppose that, while such improvements had been taking place in all the rest of the community, the officers in the army alone had stood still? It was obvious that the effect of public opinion had been to lead to a mitigation of punishment, both as regarded the civil and the military law; and he should cast a stigma upon the officers of the army if he could entertain the opinion of Courts-martial which the hon. Member had expressed. Looking to the tribunals to be constituted under this Bill, he thought that there was a great inconsistency in applying the term "Courts-martial" to them. The tribunal differed from the Court-martial as much in its machinery as in the nature of the law which it would have to execute. He was sorry, also, that the term "Judge-Advocate" had been retained; for these courts were to try criminals, not by military law, but by the common law of the land. Those, however, who were to constitute the court, and were confessedly unused to administer the common law, should have some legal assistance; but it should not be given by the person conducting the prosecution. He would much rather have a Serjeant-at-law, or a King's Counsel, as President of the court, whose duty it should be to sum up the evidence, and state the law on the case, and the duty of the Judge-Advocate should be

857
solely to conduct the prosecution. Counsel were to be allowed to cross-examine witnesses; and, yet it was intended that the examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, and the cross-examination of the witnesses for the defence, should be performed by the Judge-Advocate. Now, it was hardly possible that he who had objected to questions, and whose questions had been objected to, would have the same character of impartiality as if he had not taken such a part in the proceedings of the court. He, therefore, would much rather that the President should act merely as assessor and legal adviser of the court; and, on these grounds, he thought it desirable that Government should either name a person to conduct the prosecution, or allow the Judge-Advocate to do that, and appoint a legal gentleman of eminence to preside in each court. He must, also, take notice of an alteration in the constitution of these courts, which he was surprised had been introduced, and considered as a boon, and as rendering these tribunals less objectionable than Courts-martial—he alluded to the principle of restricting the members of the court to officers of the rank of captain. Now, in the ordinary course of things, a sufficient number of officers of that rank could not be brought together to form a court, without detriment to the service. Therefore, he presumed it was—that Government had adopted the plan of sending officers over from this country for the express purpose of forming these tribunals. That arrangement appeared to him to be open to the most serious objections. He thought that it would be infinitely preferable to let the officers form these courts in the usual way. He was satisfied, that the plan now proposed would be open to the worst charges. It would be said, that the officers were picked out from the half-pay, instead of being taken in the regular course of service, from a desire to forward the views of Government. It would be said, that if the officers did not find their verdicts in conformity with the wishes of the heads of the army, they would be removed from full-pay to half-pay. He would have much rather had the clause as it originally stood; and would have allowed subalterns to be upon these courts, of more than twenty-one years of age—provided that they had been two years in the service. He did not
858
think that it was necessary, that a man should be many years in the service to qualify him for the discharge of the duties of a member of a tribunal of this nature. If a person were qualified to sit on a grand or petty Jury, and to perform any civil act, he was surely qualified to sit on a Court-martial. He mentioned these things, not with a view to embarrass the Government, but because they seemed to him to be of importance. He would only add, deeply as he regretted it, that the Government had made out a case which rendered it necessary to grant these powers. He had never, upon any occasion of this grave nature, allowed party-feelings to influence his conduct; and whether he had been acting with Government, or not, he had never refused to grant, in times of emergency, additional powers, on the responsibility of Ministers. It appeared to him that it was a principle of the Constitution, that as, in ordinary times, a great degree of liberty was allowed, so in seasons of emergency, Parliament must have the power to suspend the liberties of the people, and to grant additional powers to the executive. In throwing out these suggestions he was now only influenced by the wish of rendering the measure as efficient as possible.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, he had hitherto given his support to Ministers on this measure, but now they had come to the Court-martial clause he found it impossible for him to support it; indeed, he meant, however painful it was to him, to oppose it, and he begged leave to state shortly on what ground he opposed it. The question was, had a necessity for so severe a measure been shown? This was by far the weakest part of the Bill. No attempt had been made to answer the evidence adduced, or the powerful arguments used by the hon. and learned member for Dublin against this clause. He (Mr. Abercromhy) really could find neither such amount of intimidation, nor such systematic efforts to carry it into execution, to satisfy his mind that they were justified in pronouncing the ordinary tribunals of the country inefficient. Nor could he agree with the argument which he had often before heard used, that when you over-stepped the limits of the Constitution, you should do it boldly. He confessed, that though he had heard attempts to justify that doctrine, they had

859
little effect on his mind—he was not convinced by such arguments—but, on the contrary, considered that whenever the barrier of the Constitution was passed without sufficient reason, without the direst and most manifest necessity, a gross injustice was committed on the rights and liberties of the nation. It had been argued that this was really a measure of humanity; for although the Bill operated as a measure of terror, it was humane in deterring men from guilt. The argument had no great effect on his mind; but he answered, that whilst they confined themselves within the limits of the Constitution, they would carry along with them the sympathy of all considerate and reasonable men. By having recourse to a system of terror, they would find it a source of weakness, by its increasing discontent and dissatisfaction. The Assizes now going on, particularly the convictions at Kilkenny, justified him in asserting, that means could be found to enforce the law without resorting to such dangerous provisions as were contained in that clause. He was very glad to hear that his noble and his right hon. friends entertained a hope that it might not be necessary to put this obnoxious part of the Bill into practice. He certainly approved of the suggestion, that whenever a district was proclaimed, a person of authority in the law ought to be sent to that district; and that it should be only after all the ordinary means of rendering justice had been resorted to, that the extraordinary means authorised by the Bill should be carried into execution. This ought, in his opinion, to be one of the first considerations with his right hon. friend, immediately after the passing of the Bill, as thereby the most odious part of the measure might be avoided. He pressed this the more on his noble and right hon. friends, because he entertained a deep and overwhelming conviction, that there could not be a more dangerous and mistaken policy than to make use of officers of the army in cases in which the political feelings of the people were concerned.
Mr. Stanleyhad listened with the deepest attention to his right hon. and learned friend. He need not say, that for his right hon. friend's character he entertained the highest respect. It was not only, however, his respect for his right hon. and learned friend's private character that made him regret to find
860
his right hon. and learned friend differ from his Majesty's Government respecting a point on which they had felt it their painful duty to adopt what appeared to them to be the only expedient course, but because he also felt, that whatever fell from his right hon. and learned friend must, under any circumstances, have great weight with that House. In one part of his right hon. and learned friend's statement, he had not done justice to his Majesty's Government—he meant that part in which his right hon. and learned friend alleged that his Majesty's Government had not done what his right hon. and learned friend thought, and what he (Mr. Stanley) thought, they ought to do—namely, to reserve a recourse to military tribunals as the last resource, when all other modes of administering justice had failed; and, above all, not to mix up military tribunals with any considerations of a political nature. Now, that was precisely the provision made by his Majesty's Ministers on the subject. Wherever there was the appearance of any offence involving considerations of a political nature, his Majesty's Government had, unasked, unpressed, but from their spontaneous feeling, struck that offence out of the list of those of which the military tribunals were to take cognizance. All offences connected with libel, with seditious publications, with political meetings, and with the Press, they had at once struck out. Was it, then, quite fair on the part of his right hon. and learned friend to impute to his Majesty's Government an attempt to constitute these military tribunals for political purposes. Good God! what were the political offences which these military tribunals were to investigate? Whitefoot outrages, burglaries, robberies, houghing of cattle—all abuses and violations of the rights of property, carried on by an organized force, paralysing the ordinary law, and intimidating the timid and weak; such were the political offences which were to be submitted to the cognizance of these military tribunals, for Courts-martial they were not, in the ordinary sense of the words. With respect to intimidation, he should have been very much astonished if any Irish Member had stated that there was none existing in Ireland. There was different evidence on different points; but there was no point on which there was stronger evidence than that the middle

861
and lower classes in Ireland evinced the greatest reluctance and alarm at the idea of being compelled to attend on a Jury. With respect to the unprecedented number of Jurors at the late Assizes at Kilkenny, he confessed that he had no confidence in these sudden conversions. If a more healthy tone had gradually appeared—if there had been gradually less alarm and more confidence, then he should have said there was some plausibility in the argument founded on the large attendance of Jurors in question. But when they saw at one Assizes that it was almost impossible to obtain any Jurors—when the Civil Court was almost deserted—when only six weeks ago it was predicted, that no Jury could be found to convict persons charged with offences; and when he found, suddenly, that on the introduction into Parliament of a measure which was to be productive of the greatest restraint on the lawless and the turbulent, and on the agitators who at present exercised so extensive a power over the people—when he also knew how important it was to the latter to endeavour to produce an impression that the provisions of the Bill were unnecessarily harsh and severe—he confessed that, he derived from the sudden and rapid influx of Jurors at Kilkenny anything but satisfaction and confidence. He read in it the complete and systematic organization of a plan to prevent the law from being rendered effective. If, however, he were driven to the other argument, and if the Bill had already struck a salutary terror into the evil-disposed, and imparted a salutary consdenceto the well-disposed, in that statement he saw an argument not against passing the Bill, but in favour of passing it. Adverting to the character of Juries, he observed that, with reference to Coroners' Juries in Ireland, it was notorious, that in many cases they were actuated by a determination to find one and only one verdict. The hon and learned member for Tipperary had said, in answer to his noble friend—and the statement had been confirmed by the hon. member for Limerick—that the petty Juries were not taken from the lower classes. The fact was, that the Sheriff was compelled to look not only at the property of those who were to be the Jurors, but also at the neighbourhood in which they lived; and was compelled to take care that they lived in houses like fortifications, and were able to defend themselves from the populace.
862
How greatly was the argument urged against the Bill on the ground of constitutional right weakened by that fact. For where was that principle of constitutional security which declared that every man should be tried by his Peers? It had been urged that the gentry had not come forward. They had come forward, and had occupied places not only in the Grand Juries to which they belonged, but in petty Juries, in the absence of persons better suited for that station. All this was undoubtedly wrong; it was in fact trying the people by the aristocratical class. But, in the existing circumstances of Ireland it was unavoidable; and the fact that it was so, weakened the argument which was founded on the suspension of the Constitution by the Bill. It was recommended by his right hon. and learned friend, that, in lieu of Courts-martial, the Lord Lieutenant should send down a kind of standing Commissioner into the disturbed districts to try offenders. There was nothing in the Act to prevent the Lord Lieutenant from doing this. He would go further, and would say, that, if there were reason to believe that a Special Commission could effect the objects which the Bill was intended to effect, he perfectly agreed with his right hon. and learned friend, that it would be infinitely better to retain the ordinary than to adopt any extraordinary tribunal. But if, week after week, it should appear, that this was not the case—if, week after week it should appear that only the higher classes could come forward with impunity, and that the lower classes could not attend as Jurors before a Special Commission without great risk and odium, then surely it was right to give the Lord Lieutenant, in the last resort, the power which the Bill under consideration conferred upon him. Under such circumstances, it appeared to him to be infinitely better, on the part of his Majesty's Government, to come forward boldly and ask Parliament: "Have you sufficient confidence in us to place this formidable measure in our hands?" With respect to Special Commissions, the only time at which they could be advantageously resorted to, was when parties began to give way, and when information flowed in to an extent which it was sometimes frightful to contemplate. Once let that corner be turned, and a Special Commission might be productive of great benefit. His Majesty's Government had

863
sent a Special Commission to the Queen's county. That Commission had been successful, as far as convictions went, but it had not been successful in breaking flown the existing system. But, said the hon. and learned member for Dublin, why did you not send a Special Commission to Kilkenny? He could tell that hon. and learned Member, that a strict inquiry had been made into the state of the prisons, into the means of information, and into the probability of obtaining convictions; and that if there had been any chance that prosecutions would have been successful, the Judges would have been instructed to proceed from Maryborough to Kilkenny; but there was none. Intimidation, as affecting Courts of Justice, was still prevalent. It was true, that there had been convictions. Yes, right or wrong, there had been convictions. Guilty and innocent had been convicted indifferently. Jurors had come forward and convicted, under what influence he knew not, and would not say. This he would say, however, that not one case in twelve, sent to Juries by Government, although on what appeared to be certain evidence, had been successful, for that in not one case out of twelve had the witnesses appeared; and that in not one instance in twenty had any case been substantiated, except by the evidence of the police alone. If this did not show the existence of extensive intimidation in Kilkenny he would abandon his argument. As conclusive evidence of the existence of intimidation, he would refer to the case which had lately been quoted by the gallant Colonel, the member for Sligo. A witness examined before the Committee on the state of Ireland, was asked—"To what do you attribute the state of insubordination which exists in Ireland?" The answer was—"Do you insist on my telling you?"—"Do you object?"—said the Committee. "I do," replied the witness; "for if I were to answer, and to answer correctly, you know well that my life would not be safe." So satisfied were the members of this Committee—Irish Members be it observed—of the validity of this objection, that they struck out of the evidence the answer of all answers most elucidatory of the very point they were investigating. It had been said that it would render the officers of the army obnoxious to place them in a judicial situation in Ireland; and that they would be subject to the imputation of being
864
biassed and partial. Now it happened that the hon. member for Waterford had yesterday let out this important fact, namely, that if a choice were given to the great mass of the population of Ireland by what tribunal they would be tried, their answer would be, that they would be tried by a tribunal constituted of officers of the army. So far as the feelings of the people of Ireland went, Courls-murlial were not there considered a more invidious sort of tribunals than Courts of Justice. For his own part, considering the state of Ireland, he could not take upon himself the responsibility to which he would be liable, if his Majesty's Ministers did not come to the House for some such powers as were proposed. They threw themselves on the House, and trusted that it would place such confidence in them, as to believe that they would not abuse those powers, which nothing but painful necessity could ever have induced them to ask for.
Mr. Sheildenied, that the right hon. Gentleman had answered the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Edinburgh, whose opinion, expressed in opposition to his party, would make a great impression upon the House. The right hon. Secretary asked to be trusted with this authority upon a pledge that it would not be abused; but he (Mr. Shell) was not ready to intrust arbitrary power to any one, unless a complete case was made out. Was the House convinced that the Lord-lieutenant or the right hon. Secretary would remain in power till Autumn? They were, perhaps, about to leave the Bill as a legacy to Tory successors. Was it just, if he (Mr. Sheil) inflamed the people by his speeches, if they were excited by libels and seditious newspapers, that he and others, who were the causes, should be tried by Juries, and the wretched peasantry only be subjected to Courts-martial?
Captain Berkeleyread a letter which he had received from a Magistrate of the county of Kilkenny, corroborating the statement of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. That Gentleman stated distinctly that the loyal attended the present Assizes at Kilkenny, from a wish to suppress the disturbances in their county, and the disloyal from a desire to make the country believe that there was no intimidation practised upon them. He was himself an ardent lover of freedom, but he was convinced

865
that this clause was necessary for the protection of the unoffending and peaceable inhabitants of Ireland against the lawless and the disaffected. His opinion was, that a case had been made out by his Majesty's Government. The disease under which Ireland was labouring was severe, and therefore it was necessary to apply to it a severe remedy.
Mr. O'Ferrall, in reference to the letter read by the preceding speaker, asked the House what opinion they ought to form of the judgment of a Magistrate who set himself up as a judge of the loyal and the disloyal in the county wherein he resided. If the Juries in Ireland had been base enough to shrink from doing their duty, he would have granted Ministers the power which this clause proposed to give them; but the contrary was the fact, and he must, therefore, pause before he confided to them a power which nothing but the most urgent and palpable necessity could justify. He would pass this Bill without the Court-martial clause until the end of the present Session, and if at that time it were proved, that the Juries of Ireland had not performed their duty manfully and honestly by their country, he would grant them this clause too; but he looked upon it as monstrous, to propose to abolish the Trial by Jury and to erect Courts-martial in Ireland for the trial of civil offences, whilst Parliament was sitting and Juries and witnesses were performing their duty. Impressed with this conviction, he was determined to give his most strenuous opposition to this clause.
Mr. Shawfelt himself in a considerable difficulty with respect to the clause then under consideration. He was committed to its principle, and felt at that moment as strongly as ever the urgent and undeniable necessity of the measure introduced by his Majesty's Ministers; but what he feared was, that the measure would be inoperative from alterations made since its introduction, and from the general policy towards Ireland with which it would be accompained. While he fully agreed with his hon. and learned friend the member for Monaghan (Mr. Perrin), that a departure so violent as the present from the established laws and Constitution must be either absolutely necessary or grievously unjustifiable, he also was of opinion, that to make a complete case of justification they must be satisfied that the substitute
866
proposed would be efficacious. Of the strong necessity of a power beyond the ordinary laws to restrain the disaffected in Ireland, he could not entertain a doubt. The late Kilkenny Assizes had been adduced as an argument on the other side; but Baron Foster, the Judge who presided there, had stated, in his charge to the Grand Jury, that for four successive Assizes he had found the county progressively becoming worse—that on the last occasion there was not even a record for trial—that the law could not be administered—that it was not only process for tithe, but process of every description had been rendered impracticable, and that the British Constitution had ceased to exist in the county of Kilkenny—that of the offences reported, not one-twelfth were ever attempted to be prosecuted, and he calculated, not one-twentieth of those committed. But his (Mr. Shaw's) difficulty arose from the manner in which the Bill had been weakened, and its provisions frittered away. Those best acquainted with military tribunals, seemed to think, that the alterations made in the formation of the Courts, would render these ineffective, and his own opinion was, that while, in the absence of the ordinary law, he knew no tribunal to which he could so willingly commit his property, his liberty, or his life, as to the honour and generous forbearance of a British officer, yet, that if five independent gentlemen, unversed in the technicalities of evidence, who were to be perplexed by counsel, and not assisted by a Judge, were required to be unanimous in their judgment, such a court was not likely to be prompt or efficient in the despatch of business. But a much greater objection, in his mind, to the Bill as it now stood, was, that, although the great inducement Ministers held out when they asked for enactments more severe than ever any other Government proposed was, that they would put down political agitation, and rather punish the man who incited others to crime, than the poor deluded victim of his mischievous harangues—the Bill as then altered would altogether fail to reach that evil; its most important provision, in that respect, as copied from the 10th Geo. 4th., had been abandoned—namely, the power to two Magistrates to suppress an unlawful meeting. They might, no doubt, bind over the persons present at it to take their trial by indictment

867
for a misdemeanor, but then those very persons might return to the same meeting, and the alteration in the Bill had deprived the Magistrates of the power to put a slop to the meeting by means of summary conviction and immediate punishment. The trial of political agitators in the proclaimed districts was also withdrawn from the summary tribunals, whereas that class of persons was much more likely than the humbler offender to find sympathy in the minds of a Jury sitting in a disturbed district, and probably more or less affected by the prevailing excitement. He could not reconcile it with justice or propriety, thus to let the real offender, the cause and origin of all the outrage and insubordination which had subverted the laws, escape, while the unhappy dupe of bis designing artifice was to be visited with all the severities of those peculiarly severe enactments. For the suppression of political agitation, he considered the Bill had been rendered almost if not altogether nugatory. It certainly was not the fault of Ministers, if the hon. and learned member for Dublin were not able as he had stated, to drive a coach and four through the Act. He did not, he confessed, feel much confidence in contributing to place these powers in the hands of his Majesty's Ministers. He believed, that his Majesty's Ministers would not succeed in quieting Ireland. He saw nothing but ruin and loss in prospect. It was likely, that the two countries would be separated. He hoped he might be wrong; but it was his honest opinion. He might be considered a gloomy prophet. He should, however, give his very reluctant consent to placing these powers in the hands of his Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. O'Connellfelt, that he ought not to allow this question to go to a vote without saying a word in reply to the noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He wished that he could entertain a hope that Ministers had heard enough that evening from the hon. and learned member for Edinburgh, the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, and from the hon. and learned member for Monaghan (who knew a great deal of Ireland), to induce them to suspend their opinions upon this clause till to-morrow. He was not the friend, neither did he pretend to be the friend, of the present Ministers; but he was sure, that their soundest friend would concur
868
with him as to the propriety of the advice which he had just recommended to their adoption. The point on which the Committee was then called upon to decide was this—"Is the Trial by Jury to be abolished at the mere will of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?" That was the question to which a Reformed Parliament was called upon to answer yes or no. It was not a light or unimportant question. If they should unfortunately answer the question in the affirmative, what were they going to substitute for it? Not a Court-martial, but some bastard mongrel thing which was called a Court-martial, and in point of fact, was not one. He meant no offence personally to the Gentlemen who were to serve upon it, but he must say, that the country was going to have a packed Court-martial, a rambling tribunal, undefined by principle, unlimited by anything like law, mis-shapen, and ill-begotten. He protested against the establishment of such a tribunal, not only on account of the monstrous thing itself, but also on account of its becoming a precedent. He would not waste the time of the House by declaiming on the merits of Jury Trial, he would only say, that he pitied the man, who, calling himself a lover of freedom, did not estimate highly this mode of trial. It long preceded the title of the King to his throne, and was in existence even before the right of Representation in Parliament existed. In abolishing that mode of trial, let the House consider what power was vested in this mongrel Court-martial. It had no power to try the murderers of Mr. Leonard—no power to try those violent outrages at which good men of ail parties naturally shuddered—no power to try political offences, for that power had very properly been taken from it. Thus, then, there remained nothing for it to try but the middle species of offence. But the erection of these Courts-martial was rendered necessary by the intimidation practised upon Jurymen. The right hon. Secretary, in arguing this question, placed the opponents of the Bill in a curious dilemma. At the last Assizes, the Jurors for the county of Kilkenny did not attend; that was intimidation; at the present Assizes they do attend; and that, said the right hon. Secretary, was intimidation again. Such were the miserable grounds upon which an intelligent people were to be deprived of their dearest rights. He recollected, that upon a former night the

869
right hon. Secretary had produced a great effect, by quoting a letter foretelling that the Jurors would not attend at the present Assizes for Kilkenny. To-night he had endeavoured to induce the Committee to act upon another letter, stating that the Jurors had attended in extraordinary numbers. How, then, were the honest friends of Irish liberty to act, when they found that whether Jurors attended or not, their rights and franchises were to be equally destroyed? Again, it had been stated, that witnesses would not attend, so much were they intimidated. Why, it was now in evidence that they attended willingly, and in crowds. But had witnesses ever been intimidated? On that point the evidence of Mr. Barrington, which he had read, was decisive. Mr. Barrington asserted, that he had never known a case in which a witness was maltreated on account of his having given evidence. It was miserable to have to enter into details and discussions like these—it was miserable that the Trial by Jury should be the stake for which he was playing, and that such wretched counters as these should be set against so valuable and inestimable a prize. But, supposing that witnesses did not attend before the ordinary tribunals of the land, what power had these military tribunals to compel their attendance? It was said, that the Courts of Law were inoperative from want of sufficient evidence. Were these military tribunals then to act with less evidence, or with no evidence at all I But put the case the other way. Witnesses would not come voluntarily forward; but were there no such things as informers—men who trafficked in blood, and who, for a paltry pittance, would sell the lives of their fellow subjects? The evidence of an informer was always suspicious; he was generally an accomplice in the offences with which he charged others. The evidence of an accomplice required corroboration; and what was evidence in corroboration was a difficult point even for the venerable Judges of the land to determine; and yet all this was to be settled without discussion by those military Judges. The right hon. Secretary had not shown a particle of necessity for this measure. In his speech, that evening he had gone so far as to say, that he hoped, that if this Bill were passed, the Executive Government would not have occasion to use it. That was a distinct admission, that there was no necessity
870
for the Bill, and therefore the House ought not to give to the Lord Lieutenant the power of deciding at his will and pleasure whether the Trial by Jury should be abolished in Ireland. Then the right hon. Secretary, having given, up the ground of necessity, called upon the House, from its confidence in Ministers, to grant them those extraordinary powers. Now, ought they to give up their liberties to the keeping of any man, out of confidence either in him or in his colleagues? The right hon. Gentleman could not ask this Bill of them as a right, when he called upon them to give it him in confidence. He could not demand it from them as a debt, so he now came forward and solicited for it as charity. Give it him in charity—bestow it upon him as an eleemosynary contribution. They would do so, if they were prepared in confidence to abolish the Trial by Jury, and to abolish it for a mongrel species of ambulatory Court-martial, docked above and cut away below, which was neither fish nor flesh nor good red-herring.
Lord Ingestrehad supported this Bill upon its first introduction, but he was now inclined to oppose it, because this clause had been so altered as to be rendered ineffective.
Mr. Stanley, in reply to the noble Lord's reason for withdrawing his support from this Bill, would only state, that this clause was, with the exception of two words, which did not in the slightest degree affect its import, in precisely the same shape in which it was originally introduced into the House.
Colonel Percevalwas almost inclined to vote against this clause, since the mode in which the constitution of the Courts-martial had been altered by requiring five of its members to be unanimous, would render it difficult for the Government to render any effectual protection to the inhabitants of Ireland.
Lord Sandondid not think that the change made in this clause was sufficient to warrant an alteration of sentiment in those hon. Members who had originally given their support to this Bill. He was surprised that it should be considered a matter of difficulty to get five or seven officers to be unanimous in a verdict when they continually saw twelve Jurymen agreeing in their opinion. With respect to the other objection—that political offences were no longer to be tried by Courts-martial, he highly approved of the

871
change; because he did not think military men likely to be good Judges in cases of sedition or treason, although he believed them perfectly competent to try common offences. He thought there was a clear distinction between political and other offences; and it appeared to him the Committee would take upon itself an awful responsibility, if it refused to arm Ministers with the power conveyed by this clause. He felt confident, that the powers intrusted to Government, by the Bill, would not be abused; and his confidence was founded, not on the personal character of Ministers, but on a Reformed House of Commons, emanating directly from the people, which would always be able to control the Government.
The Committee divided on the Clause: Ayes 270; Noes 130—Majority 140.
Clause to stand part of the Bill.
The eleventh Clause read.
Mr. Rigby Wasonmoved an Amendment, requiring unanimity from all the members of the Courts-martial. It was as follows, "Provided always that no person shall be convicted under this Act, or any sentence passed on any person who shall be so convicted, unless the officers composing such Court-martial, shall unanimously agree in their verdict, and shall afterwards unanimously approve of the sentence awarded by the court for such offence."
Lord Althorpopposed the Amendment. The Ministers had already made great concessions in this clause. They had consented that there should be a majority of seven out of nine, of five out of seven; and that in all cases where the members of the court were limited to five, then that the five should be unanimous.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 42; Noes 146—Majority against the Amendment 104.
Mr. Rotchsaid, that it was the practice of Courts-martial, when the prisoner made any objection, to clear the Court, whilst the Judge Advocate had the privilege of replying to the objection in secret, and in the absence of the prisoner and his advisers. He thought, that should be guarded against, and he would move this proviso, "Provided, always, that no legal objection or other objection to the proceedings of the Court-martial shall be gone into, in the absence of the party accused, and his legal adviser." That would prevent any such practice under this Act.
Amendment negatived without a division.
Mr. Warburtonmoved an Amendment, "That no verdict of acquittal should be revised by the same or any other Court-martial; and that no sentence of condemnation should be increased in severity by the Lord Lieutenant or any other person"—The first part of which was agreed to, the latter negatived.
The Clause with verbal Amendments to stand part of the Bill.
House resumed; Committee to sit again.

List of the AYES, on the first Division.

ENGLAND.

Cotes, J.

Althorp, Viscount

Crawley, S.

Anson, Sir G.

Davenport, J.

Anson, hon. G.

Davies, Lieut.-Col.

Astley, Sir J.

Denison, W. J.

Atherley, A.

Denison, I. E.

Baring, F. T.

Dilwyn, L. W.

Baring, F.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Barnett, C. J.

Duncannon, Viscount

Barnard, E. E.

Dundas, Capt. J. W.

Beaumont, T. H.

Dundas, hn. Sir R. L.

Benett, J.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Bentinck, Ld. G. F. C.

Eastnor, Viscount

Berkeley, Capt. M. H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Berkeley, hon. C. F.

Ellice, E.

Bethell, R.

Etwall, R.

Biddulph, R. M.

Evans, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Boss, J. G.

Fellowes, H. A. W.

Bowes, T.

Fellowes, hon. N.

Brocklehurst, J.

Ferguson, Gen. Sir R.

Brodie, Captain

Finch, G.

Brougham, W.

Fitzroy, Lord J.

Brougham, J.

Folkes, Sir W.

Buller, J. W.

Forster, C. S.

Buller, E.

Fort, J.

Bulteel, J. C.

Fox, S. L.

Burdett, Sir F.

Frankland, Sir R.

Burton, H.

Gaskell, J. M.

Buxton, T. F.

Gisborne, T.

Byng, G.

Gladstone, W. E.

Byng, Sir J.

Gordon, R.

Calvert, N.

Gore, M.

Campbell, Sir J.

Goring, H. D.

Carter, J. B.

Graham, Sir J. R. G.

Cavendish, Lord

Grant, right hon. R.

Cavendish, Col. H. F.

Greene, T. G.

Cayley, Sir G. B.

Grey, hon. Col.

Cayley, E. S.

Grey, Sir G.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Gronow, Capt. R. H.

Chetwynd, Capt. W. F.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Halford, H.

Childers, J. W.

Handley, W. F.

Clive, E. B.

Handley, H.

Clive, Viscount

Harcourt, G. V.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Harland, Wm. C.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Hawes, B.

Codrington, Sir E.

Heathcote, John

Collier, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Cookes, T. H.

Heron, Sir R.,

873

Hill, Sir R.

Rickford, W.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Hodges, T. L.

Robarts, A. W.

Hodgson, J.

Rolfe, R. M.

Hornby, Edmund G.

Rotch, B.

Horne, Sir Wm.

Russell, Lord J.

Hoskins, K.

Russell, C.

Howard, hon. F. G.

Ryle, J.

Howard, P. H.

Sandon, Viscount

Howick, Viscount

Sandford, E. A.

Ingham, R.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Scott, J. W.

Jermyn, Earl of

Seale, Colonel

Jerningham, hon. H.

Sebright, Sir J.

Johnstone, Sir I. V.

Shawe, E. R. N.

Keppell, Major G.

Sheppard, T.

Kerry, Earl

Smith, J. A.

Labouchere, H.

Smith, hon. R. S.

Lamont, N.

Smith, R. V.

Langsten, J. H.

Spencer, hon. Cap. F.

Lefevre, Charles S.

Stanley, rt. hon. E. G.

Lemon, Sir C.

Stanley, E. J.

Lennard, Sir T. B.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Staveley, T. K.

Lennox, Lord A.

Stewart, P. M.

Lumley, Viscount

Strickland, G.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Stuart, Lord D. C.

Maberley, Col. W. L.

Talbol, C. R. M.

Macaulay, T. B.

Talbot, W. H. F.

Madocks, J.

Thicknesse, R.

Mahon, Viscount

Thomson, right hon. C. P.

Marjoribanks, S.

Marryat, J.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Marshall, J.

Townley, R. G.

Marsland, T.

Tracy, C. H.

Martin, J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Milton, Viscount

Vernon, hon. G. J.

Molyneux, Lord

Vernon, G. H.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Vincent, Sir F.

Morpeth, Viscount

Vivian, J. H.

Mosley, Sir O.

Walker, R.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Ward, H. G.

Nicholl, J.

Warre, J. A.

Ord, Wm. H.

Waterpark, Lord

Paget, F.

Watkins, J. L.

Palmer, R.

Watson, hon. R.

Palmerston, Viscount

Wedgwood, J.

Parker, J.

Whitbread, W. H.

Parker, Sir H.

Whitmore, W. W.

Patten, J. W.

Whitmore, T. C.

Pelham, hon. C. A. W.

Williams, W. A.

Pendarves, E. W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Pepys, C. C.

Winnington, Sir T.

Peter, W.

Wood, G. W.

Petre, hon. Edward

Wood, C.

Phillips, Sir George

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Phillpotts, J.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Pinney, W.

Young, G. F.

Ponsonby, hon. W.

SCOTLAND.

Potter, R.

Adam, Admiral C.

Poulter, J. S.

Baillie, Colonel J.

Price, Sir R.

Bannerman, A.

Pryme, G.

Callender, J. H.

Pugh, D.

Dalmeny, Lord

Ricardo, D.

Dalrymple, Sir J. H.

Rice, hon. T. S.

Elliot, hon. Captain

874

Ferguson, Captain

IRELAND.

Ferguson, R.

Acheson, Viscount

Fleming, Admiral

Belfast, Earl of

Grant, right hon. C.

Browne, J. D.

Halliburton, hon. D.

Browne, D.

Hay, Colonel L.

Christmas, J. N.

Jeffrey, right hon. F.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Johnstone, A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Fitzgibbon, hon. R.

Kennedy, T. F.

Gladstone, T.

Macleod, R.

Hill, Lord A.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Hill, Lord M.

Maxwell, J.

Howard, R.

Murray, J. A.

Knox, hon. Col. J.

Oliphant, L.

Lamb, hon. G.

Ormelie, Earl of

Maxwell, J. W.

Ross, H.

O'Grady, hon. Col.

Steuart, R.

O'Neil, hon. Gen. J.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Shaw, F.

Wemyss, Captain J.

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Langton, Colonel G.

Aglionby, Henry A.

Lester, E.

Attwood, T.

Mills, J.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Baring, H. B.

Palmer, General

Bayntun, S. A.

Parrott, J.

Beauclerk, Major A.

Philips, M.

Bish, T.

Rider, T.

Blandford, Marquess

Rippon, G.

Bowes, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Briggs, R.

Romilly, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Romilly, E.

Bulwer, E. L.

Scholefield, J.

Chandos, Marquess of

Scott, J. W.

Clay, W.

Stewart, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Strutt, E.

Curteis, Captain E. B.

Tayleure, W.

Darlington, Earl of

Tennyson, rt. hon. C.

Dawson, E. S.

Todd, R.

Divett, E.

Torrens, Colonel

Duncombe, hon. W.

Turner, W.

Ellis, J.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Ewart, Wm.

Warburton, H.

Faithfull, G.

Wason, R.

Fielden, J.

Wigney, J. N.

Forester, hon. C. W.

Wilbraham, G.

Gaskell, D.

Wilks, J.

Grote, G.

Windham, W. H.

Guest, J. J.

Wood, Alderman

Guise, Sir B.

Yelverton, hon. W. H.

Gully, J.

SCOTLAND.

Hall, B.

Abercromby, rt. hn. J.

Handley, B.

Dunlop, Captain J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Ewing, J.

Hanmer, Colonel H.

Fergusson, R. C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Gillon, Wm. D.

Hotham, Lord

Kinloch, G.

Hudson, T.

Oswald, R. A.

Hume, J.

Oswald, J.

Humphery, J.

Sharpe, General M.

Hutt, W.

Sinclair, G.

Ingestre, Viscount

Wallace, R.

James, W.

IRELAND.

Kemp, T. R.

Baldwin, H.

King, E. B.

Barron, W.

875

Barry, G. S.

O'Brien, Colonel

Bellew, R. M.

O'Callaghan, C.

Butler, hon. P.

O'Connell, D.

Chapman, M. L.

O'Connell, M.

Clements, Viscount

O'Connell, C.

Daunt, W. O. N.

O'Connell, J.

Dobbin, L.

O'Connell, Morgan

Evans, G.

O'Connor, Don

Finn, W. F.

O'Connor, F.

Fitzgerald, T.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Fitzsimon, C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Fitzsimon, N.

Perrin, L.

Galwey, J. M.

Roche, W.

Grattan, J.

Roche, D.

Grattan, H.

Ruthven, E. S.

Lambert, H.

Ruthven, E.

Lynch, A. H.

Sullivan, R.

Maclaughlin, M.

Talbot, J.

Macnamara, Major

Talbot, J. H.

Martin, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Martin, J.

Walker, C. A.

Mullins, F. W.

TELLER.

Nagle, Sir F.

Shell, R. L.

Paired off.
Lennox, Lord W.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of CUMBERLAND, from the Hundred of Guestling, Sussex, against the Beer Act.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from St. Clement's Danes, Westminster, for a Repeal of the House and Window Taxes.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWS, from the Retailers of Beer in Burnley, and its Vicinity, for a Revision of the Beer Act.—By the Earl of HARBOWBY, the Earl of ESSEX, and the Archbishop of DUBLIN, from Edinburgh, Dublin, and a Number of other Places.—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, Lord SUFFIELD, Earl FITZWILLIAM, and the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from Northampton, and other Places,—for the Abolition of Slavery.—By the Earl of RODEN, from Parishes in the Counties of Down and Meath, and the Congregation of the Chapel at D'Olier Street, Dublin,—against the Church Reform Bill (Ireland).

EMANCIPATION OF THE JEMS.
The Marquess of Westminsterrose to present to their Lordships a Petition, of which he had previously given notice, most numerously and respectably signed by the inhabitants of the city of London, for the extension of civil rights to the Jews. He was aware that strong prejudices existed against the admission of the Jews to the privileges for which they sought; but those were prejudices which he was sure would give way before the enlightened spirit of the age, and the wise and liberal
776
legislation which of late years had distinguished the British Parliament. The present petition was one of great importance; but as it might be expected that at no distant time a measure would come up to their Lordships from the other House, having for its object the accomplishing of that for which the petitioners prayed, he should for the present abstain from occupying much of their Lordships' time or attention. The petition which he then held in his hand was signed by no less than 1,500 persons, most of whom were of the highest respectability, though belonging to almost every profession and class of men in society—merchants, shopkeepers, lawyers, and clergymen. He conceived that this was a subject upon which the Legislature should immediately come to some final determination. It should either adopt the principle of admitting all classes of persons, whatever might be their religious opinions, to the free enjoyment of the benefits of the Constitution; or it should adopt the contrary principle, of excluding all classes of persons whatever, who were not members of the Established Church. He said, that one or other of these principles ought to be adopted. He was of opinion that all persons whatever ought to be admitted to a participation in civil rights, without regard to their religious opinions, be those what they might, with this single exception—that persons should not be admitted within the pale of the Constitution, whose admission would endanger the safety of the Constitution, or be likely to excite dissension and animosity among the people at large, or lead to the overthrow of the institutions of the State. He thought, since they had admitted Roman Catholics and Dissenters—but above all Socinians—to a participation in the Constitution, they ought to admit the Jews to all its privileges, especially when it was remembered that they had, at all times, conducted themselves with perfect loyalty towards the institutions of the country, and had rendered themselves uniformly remarkable for a peaceable and inoffensive demeanour. He wished also to call their Lordships' attention to the circumstance, that the Jews had been emancipated in Hanover, in Jamaica, in Canada, and in other British dependencies, without there ever having been the slightest reason to repent that such a concession had been made to them. The persecution which the Jews endured had

777
been long enough; it had lasted 1,800 years; and it was time that such a persecution should be brought to a conclusion. Several charges he knew had been made against the Jews, but he thought they had been ably refuted. He was unwilling to trespass on their Lordships' time, but, as the subject had been mentioned in another place, he would read to their Lordships some part of that refutation. The noble Marquess accordingly read a long extract from a letter addressed to I L. Goldsmid, the chairman of the association for obtaining for British Jews a participation in the civil rights and privileges of the British Constitution, by Hyman Hurwitz, professor of Hebrew in the University of London, stating that the whole of the arguments advanced by the adversaries of the Jews had been answered 1,700 years ago by Josephus, and were as erroneous now as they were then.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the present was not the proper time for entering into a discussion of the general question to which the noble Marquess had called the attention of the House; but he trusted their Lordships would permit him to say thus much, that the argument founded upon the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act, and on the admission of the Roman Catholics to political power, was one which did not apply to the subject now before the House. True it was, that when the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed, they ceased to be exclusively a Church of England Legislature, and when the penal laws affecting Roman Catholics were repealed, they ceased to be an exclusively Protestant Legislature; but they had not yet, ostensibly at least, ceased to be a Christian Legislature.
Petition laid on the Table.
Lord Suffieldpresented a similar Petition from the town of Manchester, which, his Lordship stated, was also very numerously and respectably signed. The petitioners considered, that all laws ought to be abolished which interfered with the right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience; they stated also, that no ground existed for the continuance, as regarded the Jews, of these disabling laws, which were neither equitable nor founded in sound policy; and they appealed to their Lordships to look at what had been the conduct of the Jews resident in this kingdom, whether they had not been obedient to the laws of
778
the State, and promoted the welfare of the community at large; and, finally, they prayed that the laws which imposed civil disabilities upon the Jews might be repealed. He could bear testimony to the respectability and character of many of the persons whose signatures were attached to this petition, which was well deserving the serious attention and consideration of their Lordships. There was only one fact, in addition to those stated by the noble Marquess of which he wished to remind their Lordships. It was this: In consequence of an application which was made to the Emperor Napoleon, regarding the particular tenets held by the Jews, he ordered a Sanhedrim to assemble at Paris, with a view to declare, for his information, what were the principles of the religion of the Hebrews respecting their social and political relations. The Sanhedrim assembled in 1807, and it was composed of eighty of the most learned Jews of France and Italy. The result of their Report was, that the Jews felt themselves bound to obey the laws of the country in which they lived—that they had ever been loyal to the kings of those countries in which they had settled—and had given their support to the Governments which afforded them protection. Such having been the result of that memorable inquiry, he could not conceive that any good and substantial reason could be assigned for withholding from the Jews a free participation in those civil rights which were enjoyed by all other classes of his Majesty's subjects.
Petition laid on the Table.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
The Earl of Rodenrose for the purpose of presenting Petitions from the ministers, elders, and Presbyterians of Ballymena, praying for a change in the national system of Education in Ireland; and from the members of the Protestant Conservative Society of Ireland, to the same effect. He had also a petition to present from a parish in the county Fermanagh, praying that the new system of education might not be imposed upon them, and that either the system adopted by the Kildare-street Society be substituted, or some other which did not interfere with the free circulation of the Bible. Before moving that, he would take the liberty of making a few observations to their Lordships. The noble Earl accordingly addressed the House in nearly the following terms:—

779
My Lords—Having felt it my duty, a few evenings since, to give notice of my intention of submitting to your Lordships' consideration the petitions upon the subject of the system of national education in Ireland, which now lie upon your Table, I must solicit your attention at some length to the subject. Although I feel extremely anxious that this subject, which has always appeared to me to be of deep and vital importance, should obtain an early discussion, I also feel most anxious not to press it forward except in the presence of the parties interested. But now seeing the most reverend Prelate opposite, one of the Commissioners, the Archbishop of Dublin, in his place, I propose to make some remarks to your Lordships, by which I shall give the very reverend Prelate an opportunity of informing the House what have been the results of that system of education which, twelve months since, was brought into operation—a system which, it was stated by the Government, was to benefit all classes, by imparting a united education to Protestants and Roman Catholics. In what I have to address to your Lordships I shall be as brief as possible; but as I shall have occasion to refer to various documents, I trust your Lordships will bear with me, while I lay before you statements founded upon authority that cannot be questioned. I think I shall be able to prove to your Lordships, that this system, which was adopted as a national system of education, is one of an exclusive nature, and that its tendency is rather to separate than combine the different classes in Ireland. I must, however, in the first instance, call your Lordships' attention to this fact—that there was, previously to this system being adopted, another system in operation, and which, from 1816 to 1831, formed the national system of education in Ireland. It is almost unnecessary for me to inform your Lordships, that the society to which I allude was called the Kildare-street Society. It received for a series of years annual grants from Government; and I do not think I am going too far when I say, that the system worked well, and conferred important benefits upon all classes of society. But, your Lordships must also bear in mind, that in 1831 his Majesty's Government stated it to be their opinion, that the system was of too exclusive a nature, and that they must change it
780
altogether, in order to unite and combine under one system, persons of every religious denomination. It will be more accurate, perhaps, if I refer to the words of one of his Majesty's Ministers upon the subject. Mr. Stanley, the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, on the formation of this new plan, wrote a letter to the Duke of Leinster, who, as your Lordships know, has been placed at the head of the new Board, in which the right hon. Gentleman said, that the system was to be adapted to the views of persons of all religious persuasions; that it was a grand plan of national education, one of the great objects of which would be, to unite in the same schools children of all creeds. It will be necessary, continued the noble Earl, to remind your Lordships, that, at the period his Majesty's Government thought fit to withdraw the grant from the Kildare street Society, 1,621 schools were receiving aid from its funds and; that 137,639 children were receiving instruction, a great majority of whom were Roman Catholics. However, there was one great fault found with this society—or as it was described in the letter of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, there was a vital defect in the system, and that defect was, that under it was permitted the use of the unmutilated Word of God. His Majesty's Ministers sacrificed the Kildare-street Society, not because the feelings of the great mass of the Roman Catholics were opposed to it, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic children attended not merely the schools of the Kildare-street Society, but those under the Hibernian School Society, where the use of the Bible was more strictly enforced than in the Kildare-street schools; but his Majesty's Ministers sacrificed the society upon the representation of the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland—who have ever been opposed to allowing the children of their creed to be instructed in God's Holy Word. It may be urged by noble Lords opposite, that few petitions have been presented in this Parliament against the measure. I cannot, however, imagine that any forcible argument can be deduced from that fact. In the last Session of Parliament petitions from various parts of the empire crowded your Lordships' Table. The petitioners set forth, that the system was fraught with mischief—that it was calculated to propagate error, and was sure to prevent the knowledge of truth from reaching those

781
who were most anxious to obtain it. These petitions were numerously and most respectably signed; and I was sorry to hear in this House some of the petitioners charged with being actuated by private motives, while others were charged with being influenced by factious views. And why, my Lords, should they have been so accused? Have, or have not the statements set forth in the petitions been verified? I am sorry, my Lords, to state, that the fears expressed as to the results of the experiment have been too unhappily realized. Now, my Lords, I shall show presently, that this system of education is so exclusive in its nature, that it is impossible it can ever afford combined education to Protestants and Roman Catholics. It is impossible, I say, that Protestants can consent lo send their children to these national schools—schools which in a great many instances are held in chapels, monasteries, and nunneries. I am prepared to show, that the Board of Education granted in several instances pecuniary assistance to schools which were held in monasteries, nunneries, and chapels, where the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith are of course inculcated. I charge the Board with having granted, out of the public monies, sums for imparting an exclusive system of education—out of funds, be it remembered, that were placed at its disposal for the purpose of teaching a system that would combine children of all religious creeds. I charge the Board, moreover, in the presence of the most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of Dublin, with a lavish expenditure of the public money—I charge it with giving salaries to schoolmasters, in some instances double, and in others treble, what the same persons received from the Kildare-street Society. Persons aware of the fact must come to the conclusion that such an increase of salary was meant as a bribe to the masters to induce them to leave the Kildare-street Society, and thus gave an appearance of popularity to the schools under the Board. The first thing to which I beg to direct the attention of your Lordships, is to a paper laid upon the Table of the House, setting forth all sums granted by the Board to the several schools. This document was laid on the Table of the House at the close of the last Session of Parliament, and is made up to the 11th July, 1832. it is not my fault that we have not got a similar Return up
782
to the present period. I shall now proceed to show the exclusive character of the new system. In doing so, I shall, of course, be obliged to trust, in a great degree, to communications which I have received from individuals residing where the schools have been established; and, as my correspondents are highly respectable persons, I make no doubt that my information is accurate. The first sum I find upon this list, is a grant to the Mendicity Society. It would appear from the Return as if the Board had granted a salary of 100 l. a-year to the teacher of the Mendicity Society Schools. In communicating with some persons connected with the Mendicity Society, I discovered that there was some misunderstanding with respect to this, inasmuch as the sum had never been received. I have it from a gentleman of high character, a member of the Mendicity Committee; and I received from him a statement of the proceedings between the Society and the Education Board, in which he denied that the head of the Mendicity Society Schools had received aid. It described the nature of an application made to the Board, and the forms that were required. The application, which was said to have originated with the Mendicity Society, was, in fact, got up at the instigation of the Education Board. There were two public meetings of the Society held on the subject; and during the discussions, which were public, one of the Commissioners of Education was present; and though the grant was ordered by the Board, it has never since been applied for by the Society; if, therefore, an application, as stated in the returns, was ever made, there must have been some imposition, or, perhaps, forgery, practised. The next school to which I shall refer is that of Carlow, the teacher of which receives 25 l. a-year from the Board; that is, exclusively, a Roman Catholic free school, and one of a very numerous class to which I shall have to refer somewhat more in detail. I do not mean to trouble your Lordships with reading all the communications which I have had from several parts; they are, it is true, important, but they are too long to be read in detail. Nearly the whole of the observations which I mean to make might, I have no doubt, be gleaned from those letters, and I am ready to show them in private to any noble Lord who may have a desire to see a confirmation of my remarks. The school

783
of Carlow is, as I said before, a free-school, and exclusively devoted to Roman Catholics; and there is also a female school in the same place, conducted on similar principles, and both are under the patronage of the Board of Education. A grant has likewise been given to a Roman Catholic female school in the town of Clonakilty: this school is kept by a man, and, like the others, exclusively Catholic; and, under such superintendence, it is impossible it ever can become a medium of combined education. The school at Barron is another establishment under the patronage of the Board: there are 100 Roman Catholics and three Protestants in it; it is a chapel-school, and the system of education, I may say, is exclusively Roman Catholic. There is another school at Clon-more, in which there are about four Protestant children; though the signatures to the application for assistance contained some Protestant names, which, I must inform your Lordships, were obtained by the Roman Catholic priests under false pretences. There is a school at Ennis which was instituted by a Roman Catholic priest; the present teachers are monks, and the system of education is purely religions; the Board has given to this school 30 l. a-year for a teacher, although the school has actually been set up in opposition to scriptural education. At Rahana, a school, which was formerly under the patronage of Lord Down, is now converted to similar purposes. A Catholic school for females has been set up in Maryborough, and twenty Protestants signed the application, but they did this at the urgent entreaty of the Roman Catholic priests; and one of them, a watchmaker, has since declared, that he was afraid to refuse his signature, as he had frequent occasion to travel through the country repairing clocks and watches. Several of those who signed the application have since regretted that they did so, and endeavoured to withdraw their signatures, but without avail. The grant has been made. I am, therefore, justified in saying, that, when such a preference is given to the priests, in opposition to several scriptural schools established in Ireland, the Board and the Government have neglected their duty, and are instrumental in supporting error against truth. There is at Esker an extensive, and (judging it on Romish principles) I believe an excellent school—but the education is purely
784
Roman Catholic—all the children are Roman Catholics: in the body of the school there is an altar, at which mass is celebrated every morning, the Roman Catholic catechism is read at another period of the day, and prayers, according to the Roman Catholic form, are read at two other stated hours in the day. A lady told me, also, that, upon entering that school, the first book she perceived was a little volume entitled "Fifty Reasons for not becoming Protestants," and this, too, is one of the schools patronised by the Board of Education! There is another school, under the Board, at Castlebar, exclusively Roman Catholic. At the Glynn school there are but two Protestants, and the Roman Catholic catechism is there read daily to the pupils. I might enumerate several other schools of a similar character; in all they amount, I believe, to forty-nine. I have now laid before your Lordships the important fact, that forty-nine of these schools are purely Roman Catholic, where the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church are exclusively taught. These schools, I have shown, are either held in monasteries, nunneries, Roman Catholic chapels, or in the chapel-yards, and I think I have made out a strong case to prove to your Lordships that what his Majesty's Government promised should be a system of a combined education, has turned out to be one of a most exclusive nature. But it is said, that this system has met with the approbation of the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland. It undoubtedly has, and it is not surprising that it should. When I turn to the list of applications for aid at the Board, I find the names of 209 applicants, all of whom are Roman Catholic priests. Of the other applicants, there are but twenty eight who are called Protestant clergymen, and amongst these are some Socinians and other seceders from the Church of Scotland. How the Roman Catholic bishops have come to concur in it I know not, unless it be, that the teachers in the schools are all under their dominion. The effect of this system has been the giving up of the Roman Catholic children exclusively to the Roman Catholic priesthood, and virtually depriving those children of the Word of God. It is quite impossible that Protestants can unite in a system which seems to them the means of propagating and supporting a religion against the errors of which they have been taught to protest. It is impossible that

785
any united system of education can ever be adopted where there is no common ground to stand upon. The only common ground that ever can be discovered is the unrestricted use of the unmutilated scriptures of truth. That was the ground taken by the Kildare-street Society; but his Majesty's Government, in cutting that ground from beneath the feet of the Society, have made the breach wider than it ever was before between the Protestant and Roman Catholic population of Ireland. It is some consolation to these respectable individuals in England, Scotland, and Ireland, who took the same views of this subject as that entertained by myself and my noble friends, that we did all in our power in your Lordships' House, to prevent the system from being acted upon; and although petitions have not, for the reasons I have before stated, this Session been poured in against it, I will take upon myself to say, that never was the public voice more loudly raised against it than at present—never, in fact, did the public pulse beat higher with respect to this system than at this moment. Can any person doubt what the feeling of the public is with respect to it? Seventeen out of the twenty-two Irish Prelates have protested against it, and they have been followed and imitated by the Synod of Ulster, a body composed of persons not surpassed in respectability and a love of religion by any class whatever—men devoted to those principles for which their forefathers bled—and whose anxious desire is, that their fellow-countrymen should not be debarred from the blessings derivable from the Word of God. That enlightened body has lifted up its testimony against this system. There are also the Methodists—the clergy of the Established Church—the Grand Jurors and High Sheriffs—they have all concurred in deprecating the system. We find also many Prelates of the Established Church in this country opposed to the system—and I recollect being delighted during the last Session by hearing utterance given to the truly Christian sentiments entertained by these right reverend Prelates—sentiments which did equal honour to their heads and hearts. When Scotland heard that the Bible—that book which her children so much valued—was about to be withdrawn from the people of Ireland, how did she act? She sent forth her indignant remonstrance against such a proceeding; and yet, in defiance of public opinion, and
786
contrary to reason, and common justice, his Majesty's Ministers have continued to force their plan upon the people of Ireland. Dr. Chalmers, speaking in his own forcible manner upon the subject, declared, "that the proposed system of education was the first attempt since the Reformation to interfere with the Scriptures by a legislative enactment, and that he could not approve of a plan which kept the Scriptures out of the hands of children—those Scriptures which formed the foundation of true religion," Such, my Lords, are the sentiments of that great man, who concurs with me in the opinions I have ever held, and continue to hold, on this great and important subject. All who know the working of the Kildare-street Society are satisfied that the system produced great benefits. It was going on most favourably until the new allies of his Majesty's Ministers—the Romish hierarchy—became alarmed at the progress which scriptural knowledge was making, and having entered into a correspondence with the noble Earl at the head of the government, we find the effect has been the production of this new Board—this bantling of Romanism—this motly crew—this heterogeneous mass—this cage—I will not say of unclean—but of many coloured birds—this Board, I repeat, was not formed for the purpose of conciliating the Roman Catholic population, because their children attended the Kildare-street Society Schools, but it was formed in obedience to the dictates of the Romish hierarchy—and be it remembered by those who so basely crouched to them, that many of these same individuals last year led on crowds of persons in opposition to the law, covering the country in many instances with blood, and in all with ignominy and disgrace. These, my Lords, I consider as awful times—awful with respect to Ireland, and give me leave to say, with respect to England too. The times indeed are awful when the rulers of the people consent to sacrifice the Book of Truth at the shrine of error and of prejudice. That Book which was so long the safeguard of England is now withheld from the people; and the rulers of the country, in order to gain them over to their side, are obliged to bow down to those who thrust this system of error upon them. I think, my Lords, the times are awful when we find the rulers of the land, who ought to be the first to set their faces

787
against error—who know it to be error—who have sworn it to be so—I say, my Lords, it is awful and lamentable to see such men, in place of checking the evil, doing everything in their power to extend and perpetuate its baneful effects. Fatal delusion! If they think to gain the Romish priesthood over by such a course, they are grievously mistaken. Each concession will be followed by demands for still greater concession. Each new concession whets their appetite for more, and depend upon it, my Lords, that party never will be satisfied until Romanism is triumphant and Protestantism laid prostrate. God forbid that I should live to see the day when my Protestant countrymen—ay, and my Roman Catholic countrymen, too—are bound hand and foot, and placed at the disposal of those who have ever been opposed to liberty. I have lived in Ireland all my life—I will not yield in love for my country to any man. I know the people well, and I am attached to them. I have seen with sorrow the tyranny practised towards the poor Roman Catholics—and I have done all in my power, so far as the influence of a landlord and a resident could go, to relieve them from the thraldom in which they are placed. I took the only means in my power of enlightening them, by the distribution of that immutable word which is capable of making man "wise unto salvation," with what effect, it is not necessary now to inquire; but I am sure many noble Lords will agree with me, that it is impossible for the private exertions of any individual to compete with those who have the command of the public purse. If the noble Earl and his Majesty's Ministers be determined to establish the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland—and the signs of the times induce me to suppose such an object not to be altogether out of view—if, I say, they are determined to do so, and proceed in their plan of spoliating the property of the Church, and paying the Roman Catholic clergy out of the plunder—if they are resolved upon the destruction often Bishoprics—but, above all, if, by persisting in this system of education, they deny the Scriptures to the people—on their heads be the sin—on them be the awful responsibility. I feel I have occupied your Lordships too long; but, in the name of my countrymen—in the name of those who are interested in the preservation of the Church—in the name of those who are interested in the
788
maintenance of the true religion, as established amongst us—in the name of the Protestants of Ireland—I call upon your Lordships to give them protection and support. They have been the English garrison in that country since the time of Henry 8th; they have been true to the trust reposed in them; they have been faithful to you in your utmost need; they have stood forward in the breach—and, though many have fallen, and survivors have been ill requited, they are bound to you by ties not easily dissolved. Listen, then, my Lords, to their remonstrances. I feel it no small privilege to be permitted to stand here as their advocate. I have embarked with them in a common cause, and with them I am ready to stand or fall. I know not what conduct his Majesty's Government may next pursue; but I would implore of noble Lords who sit on this, the Opposition, side of the House not to absent themselves from that post which their duty calls upon them to occupy. I would implore of them that they be ready to answer "content" or "not-content," on whatever question is brought forward; and I would implore of his Majesty's Ministers, if they have not determined upon sacrificing everything valuable or worth regarding in Ireland, to give up their odious plan for propagating the Romish faith in that country. If the Government do not find themselves able to stand by the truth, let them withdraw the grant altogether, and leave the education of the people in the hands of those who will give their time, their money, and their influence, in forwarding what they know to be for the benefit of the country. I would implore the Government to save the country the expense, as well as the disgrace, of perpetuating such a system. I trust it will never be said, that any Protestant Government—but above all, a British Government—united with Popish priests to withhold from the people the immutable Word of God. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the petitions do lie on the Table.
The Archbishop of Dublinsaid, that he felt it necessary to bespeak the indulgence of their Lordships, in rising to address them under circumstances which must be painful to every one who was not a stranger in that House, as he had been till so recently; but which were peculiarly painful to him, because he was now placed upon his trial on account of his intimate

789
connexion with the Board of Education. He stood before their Lordships to be tried, not only for countenancing a system which was pronounced to be radically vicious—which was called a bantling of Romanism—a nefarious system—and was characterised by other phrases equally severe, but for having, in conjunction with his colleagues, been guilty of malversation in their office, not only lavishing the public money, but using it for purposes of bribery. He trusted their Lordships would recollect the situation in which he was thus placed, and would make allowance for the difficulty of his position, as well as for his w-ant of those oratorical powers which might be requisite to meet the accusations brought against him. He was invited by his Majesty's Ministers to take a part in the conduct of the Education Board in Ireland; and after a good deal of deliberation, and the best inquiries he could make, he consented, from a firm conviction that it would be for the good of the country. He had not, it was true, long resided in Ireland, when the invitation was given; and when he visited that country some fourteen years ago it was only for a short time; but even before he had any thoughts of going to reside there permanently, Ireland had occupied a great deal of his attention. He had always felt, and he wondered that all his countrymen did not feel the same, that Ireland was a part of this empire, and entitled to most anxious consideration, on account of the troubles and difficulties and dissensions under which she had suffered. He had often turned in his mind (although without any prospect of being able to carry his views into practical effect) how the evils of that country could be removed, and, therefore, he was not a complete stranger to the subject when he was appointed to the Archbishoprick of Dublin. He decided in his own mind that the plan of his Majesty's Ministers was more likely to be successful than any other. Perhaps he erred, perhaps he deserved blame for not being led by those who had more experience than himself; but the truth was, he was told one thing by one person, and another thing by another: they differed as much in their facts as in their inferences. Some very respectable persons told him that the Kildare-street schools were a great benefit to the country, that they were making great progress among the people, and would furnish everything in the way of
790
education that was wanted, while others gave him a directly contrary representation. He, therefore, found himself under the necessity of collecting facts for himself, and forming the best deductions from them he could. The result of his inquiries was, that he thought he might do good by joining the Board, though he could assure their Lordships that he had not consented to become a commissioner to these schools with a view to any credit or comfort or ease of his own. He knew that, in accepting the office, he should be liable to many attacks. It had been said of him, for example, and often repeated, that he supported this measure, and would support any measure of his Majesty's Ministers, as a devoted partizan. It might be of little consequence whether such a person as himself was attached to any party or not; but if he was worth mentioning at all, he was worth mentioning with truth. He did not mean to impute wilful falsehood to those who made these accusations against him. Perhaps they judged from their own experience—perhaps they had never known or seen or heard of a person who was not attached to some party. But he said that they were not justified in putting-forward a conjecture with respect to him as if it were a fact. All who knew him knew that it had ever been a rule with him never to attach himself to any party, ecclesiastical or political. He considered every measure upon its own merits, without reference to the persons from whom it emanated. Any attacks which might hereafter be directed against him he would answer as he answered those which had been hitherto made upon him—not by words, but by his conduct; for he held that the character which could not defend itself was a character scarcely worth defending. But it was said that there was no moral turpitude in being connected with party. That was the very reason why he disclaimed it. If the charge were one which implied a moral delinquency, he hoped it would be unnecessary for him to notice it before their Lordships. He said, in answer to the charge, that he was an independent man, and was entitled to be considered as an independent man. He felt it necessary, as a matter of justice to his Majesty's Ministers still more than to himself, to declare, that whatever support he gave to their measures was not induced by party bias; and that if he gave his voice

791
in their favour, it was not the reluctant and extorted testimony of a prejudiced witness, by whom everything was taken at a premium on one side of the question, and at a discount on the other. He averred thus much reluctantly of himself, because he wished their Lordships to be aware of his views, and to judge of him with that candour with which he spoke. He considered himself bound also to state thus much, in justice to his Majesty's Ministers. He would then proceed to speak of the grants of the Government; money by the Commissioners. He would; say first, he did not find the system proposed to be adopted by the Government was essentially at variance with that pursued at several other schools which had caused none of this clamour. In the course of many private conversations, individuals had brought forward objections to every scheme of education, some of which he must acknowledge were sound and valid. There were objections, undoubtedly, against the education of Roman Catholics and Protestants together; there were objections, and in his mind—stronger—to their education being conducted separately; and there were also objections, which he considered the strongest, to not educating them at all. They had a choice of evils, and he thought the least evil had been chosen. He lamented that there should be so much hostility on account of differences of opinion in Ireland; but the differences and the hostility existing must be met in some way. He found an example of a combined system of education in the Mendicity Schools in Dub-Jin. At those schools there was a system, which was said to be the very type of the Government plan: Protestants and Catholics together received instructions which did not interfere with their religious tenets; and one day in the week was left, upon which they received religious instruction from their respective pastors. While that difference of religion existed in Ireland, which he lamented as much as any man, it was necessary to provide for the religious instruction of the children by some such means. The funds of the Society being low, it was considered whether an application should not be made, for a grant; but it was determined that the application should not be made, as numbers of the subscribers threatened to withdraw their names if the Society received any aid from the Commissioners,
792
or had anything to do with that which had been called a nefarious system. Yet it appeared that the Mendicity Society schools were conducted on exactly the same system, in every particular, with that of the Education Board. He would not weary their Lordships by going through all the objections which had been raised against the system itself, and which had been long since fully discussed. He would not go the length of saying, and considering their Lordships as pledged to the conviction—that the system was good; but neither ought its opponents to say that it never could possibly succeed; because that point remained yet to be decided. It was brought before their Lordships in a former Session; Their Lordships had, after mature deliberation, decided that this system ought to be tried. If, then, they did not mean to tax themselves with folly for having come to that decision, he called upon them, in the name of justice and common sense, to give it a sufficiently long and fair trial. It was said, that the Kildare-street Society had not had a fair trial—that it had not been suffered to go on long enough—that it would have produced all the benefits that could be expected from it, but that it was hastily and prematurely stopped. He did not say that it had gone on long enough. He did not presume to judge what length of time would be sufficient for a fair trial; but this he said, that for several years the Kildare-street Society had had inspectors, a model-school for the preparation of masters and mistresses, a pile of books for the use of the Institution; masters and mistresses had been sent out by the Society, and most of those who superintended the schools, had received their education from the Society. He need not explain to their Lordships that a model-school was of the most essential importance. It was a school under the immediate inspection of the director of the system in which those masters and mistresses were framed who were to carry it into effect. But the model-school of the Education Board in Merrion-street—he meant that for boys—was only opened yesterday; the model-school for the girls would not be opened until after Easter. They had not been able sooner to get the buildings and furniture, and the various necessary arrangements completed. And this they were told was a, fair trial—the measure, having, in fact,

793
not come into actual operation until this very day. It was not until inspectors should have been sent to the different schools, and masters and mistresses sent from the model-school, prepared as well as the Board could prepare them, that there could be a fair trial. To call for returns, and throw obstacles in the way of the proceedings at such a time, when the system had not been much more than a year in operation, and when the model-school—its most important feature—had only been brought into operation this day, reminded him of the child who planted seeds in a garden, and dug them up every two or three days to see if they were growing. They might laugh at the child; but if an adult were to do the same thing every body would conclude that he did not wish the seeds to grow. If the system were to be tried at all, it should have a sufficiently long trial and a fair trial. In order to have a fair trial, it was important that the Commissioners should not be perpetually interrupted, and their secretaries and officers taken away from their regular duties, for the purpose of making out returns, which occupied a considerable time that ought to be devoted to objects connected with the Institution. The Board consisted of persons who had other occupations, which rendered it impossible for them, if they possessed double the strength and diligence of ordinary men, to perform the tasks which were sought to be imposed upon them. There had been several hundred applications for the establishment of schools which they had not had time fully to consider, though they had exerted their utmost diligence to forward the inquiries which were necessary, before these applications could be acceded to. With regard to the expenditure, all he could say was, that they had been scrupulously economical. It could not be expected that he could bear in mind all the cases which had come before the Board, and he could not remember the particulars of the forty-nine cases which had been alluded to by the noble Earl; but he wished their Lordships to remember, that the statements of the noble Earl were ex-parte; and if he were permitted to make inquiries, he had no doubt but that he should be able to show that the same principle which had regulated the conduct of the Board generally had regulated them in all these cases. But supposing all to be as was stated, still there were only forty-nine cases out of
794
497 in which grants had been made (scarcely one-tenth part) complained of. The rule was, where applications were made for aid to establish schools, the Board had instituted inquiries, in order to ascertain the character of the persons making such applications, and the description of the scholars. He could not bring forward any of the correspondence, but he could assure their Lordships, that the Board had acted with the most scrupulous care with respect to the character of the schools to which grants had been made, as well as in the allocation of them. In one case that had been brought forward—that of the Mendicity Institution—the salary proposed was, altogether, 100 l.; but no grant had been made. Ordinarily, the Board had granted salaries of no more than 10 l. and 15 l. a-year, which struck him as being very low. But he had to entreat their Lordships to remember, that it was impossible for him then to explain all the cases. All he could say was, that they had exerted every care and pains to conduct their business in the most economical and the most effectual manner, and all this in the midst of a system of persecution and delusion which would have been enough to deter most men from proceeding. Not only the Commissioners and agents of the Institution, but those who sent their children to the schools, had been designated as infidels, apostates, everything opprobrious that language could supply. They dared not publish their names, because their characters were liable to a species of moral assassination. One of the obnoxious parties said, he thought the burnings in the south of Ireland not worse than the persecution on account of these schools in the north; and he mentioned one or more Presbyterian congregations which had been set against their pastors, and had been induced to insult them in the streets. It had also been objected to the Society (and to this their Lordships could bear witness) that they had used compulsion in the establishment of some schools; but he could assure their Lordships, that no force had ever been employed further than this:—They had told the parties, here is money, if you wish to establish a school, take it; but don't take it if you don't like it. They had also been told (and this had been asserted throughout England, and was the only cause why so many petitions had been presented against the new system); that

795
Protestants were to be deprived of the use of the Bible. They certainly did not compel the children to read the Bible, and for his part he did not wish to compel any one to read the Bible. That would savour of persecution, and to do so would neither be of any service to religion, nor consistent with the proper spirit of Christianity; but they had made it imperative in all their schools, that a certain portion of the week should be set apart for religious instruction—namely, some one day, besides Sunday. Those who had any scruple against such instruction had it in their power to withdraw themselves; and any clergyman of the neighbourhood might appoint a day in the week in which the children of his own denomination might read nothing but the Scriptures, or the Homilies of the Church. The children read the Bible one hour a-day for five days in the week, and the other two days they read nothing but the Bible. He would ask how many of their Lordships' children—how many even of their Lordships themselves, read the Bible so much? He would ask whether such instruction as that contemplated by the Institution was not sufficient to make the children know the Bible both in spirit and in truth. He believed that these children would know more of the Bible than under most other systems. At the same time he would not deny that, in many cases, the instruction was not given, because the clergy in the respective neighbourhoods, whose duty it would have been to carry the intentions of the Institution into effect, had refused to give instructions to any of the children in these schools. They had declared, in letters to the Board, that they would have nothing to do with these schools, and would not go into them. If they conceived themselves justified in that proceeding, be it so: it was a matter betwixt them and their consciences; but what right then had they to complain of the effects of their own wrong? It was they who were depriving their flocks of the want of that spiritual instruction which they accused the Board of causing. Did they dread contamination from going into the schools? If the Apostles had never gone into a Jewish synagogue, how would the Christian religion have been promulgated? If St. Paul had never preached the gospel to the Athenians upon the hill dedicated to Mars, none of us, perhaps, would ever have heard of it. He did not blame any person,
796
who really thought, being a Protestant clergyman, that he could not, with a safe conscience, encourage the Government system of education, although he must consider him to be in error for abstaining from doing so; but surely such a clergyman should not come forward and condemn the system as being exclusively Roman Catholic! Suppose he were to send round to the parishioners of certain parishes, whose ministers differed from him in opinion, and warn them that their pastors were bad men, who preached unsound doctrines, and that they ought to keep away from them; and rather frequent another church or meeting-house, or none at all: this would be thought rather a strong measure. But if, after their parishioners had taken his advice, he should turn round upon the pastors and upbraid them for having their churches deserted, and their company shunned, what words would be deemed sufficient to characterize the unseemly folly of such conduct? Pharaoh was called an oppressor when he beat and reproached the Israelites for not delivering the tale of bricks after he had deprived them of the requisite materials; but he did not go so far as to promulgate an edict, exhorting his subjects to prevent them from going into the fields to gather straw where they could find it, and then turn and reproach them for not bringing their tale of bricks. Whether the system were bad or good, it ought not to be frustrated by unfair means; but should be put to a reasonable test before judgment was pronounced upon it. The question, as to its being allowable to instruct members of different persuasions in the same school, their Lordships would decide; but, he would observe, that the Benevolent Society of St. Patrick, which had been established for fifty years, had, as one of its principal regulations, an order to the teachers to see that the children should attend to their religious duties—Protestants and Catholics, according to their respective creeds—their principles extending to all. The system of the Board was founded on the same principle. As to the mutilation of the Scriptures, he had always understood that a mutilation was only when a work was given as complete, while it was really deficient; but certainly the term could not be applied to such a work as Mrs. Trimmer's selections from the Bible. Yet that work had been used in all our schools for many years. He could not go through

797
all the accusations which were daily brought forward against the Commissioners, and himself in particular, in the Dublin newspapers. The greater part of them he had not seen; for he did not read those papers, and should not know anything of them unless a friend should happen to tell him of them. From what had come under his notice, he could say, that five or six libels appeared in these prints every week. A system of terrorism was regularly acted upon. With regard to falsehoods stated in these prints, there were one or two every day. He had seen a letter from a Prelate to a Clergyman in his diocese, commanding him, on his canonical obedience, to withhold his support from the schools. The noble Lord had spoken of signatures to applications for grants being obtained by intimidation. He had no doubt that some signatures might have been obtained by that means; for, unfortunately, in Ireland, there was a system of intimidation which was not confined to any one sect or party. But he could assert, that the Commissioners had never encouraged anything of the kind, but that they rejected all such signatures as they knew to be obtained in that way. He would mention one of the cases put forward as a ground of complaint against them. It was alleged at a public meeting held at Dublin, and the allegation excited much indignation, that a clergyman of imbecile mind was carried to some place privately by the Commissioners, or some persons employed by them, and there entrapped into signing a paper, signifying his approbation of the system, and his wish that it should be introduced into his parish, and that afterwards, on being informed by his friends of the wickedness of the proceeding, he desired to retract his testimony of approval; but that no notice was taken of this application. He trusted it was unnecessary for him to assure their Lordships, that nothing of the kind ever happened—that the Commissioners had had nothing to do with so black a crime as kidnapping a man of imbecile mind for any purpose. But the charge had been in fact sufficiently refuted by being publicly contradicted. The person who stated it had been defied to bring forward any proofs of the assertion, and he bad failed to meet the defiance. A complaint was made, that in many cases where persons sent to retract their signatures, the Commissioners, notwithstanding, did
798
not withdraw the grant. In answer to that, he had only to say that they considered all such signatures as if they did not exist, but the other signatures were sufficient to induce them to make the grant. With regard to persons signing applications for grants, and afterwards withdrawing their signatures on the ground of not having read or understood the paper, it must, perhaps, be admitted that such persons rendered themselves liable to a charge of imbecility on one or other of those occasions, if not on both. He recollected two cases of clergymen retracting their signatures. One was a gentleman, who signed his name to an application for a grant, and afterwards came a retraction from a relative of his, a daughter-in-law he believed. The Commissioners said, that as the Gentleman himself had signed the application, he must himself retract it—and accordingly in a month or two he did so, and, without making any inquiry how it was brought about, the Commissioners at once erased the name. Another case was where a Curate asked his Rector in his (the Archbishop of Dublin's) presence, whether he would like that he should apply for assistance for a school which was established, or about to be established in his parish; and the Rector acquiesced. Afterwards, however, he said he was disposed to withdraw his name. The Curate, however, did not change his mind, and he knew of no canon which obliged a Curate to change his mind whenever his Rector did. With respect to extracts from the Scripture, it was said, that they would never be received by the Roman Catholics; except so garbled as to be a mutilation of the book, and offensive to Protestants. Now, the first extract adopted in the present system consisted of the whole book of Genesis, with the exception of some passages which he was sure no parent would hesitate to keep out of the hands of very young children. There was nothing of a controversial nature in it. Again, it was said, that the Bible was the one common ground for Protestants and Roman Catholics. Now, he said, that even if Protestant children read the whole Bible through, it was not a common ground, for the Protestant version was not admitted by the Roman Catholics as an authorised version. The Douay Bible was taken from the Vulgate, which was the authorised

799
book of the Roman Catholics. Besides which, the Apocrypha formed part of the Roman Catholic Bible, and not of the Protestant. Therefore, he said there was no common ground. As to the charge that no extracts would be used by the Roman Catholics which were not garbled, he thought it was rash and premature to suppose that the different parties concerned would acquiesce in such an arrangement. There were clergymen of the three kingdoms on that Board—English, Scotch, and Irish, all brought up at different Universities. There was a presbyterian minister, the reverend Mr. Carlile; Dr Sadleir, who was educated at Trinity College, Dublin; and himself (the Archbishop of Dublin), educated at Oxford. How was it to be supposed that they would all agree in garbling the Scriptures so as to favour the Roman Catholics? He would however, mention one or two of the accusations brought against the Board. One charge was, that certain passages in the lessons sanctioned the worship of the Virgin Mary who, in fact, was never mentioned at all. The second Scriptural lesson which the Board was so much condemned for? authorising, consisted of the whole of that mutilation of Scripture, called the Gospel of St. Luke. As an instance of the calumnies which were heaped upon them, he would mention that it was stated some time back at a public meeting, that violent dissensions had occurred in the Board, upon a difference of opinion as to the adoption of the phrase, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand," or "Do penance, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand," and that in consequence of this controversy, the injunction to repentance was thrown overboard altogether. Both the words penance and repentance were omitted, it was said, and thus a great Christian doctrine was completely cast aside. This charge was repeated in pamphlets, in newspapers, in private conversations, and in books, almost incessantly for half a year. A loud clamour was raised against the omission of the doctrine of penance, and undoubtedly such an omission would deserve very severe reprobation. There was, however, one circumstance to which, although it seemed to be quite immaterial to the persons who originated the statement, their Lordships would, perhaps, attach some little importance—namely, that there was not one word of truth in the story from beginning
800
to end. The whole was a fabrication. He pledged his honour that there never had been the slightest dispute at the Board on the subject, and that there never was a motion for the omission of the passage; and there it stood as it had ever been, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." There was indeed a note appended, stating, that as the phrase, "Do penance" might be offensive to Protestants, and as "Repent ye" could not give offence to either party, the latter was preferred. He was fully sensible of the importance of this passage, and he hoped that those who had taken part in the propagation of so slanderous a report, would immediately and publicly testify their repentance of it. This was a specimen, and no more than a specimen, of the reports which had been circulated from one end of the kingdom to the other—these were the engines which were made use of to divert and delude the people—but he appealed to their Lordships whether this could be called giving the plan a fair trial. He declared that he and his colleagues had been assailed by every kind of misrepresentation and falsehood, violence, and intemperance of language, which appeared to him far, very far, from being consonant to the spirit of Scriptural education. All those who endeavoured to aid in the introduction of this system, had met with the most severe persecution, their motives had been assailed, and their characters hunted down. This was a species of Scriptural mutilation to which he strongly objected—that practical mutilation of the Scriptures which made men resist that important precept, "Do as you would be done by." Nor had this agitation been confined to Ireland. In England—in London, meetings had been held at a place—Exeter Hall, he believed it was called—at Bath, Liverpool, and other towns. But how were these meetings got up? They were founded upon a system—the exclusion of all persons who did not come there prepared to oppose the measures of the Government. In this way there could be no difficulty in getting up petitions for or against any measure. He did not impugn the motives of the persons attending those meetings: but he had a right to impugn their judgment; for they had only heard the statements, or rather the misrepresentations, of one party. They were

801
told that the Protestants were to be excluded from seeing the Bible, and they expressed an earnest desire that that Bible should not be taken away from that people of Ireland—a desire in which he most heartily concurred. They were told that the children in Ireland were to be delivered over to the Catholic priesthood whether they would or not: and many other gross mis-statements were made, they having previously taken care to exclude all possibility of contradiction. But why, he asked, did they not give the people an opportunity of fairly exercising their judgment? Why did they lead them away by delusion? Why resort, as they had done, to persecution and intimidation? He was ready to pledge himself—he was ready to give a pledge on behalf of his colleagues—that nothing of the kind should ever be exercised in favour of the system, and he called on those opposed to it to exert themselves in a similar manner, and then they might be enabled to obtain a fair trial of the workings of the system; but it was utterly impossible to say whether the experiment would succeed, much less had they any right to say it had not succeeded, when it had not yet been tried. It had not yet been tried as many months as the Kildare-street Society had existed years, and yet they were told that the Kildare-street Society had not yet received a fair trial. It was absurd, therefore, to say that the new system had been sufficiently tried. He was compelled to call on their Lordships to take something on his assertion, which he could, but dared not, prove, lest he should sacrifice the comfort, peace, and safety of some highly deserving and respectable individuals. He pledged himself that there were many clergymen, both Protestant and Presbyterian, who approved of this system, but who dared not support it for fear of coming in collision with their neighbours and friends where they resided. They dared not expose themselves to the clamour that would be raised against them, or encounter the obloquy and abuse which was sure to be poured on them. Some clergymen had personally, but privately, communicated this to him, whose names, of course, he could not betray. Others had written to the same effect, and in some cases they had refused to support the system, although they strongly approved of it, because the Bishop of the diocese had signed a paper against it—they did not like to have
802
their names in print opposed to their respective Bishops. Others, indeed, were animated by a feeling, which for the sake of charity and religion he hoped would soon die away—had declared they would have nothing whatever to do with the religious instruction of any children who went to these schools. He hoped that all persons who wished men to enjoy true liberty, and the unmolested right of expressing their sentiments according to their own conscience, would exert themselves to put an end to that system of intimidation and agitation which was kept up in Ireland. Agitation he said it was—for what was it but agitation to go about through every parish in Ireland, setting not only Catholics against Protestants, but Protestants against each other, and denouncing all the supporters of the national system of education as idolaters, atheists, apostates—in short, heaping upon them almost every term of abuse which the language supplied. Was it right, then, he would ask, to reproach his Majesty's Ministers with consequences brought on by the very misrepresentations and calumnies with which they were assailed? He hoped the opponents of the Board would no longer attempt to bias the sentiments of the people by the use of violent language or insulting epithets. If the system was bad—speak of it as it was—and let it stand or fall upon its real merits. In conclusion, he would call the attention of their Lordships to this point. He did not deprecate any opposition which was made to this measure on his own account, or on that of his brother Commissioners. It was for the sake of Ireland—for the sake of that unfortunate country—for whose welfare he was ready to undergo even more slander and obloquy than he had yet been exposed to. He deprecated everything like a system of agitation on this subject, as opposed to every Christian feeling, and calculated to inflict the deepest injury upon society. For the sake of Ireland, then, he appealed to their Lordships to let this system have a fair, uninterrupted trial; and then let them come to a decision with calmness and Christian temper. For himself, he was ready to make every sacrifice, even that of life itself, to effect the moral regeneration of Ireland.
The Bishop of Exetercomplimented the most reverend Prelate on the very able speech which he had just made, and expressed

803
his sincere conviction that the most reverend Prelate had been actuated by the best and purest motives. He at least had never attributed improper, or unworthy, or party motives to the most reverend Prelate; nor had such motives, he believed, been attributed to him by any body in this country. That most reverend Prelate had said, that there were three modes of treating the question of education in Ireland: either to educate the Roman Catholics and Protestants together—to educate them separately—or to educate them not at all. The right reverend Prelate seemed to assume that the Irish were less educated than the people of this country—now the fact was the contrary; nor did he say this without due grounds; he had high testimony, that of the Archbishop of Cashel, given before the Commission on Irish Education in 1824. That Prelate said, that even in Tipperary he found the people more educated than in England. He did not, however, mean to say they were better educated; but the fact was, there were more persons in proportion who could read and write in Ireland than in England. The great question, however, was the best subject matter for education. Their Lordships had been told that this system had been condemned before it had been tried, and that a large majority of that House had last year decided that it should receive a trial, and that if they put an end to it in its present state, they would be stultifying themselves, or something to a similar effect. He did not know how far the voice of a previous majority was to bind them on the present occasion; but, if he remembered rightly, the majority of those who were present on that occasion, was for the Motion then brought forward. [No.] The majority which sustained this system was composed chiefly of proxies; but if it were not so, he was not one of those of whom it could be said that he condemned the system before giving it a fair trial? It was said, he knew, that the system was condemned without being tried; but he had always contended that no trial could ever prove its propriety or efficacy, since it was not founded on the principles of Scripture truth, and on the principles of the Protestant religion. He said, it was contrary to these principles, and he had a right to say, speaking in that House, that no trial could be successful. They were still, though not exclusively
804
Protestant, yet a Protestant Legislature; and he trusted the time was not come, and never would come, when they were to be told that they must cease to enjoy the rights, and to discharge the duties which a Protestant Legislature ought to enjoy and to discharge. He had said, that he condemned this system because it was contrary to the principles of Protestantism; and he said this, because, in his opinion, it rendered impracticable the founding of the education of the children of Ireland on the knowledge of the Bible. They were told, that abundant opportunities would be afforded of giving Scriptural instruction to the children in the intermissions of school hours; but he would ask with what recommendation such instruction could come to those children, who would regard it as a deprivation of their hours of recreation and sport? Was that the way to recommend the Holy and Blessed Book to the affections of children? On the contrary, did he not perceive, that it would be the most effectual way of bringing them up in the dislike of all Scriptural instruction; for it would be in fact to require them to obtain that instruction only at the hours they would have at their own command, and for their own enjoyment? They ought to have Bible lessons as a principal part of the instruction in their schools—they ought to be always impressed with the feeling and the conviction that the knowledge of the Word of God was an essential and indispensable part of Christiair Education. This, he should feel it his duty to contend, even if Scriptural instruction could be given by the clergy in sufficient measure out of school-hours. But it was affirmed by all who knew the local circumstances of Ireland, that it was impossible for clergymen to do what this system would require of them, if they were to be the sole teachers of the Bible; and the statistics of Ireland justisfied the assertion. The parishes were so large that there were several schools in almost every one of them. Throughout Connaught and Munster especially, such were the local circumstances, that it was physically impossible for the clergyman to attend all the schools, even if he had no other duties to perform, or for the children to receive that most essential part of their education, instruction in the Bible, if they received it not at school. The children were required to attend at school in the country at ten in the

805
morning; but such was the distance which many of them had to go, that, as was affirmed by those who had most experience in the inspection of schools, in very few, was there a full attendance of scholars before eleven o'clock, and, for the same reason, the whole was over at three. It was therefore really impossible for the clergyman to give that regular and systematical course of Scriptural instruction which alone is worthy the name of instruction, and which the circumstances of the children required. With regard to the extracts from the Sacred Scriptures, the most reverend Prelate had complained of the statements, "that extracts from the Scriptures would never be made but in a garbled form, or, at least, that none but such garbled extracts would be accepted by the Roman Catholics"; he added, "that it had been made matter of accusation against the Roman Catholics that they permitted their children to read even such extracts, and that the Board of Education had been calumniously assailed as willing to lend itself to countenance these garbled extracts." He was quite sure, that the most reverend Prelate himself would not willingly suffer any garbled extracts to be promulgated; but the complaint made was, that the extracts selected did not present a fair specimen of Scripture properly so called. Why did he say this, not from want of charity, but from excess of charity towards the Romish Hicrachy. He perceived the noble Earl (Earl Grey) lifted up his eyes at this expression. He felt much obliged for the attention the noble Earl was paying to his remarks; and he would tell the noble Earl that it arose from this much charity towards Roman Catholics that he believed them when they spoke upon their oaths. The Roman Catholic Prelates had sworn, that, consistently with their duty and the dictates of their conscience, they could not consent that any of their children should be present at the reading of any portion of Scripture taken from a version not their own. That was the evidence they had given on oath, before the Commission of Education Inquiry in 1824, and knowing this, he did not suppose it possible that any thing like a volume of extracts could be placed in the hands of Romans Catholic children which could be otherwise than garbled. The most reverend Prelate had produced, with a tone of
806
triumph, a volume of extracts, which he said was not garbled. Now, the Roman Catholic said, that he would not permit an unauthorised version to be used in schools; and yet he found they had given their consent to the reading of at least a very large portion of it. It was said, that this was a specimen of their liberality. True, they were liberal; so liberal, indeed, that they seemed, in this instance, to have forgotten what they had previously sworn to. He also found that they had been, particularly in relation to one passage—the only passage, indeed, of great importance as relating to the distinctive difference between the doctrines of the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, and where the language of their own version was departed from—to take care that a note should be appended, explaining their peculiar view of the passage. The right reverend Prelate then proceeded to call the attention of the House to the note, which he said clearly contained an allusion to the Virgin Mary, and entered into a theological disquisition upon the "seed of the woman crushing the serpent's head," to show that Roman Catholics had perverted the meaning of the passage into expressing that the Virgin Mary herself, and not her seed was to crush the serpent's head. And this was a volume of extracts to be read in Protestant schools! In a book recommended to the perusal of the scholars by the Board of Education, it was held to be indifferent with regard to redemption, whether the head of the serpent was to be crushed by the woman or Jesus Christ, or whether Jesus Christ did it for himself; so it was described in a book adopted by the Board.
The Archbishop of Dublin: Not so; only tolerated for the present.
The Bishop of Exeter: Tolerated for the present? But it is a matter of notoriety. [The Duke of Richmond got up from his Seal.] It would be convenient if noble Lords on the front bench would allow him to proceed. He hoped, indeed he was sure, they did not mean to interrupt him.
The Duke of Richmondrose to order. The right reverend. Prelate never rose in that House without complaining of interruption or inattention from that Bench, though the greatest attention was uniformly paid him. He, at least, had not the slightest intention to interrupt the right reverend Prelate.
The Bishop of Exeter: As there was

807
no intention to interrupt, be would suppose that no interruption had taken place. The most reverend Prelate had denied any intention to deliver over the children in Ireland into the hands of the Catholic priesthood. He was not surprised at the view which the most reverend Prelate had taken of it; but in a letter and speech of the author of the system, the right hon. the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the object was avowed to be political, and not religious, in order, by restoring the influence of the Roman Catholic Clergy, to secure a more peaceable and willing obedience on the part of the peasantry to the laws. The right hon. Secretary said, 'it might be true that, by the present means, they were giving education to Ireland, but would they be giving a benefit to it by means of that education, if it was contrary to the religious feeling of the country? But those who undertook to argue in favour of the Kildare-street Society were in the habit of saying; "only allow us to keep on; only continue the grants; and we must finally succeed." But such success as that was contrary to a feeling of charity, for it would be a success m spite of the religion of the people, in spite of the precepts of their faith, in spite of the dictates of the priests; and could it be the object—ought it to be the object—of Government to promote a success on such terms as these? Their object ought to be, not to oppose the Catholic priest hood and the people, but to bring the priesthood and the people, through their influence, into an amicable and friendly relation with the Government. He would not then go deeper into an important subject, immmediately connected with the topic he had just noticed; he would not advert to the means of drawing closer the tie which would bind the Catholic clergyman to the State. His object would be, looking to Ireland, and looking to it in a political view, not to aim at diminishing the influence of the Catholic priesthood, for that influence produced benefit to the community nine times for once that it yielded evil.'* It was plain, therefore, the object of the authors of this scheme was a political one—it was to make use of the Catholic Priesthood to ensure obedience and tranquillity. The Ministers sought to give additional powers to those who said that they
* Hansard (third series) vi. p. 1255.
808
could not, without sin, have recourse to the Bible; and, therefore, they certainly were liable to the imputation of joining with the Roman Catholic clergy to take away the Bible from the Protestants of Ireland. In fact, the right hon. Secretary was an advocate for not taking away the influence of the Romish priesthood, and wished to increase that because he deemed it beneficial to the State [cheers]. He scarcely knew how to understand that cheer, but if that were not the meaning of the language he had quoted, he knew not the meaning of words. If the noble Lords who cheered thought it a wise, consistent, and wholesome measure, worthy of a Christian Government, let them act upon the plan; but he could not consider such a design to be consistent with Christianity. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman was wrong upon principle, and no trial that might be given to it could prevent it from becoming at all times a just object of reprobation. It was rather remarkable, that in the Returns laid upon the Table, the answer to a Return which had been moved for by the noble Earl opposite, as to the numbers of Roman Catholic and Protestant children attending the school, was to this effect—that they could not give the Returns of their respective numbers, as their attention had been directed to the extension of education, without distinction of class or sect; thus taking away from them the means of ascertaining whether the experiment had succeeded or not. The Commissioners had, in fact, taken care to know nothing of the working of the system, and were necessarily ignorant whether the scheme they were appointed to carry into effect bad failed or succeeded. The right reverend Prelate then referred to the extracts of the Commandments, as published under the sanction of the Board, and entered into another theological discussion. In the second Commandment, he said, the words "graven thing" for graven image—and the words "bow down to" were omitted; thus cloaking and hiding that idolatry which was the scandal of the Romish Church. This was still worse, as it was admitted by Mr. Carlile that the word in the original was, "bow down to." And what must be the effect of this sort of half sanction, accompanied by the circumstance that these children must be constantly in the habit of witnessing the performance of those ceremonies so common

809
amongst the Roman Catholics, but so repugnant to the principles of all true Protestants. In his opinion this was very wrong. Protestant children under the authority of a Protestant Archbishop were condemned to witness these abominations, these idolatries, and they had put into their hand a mutilated and garbled form of the second Commandment, in which that part was suppressed which denounced the abominations they saw practised. The right reverend Prelate then proceeded to read several passages from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and from the works of writers who were esteemed high authorities on matters of Catholic faith and discipline, for the purpose of showing that which he believed would not be disputed—namely, that Roman Catholics were instructed to consider all who differed from them as heretics and schismatics, and incapable of becoming inheritors of the Kingdom of Christ. From data such as these nothing could be more evident than that it would be impossible to devise a system of instruction which should satisfy the wants and the wishes of a community composed, as that of Ireland was, of persons of different and hostile creeds. Nothing could be more indisputable than that the Catholic children would, at all times, look upon their Protestant fellow-subjects in the light in which they were taught to consider them by the instructions they received at home and at school. If he might be permitted to call the attention of the House to the instructions which Roman Catholic children had received recently, and that which had been inculcated upon them formerly, he should show that until very lately they had been taught that they were bound to pay tithes, but now they were informed that they were merely bound to support their pastors. That was the language at present used. The Catechism formerly prescribed the confession of sins once a-year, and the payment of tithes. Dr. Milner spoke of it as notorious, that the Catechism prescribed the payment of tithes. But that instruction had been left out of recent editions of the Catechism. Bishop O'Reilly's Catechism, published in 1831, contained these lines:—
Receive your God about great Easter day, And to his Church neglect not tithes to pay.
But an edition of this work was printed in 1832 under the sanction of the Board, in which was substituted: "And to his
810
Church remember dues to pay." The very name of tithes which might have been inconvenient in works of elementary instruction, at present, had been carefully removed. The alteration, however, in these elementary works was not noticed by the Commissioners in the return made by them to the House of elementary works, though they professed to make a return of those alterations, and Bishop O'Reilly's Catechism was one of the books placed in their Lordships library. Perhaps, in 1833 or 1834, if the prospects of the Roman Catholics continued to improve, the word "tithes" might again figure in the Commandment. He would not trouble their Lordships further, than by referring to one other of the returns made by the Commissioners, that of the instruction given by them to their inspectors of schools. It was there said: 'No book inculcating or countenancing peculiar views of religion is to be used. As the Holy Scripture is itself unhappily subject of controversy in this country, &c., it is not to be in troduced during those hours set apart for common education.' In the year 1827, the Protestant Archbishops of Ireland solemnly declared, that it was impossible for them, consistently with their duty to that Church of which they were the highest ministers, and to the people of whose spiritual interests they were the appointed guardians, to accede to any scheme of national education which did not include the use of the Holy Scriptures as part of the instruction of the schools. In consequence of this decisive declaration on their part, while the Roman Catholic Bishops refused to permit even the ears of the children of their communion to be wounded by hearing the Protestant Bible read by the Protestant children, the scheme of that day was abandoned. If the present Government, in spite of this warning, had chosen to try an experiment founded on a principle which was thus solemnly protested against by our Archbishops in 1827, they had no right to be surprised, much less to complain, if their experiment had failed. He should not hesitate to say, that any one might have been able to to prophesy beforehand, that the proposed scheme could not succeed; and looking to the result, he should say, that that result would have fully warranted what ought naturally to have been anticipated. The scheme, unquestionably, had been a signal failure, and he believed that there

811
was no modification of it, nor of any system not based on the whole Scriptures which could render it truly a scheme of national education.
The Archbishop of Dublinwished to explain. It was true that some schools under the Commissioners had been held in places of Roman Catholic worship, but that was expressly in opposition to their recent regulations—they did not allow any new schools to be held in any place of worship whatever, and where they found that their grants had been applied to schools held in places of worship, they either withdrew those grants, or took measures for causing a building to be erected so as to prevent the continuance of the practice of holding schools in places of public worship. The number which came within the description which he had been giving did not amount to more than four or five out of 500, and for all those, separate buildings were now in progress.
The Bisliop of Bristolconcurred generally in the view taken of the question bv the right reverend Prelate near him (the Bishop of Exeter), and he especially assented to the important truth, that the scheme of education pursued by the Government in Ireland had proved a complete failure. If the scheme now proposed were carried into effect, what was the security that any good book of instruction would be circulated among the people of Ireland? That, however, was not the only difficulty. It was said, that there was no intention of leaving out any particular point of the Protestant translation; but many—indeed most of them—had been left out altogether; and the only one that had not been entirely omitted had been altered—he meant the word Shiloh, which had been altogether changed for an inappropriate word. If such was the conduct of the present Board at the commencement of their career, what was there to show that their successors would not go much further, and make alterations or omissions of even greater importance?
Lord Plunkettsaid, that the matter was of such importance that it could not receive too much attention from their Lordships. That was his apology for addressing them. He was perfectly convinced of the sincerity of the right reverend Prelate who had recently addressed them, and in answer to whose speech he should make a few remarks. The right reverend Prelate
812
was, no doubt, impressed with the sanctity of the object he had in view; but in adopting means to secure it, he should at the same time have taken care not to transgress the bounds of that charity which he expected from others. Before answering the right reverend Prelate, he must say a few words upon what had fallen from the noble Earl, and in doing so, he assured the noble Earl, that he felt the most perfect respect for the noble Earl's conduct and motives. The noble Earl assumed throughout that which was necessary to be proved as the very foundation of his arguments. The noble Earl had appealed vehemently and successfully to large bodies of persons, many of whom were quite uneducated; he had come down to that House with petitions from 200,000 persons. Now, to those persons, the language the noble Earl had uniformly held was, that the course of education adopted by the Ministers would have the effect, and was intended for the purpose, of robbing the Protestants of the use of their Bible. No assertion could be more unfounded; and unfounded as it was when it was first uttered, not one attempt had been since made to prove that it was true. It was no part of this system to meddle with the system of exclusive Protestant education; it was not intended to interfere with the schools which the Protestants had already established for themselves, nor with the funds which they had appropriated for that purpose. But Ministers said, if there was to be a joint system of education, at the public expense, and for the public benefit, to be provided for the people of Ireland, there certainly ought not to be annexed to it a condition which would prevent the majority of the people from enjoying the advantages to be derived from that education. He was not surprised that any one of the 200,000 persons should say, they would not give up their Bible. But he had a right to complain that the noble Earl, after drawing his own inferences, and often drawing them most illogically, should state them to the people as facts. What fact was there that authorized him to make these statements? The principle on which the Ministers acted was, that it was expedient there should be a system of public instruction; that the unfortunate people of Ireland were not to be left, as before, but were to have an opportunity of obtaining rational, moral, and religious instruction. Any system of instruction

813
which was not founded on these principles was defective. So far they were all agreed. Again, they were further agreed, that education, to be safely adapted to the people of that country, must be based not only on religion, but on revealed religion; and, further, that it must not only be founded in morals and religion, but on Scripture, as the authorized Revelation of the will of the Supreme Being. Then the question to be solved was, whether they could found such a system of religious instruction for the Catholics and Protestants, based on the authority of the Scriptures, as would be capable of being carried into execution. There was no noble Lord but must lament, if that were impracticable. He had, therefore, listened with the most unfeigned regret to the statement of the right reverend Prelate, who seemed to consider that no possible system could be found capable of attaining that end. The noble Earl stood quite solitary in the opinion that the people of Ireland were about to be robbed of their Bible. Extracts from it he called mutilations, and said that no person with a proper regard for his religion could endure that these mutilations should take place. When this question was agitated last Session, the Primate of Ireland—a man in every way worthy of the highest respect—met it quite differently. He did not say that the plan practically went to deprive the people of the Scriptures; he did not speak of mutilating them; but he attacked the plan, because he said it was founded upon a principle which the Church could never admit—namely, that the whole of the Bible was not made the foundation of education. If the noble Earl was right, that was an abandonment of the Protestant principle—a lowering of the Protestant standard. But that was not a religious, but a political principle; for it amounted to this; that it was inconsistent with the dignity of the Protestant Church that anything should be admitted, or any money applied for the purposes of education, except on a system to which only the members of that Church could give their assent, or, in other words, that the great body of the people of that country should not receive public education at all. All these arguments resolved themselves into this—that this was a re-agitation of the Catholic question, and amounted to saying, that the Catholic measure never should have been passed. Not an argument
814
on that side but went the length of saying, that the Catholic was a religion which ought not to be tolerated. The right reverend Prelate who had recently spoken, took up a ground at variance with that adopted by the noble Earl; for he did not object to selections from the Scriptures, nor call them mutilations. He was too learned to make that complaint, nor indeed had ever done so; for in the former debate he said he did not object to the selection of passages; but that he had no confidence that they would not be garbled. Even that, however, was a gratuitous assumption, for nothing was then done. The right reverend Prelate had not exhibited an excess of charity to-night in the observations he had made respecting the most reverend Prelate, whose speech had been so satisfactory, able, and eloquent, and whom he called a lover of truth, but to whom certainly he had not done a superabundance of justice. Indeed the whole speech of the right reverend Prelate was deficient in no quality so conspicuously as that of charity. He had once before accused the most reverend Primate of having declared, that he saw no necessity to keep holy the Sabbath Day.
Lord Kenyonrose to order. The noble and learned Lord was overstepping the bounds of debate, inasmuch as he was referring to opinions published during a controversy which was carried on out of doors.
Lord Phmkettcontinued. What the noble Lord said, might show that it was not delicate for him to persevere in his observations, but by no means proved that he was out of order. He should not have thought it necessary to refer to what had before fallen from the right reverend Prelate, if it had not been confirmed by what the right reverend Prelate had said tonight—he had said, that he had been perfectly convinced that no fair extracts from the Scriptures would be made from a Board constituted as that in Dublin was. Why, there was Dr. Sadlier, of Trinity College; there was Mr. Holmes, a Barrister, both of whom were men of the highest respectability; and then there was the Archbishop of Dublin; and not one of these was likely to sacrifice Protestantism. Well, then, here were the extracts—the right reverend Prelate found fault with passages in them. Instead of the words, any "graven image," the extracts used

815
the words "graven thing." Thai was mentioned as a fault. In his opinion, the latter was a more effective prohibition of idolatry than the former, for the word "thing" included "image;" but he believed, that the right reverend Prelate admitted, that the word "thing" was more correct. [The Bishop of Exeter: The word would bear that construction in the Greek version.] But if the Hebrew word would bear that construction, as he believed it would, then it was nearer accuracy than the common translation from the Greek. The next point on which they were called on not to give education to the people of Ireland, was the question about the word "he" or "she," in the passage about bruising the serpent's head. He had seen the word "it" used. [The Bishop of Bristol was understood to say, that the word was "he" in the original, but that it was "it" in our version.] It seemed, then, that both differed from the original. The note said, that in the original Hebrew the word was "it;" but it was surely hardly material whether the word "it" or "he" was used to denote the seed, for both agreed that by the seed of the woman was the serpent to be crushed. If the rescuing of millions of men from vice—if the prospect of restoring tranquillity to Ireland were to be blighted by sucii criticisms as these—then indeed must the Government stop in their proposed career of improvement. The noble Earl and the right reverend Prelate no doubt thought them most important, but for the life of him he could not see that they were so. Another objection was about the words "thou shalt not bow down." "Bow down" did not necessarily mean to worship, and he believed it was customary for the Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, to bow to the altar as he quitted it, so that that ceremony was not confined to the Catholic Church, nor did it necessarily show idolatry. Then there was a charge that the Government had made a league with the Roman Catholics to upset the Protestant hierarchy, and the right reverend Prelate said, that the right hon. Secretary stood by the priests in their rejection of the Bible,
The Bishop of Exeterbegged to say, that he had used the right hon. Secretary's own words.
Lord Plunkett: Yes, that might be, but not without note and comment. Could anybody believe that the charge made by
816
the noble Earl opposite with respect to this plan was, that it would overturn the present established religion? Could anybody in his senses believe such a charge? And was it not calculated to keep up the jealousy that unhappily existed between the parties of the two religions? The noble Lord who spoke first said, that the present measure was not such a very bad one, and that he objected to it because a society already existed sufficient for all purposes, from which the powers it had should not be taken. The question was, which system was the best? The Government system of education did not allow two versions of the Scriptures to be used in their schools, whilst the Kildare-street Society permitted either version to be used. Yes, that Society was guilty of everything that was now called bad and abominable, in the conduct of the Board of Education. That Society allowed a Popish version of the Bible to be used, and their masters interpreted and commented on it after their own way. They gave mutilated versions of the Scriptures, garbled extracts, and sanctioned the use of the Douay Bible. Could this be endured by the 200,000 Protestants who had risen and petitioned against the Government plan? Why, if the noble Earl who had introduced this subject had applied his powerful eloquence to rouse resistance to the Kildare-street Society, no doubt it would have been as vehemently assailed as the Government plan. But the noble Earl from some unexplained reasons approved of that in the Kildare-street Society, which he anathematized in the Government Board. It had also been argued that the proportion of Protestant children in the schools was not satisfactory. It was no wonder that that should be the case—that the number should be so small, when such unworthy means were employed to keep the children away. It was one part of the plan of the Board to assist schools and institutions by the grant of small sums; but when an application was made by the Mendicity Society, certain persons threatened that if the Society accepted the aid they would with draw their subscriptions. Was that justice—was that anything like a Christian way of proceeding? No greater service could in his view be done to the country than that of extinguishing the jealousy which existed between both persuasions. But the way to do that was, not by men of high rank and of great authority continually spreading

817
abroad the doctrine that the Catholic religion contained within itself principles deadly to the State. The keeping up of this unextinguishable sectarian hostility would not tend to protect that Established Church for which he was most anxious. It was terrible to think that a large portion of the Irish people, thirsting for education, were to be told that they were outcasts from the Government, and were to have no share in its advantages, none of the education which it provided funds to bestow. In the name, then, of their common country, and the charity of their common faith, he implored noble Lords to forget their mere political predilections in the cause of education—the only means of rearing up a moral, and religions, and truly Christian generation in Ireland. The cause was too sacred to be viewed through the mists of party or sectarian distinction, and the state of Ireland too loudly called out for so unexceptionable a cure for avoidable delay to be sanctioned. It was anything but just, it was anything but feeling—in the present state of that unfortunate country, to denounce the exertions of those who were endeavouring to benefit her. What right had the noble Lord to say, that they did not endeavour to protect the interests of the Protestants? And what right had he to put himself forward as the sole advocate of their rights? He (Lord Plunkett) did not know that the noble Lord's pretensions were superior to his, or that the noble Lord had done the Protestant Church in Ireland greater service than he had done. Such aspersions were the offspring of rank and bitter jealousy. He could assure the noble Lord, (hat in supporting the new system of education, he did so in the conviction that he was supporting the interests of the Protestant Church; and he would remind him, at the same time, that one way of causing detriment to those interests was by obstinately and pertinaciously attempting to sustain in its stead a system at direct variance with the sanction of the Legislature.
The Earl of Wicklowthanked the noble Earl (Roden) for the able way in which he brought before the House the present subject. It was pretty clear, from what had fallen from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord opposite, that the forebodings of last year had been fully verified. No contradiction had been given to the observations of the noble
818
Earl, not even by the most reverend Prelate, who ought to know most about the matter, from the attention he had paid to the subject. The noble and learned Lord who spoke last did not appear to him to have taken a right view of what had taken place last year upon this subject although the noble and learned Lord had altogether directed himself to the proceedings of their Lordships at that period. What his noble friend near him said on that occasion had been fully borne out; and he congratulated his noble friend on having now confirmed the statements he made when he brought forward his motion. No answer had been given to the statements of his noble friend. He had listened to the statements of some of the right reverend Prelates opposite; yet he considered their observations as not in any way answering his noble friend. He would ask any man, who had seen the papers and documents alluded to, whether, in adopting a system of universal education, some difference ought not to be made between Roman Catholics and Protestants with respect to the use of the Scriptures? He considered it a national calamity that many Protestant children attended those schools; and if the system were continued, he feared it would be found, that numbers of children who entered those schools as professed Protestants, would leave them professed Roman Catholics. He would, with their Lordships' leave, read a short extract, because it expressed, his opinions in better language than he could pretend to do. It was an extract, from a work published by a learned writer and a sincere Christian. He said, in allusion to the Pagan and Christian Churches—"The Pagans have books which few are permitted to look into, whilst we are anxious that all the books belonging to us should be universally read; they were anxious to keep the people in the dark, and to stop all inquiry, whilst we were most anxious to enlighten and strengthen them." The writer then went on to compare the Popish with the Pagan religion. The former, he observed, was under the dominion of error; instead of eliciting the truth, the Papist was anxious to hide his candle under a bushel, rather than hold it forth as a light to nations. The work went on to add, "that the worst feature of the Roman Catholics was, that they prevented the due circulation of the Holy Scriptures." What would their

819
Lordships say when they found that this was the language of the most reverend the Arclibishop of Dublin, whom they had heard upon the subject? He thought the most reverend Prelate had not duly considered the case: but that having been raised to his present high dignity, he felt himself under an obligation, and was anxious to do something for those who had raised him to it. While he said this, he felt quite sure, that the most reverend Prelate did not perceive the tendency of this system, which he and those who thought with him so justly apprehended. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, he had confined himself entirely to answering speeches which had been made last Session. He had addressed himself to the speech of the Primate, the speech of his noble friend near him, and also had honoured him (the Earl of Wicklow) with his notice. When the noble and learned Lord last took his seat, and spoke on this question, he produced vast returns of the number of children placed at these schools under the new system within a few months. But to-night they did not find that the noble and learned Lord had produced any such returns; he had made no such statement; neither had the most reverend Prelate who preceded him. He (the Earl of Wicklow) was, he confessed, surprised at this, as he thought the noble and learned Lord would have made a statement of the number of children (not Protestant he hoped but Roman Catholic) who had been placed at these establishments. Instead of tills the noble and learned Lord had contented himself with contending with the right reverend Prelates as to the differences between the Protestant and Catholic Bibles. The noble Lord seemed to consider those differences to be of a light and frivolous nature; bat it should be remembered that the overlooking them might cause the ruin of the community. The line of argument pursued by the noble and learned Lord on the present occasion was totally different from, not to say at variance with, the line of argument he had formerly adopted. Making alterations in any of the Scriptures, in any manner, or degree involved the most important consequences. He objected, as he had done last Session, to the introduction of the Government system of education, as it would tend to subvert the plans of that society, which was better adapted than any other to promote a united system
820
of education. He thought it unwise to subvert the system of that Society, which was not only working well, but which had been approved of by many of the Catholic clergy themselves. The blow which that society had received from the present Government, it would be very difficult to recover from, though its management was placed in very able hands—in the hands of those most likely to do good to the Catholics. He hoped the Government would explain this united system to Parliament, and that for the future, they would say, that they applied for the grant to promote Catholic education. They might apply a portion of that grant to the education of Protestants, or of the Dissenters of the north, but keep the chief portion for the Catholics. He knew that many honest men thought that no grant should be made by a Protestant Government for the education of the Catholics. That was not his opinion, and the opposite opinion had been acted upon in the case of Maynooth. He therefore should have no objection to see the grant made exclusively for the Catholics, if it were openly and avowedly done, as he was pretty sure the Kildare-street Society could not be revived, and as he wished that children should be educated in their own schools. The Protestants—for they were generally rich—had their own schools; it was not so with the Catholics, who were poor, and who, consequently, had no means of being educated unless they took education on the terms which the Government dictated. It was, however, the duty of Government to inform Parliament that the money was for educating the Catholics, and if they continued to take it except, on that ground, they would take it on false pretences.
The Earl of Gosfordwas not surprised that Protestant children were kept away from the present schools, when such reports, prejudicial to those schools were industriously spread throughout Ireland. He had met with several Protestant clergymen of the North, who had the strongest objections to those schools; but when he questioned them, he found that their objections were not founded either on evidence or observation, but that they proceeded from mere hearsay. The system wherever he saw it tried, had most completely succeeded. He begged to mention the testimony of a reverend gentleman—the reverend John Staples, of Moville—who, as soon as he had described the new

821
system, saw his school filled with scholars of all persuasions. The noble Earl also quoted a letter from another clergyman, in praise of the religious books used in those schools, which were so plain and well divided into lessons that they would tend much to the keeping up of true religion.
Lord Cloncurryagreed with the noble Earl (Wicklow) that the Roman Catholics were much more in want of education than the Protestants. He thought that the funds formerly granted to the Kiklare-street School which he knew to have been misapplied, should be set aside for the education of Catholics exclusively; and he thought that their Lordships would not consider 25,000 l. or 30,000 l. too much for the education of all the Catholics in Ireland. They had no charter schools, they bad been deprived of all the advantages of the public schools in the reigns of William 3rd and Anne, and therefore they needed assistance. The funds for the education of Protestants were large and ample, and could be increased if necessary; but those for the education of Catholics were both precarious and small. He thought that the present state of Ireland was attributable in a great measure to the priests. They were not so well educated as they formerly were, and were given to low society and low habits, so that they lost that influence which might enable them to prevent disturbances. It was incumbent on Government to make liberal grants for the education of the people, whether they were or were not of the established religion.
The Marquess of Lansdownwould only detain the House for one minute, while he endeavoured to satisfy the House with regard to those schools. The right reverend prelate was right in stating, that these schools were only on trial, for there had not been sufficient time yet to judge of their full effects. There were already, however, in course of education in connection with those schools, 86,440 children; and as soon as the grants now under consideration were decided on, he had no doubt that the number would be increased to 120,000. He would mention the case of a school in which he himself was interested, to show how difficult it was to establish schools unconnected with this society. He founded a school in a very remote district, with every desire to give the advantages of it to persons of all religions.
822
That school had the protection of the Kildare-street Society, the support of the landlord, and many other circumstances in favour of its success; nevertheless, from the prejudice felt against it, he found, after the experience of twelve years that it did not succeed. He found, that one-third the number of scholars did not enter which the school could contain, and he was at last obliged to discontinue it. That school was afterwards taken under the care of the Education Board, and he was shortly afterwards asked if he would be willing to increase the size of the school-hoiise as the number of scholars which was formerly too small for the building, had become too large for it. He believed that was generally the case in the south of Ireland when the experiment had been tried. But the question really was, not whether there should be a united system but whether the poorer classes were to have education at all? He thought it but a poor compliment to the Protestant religion, paid by a right reverend Prelate, when he objected to the system, because a child, though attending only four days in the week in a school with Catholic children, and having the other three days, during which he could receive religious instruction from his parents or clergy, might thereby have his religious principles undermined, and be converted to the Catholic faith. He might take the number of children at 500,000, and of these only 100,000 received instruction at the expense of the country. But how were the remaining 400,000 educated? Were they not educated in such a way that of necessity they must have instilled into them feelings hostile to the Government? And were not these the men that an agitator would try to work on to excite disturbance? He agreed with the noble Earl (The Earl of Wicklow) that if they were driven to such a point as to admit the new system of education to be impracticable—he agreed with the noble Earl that then they would be bound, not only on the score of liberality and charity, but of political expediency, to make a full and adequate provision for the education of Catholics in Ireland; but he would not abandon a system which had been tried for such a short time—he would not abandon the advantages which must necessarily result from the early intercourse of children of different persuasions, and draw a line of distinction which would tend to alienate

823
them from each other in after life. He would have referred their Lordships to some of the evidence laid before the House on that subject, were the hour not so late; he would then only say, that the evidence of Sir Francis Blosse proved, that the most common education had a powerful effect in preventing disturbances. That gentleman was a Magistrate and a landed proprietor; and he stated, that the principle of education, common to both Catholics and Protestants, had been attended with the best results in the county of Mayo; and that the effect of it had been to restore social order in other parts of Ireland. He did therefore hope, that a full and fair trial of this experiment might be allowed. He implored their Lordships not to look at the system as one that was already perfect, but as one, the principle of which was calculated to meet the difficulties of the case, by providing the means of education for the general population of Ireland; four-fifths of whom, not being members of the Church of England, were unable to provide education for themselves. That was all the merit which the new system could lay claim to; and he trusted that having proceeded thus far, it would be allowed to go on. He asked so much of their Lordships, without impugning the motives, or casting any reflection upon the conduct of those who considered it to be their duty to offer their opposition to this system.
The Earl of Rodensaid, it had been his wish to answer, if it was possible for him, the observations of several noble Lords who had addressed the House; but more particularly those which had fallen from the most reverend Prelate who directed the operations of the Board of Education in Ireland. The most reverend Prelate had stated that, in no instances, except four, had these schools been held in Roman Catholic chapels. He (Lord Roden) had mentioned eight or nine schools that were held in chapels; and though he had refrained from troubling their Lordships by reading the documents, he had such as would fully substantiate that fact. He was satisfied of the correctness of the information he had received on that point. The most reverend Prelate had forgotten to state how many of these schools were held in old nunneries and monasteries; but he knew that there were no less than forty-six schools held in places appropriated to the exercise of the Roman Catholic
824
faith. The noble and learned Lord, the Chancellor for Ireland had said, that he (Lord Roden) had stated, at different meetings which he had had the privilege of attending in Ireland, on the subject of Irish education, that the people of Ireland were deprived of the use of the Bible by his Majesty's Government. Although he had always contended that this abominable system was contrary to the principles of Protestantism, he had never said any such thing as that which the noble and learned Lord imputed to him. What he had said was, that by this system of education, the children were deprived of the use of the Bible in the schools. That he re-asserted without any fear of contradiction. The noble and learned Lord maintained, that every proper system of education must be founded on revealed religion. He agreed fully with the noble and learned Lord in that opinion; and therefore he was opposed to the system adopted by his Majesty's Government. The noble and learned Lord had also referred to a right reverend Prelate, as if that right reverend Prelate was wanting in Christian charity, and said, further, that their hostility to this system had arisen in consequence of opposition on the Catholic question, and because he and his party were disappointed in their views on that matter. The noble and learned Lord who professed so strong a feeling of charity himself, ought to allow to persons acting on honest principles, the credit of good motives. It had never been his opinion that the Roman Catholic clergy were not to be tolerated. What he had said was, that the Roman Catholics ought not to receive encouragement; the noble and learned Lord must admit, that there was a great difference between toleration and encouragement. What he complained of was, that this system of education did go to encourage Catholicism in Ireland. On another point, the sentiments of the noble and learned Lord had given him great pain: he meant those which he expressed in answer to the observations of a right reverend Prelate, who contrasted the different versions of the Scriptures promulgated by the Board, with the authorized version. He had heard with great pain the observations of the noble and learned Lord on that subject; because, in the belief that the seed of the woman, and not the woman herself, was to bruise the serpent's head, the whole of

825
the question rested. He regretted the arguing of so solemn a question on the part of the noble and learned Lord, because, in the thorough belief of it rested the only hope of obtaining everlasting life. The noble and learned Lord had also referred to meetings held in Ireland, which had been attended by 200,000 persons. He could not remember ever to have attended any such meeting. He had certainly met large bodies of persons; but the noble and learned Lord said they had amounted to 200,000 persons ready to take up arms for him. [Lord Plunkett had stated that the noble Earl represented the 200,000 persons whose petitions he had presented.] But the noble and learned Lord had also said, that they were ready to take up arms for him. He might have said so in haste, and not meant to make such an assertion. The noble and learned Lord had also charged him with having raised an outcry in Ireland against this system of education. Whatever statements he had made on that subject, he was ready to reiterate at any risk, because the subject was in his view of vast importance. The noble and learned Lord could not understand why he had put himself forward as the only Protestant Peer. He had stood forward in defence of Protestant principles in that House, and he should be totally unworthy of a seat in it, if he, in any way whatever, flinched from his duty in such a cause. He trusted he never should flinch from protecting the interests of the people, be they Protestant or Catholic. The noble Marquess (The Marquess of Lansdown) had stated, that he had received a return of the number of children educated in these schools, which he said was 87,000. He was not surprised at that fact; his wonder was, that the number was not greater, he was sure that the number would increase, and he lamented it from his heart, because he considered it would be destructive of the best interests of the country. He did not mean to enter into a defence of the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), which would be most presumptuous on his part; but he was sure he never said, that the mere contact of Protestant children with Roman Catholic children, in these schools, would lead to the contamination of the former. What they had both stated was, that it was unfair towards the Protestant children, that these schools should be held in chapels, nunneries, and monasteries, where
826
Protestant children could not attend, without witnessing the forms and ceremonies of the Catholic Church. He trusted, their Lordships would give this matter their most serious consideration—convinced, as he was, the more the subject was inquired into, the more objectionable would the system complained of be found to be.
Petitions to lie on the Table.