Sitting of 13 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Seamen Enlistment; Offences against the Person; Agra Government.—Read a second time:—Real Property.
Petitions presented. By Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, from the Postmasters of Nottingham, against the Post-Horse Duty.—By Sir RONALD FERGUSON, from Nottingham, for the Repeal of the Poor-Law Amendment Act.—By Mr. R. HEATHCOTE, and Mr. J. P. B. CHICHESTER, from Henly, Shelton, and Barnstaple, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspaper Stamps.—By Mr. HURST, from Horsham, for the Repeal of the Duty on Spirit Licenses.—By Mr. JAMES OSWALD, from Glasgow, for an Alteration of the Law regarding Tonnage Admeasurement; also against any Alteration in the Timber Duties.—By Mr. FRESHFIELD, from the Society of Attornies, Proctors, &c., for the

449
Repeal of the Duty on Attornies Certificates.—By Messrs. BRUEN, RANDALL PLUNKETT, and an Hon. MEMBER, from several Places,—in Support of the Protestant Church of Ireland.—By Dr. BOWRING, from the Handloom Weavers of Kilmarnock, for a Board of Trade.—By Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, Mr. O'CONNELL, and an HON. MEMBER, from four Places,—against Tithes.—By Mr. P. B. THOMPSON, Mr. HOGG, and two HON. MEMBERS, from several Places, against Parts of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Mr. RICHARD HEATHCOTE and Mr. KEMYSS TYNTE, from Stoke-upon-Trent and Yeovil, in favour of, and by Lord SANDON, from Liverpool against the above Bill.

DROGHEDA ELECTION.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from A. C. O'Dwyer, Esq., late Member for the town of Drogheda, complaining of the present state of the Election Law, under which his election for the town of Drogheda had recently been declared void. The petitioner, after setting forth the grounds upon which he thought a general legislative measure necessary, earnestly prayed the House not to allow the present Session to pass away without the adoption of some measure calculated to prevent the recurrence of those instances of injustice, of one of which he conceived that he had now a right to complain. The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed his full concurrence with the petitioner, that he had much reason to complain, and he was sure of this, at least, that no lawyer in Ireland would consider that the qualification of Mr. O'Dwyer, against which the Committee had decided, was otherwise than good and sufficient. The point upon which the Committee decided against the election of the petitioner was this—could a person holding a lease for three lives, with a clause of perpetual renewal, grant a qualification to a fourth person for his life? Now the Committee, contrary to the opinion of some lawyers who were members of it, and clearly against the opinion of what the petitioner was pleased to call some of the highest legal opinions in Ireland, decided that the grant to Mr. O'Dwyer did not constitute a sufficient estate to form the qualification for the representative of a borough in that House. Let it be recollected that the Act did not require a strictly legal estate, but expressly declared that an estate in equity was equally good; and Lord Redesdale had decided that a lessee holding such a lease was dispunishable of waste; in fact, he treated him, and so had he always been treated in Ireland, as the inheritor. The petitioner, therefore, conceived that the decision of the Committee was illegal;
450
at the same time that nothing was further from his wish than to impeach the honour or integrity of the Committee. The petitioner then called the attention of the House to the fact that he had 320 votes, while his opponent, the hon. Gentleman opposite, had only 131, giving him a majority of 189; that, therefore, the hon. Member who had been declared duly elected, did, in point of fact, represent the minority, and not the majority. For these reasons the petitioner prayed the House that it would pass an Act regulating the election of Members of Parliament.
Mr. Williams Wynnconsidered the present petition in the nature of an appeal from the decision of the Committee. ["No, no."] It brought charges against the Committee. That Committee, as all hon. Members must know, exercised its powers under the authority of an Act of Parliament; it exercised a power which the House did not possess, and if every party against whose claim a Committee were to decide possessed the privilege of coming before that House, and protesting against the decision as erroneous, he wished to know what the members of the Committee were to do? Were they, in every instance, to get up in their places in Parliament and say they were right, and defend their decision? If the House were to sanction that, it would amount to a denial and repudiation of the principle which took the power of decision from the great body of the House, and placed it in the hands of a Committee. In his opinion, it was not competent to any petitioner, addressing that House, to question the decision of an Election Committee.
Mr. O'Connell:—The right hon. Member could not have understood what he said, or else he could not have made those objections. If the right hon. Member did understand what he (Mr. O'Connell) had said, his objections would lead to the most monstrous mischief. This petition prayed for legislative relief prospectively, and had no connection whatever with the recent election. It did not impeach, in the slightest degree, the seat of the present hon. Member for Drogheda, nor did it impeach the integrity of the Committee. On the contrary, it set up a point of law, and complained that the Committee had decided on that point, taking it for granted that the Committee had decided rightly. But the petitioner further prayed legislative relief from this

451
law. There was no appeal from this Committee, and the law so laid down would be taken as a precedent by other Committees; and, under these circumstances, the only remedy was to come to that House for legislative relief. This decision was unexpected, and was contrary to the opinion of the legal men most conversant with those matters; but this petition did not impeach the legality of the decision, or integrity of the Committee, but merely prayed that the House would legislate on the subject.
Mr. Wynnsaid, the petition distinctly questioned the legality of the judgment. The House had no authority to pronounce whether the Committee had or had not decided rightly. They could only legislate for the future. The petitioner alleged that he was prepared to prove that the decision which had removed him from his seat, and which had deprived his constituents of their representative, was illegal." Now, he would ask, was not this a direct impeachment of the legality of the decision? They might as well say, that all election petitions should be decided by a majority of the House, as in the time of Sir Robert Walpole, who said that, in his eyes, the merit of the petitioner established the validity of the petition.
Mr. Warburtonobserved that the House were not much in the habit of considering the language of petitions with such extreme strictness as there appeared a disposition to practise on the present occasion. It appeared to him that the petitioner said this—"the Committee having decided in favour of the hon. Gentleman who now represents Drogheda, their decision makes him legally the Member." But the Committee were mistaken in the law of the case. Committees so constituted were particularly liable to such mistakes; and, he, therefore, prayed the House to provide a legislative remedy for the future. If they rejected the present petition, they would shut the door to a class of complaints, to which, in his opinion, they were bound to give attentive consideration; and they would go further—they would, in effect, declare that the law which governed Election Committees was quite perfect, although, in private, hon. Members did not scruple to pronounce upon them unqualified condemnation. The House could not have forgotten the case of Mr. Halcomb, who, having given an imperfect description of his qualification, applied
452
for, and obtained leave, to correct that description. Yet here was a decision directly opposite. The complaints against Election Committees were universal; it was, therefore, high time that election petitions should be referred to some other tribunal. There might, he thought, be three or four standing Committees appointed, perhaps by the Speaker, with an eminent lawyer to preside at their sittings, and inform them what the law really was; and moreover, they should not deliberate in any case with closed doors; the public should not only know their decision, but the grounds upon which it was made.
Colonel Woodsaid, that as the only Member of the Committee who happened to be in the House, he thought it incumbent on him to say a few words. He would not, however, enter at all on the abstract merits of the case, as it was not his wish to cause any extended discussion; but he would say, that never did a Committee sit more fully impressed with a sense of the extreme difficulty of the case brought before them, and who were more anxious to do justice to it to the full extent of the oath which they had taken. The question which the Committee had had to decide was this, whether a person having a lease for the lives of two other persons, could grant to a third person an estate for his life, such as would constitute the qualification required by the Act. Had this been an English case, there would not have been a moment's doubt about it in the Committee; but there had been an Irish Act passed, giving teases held in perpetuity the character of a freehold; and the Committee had decided that, in the present case, although the qualification did approach in its nature to a freehold, it was not exactly of that kind which the Act required.
Mr. Sheilsupported the prayer of the petition. What it said was, that although the decision of the Committee was incontrovertible, its judgment was not infallible. It had nothing to do with the sitting Member; its object was simply an amendment of the law, to be applied to future elections. It was a singular feature in the case, that the only lawyer in the Committee, the person who might naturally be supposed to possess the soundest judgment in points of law coming under its decision, was clearly of opinion that Mr. O'Dwyer's qualification was a perfect one. In Ireland, leases renewable for ever had

453
ever been considered as a good qualification. There was no attempt in the petition to impugn the integrity of the gentlemen composing the Committee; and if it were not received, it would be almost tantamount to saying that the Grenville Act, with all its deficiencies, was never to be interfered with.
Colonel Percevalagreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that some alteration should be made in the mode of deciding election petitions. He could not go the length of the hon. Member for Tipperary, who asserted that a lease of lives, renewable for ever, was equivalent to a perpetuity. He was no lawyer, however, and would not dispute the point. With regard to the introduction by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin of the account of the majority and minority for the candidates, he thought it highly improper. Although he had stated the number voting for the unseated candidate, he had omitted to state, that between two and three hundred had been deterred by intimidation from coming to vote for his hon. Friend, and that 116 who voted against him were coerced so to vote, contrary to their better judgment. Elections in Ireland should be regulated differently from what they were, for there existed at present in that country an influence which it was impossible to contend with, which it was difficult to come at, but which most effectually coerced those opposed to it in opinion. It was incumbent on the Parliament to do something to remedy this evil. As the law stood, a man might go to the hustings with a consciousness of success, which, notwithstanding, would be defeated by the operation of that unseen influence, and the effect of the underhand dealing resorted to further its ends. The Legislature should also amend the defect of qualification, and correct the evils which flowed from it. In his opinion, a qualification should be made available for the debts and expenses of a Member, even while in Parliament, otherwise there would be a perpetual recurrence of the humbug exercised every day. He thought the House far too liberal in fixing the amount of qualification; at all events, far too liberal in the practice which existed respecting it. With respect to the petition before the House, he should only say, that, as in his opinion, it implied an imputation on the Committee, he should vote against its reception.
Mr. Henry Grattandenied, that there had been any intimidation practised towards the opposite party by the electors who voted for the petitioner. It was true, that a great number of electors did not vote, but it was because they saw the overwhelming amount of votes to counterbalance them, not because they were prevented from doing it. He admitted, that here was, as the hon. Member for Sligo remarked, an influence at work in Ireland; but it was an influence solely arising from the universal feeling of the people. The hon. Member had charged the party who supported the late Member for Drogheda with practising intimidation; but he (Mr. Grattan) could charge the other party in the late election for Meath with parading about with weapons in their hands, headed by a Protestant clergyman armed with pistols. It was the general opinion of Irish lawyers, that a tenure for life in Ireland was equivalent, as far as regarded the validity of Parliamentary qualification, to a fee-simple in England. With respect to the last assertion of the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, that the petition should be rejected on the grounds that it impeached the decision of the Committee who tried the former petition, he had only to observe, that if his doctrine were to be adopted, no petition against the decision of a Committee could ever be presented to that House. He trusted the House would take into consideration the mode of appointing Committees, and secure the rights of individuals as well as the rights of Parliament.
Mr. Randall Plunkettbegged to give the most unqualified contradiction to the assertion of the hon. Member for Meath, that he had exerted the influence of force in the late Meath election, or that he had attempted on that occasion to overpower the exercise of the franchise by violence and intimidation. He also begged to state, that he need never have expended the money, and time, and trouble he had, to obtain a seat for that county, if he chose to have recourse to equal violence with that manifested by the hon. Member's supporters. There was another allegation of the hon. Member to which he was happy to have it in his power to give a distinct and unqualified denial also; it was that which charged a Protestant clergyman with heading an armed mob, himself armed with pistols. No such thing ever occurred, or could occur, among the respectable

455
Protestant clergy of that county; besides which, the Magistrates were on the spot, and no body of men could be more active and more determined to do their duty. With respect to the majority of the late Member for Drogheda, he should only say, that in a constituency of 596 voters, 145 were prevented from coming in to vote by the system of intimidation which had been practised towards them.
Mr. Henry Grattanwished to know whether it was not the fact, that the High-sheriff of the county, Sir Marcus Somerville, had disarmed an Orangeman in the County Court-house on the day of the election; and whether swords had not been taken from them?
Mr. Robinsondeprecated discussion on these subjects. He should vote for the reception of the petition, because it would have the effect of bringing the subject of Election-law under the notice of the House. It was objected to Election Committees that the Members composing them were generally ignorant of the law, and the objection was in most cases a good one. But there was a still stronger objection to them in the fact that they were improper judges, as it was universally admitted that party spirit influenced them. When he reminded hon. Members, that in the phraseology of the House, a Committee was termed "a good one," or "a bad one," according as the political opinion of the majority of its Members were in accordance with or contrary to those of the individuals petitioned against, he believed he need hardly mention any stronger circumstance to condemn them. In the course of the present Session, he (Mr. Robinson) had received a printed circular, calling on him, on the supposition of his entertaining certain political opinions, to attend the House when Election Committees were to be ballotted for; to the end, he presumed, that he might in that, as in other respects, give his aid to the party calling on him. He trusted that whatever might be the immediate result of the petition before the House, it would have the effect of inducing some improvement in the constitution of Parliamentary Committees. As it existed at present they were a disgrace to the House and an injustice to the country.
Mr. Lechmere Charltonshould vote for the reception of the petition, if it were only to place Committees of the House on a more respectable footing than they
456
were at present; and to put a stop to the scandalous practices which avowedly existed. He would be understood, however, to cast no imputation on the Committee alluded to in the petition, for the reason that he knew nothing whatever of them, or of the proceedings which gave rise to it.
Mr. Charles Butterbegged to remind the House, that he had a Motion for the alteration of Election Committees on the paper of the House; and he hoped that he should have the advantage of their votes as an additional proof of the indignation which they manifested in their speeches.
Mr. Ronayneregretted, that no allowance had been made for the ignorance manifested by the people of Drogheda of a law which the Members of the Committee professed they did not know themselves. With respect to the statement of his hon. Friend, the Member for Meath, that the Orangemen had been armed at the election for that county, he should, in corroboration of it, only refer the House and hon. Members who doubted it, to the evidence of Mr. Despard, taken before a Committee.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellcorroborated the statements made by his hon. Colleague in reference to the armed intervention of the Orangemen at the Meath election. A sword-cane had been taken on that occasion from a person in the gallery of the Court-house, on the day of nomination, by the High-sheriff, which person appeared to belong to the party of the hon. Member for Drogheda.
Mr. O'Connellshould not have spoken in the debate, but that the hon. Member for Sligo had introduced the irrelevant topic of intimidation into his observations on the subject of it. What was the fact? Sixteen or seventeen petitions had been forwarded from Ireland, in all of which intimidation had been stated; but in all of them not a single case had been proved, and in a majority of them no evidence had been gone into to support it, though the question was open to the petitioners to do so. It was too bad; but that was the way in which the people of Ireland were always calumniated. The hon. Member for Sligo had said, that he was no lawyer, which was the fact. But the hon. Member had not stated the fact because of his ignorance of law, when he said that qualifications were not liable to the

457
debts of the party possessing them. They were so. But that was not the object of the Question before the House. The great advantage of the discussion which had arisen on the petition of his hon. Friend was, that no one had attempted to justify the constitution or proceedings of Parliamentary Committees. Though composed of the first Gentlemen in the country, Members of that House, their decisions were universally complained of—complained of, too, to an extent really frightful. The hon. Member opposite had taken his law of qualification from the case of Bateman in the House of Lords, but he could assure the hon. Member that his argument was not tenable. Much had been said on the subject of intimidation at the Drogheda election. He (Mr. O'Connell) had directions from Mr. O'Dwyer to state that, if the allegations on that subject were persisted in, he had the fullest evidence to prove their falsity. The Committee was still open, and why not try them? With respect to the statement made by the hon. Member for Meath, of the conduct of the Orangemen, and their being headed by a Protestant clergyman, he could say nothing of his own knowledge, but he had heard that it was so. He bad, however, seen large bodies of Orangemen enter and leave the town of Trim on the first day of the election, but he had seen only two bludgeons with them. He had subsequently learned that a life was lost in Navan. To the peaceful demeanour of the townspeople—40,000 of whom, at least, were there collected—he could bear the highest testimony. He trusted the discussion would lead to some amendment in Election Committees, and the law of elections. If the hon. Member for Middlesex did not bring forward a Motion to that effect, in the measure he had before the House, when in Committee, he (Mr. O'Connell) meant to move as an Amendment to one of the Clauses that property to a certain amount in the public funds should confer a qualification, and also an instruction that no Parliamentary Committee for the future should have power to try whether a lease of lives be equivalent to a fee-simple; but that that branch of the subject should be left to the Legislature a large.
Colonel Percevalexplained. He mean that the qualification should be liable for the debts and expenses of a Member while in or out of Parliament. With respect to
458
he statement of armed Orange intervention at the Meath election, he was glad to see it reduced to a sword-cane.
Petition to lie on the Table.

TITHES—CHURCH OF IRELAND.
Lord Morpethmoved that the Tithes and Church Ireland) Bill be read a second time.
Lord John Russell: I have received his Majesty's commands to state that he has been graciously pleased to place at the disposal of this House, for the purposes of this Bill, all his Majesty's interest in any benefices and Ecclesiastical dignities of the Church of Ireland.
Bill read a second time, to be committed on Monday.

SUPPLY—WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
The House went into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Francis Baringmoved, "That a sum not exceeding 7,417 l. 1s. 8d. be granted to his Majesty for defraying the expenses of the settlement in Western Australia, from the 1st of April, 1835, to the 31st of March, 1836."
Mr. Humeprotested against this grant, which was in violation of the pledge given on the establishment of the colony. He wished to know how many of the original settlers remained, and what were the expenses of the colony? They should either withdraw, or be compelled to support themselves.
Mr. Baringwas not prepared to inform the hon. Member as to the expenses further than was set forth in the estimate, all the items of which he knew to be necessary.
Mr. Humewas of opinion that, under those circumstances, it would be expedient to postpone the Resolution until the necessary information could be obtained.
Mr. Horace Twissobserved, that all the persons in the colony would be starved if the grant were withheld.
Mr. Warburtonasked why, as the colony of Western Australia was established, not under Government, but under private auspices, it should have an establishment like that at Southern Australia, which was a Government colony.
Mr. Humemoved, as an amendment, "That the sum be reduced to the grant of last year, namely, 5,806 l. 5s."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division, as great inconvenience would be experienced by delaying or circumscribing the grant.
Mr. Humecertainly would not press the Committee to a division on that occasion; but on the bringing up of the Report, he should feel it to be his duty to take the sense of the House upon the point.
Grant agreed to.

CANADA.
On the Resolution for a grant of 34,500 l. to complete canals and other water communications in Upper Canada,
Mr. Humeinquired if the Government had had any communication with the authorities in Canada respecting the large expenditure of money that had already been incurred to extend water communication in that country. Upwards of 300,000 l. had already been laid out on those canals, and it would require a million, he understood, to complete them. He was afraid they would turn out as bad a speculation as the Caledonian canal. The tolls received at present did not amount to one-half the interest on the expenditure. It would be much better to let the Canadian Government take the whole affair into its own hands, and make it a present of the million, than have anything more to do with the undertaking.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the offer had been made to the Canadian government to give the undertaking up to it, even at the loss of the money which had been expended, but the Canadian government had refused to take it. He thought it would have been better if Parliament had never sanctioned such an expenditure, but as the works had gone so far it would be bad economy to leave them unfinished. With respect to the tolls, he believed that when the canals were finished they would be productive.
Mr. Fitzstephen Frenchdeclared he could not allow this vote to pass over in silence. He felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the different system adopted towards Canada, a distant and half alienated colony, and that adopted in everything relating to Ireland, an integral portion of the empire. It could not be better exemplified than it was in the estimate now before the House. Government, after the expenditure of upwards of a million on the formation of this canal, admitted on all hands to be merely a work of local improvement to the country in which it is situated, and which, enjoying all its advantages, refused to pay the sum
460
of money required to keep up the works, the tolls not being sufficient, came down to the House for a further sum of 35,000 l. for this purpose; while, in the next estimate, we find a paltry sum of 1,000 l. was proposed for the works on the most important navigation in the British empire, the river Shannon, the benefit to be derived from which the nation had been so long deprived of for want of a trifling expenditure. Was this, he would ask, a line of conduct a wise or fostering Government ought to pursue. It was now more than two months since the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook, on the part of his Majesty's Government, to introduce a Bill for the improvement of the river Shannon; and as he was aware that Bill was now ready, he trusted his right hon. Friend would not delay bringing it before the House. Considering the late period of the Session, and the quantity of business to be got through, he felt it his duty to press him on this point. Neither for commercial intercourse, nor in a military point of view, was the Rideau canal to be placed on a level with the Shannon. The former was inferior to the latter in extent, in the proportion of 140 to 230 miles, of navigation; inferior to it in its locality, as far as the trade of England was concerned, and it ran through a country so little peopled that this country was obliged to build block-houses, at the expense of 30,000 l., to place individuals to guard the banks from the accidents they were liable to from floating timber, &c. As a military work no man of common sense could be persuaded that any canal merited that name which ran through a wild uninhabited country—actually an unreclaimed forest—close to the enemy's position; in some places the waters dammed up to the height of forty-five feet over the land of the adjoining country; a work liable to be destroyed by a few men in a few minutes; why, the idea of maintaining these extended works and embankments in case of war was little short of delusion. On looking over this estimate, the sum of 23,000 l. appeared for compensation to the owners of land taken up by this canal; compensation for unreclaimed land; compensation for quadrupling the value of the states through which it passed. He trusted his Majesty's Government would be enabled to give some satisfactory explanation on this subject, and that at least they would

461
give some assurance that this would be the last time the House would hear of compensation for damage done in cutting a canal through an unpeopled country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the question put to him by his hon. Friend, assured him he would introduce the Bill for the improvement of the Shannon with as little delay as possible; at all events, he would pledge himself to carry it through this Session.
Resolution agreed to.

HELIGOLAND.
On the question that 963 l. 0s. 3d. be granted to defray the expense of the Civil Government of Heligoland.
Mr. Humebegged to inquire what a Civil Government was required for. Formerly, all the establishment deemed necessary to manage affairs at Heligoland was a captain and a lieutenant; but now we had a lieutenant-governor with 500 l. a year, a lieutenant-governor's clerk with 136 l. a year, two clergymen with 50 l each, a Town Clerk with 60 l., a signal man 60 l. 10 s., a buoy-keeper 33 l. 6s. 8d., a mail-carrier, 69 l. 6s. 8d., and block-house keeper 3l. He wanted to know what employment there could be for all these various officers. Above all, what need could there be for two parsons.
The vote was agreed to.

EDUCATION—(IRELAND.)
On the question that the sum of 35,000 l. be granted for the Advancement of Education in Ireland, for the year ending 31st March, 1836,
Mr. Plumptrewas bound to object to this vote. He could not avoid expressing his disapprobation of the proceedings of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland.
Viscount Morpeth: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it discourteous on my part if I defer the defence of the Irish Board of Education until he has brought forward his reasons for the censure he has preferred against them.
Mr. O'Connell: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, that Protestan children were compelled to attend Roman Catholic schools?
Mr. Plumptresaid, he had seen a paper in which questions and answers were given respecting the manner in which the schools under the control of the Board of Education were conducted; and that from these
462
it appeared that the Roman Catholic children, who were punctual in their attendance at the school, so as to hear mass, were rewarded with a Roman Catholic prayer-book: and that the reward given to Protestant children for their punctual attendance to hear mass was a suit of clothes. He had seen this statement, and he believed it to be correct; and therefore he was opposed to this grant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the principle on which the Irish Board of Education acted, was to give to children of all persuasions an equal advantage in the schools that had been established, reserving to every one not only freedom of conscience, but the fullest opportunity of obtaining religious instruction according to his own creed. He thought this was a principle that would be approved of by the British public. But he would take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. Gentleman, that if he condemned this system on account of some vague and unsubstantiated statement which he might happen to have seen in some paper, without affording those who upheld the system the means of contradiction, then that there could be no system—whether Catholic or Protestant—whether of the Orange or the Green party—that could stand the test of attacks of that kind. Those who adopted and administered the system now pursued had no disingenuous object whatsoever. It never was intended by these votes to establish an exclusive system of instruction. On the contrary, it was always avowed that the schools were to be common to all—both Catholic and Protestant. If the hon. Gentleman, instead of mis-stating the actions of the Commissioners from unauthenticated documents, most likely coming from persons not very impartial in their decisions, would furnish the Government or the House with time, place, circumstance, and proof, an inquiry should be immediately instituted, and if any abuse should be found to exist, it should be corrected. But if, instead of abuse, these attacks against an establishment which ought to be considered placed on neutral ground, but which had, unhappily, been made the arena of the most bitter party contest that was ever known—if, he would repeat, these attacks should, as in all probability they would, be proved to be gross calumnies, then the detection of their falsehood could not, he was sure, fail to be most gratifying to the hon. Gentleman

463
himself as it unquestionably would be to all the friends of the system. As a proof that these schools were based on a system calculated to give instruction free from all sectarian prejudices and distinctions, they had the satisfaction to know that the system had been approved of, and was about to have been carried on by the late Government, to whom the present Government were opposed. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the late Government had never made any attacks upon that system; but it was nevertheless a very remarkable circumstance, that the mass of individuals most intimately connected with that right hon. Gentleman, and particularly those residing in Ireland, were the very persons who made themselves most active in their hostility to it.
Sir Robert Ingliswas not aware that the question was to be brought forward on the present occasion. He had, however, objected to the principle before, and he saw no reason why he should not repeat the objection now.
Colonel Sibthorphad no idea whatever that anything was coming on. He looked with the greatest suspicion to every thing that was done on the opposite side.
Dr. Bowring, although not an Irish Member, saw with great pleasure the sum of 35.000 l. devoted to advancing education in Ireland on liberal and Christian principles.
Mr. O'Connellhad the honour of knowing one of the Protestant Commissioners—a Gentleman at the Irish bar—he meant Mr. Holmes—well, and he was quite sure that if any thing wrong were brought before him, he would resign his situation rather than tolerate it in the slightest degree. The hon. Gentleman had made two statements which were doubtlessly perfectly true; the one was, that he had seen a certain paper; the other that he believed it to be true. Further than this, however, he did not go. He had not enlightened the House by telling them what the nature of the paper was, from whom he got it or who the producers of it were; or whether it was part of Den's Theology. He really wondered how the hon. Gentleman could be so imposed upon. The hon. Member had read a paper which the hon. Member described as an investigation into the manner in which these schools were conducted and yet the paper which he had read contained a string of questions and answers? Who put the questions? Who gave the
464
answers? Why did not the hon. Member give the House that most essential information? Why, too, did he withhold it? The plain fact was, that this plan of education was working great good in Ireland. It gave hopes that in the next generation the children of some of them and the grandchildren of others would have kindly feelings of Christian benevolence and charity towards each other. Fair play, and no proselytism, was the principle of the Board, and as it acted impartially upon that principle, it was giving satisfaction at present to all parties save the high Orangemen in Ireland.
Mr. Randall Plunkettwould have been sorry to trespass on the House, if he had not had some facts to communicate which were connected with the subject of this grant, and which he considered to be of great importance. One of those facts was contained in a petition, which he should present to-morrow, from the inhabitants of the borough of which he had the honour to be the representative. That petition stated that the plan of education sanctioned by the Government was placed in Drogheda in the hands of two Franciscan friars, to be carried into effect as they pleased, and that there were no persons more zealously disposed to establish popery on the ruins of the Protestant Church in Ireland than these two Catholic Ecclesiastics. Two Protestants who were Trustees had been driven from the superintendence of the school. In their stead came these two Franciscan friars who had even made preparations for erecting a Franciscan monastery in the town. Now if the Members of his Majesty's Government were really as sincere Members of the Church of England as they pretended to be, they would agree with him in thinking that Protestant children ought not to be sent to a Franciscan school, and that their grandchildren, if they should have as numerous a progeny as the hon. Member for Dublin, should have some chance of a Christian education like their fathers, in the principles of the Church of England. Another of the facts to which he had alluded was the possession of the school at Ennis by two monks. His information on that subject came from a Mr. Fitzherbert, a Magistrate and Deputy-lieutenant of the county. These were two facts. He was convinced that the late Government had no intention to support the system of Edu-

465
cation invented and sanctioned by their predecessors longer than was necessary to enable them to substitute another for it. He was as convinced as he could be of anything, that his constituents had no wish to support this grant any longer. He would avail himself of the present opportunity to record it as the general opinion of the gentry and magistracy of Ireland that the Government system of education could not promote anything that was desirable among the people.
Mr. O'Connellrepudiated, in as strong terms as any man could use with courtesy, the imputations which the hon. Gentleman had cast upon those whom he had been pleased to designate tauntingly as Franciscan friars. He wanted to know whether a man had not as good a right to be a Franciscan friar as to be the member of an Orange lodge? He (Mr. O'Connell) thought that a man had a great deal more right to be a Franciscan friar than a sworn Orangeman, for the latter was a member of an illegal society, while the former was attached to a church to which the hon. Member did not belong, but which had nevertheless its ordained ministers, and was tolerated by law. He had had the honour of knowing a Franciscan friar, to whom it would be a difficult task for the hon. Gentleman to compare himself. He was alluding to Father O'Leary. Father O'Leary was a Franciscan friar, and he (Mr. O'Connell) thought the hon. Member would find it a task of exceeding difficulty to find any man who was acquainted with both, ready to affirm that the hon. Member was as well educated as that Ecclesiastic. In one portion of education he was sure that the hon. Member was more deficient than Father O'Leary—and that was in Christian liberality. It did not become the hon. Member to speak in the way he had done of Franciscan friars. They had as good a right to be in the town of Drogheda as the hon. Member himself had, and perhaps were as well received by the inhabitants as the hon. Member would be if he should go to visit them. If they conformed to the regulations of the board in their management of that school, they had a right to keep that school. But if the hon. Member could show that they violated those regulations, then he would make out a case either against the Franciscan friars or against the commissioners, or it might be against both; but until he did make out such a case, those despised
466
Franciscan friars would acknowledge no superiority in the hon. Member above themselves; on the contrary, he believed that they would assert their superiority over the hon. Member in any literary or religious controversy to which he might be pleased to challenge them. It became the hon. Member well enough to talk as he did about Franciscan friars; he would recommend the hon. Member to reserve such language for Exeter-hall, there the hon. and learned Member would have the police and a picked auditory. The hon. Member had also spoken tauntingly about the monks at Ennis. Why, those monks belonged to a class called "education monks." They gave themselves up to be taught at an early period of their lives, in order that they might, in the course of it, be able themselves to educate the children of the poor. They received no fee—they demanded no pecuniary reward. Their lives were devoted to purposes of education, and to the promotion of those purposes alone. There were now 300 or 400 of them in Ireland, and they were doing incalculable good in that country, by promoting the diffusion of education. Many of them came within the regulations of the Education Board and received assistance. Others of them refused to come within those regulations, and received no assistance. With the latter the House had nothing whatever to do; but with the others it had, and the House had a right to blame the Government, if it permitted a Board under its control to supply money to those who would not conform to its regulations. Why, then, were excellent individuals, when they conformed to the regulations of the State, to be spoken tauntingly of as monks? It was this foolish affectation of superiority by the Protestant aristocracy of Ireland over those who differed from them in creed that worked such fatal consequences in that country. It was as if they were superior to them in station, conduct, and moral character—ay, even in the rank of human beings, when men of a certain rank in society spoke tauntingly of excellent and pious individuals as "monks." He hoped that the lesson which the hon. Member had that night received would teach him, when he next addressed the Chair, to keep the violence of his sectarian feelings to himself, and not to obtrude them on the British House of Commons on a delicate subject of this nature.
Mr. Bellewobserved, that the language of the hon. Member did not surprise him, as it was a well-known fact that those who had gone from the cause of the people were always the most bitter in the hostility which they subsequently displayed towards them. He could say, from his own knowledge, that the management of the School at Drogheda had given great satisfaction in that town and neighbourhood. The new Education Board had established several schools in the county with which he was connected. There were already fourteen or fifteen schools there under its control; and so far from those schools having been established contrary to the general opinion of the gentry and magistracy of the county, he could inform the House that four or five Protestant Magistrates, who were also high Tories, had voluntarily signed the requisition for their establishment to the Board of Education. In Ulster, where the Protestant population was most predominant, 900 such schools existed at present. The number was daily increasing, and the larger the sum devoted to this object was, the greater would be the spread of education, the greater the good understanding between the different sects of religion, and the greater the conviction of the Irish people that the Government of England was inclined to attend to their wants and wishes on all subjects of domestic legislation.
Mr. Bridgmanrose to set the hon. Member for Drogheda right with regard to his observations on the management of the school at Ennis. The managers of that school had got a small grant from the Education Board; and for that small grant seven or eight hundred children were educated at Ennis by gentlemen whom the hon. Member tauntingly called monks. Now, the fact was, that those gentlemen were not monks. He hoped that the hon. Member was better informed respecting the school at Drogheda than he appeared to be respecting the school at Ennis.
Sir Robert Inglisdeprecated the practice of one hon. Member accusing another of displaying violent sectarian feelings in defence of his Church. He could not sit in the House without expressing his objections to such a practice. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Ennis, that those who conducted the system of education in the school of that place were not monks, he should leave that hon. Gentleman to settle the point
468
with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who had said, that there were three or four hundred of such monks in Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Member had accused him of accusing the hon. Member for Drogheda of displaying violent sectarian feelings in defence of his religion. Now, he had done no such thing; but he had accused the hon. Member of displaying violent sectarian feelings when he assailed the religion of another Church. He, for his part, assailed no man's religion. But the hon. Member had talked tauntingly of Franciscan friars and monks, and had used the word "Popery." Now if there were an offensive nickname for Protestants, as there was, what would be said of him if he were to use it in that place? If he were to speak of Protestants as heretics, he should deserve to be put down in that House. He expected, if the same courtesy or privilege was not to be extended to Roman Catholic Members which they were disposed to show towards Protestant Members—he expected, he said, that the House would extend to him the right of repudiating any attacks that might be made upon his Creed. The monks to whom the hon. Member for Oxford had referred were called Education Monks, but were not monks according to the definition of the law, for they had not taken any oaths or entered into any orders, which brought them under the statute prohibiting the increase of monks in Ireland. They had, however, registered themselves as the Emancipation Act required, but under a protest that they felt that they did not come under the interpretation of that Act. He wished that his example in refraining from making attacks on the religion of others might be followed by those who, with Christian charity ever on their tongues, exhibited little of it in their speeches and actions.
Viscount Morpethsaid, that the vote now under consideration stood first on the Irish miscellaneous estimates, and any one who looked at the paper might easily conclude that it would come on this evening. With respect to the question raised by the hon. Member for Kent, he felt assured that if, in schools connected with the board, any practice subsisted which gave offence to Protestants, as regarded the treatment of their children, the evil would be redressed on a proper application.
Mr. John Youngmuch regretted the

469
acrimony which had been infused into the discussion, and which he would not increase by adding a single objection to those already made to the system of government education in Ireland, though he was far from thinking that system free from objection. He wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord opposite to two suggestions, which he trusted would be received favourably, though coming from one who had never professed friendship to the system of national education.—The first was, the unfortunate locality of the school-houses in many instances. In the county of Cavan he could state, of his own knowledge, that several were so close to the Roman Catholic chapels, that the Protestants and Presbyterians could not but feel averse to sending their children to them. This he considered a just and reasonable ground of complaint, but it was also one which might be avoided in future by a little care and attention on the part of the Board of Commissioners. To such attention the Protestants and Presbyterians of Ireland, though only a minority of the people, were well entitled. The second point was of a graver cast, and stated on no light and insufficient authority—that authority, as it proceeded from a person officially employed by the present government, he would give in private to the noble Lord if required. In two of the southern counties the positive rules of the board were not adhered to as regarded the class books, and especially that which contained the whole Gospel of St. Luke. To this book the Roman Catholic Clergy, a body of whom he would not speak disrespectfully, were as hostile, he had been informed, as to the whole Bible. They withdrew and discountenanced it wherever they could, and so deprived the people, in very many schools, of part of the benefit Government wished to extend to them. This was a serious evil, and gave additional cause for the mistrust and suspicion so widely and justly felt as to the character and tendency of the system.
Viscount Morpethsaid, that it was a rule with the Commissioners of the National Board to prefer schools unconnected with places of worship, although they did not refuse aid in all cases of schools otherwise circumstanced. He felt assured that it was the wish of the Commissioners to consult as much as possible the religious scruples of every body.
Mr. Hardysaid it ought to be under-
470
stood that the present system of schools had been established very much against the wishes of many sincere Protestants, because they justly thought that there must be some compromise of principle in educating Protestants and Catholics together, and that the compromise was made by the Protestants on giving up the reading of the whole Bible. A man must not be surprised when he heard of Roman Catholic Priests endeavouring to inculcate upon the children of Protestants their own particular doctrines, for it was quite natural that they should do so; but it was most important for Protestants, especially for Dissenters who adhered to the Bible and the whole Bible, to see that no improper instruction was bestowed upon the children, and that under the guise of a general, religious, and moral education, a sectarian education was not given. When a school was held in the vicinity of a chapel, it appeared to him that Catholic Priests had opportunities of getting Protestant children into it, and inculcating their favourite doctrines upon them.
Mr. Henry Grattanwas astonished at the sublime ignorance of the hon. Member. Had the hon. Gentleman read the series of questions issued by the Board of Education in Ireland?
Mr. Hardy: I have seen the book.
Mr. Henry Grattan; Have you read it?
Mr. Hardy: Yes; I have read it, and I can point out matters in it which are not consistent with Protestant principles.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that one of the questions put by the Commissioners was framed to ascertain whether the ground on which it was proposed to build school-houses was contiguous to a chapel, and if this turned out to be the case the Board refused to make any grant. He indignantly repelled the charges made on this occasion, although they were no more than might be expected from individuals who went to mountebank societies to make charges against the people and religion of Ireland—charges as false as hell. After this they pretended to support the cause of education for the people, but he rejected such support. He thanked God that the disturbers of the public peace in Ireland were at length about to be put down. He did not think that we ought to give the whole Bible to be read in schools—["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.]—Let not Gentlemen opposite be

471
so ready with their cheers. Protestant Bishops had expressed themselves to that effect. What had been the effect of the Protestant ascendancy system in Ireland? It had made bad Christians—they had set Protestant against Catholic, and Catholic against Protestant, till they had made the island like a demoniac assembly, the consequence of which was, that they could not keep possession of Ireland without the aid of an enormous military establishment, for which this country was taxed, in order to keep up Protestant ascendancy.
Viscount Sandonbelieved, that the hon. Member opposite used stronger language than he really meant to apply. It was somewhat extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should accuse the hon. Member for Bradford of gross ignorance in reference to schools being built near chapels, because they had it in evidence on all sides that they were so built. It must be admitted that there was great difficulty in bringing Catholics and Protestants together for purposes of education, without a surrender or attempt to subvert some important point on one side or other—the result of which must be, that schools would be no longer considered neutral ground.
Sir John Hobhousethought, that the noble Lord had given the best reason for endeavouring to unite Protestants and Catholics whenever the attempt was practicable—the difficulty of union proved the necessity of attempting it at an early period of life, when the effort might be attended with the best chance of success. With all submission to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Randall Plunkett) who had to-night expressed his opinions for the first time in that House, and who intimated that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the late Government only waited for a convenient opportunity to discard the existing system of education in Ireland, he thought the hon. Member paid a bad compliment to the right hon. Gentleman by the supposition. It was the duty of the King's Government to see that no part of this grant was misapplied—and there was no proof that such had been the case. However, if the hon. Gentleman could bring forward a case of abuse, a remedy should be applied. For his own part, he felt persuaded, that if the system were successfully applied, and if fair play were allowed, it would contribute in no small degree to
472
the peace and prosperity of a country for which we had so long legislated in vain.
Mr. Finchwas sorry that he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet as to the probability of the Irish system of education working well. The greater part of the children of persons of the Established Church could not avail themselves of it, and such being the case, it was vain to talk of the system working well. He had received an account of several schools from respectable authority. His authority was the reverend Robert Daly, and the communication mentioned several schools that were built in the chapel yards, and supported by grants from the Commissioners. In some of those schools no Scripture lessons were read, but a Roman Catholic catechism was used, and the attendance consisted exclusively of Roman Catholic children. He would read a few specimens and leave the House to say whether this were a system of general education:—
"Hacket's-town.—The school recently built and not quite finished in the Chapel-yard. The children at present attending in the Roman Catholic Chapel, but not yet in connexion with the Board. Roman Catholics, 48; Protestants, 7. The Board granted at first 106 l., and since 50 l. more.
"English-town.—The school is holden in the chapel. The teacher Roman Catholic. Grant for salary 5l. No Scriptures. The station of the Holy Cross. Roman Catholics, 46; no Protestants.
"Baltinglass.— A male school about two perches from the chapel. A female school in a branch of the chapel cut off by a partition. Teachers Roman Catholic. Grant for salaries 22 l. Roman Catholics, 162; no Protestants. No Scripture lessons: Dr. Doyle's Catechism.
"Tullow Female School.—Children entering this school must pass through the chapel-yard; in fact, it is in it, but divided by a door. Salary 25 l. per annum. Roman Catholics, 300; no Protestants. No Scripture lessons. Dr. Doyle's Catechism. This school is entirely in the possession and under the direction of nuns.
"Tullow (male).—This school is entirely in the hands of monks. The Board gave 13 l. for fixtures, and allows 20 l. per annum. They have not a single copy of the Scripture lessons. Doyle's Catechism in hand. Roman Catholics, 185; no Protestants.
"Fermoy School.—A well-built and extensive school. Roman Catholic teachers. Salaries 50 l. Grant 35 l. Roman Catholics, 515; Protestants, 2. Board books in use, also Butler's Catechism, and a small book entitled Think well on it, by Chaloner.

473
"Macroom School.—Built in Chapel-yard. On entering this school I found the master, a Roman Catholic, repeating and explaining some of the prayers, collects, and acts of faith, hope, and charity, out of the Roman Catholic prayer book, to all the children collectively, although it was not his day of religious instruction. They never received the Scripture lessons. Roman Catholics, 501; no Protestants."
Such circumstances proved, in his opinion, the existence of great irregularities in the present system of education—a system to which, however it might be carried into effect, he decidedly objected.
Viscount Morpethhoped if the reverend Mr. Daly had any complaint to make that he would send the grounds of it to the Government or the Board, in which case the grievance, if any, would be redressed.
Mr. Plumptresaid, that having met with the passage to which he had before referred, he should now quote it, especially as some doubt appeared to be thrown on the matter. The report was written, by Mr. Graham, and was dated the 2nd of July. It stated, that in the case of one school visited by the writer, at 1 o'clock on that day he found the children dismissed in consequence of a fair which was held two miles off. Mr. Graham received his information from two ushers in the school, who stated that it had been established in 1827, and was visited daily by the friars. In answer to the question, "For what purpose is that altar used?" The reply was, "For reading mass morning and evening." The inquiries and answers proceeded—"Do Protestant children assemble along with the Roman Catholics?"—"Yes; they must attend." "Is the school daily opened and closed with mass?"—"Yes." "At what hour in the morning will the school commence?"—"At half-past 9." "Will it be then opened by mass as usual?"—"Yes; by one of the friars." "Who is the person that celebrates mass on the occasion?"—"One of the friars from the convent." This concluded the day's discourse, said the writer, and I proposed to attend the school in the morning. The information referred to the school of Esker. On July the 3rd Mr. Graham again visited the school, and ascertained from the master that he had superintended the school for six years, that 50 l. was allowed annually by the Board of Education, and that he and his wife acted as superintendents of
474
the school. The question was, whether it was fitting in a Protestant Parliament to grant a sum of money in support of a system of education under which the Holy Scriptures were excluded from the schools? He objected to it on that account, and because he believed, that so far from conveying instruction to the Roman Catholic population, it would be the means of riveting the chains of superstition and darkness, in which they were already bound.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that the hon. Members who opposed the present grant appeared to have arrived at very sweeping conclusions from very ill-considered premises. Within the last few months he had visited Ireland for the first time, and whilst in Dublin he endeavoured to obtain all the information he could relative to the national system of education, and he had brought away with him, and since read, every book used in the schools. It was his conscientious conviction from all which he had heard and read, that if the principle were recognized that it was improper to attempt to force upon Catholics the adoption of the doctrines of the Protestant Church, it was impossible that a better mode of education for Protestants and Catholics indifferently could be devised than that now acted upon. He regretted the tone in which part of the discussion had been carried on; it was time to lay aside prejudices and hold out the right hand of good fellowship to all who were inclined to co-operate in the task of promoting education. The statement which the hon. Member for Kent read contained an obvious error; it was said that mass was performed in one of the schools in the morning and evening; but it was well known that mass was performed only once a-day, and that was in the morning.
Mr. Bodkinsaid, that the school of Esker was principally supported by Mr. James Daly, the brother of the redoubted hero who came over to fight the battle of Protestantism at Exeter Hall. If the hon. Member had made inquiry before he made the statement he had just given utterance to, he would have held his peace.
Mr. James Grattanregretted the tone that had prevailed throughout the debate. He thought the funds not now voted were utterly insufficient; they should have a large surplus applied for the object. The establishment should be on a more extensive scale than it now was. He hoped also

475
that a more correct statement would be made out with respect to these schools next year, so that there could be no doubt as to the truth of the statements made.
Mr. Wysesaid, that they had been told that the Bible had been excluded from the new schools, but the charge now was a want of Christian charity in adopting a system to prevent Roman Catholic and Protestant children from being educated together. The truth was, that from the conduct hon. Gentlemen pursued they seemed anxious to divide Ireland into two sects, entertaining the most rancorous feelings the one towards the other. Except in doctrinal points there was but little difference between the Catholic and Episcopal Church of England, but it would appear from the tone of the discussion, that hon. Gentlemen wished to carry the differences which existed into every act of social life. He would not charge the individuals whose authority had been so repeatedly referred to this night in support of the statement made, but he would say, that they laboured under the grossest errors and ignorance. He trusted that the present system of education would be extended throughout the country.
Mr. Finchobserved, that the hon. Member for Tynemouth appeared to have made rather an extraordinary statement when he said, that though he had been but a very short time in Ireland he had made himself master of all the details of the system of education there pursued. The hon. Member said, that he had perused all the works introduced into the schools. He held in his hand a pamphlet, which, in his opinion, contained most objectionable observations. In one version of the Scriptures the expression was used "it shall crush the serpent's head," but in the Roman Catholic version it is rendered "she shall crush the serpent's head." Although there might be apparently little difference in the sense of these, still a most important distinction was drawn. The words used in the note to the passage are, "Oh! Holy Blessed Virgin Mary, you were promised from the beginning of the world that by your seed you should crush the serpent's head." Now he thought that this was one of the most objectionable expressions that could be introduced into a work for the education of both Catholics and Protestants. The Bible had not been excluded from the Kildarestreet schools.
Mr. George F. Young, in explanation, said, that it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman seemed to have taken a lesson from the polemical disputants who had recently figured in Exeter-Hall. The hon. Gentleman had just referred to a passage to be met with in one of the books used in the schools, which did not appear to him (Mr. Young) to be so objectionable as to the hon. Gentleman. It had not been insidiously introduced, however, by a Catholic, but by a zealous Protestant of the Establishment, and as sound a scholar as was to be found in the empire, who contended that it was the correct translation of the text, and who challenged any persons to dispute it with him.
Mr. O'Connellwas sorry, that the hon. Member for Kent had referred to the authority which he had quoted, as to mass being said in these schools. He could not charge the hon. Member for an English county with uttering a falsehood; indeed, he knew that he was incapable of so doing—but still he exhibited an instance of the grossest ignorance. He should be cautious before he was inclined to give currency to such silly calumnies, which, indeed, would appear so if they were not so utterly ridiculous. He trusted that, on a future occasion, this subject would be discussed in a different tone and feeling from that exhibited on the present.
Mr. Hardydenied, that the charge of bigotry could fairly be brought against those who opposed the present grant. He had ever been favourable to Catholic Emancipation and to the equality of civil rights for Members of every religious creed; but it was a very different thing for a man attached to his religion, and who wished to be saved by it, to see his children brought up in a religion which he did not approve.
Mr. Plumptredenied, that this was a party question, or that he had ever been opposed to a system of education under which children of all religious creeds could be brought up. He had, however, a very strong feeling as to the course now pursued, and should feel it his duty to divide the House upon the subject.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, it was not his intention to say anything that could add to the unpleasant feeling which had been exhibited during the debate, but he could not content himself with giving a

477
silent vote on the present occasion. His objection to the new system was, that it did not bring together the rising youth of the country, and thereby instil into their minds those feelings of good fellowship and harmony which it was so important to the welfare of Ireland to cultivate and cherish. His chief complaint against the so-called system of national education was, that it produced a contrary effect from that which its promoters calculated upon. It was not a system of united education, such as that which it had superseded, and which could most truly be designated by that name. He had had the honour of being honorary secretary to the Kildare-place Society for several years. That Society was established for the purpose of giving to the youth of Ireland a united education without the slightest reference to religious distinctions of any kind. He would ask the House and the country, whether any system could be founded upon a broader basis than that which merely required the Scriptures to be read without note or comment. The Kildare-place Society did not require the authorised version of the Bible to be used in the schools. The rule which satisfied the Society was, that the New Testament, or the Protestant or Rheimish Bible, should be used; and he would ask the House whether anything could be more liberal than that. The Kildare-place Society did not seek for public aid; it was supported originally by voluntary contributions. It was invited to take public aid, and for years it gave the greatest satisfaction, and a great number of schools in connection with it were directly under Roman Catholic priests. In 1824 a royal commission was issued, and the Roman Catholic priests having set their faces against the Society, a great outcry was raised against it. The object which that outcry was meant to achieve had since been accomplished—namely, the withdrawal of the funds from the Society. Now, he could state, without fear of contradiction, that the system pursued by the Kildare-place Society was decidedly a scriptural and united system of education; and the Reports on the Table of the House would verify his statements, whereas the system pursued by the new Board was decidedly an exclusive one. When his hon. Friend near him read a statement of the number of children attending certain schools, and when he said that no Protestant attended,
478
it was met by a cheer from the other side. If it were intended by that cheer to infer that there was no Protestant population in these places, he could state most positively that the contrary was the fact. In Macroom, for instance, it was stated that 500 Roman Catholics attended the school, and no Protestants. Would any man say that there was not a large Protestant population in Macroom. If so, it might be asked, why they did not attend these schools? It was, because a system of education was pursued in these schools, in which Protestant children could not consistently partake. He had, himself, presented several petitions during the Session, in which poor Protestant parents complained of not having schools to which they could send their children. It had been attempted to throw discredit upon the statements read by his hon. Friend, because, in the document, the writer said that mass had been celebrated morning and evening. Roman Catholic chapels were considered by Protestants as mass houses, and religious ceremonies performed there were looked upon as masses, It appeared, however, that mass could not be celebrated after twelve o'clock—but the correspondent of the hon. Member, when he spoke of masses in the evening, evidently meant that Roman Catholic service of some sort was performed. Having been for so many years Secretary to the Kildare-place Society, he felt it his duty, when on circuit, to visit some of the schools receiving aid from the new Board. At Loughrea school he found all the children paraded for the purpose of marching them to chapel. He visited another school where there was not a single copy of the Scriptures to be found. In another he found the children, on a week-day, with Butler's Roman Catholic catechism in their hands. He asked the schoolmaster whether the catechism was in constant use, and he replied that it was, and when he inquired whether there was any copy of the Scriptures in use in the school, he was informed that there was not. He would ask the House whether the system could justly be termed a national or united system of education? He did not make these observations in an angry spirit; but he made them as a Member of that House, called upon to sanction the vote of a sum of money amounting to 35,000 l., for the purpose of upholding a system which deserved any name better

479
than that of a national system. It might, perhaps be proper to have public funds appropriated for the education of Roman Catholics, but then the money ought to be granted openly for that purpose, and not covertly, as in the present instance. He would not say, that in some parts of Ireland, the north for instance, the Scriptures were not read; but if so, the Board had two sets of rules—one for the north and another for the south. If there were two distinct rules, let it be proclaimed, but don't tell the people of England that you vote this money for a united system of education. ["Lord Morpeth said, that selections from the Scriptures were made by the Board."] Would the noble Lord say that a selection made by five or six individuals, ought to be dignified by the name of the sacred Scriptures? He could not say whether these selections were made by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin or the Protestant; but he denied that a selection made by one or the other deserved the name of the sacred Scriptures. He was desirous of doing his duty; he had stated facts which no man could contradict. He did feel, standing where he did, and having for so many years filled the office of honorary Secretary to the Kildare-place Society, that he should not be doing his duty, were he not to protest against the transferring of the funds from a Society which imparted to persons of all religious persuasions a united system of education, to one which had failed to perform the service for which the funds had been granted to it.
Mr. Sheilrose for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to the date of the estimates in which the present vote was included. That date was the "8th of April, 1835," a period when a Government was in power which, doubtless, in the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. Jackson's) judgment, showed great discrimination in selecting individuals for the honours of the Irish bar. The hon. and learned Member at that time uttered not a syllable against the proposed grant of money, and he (Mr. Sheil) must admit that the hon. and learned Member's conduct with respect to the whole matter exhibited not a little talent. As the Frenchman said, "Il a grand talent pour le silence." "Mum," was then the word. And when the late Secretary for Ireland announced in the presence of the hon. and learned Recorder of the city of
480
Dublin, of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Jackson), and of the many pious persons now sitting beside him, that it was the intention of the Government to continue the grant to the new Education Board, not a single scruple, with reference to the proposition was expressed. It appeared, however, that serious objections were now entertained to the present vote; but to all that had been said against it he had this simple answer—the estimate which he held in his hand, and to which was attached the name of "Thomas F. Freemantle."
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonwas aware of the fact to which his hon. and learned Friend adverted, and he would tell him this in perfect good humour, that if a vote for 35,000 l. had been proposed by the late Prime Minister of the Crown, or the late Secretary for Ireland, he should have risen in his place and made the same statement then that he had made this evening; and he begged to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman why he did not rise in his place on that occasion. It was but a short time he had the honour of being in the House, and he was little acquainted with the mode of proceeding with business, and little aware when it became a Member to rise. He was aware of this also, that the preceding Government had continued the grant to the Kildare-place Society, on the principle that they found it working, and they did not think it right to suppress it, but rather to allow it to go on for a year. It was the preceding Government to Sir Robert Peel's that made a grant on the principle that it was right to give a year's notice to the Kildare-place Society before they withdrew the grant; and, therefore, he thought the late Government were justified in continuing the grant to the new Board for one year, the more particularly as buildings had been erected and expenses incurred on the faith of the grant being made; but he would repeat, that he cared not who the Minister was, he should have risen and opposed it, on the grounds that he had that night urged.
The Committee divided on the Question: Ayes 143; Noes 42—Majority 101.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Campbell, Sir H.

Arbuthnot, H.

Chisholm, A. W.

Attwood, M.

Cole, Lord

Balfour, T.

Darlington, Earl

Calcraft, J. H.

Dick, Q.

Dottin, A. R.

Maxwell, H.

Egerton, Sir P.

Plunkett, R.

Elley, Sir J.

Price, G.

Fector, J. M.

Pringle, A.

Finch, G.

Scarlett, A. C.

Forbes, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gordon, Captain

Sinclair, G.

Greville, Sir C. J.

Tyrell, Sir J.

Hardy, J.

Williams, R.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wyndham, W.

Hayes, Sir E. S.

Young, J.

Jackson, Sergt. J. D.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R.

Plumptre, J. P.

Kearsley, J. H.

PAIRED OFF AGAINST.

Kirk, P.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lefroy, Sergeant,

Cole, A.

Lefroy, A.

Cooper, E.

Longfield, R.

Perceval, Col. Thomas

Lowther, Col.

Vesey, Hon.

On the Motion that 8,928 l. be granted for the Roman Catholic college in Ireland.
Mr. Sinclairprotested against the vote for no Protestant state was bound to bring up its subjects in the errors of the Roman Catholic faith. That was contrary to the religion of the State, and he would never sanction it.
Viscount Morpethcould not consent to refuse to set apart so small a sum for the religious education of so large a number of people.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the only objection he felt to the vote was to the site of the College for which it was intended. He could see no reason why it should not be on the same site as where the Clergymen for the Established Church were educated. Any one who took the trouble to examine the charter of Trinity College, Dublin, would see that it was intended to be one of many colleges. Let Trinity College have different Professors in Theology, one for Protestants, another for Roman Catholics, but why should not both be instructed together in arts and general literature. It was well worthy of the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers, whether the site of Maynooth College ought not to be changed. Such a course would be but carrying out the principles laid down by them in their system of general education.
Mr. Lefroysaid, that the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) brought a charge of illiberality against Trinity College which he must be permitted to tell the hon. Member was quite groundless. That University conferred degrees upon persons of all religious denominations without the slightest distinction. It allowed Roman Catholics and others to
482
graduate; and, therefore, he maintained that the charge of illiberality was not sustained. The system suggested by the hon. Member would tend to increase the distinctions between the two denominations, rather than to abate them. At present, Roman Catholics and Protestants were educated together at the Dublin University in harmony and concord; and one of his objections to the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Warburton) was, that his system would rather impede than forward so desirable an end. He had said thus much to show that the system pursued at Trinity College was not an illiberal one; and with respect to the grant under consideration, he objected to it on the ground, that as the State acknowledged but one religion as the established religion—for he had not heard as yet of any legislative measure to abolish the Protestant religion as the established religion in England or in Ireland—it was not consistent that the State should teach a religion from which Protestants had separated, on the ground of erroneous doctrines. Upon that view of the case he had always opposed the grant, and should continue so to do.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He would give the hon. and learned Member as much conscience as he pleased—he wished Protestants had a little more of it. The hon. and learned Member said, the Dublin University was open to Catholics. Yes, as far as education went, they were very liberal, but they never gave a Scholarship or a Fellowship to a Catholic; they were very careful of their good things. But to this he would answer, the College of Maynooth was precisely on a footing with the Dublin University. Protestants might be educated there if they pleased, and, with all due regard to their consciences, they might attend all the courses, excepting of course those of religion. He would now relate an instance of the way in which Catholics in a Catholic country treated such a subject as this. In Belgium a vote of money was moved in the Chamber of Representatives towards the expenses of a Protestant chapel in Brussels. Some division of opinion took place on that occasion: there were four Catholic clergymen in the Chambers, and three of those voted in favour of the grant, and only one against it.
Mr. Finchsaid, he opposed the grant,

483
because he thought, if a good vote, it was too small; and, if not, it should be discontinued altogether. With respect to the instance of Roman Catholic liberality which the hon. and learned Member had mentioned, he believed that, if the case were closely inquired into, the Catholic priesthood of Belgium had a second object in view when they agreed to the vote towards the Protestant Church building in Brussels, namely, that it would encourage Protestants to come and reside there.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had charged the Roman Catholics with duplicity. No man could make that charge of duplicity against others, but one who judged from himself; and he (Mr. O'Connell) repudiated the foul and false charge. "What (continued the hon. and learned Member)! Is such a charge to be made, and are we to be prohibited from noticing it? Oh, no; it may do at Exeter Hall; but it will not do here. There is no policeman here to put down those who attempt to defend themselves. I repeat, therefore, that I return the slander to the foul source from which it comes."
Sir Robert Inglissaid, he thought the hon. and learned member for Dublin had misunderstood his hon. Friend the Member for Stamford, and had alluded to something his hon. Friend had said in another place, and not to what he had just uttered in his seat in that House. His hon. Friend had not made a general charge of duplicity against the Catholics as a body, but merely expressed an opinion, founded upon facts and reports which other hon. Members, as well as himself, must have heard, that the clergy of Belgium were not entitled to the full meed of liberality which was claimed for them in the instance referred to, because it was an accredited fact that they voted for the grant for the Protestant chapel, because they wished to induce English families to come and reside in Belgium. With respect to the grant before the House, it was a relic of the old Irish Parliament. When that Parliament was united with that of England all its obligations were taken along with it upon the Imperial Parliament, and this grant, being one of them, had always hitherto been agreed to. As, however, of late years, some other charges and grants of a like kind, and under a similar obligation, had been dispensed with, he thought all those who had a conscientious objection to the application of the funds in the pre-
484
sent vote had a full right to oppose it. Of those persons he was one, for he thought it was quite contrary to reason and to propriety that the Government of a country should raise funds for cultivating the growth of a religious belief which, by the constitution of the country, was disavowed by the State.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould merely say, that his hon. Friend in laying it down as an abstract proposition, that the State ought not to support any religion which was disavowed by the State went too far, for that argument, pushed to its proper conclusions, would lead the Dissenter and Catholics at once to resist the giving any support to the State religion. The fact was, that a large mass of the population of Ireland were Catholics, and they must be dealt with as Catholics. He supported the grant therefore, entirely on the grounds of expediency, it being in his opinion, necessary to give to such a large body all the advantages of the State.
Mr. William S. O'Briendenied that the religion of the State was essentially Protestant. The House of Commons represented the people, and there were two registered votes this Session contrary to the wishes of the Irish clergy. The State was bound to extend the blessings of education equally to all its subjects. He regretted that the sum voted was not greater.
Mr. Wysesaid, the question in reality was, whether the Roman Catholic clergy should go abroad, as heretofore, for instruction, or whether they should obtain it at home? He thought the grant should be double the amount fixed in the estimate.
Vote agreed to—House resumed.

CUSTOMS ACTS—TEA DUTIES.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the House resolved itself into Committee upon the Customs Acts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that at so late an hour he would not detain the House very long, but it was necessary that he should give some explanation on so important a subject. He was bound to express his acknowledgments to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), who had originally asked a question in reference to the tea duties, which, however, he had abstained from pressing until the intentions of Government should be more fully formed on the subject. What these intentions were he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was now about to

485
state to the House. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that prior to the alteration in the East-India Charter the duties on teas were regulated by an ad valorem scale. It was perfectly obvious, however, that so soon as the opening of the trade with China had been effected, the ad valorem scale could no longer be continued. It became necessary, therefore, to revert to some other system of duties, and the object kept in view was, to try if it were practicable, without inconvenience to the trade, to lower the duty on the low-priced teas. The experiment was accordingly tried, but it gave rise to many complaints, and a Committee was appointed on the motion of the hon. Member for London, to consider the subject, and a great weight of evidence taken before that Committee went to prove that the discriminating scale of duties of 1s. 6d. per lb., 2s. 2d. per lb., and 3s. per lb., ought to be abandoned. The Committee, however, decided otherwise, though there was considerable doubt and a strong division on the question. The final recommendation of the Committee was, that the experiment of a scale of duties should be tried, and if not found to answer practically, another plan should be considered. A year had passed, and the House had now to ask itself whether it was disposed to adhere to the three rates of duty, or to have recourse to the simple plan of one duty. He would state the conclusion to which the Government had arrived, and their reasons. He thought the time had come when the principle of one uniform rate of duty ought to be applied to this great branch of trade. In the first place, did the present mode answer the purpose for which it had been introduced? If it possessed any of the advantages of an ad valorem duty, if the rate was in proportion to the value of the tea, he should be unwilling to depart from the present mode; but it was clear that it did not contain the elements of an ad valorem duty, for the tea chargeable with the duty of 2s. 2d. comprehended so many different modifications of value, that the principle of a value duty must be abandoned if the 2s. 1d. rate was continued upon that description of tea. It was not an ad valorem but a discriminatory duty; it did not refer to value, but to denomination, so that it was attended with this inconvenience, that teas of different value paid the same rate of duty. There were other inconveniences of a serious character. The qualities of
486
the teas overlapped each other, and approached each other so closely, that the effect of these discriminatory duties was, that high-priced teas paid in fact a low rate of duty. On account of this approximation and overlapping of the qualities of teas, a tremendous power was placed in the hands of the officers of the Customs, who, by deciding on the qualities, had, in effect, the power of determining the rate of duty on teas. Without imputing anything to these officers, who had done their duty with propriety, it was certain that a great discretion was confided to persons who, with salaries of 200 l. or 300 l. a-year, had the power of varying the duties on a cargo of tea to the amount of as many thousands as their salaries were hundreds. This was too great a power to be lodged in their hands; it offered a temptation from which they ought to be relieved. Another objection was, that as it was wished to extend East-Indian commerce, there would be a difficulty in levying the discriminatory duties in the outports, where the objections he had mentioned applied with greater force than in London. For all these reasons, he thought the time was come when we should resort to one uniform rate of duty. For these reasons he should say, that the time had come when it was imperative to fix one uniform rate of duty on all teas. The recognition and operation of that principle would be greatly advantageous to the importers, much more convenient to the Government—who, he was free to admit, would willingly have adopted it in the first instance but for the recommendation of the Committee to the contrary—and highly beneficial to the public generally. The great mass of the trade desired an uniform rate, and the revenue would not suffer by its imposition. That settled, two conditions remained—the amount of that duty and the time of imposing it. He had a document in his hand in which the rated duty of tea imported from the 22nd of April, 1834, to the 5th of April, 1835, was calculated, and which he should take leave to read for the Committee. It appeared by it that the returns in that period gave the following quantities of tea imported at the annexed duties. The duties defined the assumed or real quality as 5,300,000 lbs. at 1s. 6d. per lb., 22,000,000 lbs. at 2s. 2d. per lb., 1,300,000 at 3s. per lb.; in all 28,600,000 lbs. From this quantity the revenue derived a sum of 3,021,000 l. If the whole of

487
that quantity were taken at a fixed duty of 2s. 2d. per lb. it would give a sum equal to 119,000 l. over and above the actual amount received from the combined charges of the three rates. If it were taken at 2s. 1d. it would give a sum equal to it, less 1,490 l.; and if at 2s. a still smaller sum, or a minus of 122,200 l. on the aggregate amount. The amount of duty he meant to propose as the fixed and certain one in the resolutions which he should lay before the House was the middle term of the three latter rates, that is, of the sums 2s. 1d., 2s. 1d., and 2s.—the sum of 2s. 1d., by the adoption of which, supposing the importation to be stationary, the revenue would suffer no greater loss than the trifling one of l,500 l. or thereabouts, while he was satisfied that the trade and the public would have every reason to be pleased. He should next advert to the time necessary to carry the change he proposed into effect. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more unjust than any attempt at an immediate alteration in the existing scale of duties. Many persons had introduced large quantities of bohea into the kingdom on the faith of the discriminating system being final; many more had sent out orders for it to China—all these would be inevitably sufferers to various extents if the change were made to come suddenly into operation. Those who introduced bohea into the market would be surprised to find that they had 8d. per lb. extra imposed on them, beyond what they calculated on, while those who had ordered cargoes of it would be in the same condition. To obviate these inconveniences, and that injustice he should propose that the fixed duty of 2s. 1d. per lb. should supersede the discriminative scale in the course of a year, and that it should come into operation on the 31st day of July, 1836. That period of time would be sufficient for those who had procured cargoes, and those who had cargoes on their way hither, to dispose of them at the market price, while it would give abundant time to those who had only ordered them, to countermand their orders, or at least to exchange the bohea for another tea. Such was the substance of the resolutions which he designed to propose to the Committee. He knew that at that late hour of the night no practical discussion could be had upon the subject; but there would be many opportunities in the course of the Session of taking them
488
into detailed consideration. He could assure the Committee that he had no motive in proposing them beyond those which he had stated—to relieve trade from the embarrassment and annoyance of Customhouse officers—to take away the immense power which devolved by the present system upon the revenue retainers—to extend the benefits of that branch of commerce to every part of the empire, and, for the good of all, to have one fixed rate of duty. The present system was inefficacious for the principal object of its enactment. The poor derived no such advantage from its adoption as had been hoped by its supporters. The Chinese merchants prevented that by the artificial rise which they at once caused in the price of the inferior tea when they discovered the reduction of duty. By which means the 10 s. bohea was now 12 s., and the 12 s. bohea 14 s. In consequence of which the poor had their tea no cheaper than before the alteration in the rate of duty. The discriminating system did not answer; notwithstanding which he did not regret the experiment. It did not succeed; and the Government were now doing no more than their duty in coming down in a manly manner, acknowledging their error, and offering to redress it. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving two resolutions:—"1. That the discriminating scale of duties should cease and determine, and that a fixed duty should be imposed in lieu thereof." "2. That this fixed rate should come into operation on the 31st of July, 1836."
Mr. Crawfordsaid, that there was not a single point in the speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman which had not been urged upon the Committee last year, and which ought not (in his opinion) to have influenced their determination. What the right hon. Gentleman had now stated to be the fact, had been distinctly foretold by him (Mr. Crawford). If ever a subject connected with fiscal arrangements had been treated peculiarly in defiance of all acknowledged commercial principles, it was the settlement last year of the duty on tea. As to the practical result to be expected from the proposed change, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of 28,600,0001bs. of tea, as having been the quantity brought to charge from the 22nd of April, 1834, to the 5th of April, 1835. Now the consumption of tea in 1833–1834 was 33,000,000 of lbs., and he was

489
perfectly satisfied that there was an increasing consumption, and that the annual consumption now was 36,000,000 of lbs. If the object of the right hon. Gentleman was to obtain an increase of revenue from the duty on tea, then he might be justified in proposing the uniform duty of two shillings and a penny a pound, but if his object were merely to secure the same revenue as at present, he (Mr. Crawford) was convinced that a uniform duty of two shillings a pound would be enough. Further, he would say, that if the duty on all teas but Bohea were immediately reduced to two shillings and a penny per pound, and the duty on Bohea kept at its present rate of eighteenpence per pound, the increased consumption of Bohea would be such as greatly to increase the revenue.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged to say some words in reply. The figures which he had read did not comprehend the whole year, but they were just as good for his argument. With respect to the proposition of the hon. Member, it was one which, on reflection, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was sure the hon. Member would not persevere in recommending. The hon. Member proposed to suspend the operation of the proposed measure on the lower descriptions of tea; but to carry into effect the reduction of the duty on the higher descriptions. Now in what condition would that put the owners of large quantities of the lower descriptions of tea, who had bought it when there was a high duty on the higher descriptions? It would drive them out of the market.
Mr. Humeregretted that his Majesty's Government had determined to abandon the discriminating duty. It appeared to him to be contrary to all principle to lay a duty of 300 per cent. on cheap teas, and a duty of not 100 per cent. on others. If Government were determined on this measure, there was no alternative, but he could have wished they had tried the existing system for another year.
Sir John Rae Reiddeclared that he had never entertained a doubt but that the system which the right hon. Gentleman now proposed was the system which ought to have been adopted in the first instance. Large sums had been lost by the course which had been taken; but that circumstance might, perhaps, ultimately do good.
Mr. Goulburnwas disposed to give his right hon. Friend credit for acknowledging the error of the Government, and coming forward manfully to redress it. He confessed that it was peculiarly agreeable to him to perceive that the arguments, and even the very words made use of on his side of the House in opposition to the measure originally, were now quoted by the Government who brought it forward. He regretted that the plan proposed by his right hon. Friend had not been adopted then, as by that means a year's vexation and trouble and expense would have been saved, and the trade would have been in a more healthy state than it was at present. With respect to the amount fixed by his right hon. Friend, he should only say that he had his own doubts as to whether two shillings would not be amply sufficient for all fiscal purposes.
Mr. Peasethought the arrangement and scale of duties proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be highly beneficial to the community. He much regretted, however, that the present system should be suffered to exist for another year.
Mr. George F. Youngasserted that the rate fixed by the right hon. Gentleman would have the effect of increasing the absolute amount of revenue without proportionately benefiting the community. He thought that there would be no difficulty in extending the old system of auction to those outports at present permitted to enter tea; and to reimpose the ad valorem duty of 96 per cent. would, under those circumstances, he was satisfied be productive of much profit to the Government as well as satisfaction to the community. The charge on the public, by the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, would be much greater than it ever was before.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdenied that the charge on the public would be greater than before. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member, it would be quite impossible, consistently with justice and fair dealing, to adopt it.
Mr. Warburtonapproved of the plan of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he thought it was in the power of that right hon. Gentleman to diminish the rate of duty below what he had fixed it at. For instance, he thought that two shillings would be found amply sufficient while striking off the odd penny would

491
have the advantageous effect to all parties of simplifying calculations on the subject.
Resolution agreed to, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM and the Earl of LICHFIELD, from Porto Bello and North Berwick, against the Impressment of Seamen.—By the same from several Places, against any Grant for Building Churches in Scotland; from five Places, against the Stamp Duties on Newspapers.

CORPORATION COMMISSIONERS.—EXPLANATION.
Lord Broughamsaid that he had to present a Petition from Bridport, on the subject of the Municipal Corporations; which, however, like some others now in his hands on the same subject, had better stand over till that measure was before their Lordships. He should wish to take this opportunity of correcting a statement in a ministerial print of this morning, in which it was stated that he had recommended Sir Francis Palgrave to be one of the Municipal Corporation Commissioners, and the appointment of that Gentleman was attributed entirely to him. This was a mistake. It was true that as Lord Chancellor he had recommended Sir Francis Palgrave, but he did so on the recommendation of a noble Lord, then a colleague of his, and now one of his Majesty's Ministers. He had said at the time that Sir Francis Palgrave had some antiquarian crotchets about him that did not render him very fit to be a commissioner. However, he was assured that the hon. Gentleman had no such crotchets, and so the recommendation was made, but it now appeared that he had.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the Report of Sir Francis Palgrave was one of considerable ability, and deserved to be well considered by their Lordships.
Lord Broughamanswered, that undoubtedly Sir Francis Palgrave was a man of ability and of very considerable learning, for whom he felt great respect.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that there was another Commissioner, Mr. Hogg, who did not agree with the Report of the rest, and whose reasons it would be important to consider.
Lord Broughamsaid, that if he knew anything of that Gentleman, the reasons for his dissent from the other Commissioners were not what his noble and learned Friend seemed to imagine.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
Lord Broughamsaid, that a Bill of considerable importance had just been brought from the other House, where it had been passed by considerable majorities, though in a shape rather different from that in which it was first introduced. It was to allow counsel and attornies to prisoners charged with felony; the counsel to address the jury, for at present they could only be heard by the Court to discuss a point of law. He should not now enter into the subject more than to say that he approved of it generally, but that there were some of the details to which he could not give his concurrence. He should propose that this Bill be now read a first time, and in the further progress of it he should wish to be guided by their Lordships' opinion.
Lord Lyndhurstsuggested that the Bill should go to the Committee up stairs.
Lord Broughamsaw no disadvantage in the plan proposed. There was no pressure as to the passing of the Bill at this moment, for the Circuits were just beginning, and the Bill could not be passed in time to come into operation at the present Assizes. He should, therefore, propose that it be read a first time now and then printed, and read a second time to-morrow pro forma, with the understanding that it was then to be sent to the Committee up stairs, and not to be debated till the Report was brought up.
The Bill read a first time.

WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Lord Broughamsaid, that his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, was again prevented by his judicial duties from being present here, and had requested him to say, that instead of proposing the amendments he had before suggested in this Bill he should adopt a different course. He should withdraw the present Bill, as, upon consultation with his brethren on the bench, he found it would be more advantageous to pass a measure

435
in a different shape, but the same in principle. He now, therefore, presented the new Bill, and moved that the old one be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to, old Bill withdrawn and the new Bill read a first time.

PROCESSIONS.
Lord Farnhammoved for a return of all prosecutions ordered under the Procession Act in Ireland. He did so with the view of finding whether the construction put on the Act by the noble Viscount opposite, was that which the Law Officers of the Crown put on it. It was said by the noble Viscount it was an essential feature in the Act, that the procession should be on the occasion of an anniversary, and that the law did not attach on such processions as did not take place on anniversary days. He found that the majority of the prosecutions had been instituted for processions on anniversary days; but he found also that there had been some for processions on other occasions than on anniversaries. He made the motion because he thought it was essentially necessary that the law should be known. He wanted to see what the Law Officers of the Crown thought of the offence, and their opinion could be best collected from the indictments they had prepared on the subject. He therefore moved for a Return of Copies of Bills of Indictment preferred under this Act, at the assizes at Tyrone, for an offence on the 12th July, 1833; at the assizes at Tyrone, for an offence on the 19th December, 1833; and at the assizes at Londonderry, for an offence on the 5th February, 1834. The first was at an anniversary procession; the others were not so.
Viscount Melbourne, without saying any thing at all about the Return, or what it would or would not shew, must take the opportunity of declaring that he did not agree with the noble Lord, that in order to bring processions within the Act, they must be on anniversary days. He apprehended that there were general words in the Act which covered all other occasions; and if there were none, it was evident that the Act would be easily evaded, by merely fixing a party procession to take place on the day before or after any particular anniversary.
Motion agreed to.

POST OFFICE.
The Duke of Richmondwished to draw their Lordships' at-
436
tention for a few moments, to a subject of considerable importance. He believed that his noble Friend (the Earl of Lichfield) would not oppose the production of the Return for which he intended to move before he sat down; but still he felt it necessary to preface his motion with a few observations. It was not his intention to make any attack whatever on any individual who was not there to defend himself. He thought it would be wrong—he thought it would be unjust—he thought it would be in bad taste to do so; and he also was of opinion that it would be much better for the public service, if such a course never was resorted to. The object he had in moving for the Return which he meant to call for was, that it should not go forth to the country, that in a period of ten years no less a sum of the public money than 1,097,000 l. was unaccounted for in the Post-office department. How any individual could have made such a statement was to him most surprising. The return which he held in his hand, and which had been made in pursuance of an order of the House of Commons, proved that the Gentleman to whom he alluded was not correct in the statement which he had made elsewhere. The Post-office accounts were kept under three heads—the gross receipts, the net revenue, and the expense of charge. The Gentleman who had made the charge said, that the two latter items did not come near the amount of the gross receipts. But that gentleman should have read one single line at the bottom of the Return, which would have set him right on this point. If he had taken the trouble to read that line, he would have found it stated—"that dead and returned letters, Parliamentary grants, and other payments made on account of national objects were not included in that Return." It was that very line, their Lordships would observe, that made the whole difference, and he could not understand why the hon. Gentleman had not read that line. The only reason which he could assign for the hon. gentleman's stopping short there was (and he certainly did not wish to make a charge against a person who was absent), but the only reason which he could assign for the hon. Gentleman's adopting such a course was, that he feared the next line would not be found favourable to his argument. When the hon. Gentleman brought charges against the Postmaster-General and against the system at large, was it not surprising

437
that he had overlooked the fact laid down in the Parliamentary Reports, that during the ten years referred to by him the revenue had not sustained any loss by defalcation or arrear on account of any postmaster in Great Britain? If he had read this, it would have shewed him that the Post-office during those ten years was not quite so badly conducted as he had asserted. He did not stand there to defend the Post-office from all the charges which the hon. Gentleman had made against it; that, he had no doubt, would be successfully done by the noble Earl who was at the head of that department. He only came forward to shew to the country that it was impossible that such a sum as 1,097,000 l. could remain unaccounted for without immediate discovery. The Post-office was placed under the immediate cognizance of the Lords of the Treasury, the receiver-general was appointed by that body, and all the accounts were submitted to the Commissioners of Audit. It was, therefore, impossible that there could be a defalcation, not of a million but of a single shilling, without instant discovery. He was now anxious to move for this return, in order to show the incorrectness of the statement that had been made, being perfectly assured that the details would fully prove how the large sum of money said not to have been accounted for had been expended. The noble Duke concluded by moving for "a return of the gross and net revenue, and charges for management of the Post-office, for ten years, up to December, 1834; together with an account of the manner in which the difference between the gross receipts and the amount of net revenue and charges of management, being 1,097,000 l., had been expended.
The Earl of Lichfieldsaid, he certainly had no objection to the Motion; on the contrary, he was grateful to the noble Duke for calling for this return; because it gave him an opportunity to make a few observations, in order to remove from their Lordships' minds any impression that might have been made by the statement which had been delivered elsewhere. He did not object to the perseverance which had been shewn by the hon. Gentleman in investigating, as fully as possible the affairs of the Post-office; he though that the hon. Member in question had a right to do so. Indeed, if the 1-10th of the abuses which he alleged really existed
438
in the Post-office system, the hon. Member would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty if he had not brought the subject forward. What he did complain of however was, that the hon. Gentleman had not procured better information on the subject, and made himself more master of it before he introduced charges which he (the Earl of Lichfield) had no hesitation in saying had not the least foundation in fact. One of the first charges had relation to the objectionable manner in which the duties of the department were performed. It was asserted that all communications between the Postmaster-General and the Secretary were carried on in writing, and not personally, as they ought to be. He could only say, that while he had held the office of Postmaster-General he had continually attended, and all his recommendations had been punctually followed. The same thing, he believed, might be averred with reference to the noble Marquess (Conyngham) his predecessor in the office—a fact which was borne out by the Commissioners of revenue inquiry. So far for the charge of want of personal communication with the Secretary. Here he could not help complaining of the language which the hon. Gentleman had indulged in when he made charges against a most meritorious public servant—Sir Francis Freeling. If that eminent individual were guilty of any of the offences imputed to him in the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, he certainly would be totally unfit to hold the office which he had filled for so many years. He had not the smallest hesitation, however, in asserting that the statement was not borne out by the facts. During the short time which he (the Earl of Lichfield) had held the situation of Postmaster-General, he had learned to appreciate the truly valuable services of Sir Francis Freeling. That individual had been for 50 years in the service of his country, and during that time he had exerted himself faithfully, industriously, and, he would add, most successfully, in the discharge of his duties. It had been attempted to place the merits of Mr. Palmer above those of Sir Francis Freeling. Now, in 1793, when Mr. Palmer left the office, the revenue amounted only to 705,000 l.; whereas, in 1834, it had reached 2,579,000 l. How was this enormous increase of the revenue to be accounted for? Why, by the en-

439
larged accommodation afforded to the public, in consequence of the great improvements made in the Post-office system by Sir Francis Freeling, which made the correspondence throughout the country more secure and more easy. As to the extraordinary misrepresentation made by the hon. Gentleman alluded to, with reference to a sum of 1,097,000 l. unaccounted for, it was hardly necessary to trouble their Lordships with a single observation on such an extravagant assertion. Still, however, when charges of this kind were gravely sent forth, he feared that a great number of people might be led to think that there was some foundation for them. But the difference between the gross receipts and the net revenue and the cost for management was at once accounted for, when it was understood that large outgoings were not included in the charge for management, those outgoings amounting exactly to the sum which it was said had not been accounted for. Then came a charge of embezzlement of the public money to the amount of 2,500 l., which was charged for greasing and keeping wheels in repair. That sum, the hon. Gentleman stated, he was quite sure, never found its way beyond the walls of St. Martin's-le-Grand. Now, this sum was really expended in the manner stated. To insure the safety of the mail-coaches, it was thought necessary to examine them every day, in order to ascertain, when they came into town, that they were in a fit state to go out of town again. Hence this expense, which was the only charge for mail-coaches that the public was subjected to. The rest was defrayed by those who entered into the contract. Complaint was also made of the Return to the order of the House of Commons relative to the money-order office. The Return was, that the office was a private establishment, and that no information could be given respecting it. The fact was as stated—it was a private establishment. It was asserted, that it had been set on foot with a view to economy, to enable individuals to send money free of expense to different parts of the empire. No such intention was ever entertained. The object of the office was to give security to poor people when sending small sums to their relations or friends. That object had been fully answered, and poor people were secured from those losses to which otherwise they
440
would perhaps be subjected. If their Lordships, however, could adopt any other plan by which money might be remitted with equal safety, and at a less expense, those who were at the head of the department would at once adopt it. Again, the hon. Gentleman had asked why the country should be burdened with an expense of 30,000 l. a-year on account of mail-coaches? No such burden existed. The coaches under the contract were not 1s. expense to the country beyond the 2,500 l. to which he had already adverted. He had no doubt that the papers now moved for, and the statement made by his noble Friend, would place this subject in its true light. Certainly, an establishment which had enjoyed and did enjoy, the confidence of the country, ought not to be charged with errors for which there was no foundation whatever.
Lord Wallacewished the Post-office to be clear of suspicion, and was happy to say that the explanation of the noble Duke had been, to his mind, perfectly satisfactory. He had, indeed, previously expected some such elucidation, and he was glad that it had been made, for without it the matter would have been subject to much misapprehension. He did not defend what had been stated in another place; indeed he perfectly agreed that many of the charges that had been brought forward were completely erroneous. With respect to the explanation given by the noble Earl, as to the Money-order office, he begged to say that in his opinion that office was a great public accommodation. He quite agreed with the noble Lord (the Postmaster-General) that mail coaches did not, in point of fact, cost the country a single shilling. With regard to some details connected with the Post-office, he believed that his views and those of the noble Duke near him were somewhat at variance; but they differed only on points upon a discussion of which he felt it unnecessary to enter. He anticipated the most beneficial effects from the labours of the Commission which had been appointed to investigate the subject. He was satisfied that that Commission would bear in mind the principle on which the institution of the Post-office had been established, as well as the purposes which it was meant to answer. He should detain their Lordships no further than to express his sincere conviction that whatever alterations or amendments in the

441
system were made by this Commission, they would have no other effect than that of promoting the comfort, satisfaction, and commercial interests of the whole community.
Lord Maryboroughthought it unnecessary to add a word, with respect to the general management of the Post-office, to the very satisfactory statement which had been made by the noble Duke and noble Lord, the Postmaster-General. It would unquestionably be a work of supererogation for him to enter into any further defence of the general principles on which the departments of the Post-office were conducted. He had, however, another object in addressing their Lordships on that occasion, and that was, to endeavour to do justice to those officers who had served under him while he had held the office of Postmaster-General. He found, by a Report of a speech which had been spoken by a noble Lord (Lord Lowther) in another place, that it had been stated that whilst he (Lord Maryborough) had been Postmaster-General, the "officers under him had shown great reluctance and obstinacy in giving information to the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Post-Office; that they had, in fact, set the Commission at defiance." This extract he had taken from the speech of the noble Lord to whom he had alluded, but which, from the expressions used in it, he could not consider to be altogether correctly reported. In answer to the charge which it conveyed, he should only say that when he held the office of Postmaster-General, he felt it his duty to make it generally known to the officers, that they were bound to give every information which was required by the Commissioners, to comply cheerfully with their suggestions; in fact, to go hand in hand with them, in the inquiry, and act in every respect in compliance with their wishes. He felt pleasure in being enabled to state that whilst he remained in office there was not the slightest complaint of any obstinacy being shown by the officers, or of a determination exhibited by any one of the officers to withhold any information which they possessed. On the contrary, he had every reason to believe that every information which could be required was readily given, every return asked for was as soon as possible supplied, and the greatest anxiety evinced by every person in the department
442
to forward, as far as lay in his power, the object of the Commission. Under these circumstances he certainly felt very great surprise when he read the statement which had been put forward in another place, and to which he had already directed their Lordships' attention. But in order to see whether there was even any ostensible ground for such a charge, he had that day taken pains to make every inquiry into the subject, and he found that thirty precepts had been issued by the Commissioners, and that seven or eight of the officers of the Post-Office had been examined before the Commissioners. He stated to them what had been mentioned in another place, and asked them whether, in their examination before the Commissioners, any expression had fallen from the Commissioners, which could lead them to believe that the impression on their minds was, that they (the officers) had shown any backwardness or disinclination to give every information in their power to the Commissioners? They answered that they felt convinced that they gave the Commissioners the most perfect satisfaction, and that they had not made use of a single expression which could lead them, to a contrary opinion. He perfectly agreed with the observation which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion when the noble Lord, to whom he had before alluded, delivered the speech, and from which he had already read. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer then remarked, that if the noble Lord found any disinclination on the part of any of the officers to afford the requisite information to the Commissioners, he was bound to take such steps as would enable the Government to dismiss the individual who was guilty of such reprehensible conduct. He concurred fully in that opinion; and so far as he was himself concerned, he could only say, that if the noble Lord had brought forward any charge of this description before, he should have taken care to examine it most closely, and if the explanation made by the officer against whom it was preferred was not satisfactory to him (Lord Maryborough) and the Commissioners, he should have had him immediately removed. But was it not a most extraordinary thing that if these officers had acted as was described

443
not a word on the subject had ever been mentioned to the head of the department. He had felt it to be his duty to offer this justification of the conduct of the officers who had acted under him; and after what he had stated he left it to their Lordships to decide whether the imputations which had been cast upon them were well founded. He must also beg of his noble Friend (Lord Rosslyn, we believe), who was at that time head of the Commission, to state whether the slightest opposition had been offered to the progress of the inquiry. If his noble Friend should corroborate his statement he did not think it would be necessary to say more to exonerate the officers from all blame. He had, as he before said, studiously avoided going into any detail on this subject; but he felt that he should be acting unjustly, and neglecting to fulfil his duty to the public, if he did not notice the manner in which a public officer, a man of integrity, ability, and zeal (he alluded to Sir Francis Freeling) had been spoken of in another place. It appeared to him that the object of the general statement made elsewhere by an hon. Gentleman was, to lay the grounds for the dismissal of Sir Francis Freeling; but he (Lord Maryborough) had looked in vain for a single specific fact in the whole address which could warrant such a proceeding. The whole tenor of the speech seemed to be directed to the end of impressing on the public mind that this worthy man was not fit for his office, and to make the public believe that it was desirable he should be removed. When, however, he came to examine the whole of the hon. Member's case, what direct charges did he find in it? None. It was not pretended that Sir Francis Freeling had been guilty of peculation, of disobedience of orders, of showing undue favour, that he had been guilty of any one act which could be charged against a public officer, as a dereliction of his duty. All the nominal charges against him resolved themselves into this:—that he had contrived to arrogate to himself all the powers of the Postmaster-General, and that he had used the trust thus acquired in such a way as to render him fit for the possession of his office. He could only state how he (Lord Maryborough) himself felt and acted when he undertook the duties of the Postmaster-General. When he found such a man as Sir Francis Free-
444
ling in the situation of Secretary, he did not hesitate to avow that he should have displayed a want of common sense and honesty if he had not endeavoured to make every use he possibly could of his experience and talents in the management of the department over which he was placed. He took his assistance and advice on all occasions; he called to his aid his experience of fifty years; his talents almost unequalled, and his assiduity never surpassed. When he spoke of the mental powers of Sir Francis Freeling, he hoped that he might be allowed to state it as his opinion that his faculties (which were elsewhere said to be in a state of decay) were in as full vigour, and as capable of exertion, in almost any department, as those of any of their Lordships. It had been next stated by the hon. Gentleman, that the Postmasters-General were under the complete control of the Secretary; that Sir Francis Freeling made any statement he pleased, which the Postmaster-General took for granted, and acted on without giving it any further consideration. He would honestly state to their Lordships how he, and he made no doubt, his predecessors, had proceeded in this respect. He perfectly agreed with a noble Lord opposite, who stated that it was not only the duty of the Postmaster-General to hold close and constant intercourse with his Secretary; but if he desired to perform his duty strictly and efficiently, he was bound to act and examine for himself in the department over which he was placed. There were, however, frequently matters of the greatest moment to be quickly considered; a variety of papers to be looked into narrowly, which the Secretary made his observations upon, and submitted to the Postmaster-General. So far from thinking this a vicious, he considered it (if the Postmaster-General did his duty) an admirable mode of proceeding. During the whole time that he was Postmaster-General, as well as during the period which his predecessors held office, every paper which belonged to any case was sent to the Postmaster-General by the Secretary, with a minute explaining his views, and sometimes conveying his opinion in very positive terms. If the Postmaster-General signed his name to the minute, and there was an end of the matter, there might be some ground for the attack which had been made on the Secretary. But if it were found that the

445
Postmaster-General read every paper which was sent to him—that he sometimes had fifty or sixty sheets in a single packet to examine—and that he always came to a decision on his own judgment; if such, he repeated, were ascertained to be the facts, then the charge which had been so boldly urged against the Secretary must of itself fall to the ground. He could himself state that many such cases had come under his own cognizance, in some of which he had given a directly contrary judgment to that which the Secretary had expressed; and he was proud to add, which was much to Sir Francis Freeling's credit, that whenever he differed from that Gentleman, he had invariably shown the strongest inclination to come into the views of the Post-master-General. But taking the charge of the hon. Gentleman at its fullest extent, it only amounted to this—that the Postmasters-General had so neglected their duty as to enable him to assume an authority over them. Who, then, was to blame? Surely, if there were any delinquents in the case, they were the Postmasters-General. The hon. Gentleman, in expatiating on the extraordinary degree of power which the Secretary obtained over the Postmasters-General, went the length of saying, that the Postmasters-General were the "apprentices" of the Secretary; and he added, that if he (Lord Maryborough) had remained long enough in office, there was a chance of his becoming a man of business. Now, in the first place, he must be permitted to say, that if the word apprentice, as it had been used by the hon. Gentleman, was to be taken in its strict sense—that is, a person prepared to yield implicit obedience to a master—to him it was perfectly inapplicable. If, however, the hon. Gentleman meant it in this sense—that acting under such a man as Sir Francis Freeling he was more likely to become a man of business, he fully admitted the justice of the observation. He unquestionably must admit that the charge of infirmity which the hon. Member had not neglected to bring against him was well founded. With respect to his qualifications for business, he could not forget that he had been many years in important offices, that he had had a great deal of labour to perform, and that if he had not become a man of business from this experience, he despaired of ever attaining to that distinction. He felt it
446
would be a disgrace to England if such a man as Sir Francis Freeling was to suffer in public estimation—if he were to be driven ignominiously from his station in consequence of the vague statements which had been made against him. He had only to express a hope, that whatever change was made in the Post-office—whatever new system was adopted by the Government, that the services of this great man would be secured to this institution, for they were the best guarantee for its utility and permanence. He should only allude to one more of the various statements which had been made by the hon. Gentleman to whom he had so often referred, and that was, the declaration which he made, that letters containing money were generally stopped, the envelopes burned, and the money put into the pockets of the officers. Now, to show how unlikely such a practice was, it would be only necessary for him to remind their Lordships that an oath against doing anything of this kind was taken by every Postmaster-General, and that, moreover, it was considered by the law in the light of felony, with the punishment of death. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that he could prove such acts to have been done. If this were so, and the hon. Gentleman had neglected to institute or to give his evidence in prosecutions for this offence, he (Lord Maryborough) very much doubted whether he should not be considered accessory to felony, and it would not at all surprise him if Mr. Peacock, the Solicitor to the Post-office (whom the hon. Gentleman castigated in one part of his speech and praised in another) were to take such steps as would persuade him that he had neglected his duty in conniving, as it were, at a breach of the law.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas of opinion that this discussion had proceeded far enough, particularly as it all rested on the reports of a discussion in another place, which reports might not, perhaps, be exceedingly correct. He was not astonished that the noble Lord (Maryborough) had felt surprised at a speech which had been attributed to a noble Lord elsewhere; but he (the Duke of Wellington) was perfectly convinced that that noble Lord must have been misrepresented.
Lord Rosslynwas perfectly ready to bear testimony to the promptitude with which the officers at the Post-office had acted in promoting the objects of the

447
Commissioners. Had they, indeed, acted otherwise, or offered the least resistance, it would have been unpardonable in him if he had not taken the most prompt and immediate steps to meet it.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that there was one more Return for which he felt bound to move. In doing so, he wished to express his full and entire concurrence in every thing which had been said by the noble Lord (Maryborough) relative to the conduct and character of Sir Francis Freeling. He could add to the eulogies which had already been pronounced on him, that, when he (the Duke of Richmond) came into office, he had many changes to propose which went directly contrary to the old system and ancient prejudices existing under it; and he was bound to say, that no man could cooperate more zealously and energetically in carrying those changes into effect than Sir Francis Freeling. He rose now to revert to the Return for which he proposed to move. It had been said, that there were a great many married women Postmistresses, whom he had dismissed. He certainly had done so in many cases, because there was a great danger of defaulters, and a great difficulty in recovering the public money, whilst married women were allowed to be Postmistresses generally throughout the country. He saw no such objection, however, to the appointment of respectable widows, in small towns, where the duties were light, the salaries 10 l. or 11 l. a-year, and the letters not, perhaps, amounting to fifty within that period. Yet it was urged against him, as an inconsistency, that he opposed the appointment of the former, and showed a disposition to favour the latter description of Postmistresses. Now, with respect to the charge of his use of patronage, which had been made against him, he believed it was very well known that the Treasury had the whole of the patronage of the Post-office. He brought the subject of patronage, as exercised by the Treasury, under the notice of Lord Spencer, and called his attention to the fact that many meritorious officers had passed many years in the general department of London, whose salaries were large, and their retiring allowances, from the length of their services, considerable. He had suggested to his noble Friend that, instead of giving up the whole of this patronage to the Treasury, which was going a little too far, such
448
officers as those to whom he had alluded, should be appointed Postmasters in the great towns throughout the country, wherever a vacancy worth their acceptance might occur. Thus the services of useful and efficient officers would be secured to the public, and large salaries and retiring allowances saved. He did not wish to speak on a matter in which he was personally concerned, but he might, he hoped, be allowed to say, that the first office, with respect to which he had carried this principle into operation, was that of the town of Brighton, to which his brother, as Member for the county, had the privilege of recommending a person, but to which, when a vacancy had occurred, he had appointed an individual who had served an apprenticeship of thirty years in the establishment of London. He would only say, in conclusion, that if any man in the House of Commons or in the country thought that he had committed a single job during the time that he held office, or neglected to have performed a single duty which he was bound to perform, he called on that Gentleman to petition that House or the other House of Parliament, in order to put him on his trial. He defied the hon. Gentleman who had already preferred charges against him, or any other person, to bring forward any proof that he had violated those obligations which he owed, not only to the public, but to his Sovereign, for having appointed him, and to Earl Grey for having recommended him, to the office he had the honour to hold. He concluded by moving for the Return of the number of married women who held the office of Postmistresses in the years 1830, 1831, 1832, and 1833.
Return ordered.