Sitting of 4 June 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Catholic Residents at Madras, for Appointing a Clergyman of their Persuasion to reside among them.—By Mr. BOLLING, from Bolton, against the Dissenters' Marriage Bill.—By Lord MORPETH, from Dewsbury (Yorkshire) for Repealing the Duty on Spirit Licenses; from Tadmorden, for the Repeal of the Factories' Regulation Act; and from Leeds, for continuing the Drawback on Soap used in Manufactories.—By Sir ROBERT BATESON, from the General Synod of Ulster, against the present Manner of Administering Oaths to Presbyterians.—By Mr. WILKS, from Ashwell, against Tithes.—By Mr. HODGES, from Horsmonden, in favour of a Commutation of Tithes.—By Mr. EWART, from the Isle of Man, for a Reform of the Institutions of the Island.—By Mr. DIVETT, from Ripon, against the Erection of small Tenements for the Purpose of creating Votes; from Teignmouth, against the Dues on Coal levied by the Corporation of Exeter.—By Mr. O'DWYER, from Navan, for Exempting Materials used for Building Catholic Churches, from the Payment of Duty—By Mr. CHRISTOPHER FITZSIMON, from Persons Confined for Debt in Kilmainham Marshalsea, for Extending the Provisions of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill to Ireland.—By Mr. HODGES, from two Places, against the same Bill; and by an HON. MEMBER, from Stratford, St. Mary, for Alterations in the same.—By Mr. CHRISTOPHER FITZSIMON, from Garristown, against Tithes.—By Mr. A. JOHNSTONE, from St. Andrew's and St. Leonard's, for the Repeal of the present Law relating to Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, from Castle Jordan, against the New System of Education in Ireland; from the Protestants of Clonard's, against the National School System; from three Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, from the Handloom Weavers of Bolton, for a Board of Trade.—By Mr. V. SMITH and Mr. WARBDRTON, from Northampton and Bridport, for a Remission of the Sentence on the Dorchester Labourers.—By Dr. BOWRING, from Forfar and Kilmalcom, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers.—By Mr. CHALMERS, from Montrose, for carrying into effect the Recommendation of the Committee on Light-houses.—By Mr. F. SHAW and Mr. BUCKINGHAM, from several Places, for the Suppression of Drunkenness.—By Mr. SINCLAIR, from two Places, against the present Law of Patronage in Scotland.—By Sir R. PEEL and Messrs. H. JOHNSTONE, A. JOHNSTON, SINCLAIR, and an HON. MEMBER, from a Number of Places, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE, from Kirrymuir, against any Grant for Building Churches in Scotland.—By Sir ROBERT PEEL, Sir ROBERT BATESON, and Mr. SINCLAIR, from Islington and other Places,—against the Proposed Measure of Church Reform in Ireland.—By Mr. TOOKE, from Persons belonging to the Profession of the Law in Loudon, for Better Accommodation for them in the Judges Chambers; from two Parishes in London, against the Vestries' Act Amendment Bill.—By Mr. HARCOURT, from the Licensed Victuallers of Henley-upon-Thames, against the Additional Duty on Spirit Licenses.

GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.
Mr. Stewart Mackenziesaid, I rise, Sir, to present a Petition signed by the Moderator, and agreed to by the Rev. Ministers of the Synod of the county of Ross. The petition is short but relates to two most important subjects—the grants of money to the college of Maynooth and to the Irish national education plan. With the leave of the House I will read the paragraphs, and though unwilling to originate a debate at this moment on those subjects, I hope
530
that the circumstance of my presenting a petition, with parts of which I do not agree in opinion, will be a sufficient apology with the House for my trespassing for a short time on its indulgence. It states, "That your petitioners are deeply impressed with the importance of Scriptural education as the true and only foundation of national morality, and as the only education that can make wise unto salvation." I am, Sir, not only not disposed to doubt or contest the truth of this just paragraph of the petition, but I should hail with satisfaction the prospect of the arrival of that moment when, throughout our land, among the rich as well as among the poor, the national morality shall be universally founded on and confirmed by an education primarily scriptural, though it would be deemed sanguine in me were I to declare the period not distant. I may be permitted to express my entire concurrence in these sentiments of the petitioners. I wish I could say, that my views were in accordance with those set forth in the only other paragraph, which states, "that they deprecate the annual Parliamentary grants of national money towards supporting the Popish College of Maynooth, and the new system of anti-scriptural education in Ireland, as national sins." The first part of this paragraph distinctly, and in most unmeasured terms, briefly, but comprehensively, denounces the grant to Maynooth College as a national sin. Now, Sir, though aware how influential, how justly influential, the reverend Members of the Synod must be with their parishioners in guiding and directing their opinions, I cannot, in candour, conceal from the House my difference of opinion from that of the petitioners, in whatever degree the avowal may elsewhere operate to my disadvantage. Besides the uncontroverted fact of the grant to Maynooth having been made for several years before the union with Ireland (for nearly forty years altogether) considering that the amount of that annual grant has never amounted to 9,500 l. except in one year, when an increase for additional buildings was included, and that it did not then exceed 13,000 l.—when I recollect that this is the only provision made by the nation for the education of the priests of that religion which is professed in Ireland by above six millions of our fellow subjects, I feel called upon in candour to avow, on presenting this petition, that I

531
consider it to be the duty of the Legislature not to withdraw the grant destined for fitly educating the Irish Catholic priests. While I advance this opposite opinion to that of the petitioners, I do so with great diffidence, but with perfect sincerity. In proof of the above fact, I beg to read an extract from the 8th report of the Commissioners of Irish Education Inquiry, of June, 1827:—
"The College (Maynooth) has been principally supported by Parliamentary grants, though several donations and bequests have also been received for its use. The Parliamentary grants have varied in amount from time to time. For the first twenty-one years they averaged about 8,000 l. per annum, Irish currency. In the year 1808, the grant was augmented to 12,610 l., which included a sum of 5,000 l. expressly granted for buildings. In the subsequent year, the grant was 8,972 l., which was continued until the year 1813, when it was raised to 9,673 l. Irish, which sum has been granted annually ever since."
If, Sir, I differ, with all humility, from the opinion expressed by the petitioners upon the Maynooth grant, so unequivocally, and from their piety, respectability, and high character, as Ministers of the Church of Scotland, I doubt not, so sincerely and conscientiously expressed, I am bound to declare (though with regret,) that I equally dissent from their condemnation of the Parliamentary grant to the Irish Education Board, as a national sin. I cannot but lament that by so highly respectable a body of Christian Ministers, this denunciation of the plan has been so proclaimed. It has met with approval from gentlemen of all parties, on both sides of the House, and I, for one, am, I confess, desirous that the plan—I say it emphatically—should have a fair trial. If I could believe it to be a national sin to endeavour to instruct the ignorant poor in Ireland, of whatever religious opinions or denominations they may be, I would not sanction the grant—but if I can't command the best system of education imaginable, am I to withhold it altogether? In justice to the Board of Commissioners of Irish Education, I beg to call the attention of the House to two extracts from their last year's report. The first is from the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, for the year ending March, 1834, and is as follows:—
"It having been imputed to us that we intended to substitute these extracts from the
532
Scriptures for the Sacred Volume itself, we deemed it necessary to guard against such misrepresentation by annexing to the first number of them the following preface.
"These selections are offered, not as a substitute for the Sacred Volume itself, but as an introduction to it, in the hope of their leading to a more general and more profitable perusal of the Word of God.
"The passages introduced have been chosen, not as being of more importance than the rest of the Scriptures, but merely as appearing to be more level to the understandings of children and youth at school, and also best fitted to be read under the direction of teachers not necessarily qualified, and certainly not recognized, as teachers of religion; no passage has either been introduced or omitted under the influence of any particular view of Christianity, doctrinal or practical."
After a full statement of their rules, the Commissioners conclude their Report thus, which is the second Extract:—
"We have thus shown, to all who choose to read our rules with the view of understanding (not perverting them), that, while we desire to bring Christian children of all denominations together, so that they receive instruction in common in those points of education which do not clash with any particular religious opinions, we take care that sufficient time be set apart for separate religious instruction, and that the Ministers of God's word, of all Christian creeds, and those appointed by them, shall have the fullest opportunity of reading and expounding it, and of seeing that the children of their respective denominations do read and understand it, not only weekly, but daily, if they think proper.
"The success which has attended our labours, which appears by the progress we have made, abundantly proves that the system of education committed to our charge has been gratefully received and approved by the public in general. We trust it will continue to spread and prosper. It shall be, as it ever has been, our constant object so to administer it as to make it acceptable and beneficial to the whole of his Majesty's subjects; to train up and unite, through it, the youth of the country together, whatever their religious differences may be, in feelings and habits of attachment and friendship towards each other; and thus to render it the means of promoting charity and good-will among all classes of the people."
One word more, Sir, on the prayer of the petition, "which prays your hon. House to discontinue the forementioned grants, and to discourage the rising spirit of Popery which threatens to destroy all the best institutions of the realm in Church and State." I, for one, Sir, deny that, more than proportionally with the increased population of the United Kingdom, Popery is

533
on the increase. But even were it so, would it be in accordance with a Christian spirit, with the profession of religious toleration, which we avow, to take away the means of their education from the priests of a religion whose duty is to instruct so many millions of our fellow-subjects (though differing in doctrine from the petitioners)—or could we justify to ourselves the withdrawal of those funds destined by the State for purposes of general education in Ireland, whatever may be the creed of the instructed, without a fuller and longer trial of the plan? I trust, Sir, that I have not abused the indulgence of the House, so kindly extended to me, while I have briefly stated, with all deference, my difference of opinion from the reverend Synod; and I have now only to express a hope that advantage will not be taken (though I acknowledge the occasion is an inviting one) by hon. Members on either side, to enter into a desultory discussion of those important matters, which must both, in a short time, form legitimate subjects of debate in the House. Nothing would have induced me now to depart from the salutary rule of not debating a subject on presentation of a petition, but the very great and sincere respect which I feel is due to the collected opinion of so pious and reverend a body as the Synod, to whose petition I have ventured to call the attention of the House. I beg leave to bring up the petition.
Petition laid on the Table.

HOLDING OF PARLIAMENTS IN IRELAND.
Mr. Bishrose to move an Address to his Majesty, praying him to hold his Court and Parliament occasionally in that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland. He observed, that the experience of every day strengthened his conviction of the necessity of doing something for Ireland. He had looked anxiously at the notices of Motions regarding that part of the Empire, but found nothing proposed of a satisfactory nature, or which seemed calculated to render the present Resolution unnecessary. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had a Motion on the paper relative to a poor-rate for Ireland, but he doubted whether such a plan, if carried into effect, would materially benefit the people of that country. He had not seen anything to alter the opinion which he formerly expressed, that the present Resolution, was calculated to promote the in-
534
terests of Ireland in no small degree. Measures for the relief of Ireland were imperatively required by the condition of that country. Considering the state of feeling of the population, it was only surprising they had remained tranquil so long. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had been called—and perhaps he was—a considerable agitator, yet the hon. and learned Member was the man who kept Ireland quiet. Had it not been for him some dreadful proceedings would have occurred there long since. It had been objected that great inconvenience would be occasioned by the absence of the necessary records. Duplicates, however, could be made and kept in Dublin, without entailing any great expense on the public. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Address to the Crown.
Dr. Baldwinseconded the Motion.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamwished that the hon. Member would so far alter the terms of his Motion as to leave to his Majesty the discretion to hold the Parliament either in Scotland or Ireland, or generally in distant parts of the Empire.
Mr. Ruthvensupported the Motion, because he thought that a domestic Legislature in Ireland would be of great benefit to the country.
Mr. Grattanthought, that as the present Government were disposed to do justice to Ireland, the Motion before the House should be postponed until the nature of their measures were known.
Dr. Baldwinhad seconded the Motion, because he believed that the hon. Mover was actuated by kind feeling towards Ireland. He did not, however, think it was one that would meet with general concurrence in this country.
An hon. Member moved that the House be counted.
The House was counted out.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord FEVERSHAM, from three Places, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By the Earl of RODEN, from Leighlin, against Appropriating the Revenues of the Protestant Church to other purposes—By the Bishop of CHESTER, from Durham, against the use of Spirituous Liquors; from four Places, for Protection to the Protestant Church of Ireland.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
Lord Broughamcalled the attention of the House to a matter on which he had recently obtained a return, namely, the number of cases tried at the Central Criminal Court, before the Judges and the city officers. Malicious persons, who were the more malicious in proportion to their ignorance, had represented that the
528
learned Judges now, since the passing of the Central Criminal Court Act, had tried fewer prisoners than formerly. The statement was utterly devoid of truth, but was not the less persevered in. The return which he had moved for, and which was now made, showed that in each of three years, the number of larcenies tried by the City law officers was nearly the same—namely, 725 in one year, 694 in another, and 674 in a third. In the first of these years, there were 806 offenders, out of which number 725 were tried for petty larcenies alone. The graver offences only were brought before the learned Judges. To prove that their labours were not less, but greater than ever, he had moved for this return. It was a return of all offences tried during six months of six successive years. In this return he had selected the seven principal offences— burglary, forgery, cutting and maiming, manslaughter, rape, and robbery. In the six months ending April, 1830, the City law officers had tried, of these principal offences, thirty-three; the learned Judges had tried thirty-seven. In the last of the six months selected — namely, the six months ending April 5, 1835, the City law officers had tried, of these graver offences, twenty-seven; while the learned Judges had tried sixty-nine. So that, in former times, before the Central Criminal Court was established, the City law officers had tried, of the graver offences, nearly as many as the learned Judges; but in the last six months the number of these graver offences tried before the learned Judges was nearly double that of the graver offences tried before the City law officers. He had excluded cases of murder from this return, because cases of that kind were sometimes tried indiscriminately by the City law officers, and by the Judges. He had mentioned these things, because malicious persons had represented that since the institution of the Central Criminal Court the learned Judges had tried less than formerly the number of offenders brought before the court. The reverse was the fact; but that did not prevent these persons from making the statement. He could not conceive the motive for these misrepresentations, except that he was the author of the Central Criminal Court Bill. He now moved that the return should be printed.
Agreed to.