Sitting of 1 December 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BANNERMAN, from the Merchants and Ship-owners of Edinburgh, in favour of Mr. R. Hill's plan for equalizing the rate of Postage.-—By Mr. WAKLEY, from Finsbury, for the Establishment of a Court of Requests, in that Borough having a judication to the amount of 10 l.

BRIDGEWATER ELECTION.
Mr. Wardrose to present two petitions respecting the manner in which Members were elected in the borough of Bridgewater. The first was signed by nearly 150 of the most respectable and influential inhabitants of Bridgewater. Amongst the signatures were the names of two noblemen, thirteen gentlemen or esquires, and 129 shopkeepers; these petitions complained of the open, notorious, and profligate corruption that prevailed in that place on elections of Members of Parliament. For some time past the most corrupt practices had prevailed in that borough, and bribes had been offered and accepted for votes, and the petition went on to state that there was a body of electors in that borough who invariably sold their votes to the highest bidder, and although there were many persons in the borough who did not sell their votes, yet that those that did being the larger body preponderated in the elections, and thus by corruption secured the return of the Members. The petition went on to state that at an election that took place in the spring of the year, when Messrs. Sheridan and Broadwood were the candidates, a room was opened by the friends of the latter for the purpose of receiving the voters; that it was partially darkened, and on entering it those who were disposed to vote for Broadwood received a ticket, and when the election was over, on returning it, they were presented with a parcel which contained ten sovereigns. It appeared that 150 votes were bribed in this manner. The petitioners prayed that the House would cause inquiry to be made into the state of the borough of Bridgewater, with the view of affording them an opportunity of verifying the statements contained in the petition before a Committee of that House, and that the House should adopt such further steps as it might deem necessary for the purpose of securing the freedom and purity of election in that place.
Mr. W. Mileswished to learn from the hon. Member for Sheffield whether he had
468
given notice to the Members for Bridge-water of his intention to present this petition, involving as it did such serious accusations?
Mr. Wardreplied, that he had not given notice, as he at present had confined himself merely to the facts staled in the petition; but he intended after the recess to bring forward a specific motion for inquiry into the allegations of the petitions. The next petition which he had to present was from Sir Thomas Lethbridge, who was a candidate at the late election, complaining of the acts of corruption committed there.
Mr. Gladstonerose to order. He would put it to the hon. Gentleman whether he was justified in making a statement involving the character of Members of that House, when the parties were not there to answer him.
Mr. Wardhad not made any statement calculated to raise a prejudice against any parties; but he had merely read extracts from the petition with a view of showing what was the nature of the petition. He could assure the hon. Member that he had altogether mistaken his conduct in supposing that he would lend himself to attack the character of any hon. Members in their absence. He had not made a single observation or remark on the petition; he had confined himself entirely to the allegations made by the petitioners, in doing which he believed that he did not transgress any of the rules of the House. The next petition which he had to present was from Sir Thomas Lethbridge, and it contained statements nearly the same as alleged in the former petition, and prayed that an inquiry might be instituted into the state of the borough of Bridgewater.—For the purpose of affording this opportunity he should at a subsequent period move for the appointment of s Select Committee upon the subject. The third petition which he held in his hand was from Sir Thomas Lethbridge and three other electors of the borough of Bridgewater, against the return for that place at the last election. This last petition, therefore, was an election petition.
The Speakerinterrupted the hon. Gentleman and said that, with submission to the House, he doubted very much the propriety of presenting a petition to the House involving certain charges against certain persons, including the sitting Members for a borough, and afterwards receiving a petition from the same person questioning the

469
return of the said sitting Members. He would appeal to the hon. Member whether it was fair or reasonable of the petitioners to endeavour to resort to two distinct remedies for the same alleged grievance. He must put it to the House whether the adoption of such a course was not against the spirit of the proceedings the House always adopted with reference to election petitions.
Mr. Wardremarked, that the first petition was not signed by any person who had signed the election petition, The second petition undoubtedly had been so signed, as the name of Sir Thomas Lethbridge was affixed to it. If, therefore, it appeared to be against the feeling of the House to present this petition, he would withdraw it until after the proceedings on the election petition were terminated.
The Speakerstated, that he did not wish to take upon himself the decision of such a question; but it was one, in his opinion, which admitted of great doubt. The hon. Gentleman stated that the petitioners complained that this was a case of notorious bribery, and that the House should deal with it independently of any election petition. He could not, however, help feeling that to pursue this course would be dealing with the subject in a mariner that was contrary to the spirit of their general proceedings on election petitions. It was a very different case when there was no election petition, or when the time for petitioning against the return of the silting Member had expired.
Mr. Humewas of opinion that the first petition alluded to elections that had occurred in former Parliaments, and when Mr. Sheridan was candidate. He did not think that the receiving these petitions could in any way prejudice the case of the sitting Member. The petition should be considered as containing matter of information for the House, and that it, as well as all other petitions, should be received, that were not directly at variance with the rules of the House.
The Speakersaid, that his objection to the reception of the petition was precisely that stated by the hon. Gentleman, namely, it was at variance with the rules of the House. It was considered unfair to receive a petition containing general allegations of certain facts, and making certain complaints from the same persons who had signed the petition against the return of the sitting Members. There could be no
470
objection to the reception of the first petition, which as far as he understood, contained only general allegations of bribery, and did not come from the same persons who petitioned against the return.
Mr. Wardwillingly bowed to the decision of the chair, and would withdraw the Petition of Sir Thomas Lethbridge, but he should move that the first petition be printed. The other petition was an election, petition against the return, which he should move be taken into consideration on the 12th of December.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved that the petition be read at length.
Mr. Courtenaystated, that he was but a young Member of the House, and but little acquainted with its rules; but he could not help feeling that it was not consistent with fair dealing to make charges of bribery and corruption against the sitting Members for a place in the way done by the petitioners. He considered the first petition to be in the nature of an election petition. Now, there was already an ordinary petition against the return of his hon. Colleague and himself. He did not know, however, whether this petition made allegations of bribery and corruption against them. For the sake of argument it might be assumed that it did, and if such were the case, he had no hesitation in affirming that it was one of the most scandalous and dishonest petitions that had ever been presented. On such a case as a controverted election petition, ought any man to bring forward charges bearing on the conduct of former elections? If the state of the representation of Bridge-water were such as had been described, and if the electors of that place had been guilty of such conduct as had been imputed to them, and if such abuses as had been described had existed for a long series of years'—at least beyond living memory, "there might be ground for the House to interfere for the protection of purity of election. But it was most improper and unjust that such a petition as had been read should be brought forward at such a time as the present, for no other purpose than to prejudice the minds of the Committee of that House and the country against the parties petitioned against in this election petition. He had no hesitation in saying that such a petition was a dishonest, scandalous petition. Those who complained of the state of the constituency of Bridgewater should have

471
had the decency and common honesty to wait for the result of the election petition, and to have seen what had been the conduct of the electors at the last election. If it should turn out that in this calumniated borough, though abuses might have existed in former elections, that no proof could be adduced of any bribery or corruption having been practised at the last election, was it justice to punish the existing constituency for acts committed long since, and of which they had repented, and which had not been continued at the last election? Therefore, he said, that it was a dishonest and disgraceful petition, and went, against all the rules of justice, to punish for offences which had been forgotten long since. The petition had for its object to produce the influence which notoriety and report had, it was well known, on the minds of juries, for an election committee in such a case was nothing but a jury. He could not help feeling that the allegations of bribery and corruption brought against himself and colleague were intended to supply the deficiency of proof as to the illegality of the return at the last election, by going back to certain proceedings to which he was no party, as he had never, until the last election, put himself forward for the borough. He should not be doing his duty to his hon. Colleague if he did not attempt to vindicate him from the charges brought against him. These charges had not in any way been proved. It was said, indeed, that the petition was not prosecuted on account of certain causes, to which it was not necessary for him to allude. It was most dishonest towards his hon. Colleague, for the purpose of prejudicing the question to be tried by the election committee, to present this auxiliary petition, apparently on public grounds, but in fact in order to prevent justice being done on the present occasion. With these remarks he would sit down, trusting to the justice of the House. He had thought it due to his hon. Colleague and himself to meet the statements that had been made by the petitioners, and to urge upon the House the impropriety and injustice of receiving this petition. He would throw himself on the sense of the House and the hon. Member for Sheffield; he would appeal to the hon. Member as a man of conscience and a man of honour, which he presumed the hon. Gentleman to be, whether he would be justified in per-
472
sisting in the motion to print this petition until the merits of the election petition had been determined upon.
Sir William Follettregretted that he was not present when the discussion arose; but he would appeal to the Speaker and the House whether this petition could be received. Since he had been in the House he had collected from the speeches of the hon. Member for Sheffield that he had had three petitions to present; the first was a common election petition against his hon. and learned Friend and his hon. Colleague, upon the ground of bribery and corruption. He also understood that the hon. Gentleman had another petition of a different nature; it was a petition from a gentleman who was a candidate at the late election, not only complaining of the general state of the borough at former elections, but also referring to the late election. In consequence of a suggestion from the Speaker, the hon. Member for Sheffield thought it right to withdraw that petition, as it was not fair to offer a petition containing such allegations to the House at the time an election petition on the same subject was before it. The first petition, now before the House, was from certain electors of the borough of Bridgewater not the same as had signed the election petition, but others, and they went not only into allegations connected with former elections, but the very last election. They stated that bribery and corruption prevailed at former elections, and they prayed the House that inquiry might be instituted into the state of the borough, not only at former elections, but at the late election, which allegation materially affected the seats of the sitting Members. He would submit to the House that when an election petition was presented against the sitting Members, it was not fair nor right that that House should receive another petition from the same borough making charges of the same sort, and demanding a committee of inquiry of a different nature. It was prejudicing the case of the sitting Members to have such statements made and printed and circulated amongst the Members who were to form the Election Committee before which the case would ultimately come. At least in decency and propriety, in fairness and candour, the petitioners ought to wait until the election petition had been investigated and disposed of. After that had been done it

473
might be quite right and proper of them to present this petition, and to call upon the House to take further steps. Such was the course that he believed had been followed upon all previous occasions. The election petition was first heard, and after its allegations had been investigated, and it had been disposed of according to its merits, another petition could be entertained, provided a case were made out to call for the interference of the House. He trusted that they would allow hon. Members to go into the Election Committee with their minds unprejudiced on the merits of the case. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member in fairness to withdraw his petition; or if the hon. Gentlemen would not do so, that the House would reject it.
Mr. Humewas of opinion that the hon. and learned Gentleman had confounded two cases which were quite distinct. The present petition was nothing more than a mere allegation of facts that formerly occurred, and referred only to elections long passed, while the election petition was confined to a mere statement of what had occurred at the last election, and referred to a particular case and particular facts. The hon. and learned Gentleman must, therefore see, that the chief fact alleged in the petition, namely, of general corruption, could not come judicially before the tribunal before which the election petition should be decided. He contended that the petition did not in any way interfere with the rights of any hon. Gentleman. He, therefore, trusted that his hon. Friend would persist in his motion for having it printed.
Mr. Wardhad, without hesitation, consented to withdraw the petition which had been signed by the same parties that had signed the election petition. He did not wish to press hard upon any one; but he did not think that the House would act with justice in refusing to receive a petition from a large number of the most respectable Members of a constituency containing general allegations of bribery against the rest of their body. He thought that the House was bound to receive the petition, and allow it to be laid on the table for the information of Members. He should, therefore, move that it do he on the table as the petition of 150 of the most respectable inhabitants of Bridgewater.
Lord John Russellfelt bound to say
474
that, generally speaking, it would be very unjust and improper, when there was an election petition before the House, to allow a petition to be printed containing allegations as to the substance matter of the election petition, or to allow any further proceeding to take place until the election petition was disposed of. At the same time he was not prepared to say that the House should go so far as to refuse to receive any petition or any information as to the previous state of the borough of Bridgewater, or any other place. He thought that it was only fair to the persons who signed it to receive it, and let it he on the table.
Mr. Courtenayagreed, that if there were only vague and general complaints in the petition, it would be immaterial whether it was received or not; but instead of that, the petition made specific charges, which went up to the last election. He agreed with the noble Lord that they ought not to refuse a petition from the borough of Bridgewater containing charges of general corruption; but this petition want to the extent of impeaching the last return.
Mr. Leaderassured the House that he had no intention at present of entering upon any defence of the electors of the borough of Bridgewater. The hon. Members for the borough could do that. The presentation of that petition showed that there was some honesty existing in the borough, and that they did not approve of the mal-practices which it appeared systematically existed in the elections there. He had risen, however, to state that in this respect Bridgewater did not stand alone in its infamy; it was notorious that there were twenty or thirty other boroughs where the same practices were carried on openly as those complained of in the present petition. If a motion were made for a Committee to inquire into the borough of Bridgewater, he should move that the inquiry be extended to other boroughs. He did not think it fair that Bridgewater should be held up to infamy, when such places as Harwich, St. Alban's, Sudbury, Norwich, Liverpool, and other places were equally bad.
Lord John Russellstated, that in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he had read over the petition, and he felt bound to say that it referred to circumstances that took place at the last election, and therefore, under the opinion of the chair,

475
he thought that it had very much the character of an election petition.
Mr. Humesubmitted to the chair whether parties making general allegations in petitions, who had not entered into recognizances, could be considered as signing anything in the light of an election petition?
The Speakersaid, that if the hon. Member asked him whether or not this was an election petition, he should reply, certainly not: it appeared to him to refer to the general practice, and did not confine itself to what occurred at the last election. This was a matter for the House to decide. He would, however, call the attention of the hon. Gentleman who presented the petition to certain indications in it which resembled the allegations in a petition complaining of an undue return.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the House could not be too careful in guarding against the adoption of any course which would excite the slightest suspicion of the tribunal before which election petitions were tried. In his opinion the petition ought not to be received.
Mr. Wakleyprotested against the opinion put forth by the hon. and learned Member. If the course proposed by him were acted upon, it would lead to the greatest corruption. Petitioners might come forward with pretended petitions with a view of stifling inquiry into corrupt practices, and by this collusion the House would be most grossly imposed upon. He repeated, pretended election petitions would be presented for the purpose of concealing the corruption and excluding the proofs of bribery, while those who took no part in the illegal practices would be shut out from the attention of the House, and thus justice would be denied to them. He thought the course which ought to be pursued was obvious. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgewater assured the House that the allegations of the petition, as far as they concerned himself, were altogether false. Why, then, should they not appoint a Select Committee forthwith to inquire into the allegations of the petitioners, and then the hon. Member and his Colleague would have an opportunity of proving that they were innocent as regarded this charge. He trusted that the petition would be received. Looking at what had been done respecting the getting up election petitions against
476
returns from the sister kingdom, he was surprised at the extreme delicacy of hon. Gentlemen opposite on an occasion like the present.
Mr. Goringthought, that the delicacy adverted to by the hon. Member for Finsbury was not out of place. He could not help feeling that those Gentlemen who supported the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard the other evening were not acting consistently when they pressed upon the House such a petition as this, affecting Gentlemen whose returns were petitioned against at the same time.
Mr. Ward, finding the feeling of the House against the reception of these petitions at present, would withdraw them but he begged to add, for the satisfaction of those who had intrusted him with the petition, that he should take another opportunity of presenting the petition from Bridgewater when the election petitions had been disposed of, when the same objection which had that night been urged against it would not apply, and he would then found on it a motion for a Committee of inquiry.
Petitions withdrawn.

THE POST-OFFICE.—EXPLANATION.
Mr. Wallacehad to mention a matter which appeared to him a question of privilege. He had seen in several of the newspapers that morning an allegation reported respecting him, which appeared to him derogatory to his character as a Gentleman, and as a Member of that House. Through a private friend he had since been given to understand that the observation was not applied to him in a personal way. The case was this:—It had been charged against him that he had made it matter of complaint against the Post-office two years ago the a letter inclosing a petition had not been duly forwarded to him from the Post-office, although, as it was stated, he at the time had both the one and the other actually in his possession. Now, the facts were, that he had never received the petition at all, and that he did not discover the letter which he considered had accompanied the petition till a long time afterwards, and it was then only by mere accident that he found it among a number of his papers. The moment he discovered the letter he sent and made the Postmaster-General acquainted with the fact; but he would repeat that he had never seen the petition at all. Again, it

477
had been insinuated that he had made his own alleged careless way of sealing his letters a pretext for charging the Post-office with a systematic violation of the seals of the letters intrusted to its agency; but he repelled the insinuation with the disdain it merited. He would take upon himself to assert that in every instance he sealed his letters as carefully as any gentleman who ever sent a letter to the Post-office, and he was well satisfied that the violation of any sealed letter he had ever forwarded through the post was attributable to no carelessness of his. He had never made any imputation against the Post-office which he was not thoroughly prepared to justify at the bar of the House or elsewhere.
The matter dropped.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
Lord J. Russell: I rise, Sir, to bring before the House a subject, the great importance of which has been universally admitted. I shall not go into the question in detail, but refer particularly to those parts of the measure which may be better considered in Committee. But as it is a question of vast consequence—as it is a measure which, if carried, must have great influence on the future destinies of Ireland—I think it fitting that I should state the reasons upon which I conceive its propriety and policy are grounded. With respect to the general principle of measures to be adopted in reference to the poor, I think there has prevailed an almost universal and unfortunate confusion of ideas. It has been generally supposed that there is a sort of royal road by which the prosperity of a country can be ensured by means of legislative enactments. The view which I take of a poor-law rests on entirely different principles. I maintain that the general comfort of the poor, their general prosperity, and the maintenance of due wages, by which they are enabled to live, depend, indeed, on general government or general legislative enactments, but not on especial laws framed for that particular purpose only. For instance, the general principles on which the prosperity of a country, and of the classes in question more particularly depends, are, that there shall be security for life and security for property; that there should be full freedom of choice of occupation or profession; that the road to distinction shall be open to all; and, finally, that there shall be no monopoly,
478
either of sect, or class, or race, which shall forbid any person to expect the due reward of meritorious exertions. These, Sir, are the principles on which the main prosperity of a country must depend, but they are not the principles on which a law affecting the relief of the poor ought to be founded. I think it has been but too general an opinion—and I am not now speaking in reference to Ireland—it has been but too general a belief, that by some law especially directed to that end it is possible to make the condition of the labouring classes so secure and so advantageous, that sufficient wages can be given to every man in the community. It is owing to a mistaken policy of this description that nearly all the abuses of the poor-laws have arisen, and this fallacy has induced different nations from time to time to imagine that by the adoption of various schemes, under one name or another, they could provide by means of the State, or by legislation for the due support of every member of the community as an independent member of the community. I wish, therefore, to state at the commencement, that the measure which I shall propose has no such object in view; and when I state that I have no such object in view, I m well aware that I am disappointing the views of many who, considering the condition of Ireland—who, considering the numerous classes there are, the hundreds of thousands of persons who are insufficiently maintained in that country—have supposed that by some law, in the nature of a poor-law, these evils can be remedied, and the unhappy persons now so distressed be placed in a prosperous social condition. If I refer to the example of England, while insisting, as I certainly should, on the benefits which this country has derived from her poor-laws, yet I should by no means maintain that it is to that poor-law, however well-contrived and properly directed, that the prosperity of the country is owing. It is to the general protection of the Government, to that security of life and property which its Government affords, to that freedom which enables every one to look for the due reward of his meritorious exertions, to that absence of political and religious monopoly which enables men to exert themselves with a prospect that they may eventually raise themselves to the highest condition, not only of wealth, but of rank and station— it is in causes such as these that we must

479
seek for the main sources of the prosperity of this country. But admitting all this, and stating all this, as I am disposed to do, there remains another question—a question affecting, no doubt, very deeply the tranquillity of the country and the condition of the labouring classes, but affecting them in a different degree from these main questions of Government and Constitution. In every country which is recovering from a state of comparative social want to one of increased prosperity there must always be a vast number of persons in a state of utter destitution. The question arises, what provision can be made for this class? If you make no provision at all—if the State says, "We hold it to be entirely irreconcilable with principle to make any provision for such persons," I think you cannot with justice say, as I observed on a former occasion, that such persons have not the right, which seems to belong to them by nature, of receiving from their more charitable neighbours the food and raiment which is necessary to their existence; but if you do not deny them this right—if you say on the one hand that you will make no provision for them in a State measure, and on the other hand that you will take no steps to prevent mendicancy—you thereby leave in the State a vast number of persons, some of whom exercise fairly, and from their utmost need, the right of asking for alms, but many of whom are impostors and voluntary beggars, who, under the pretext of asking for alms, prey on the rest of the community. But beyond this, it leaves one department of police entirely neglected, and gives to those persons who are at one time beggars, a pretext at another to become plunderers and pilferers; it leaves, in short, a vast shoal of persons without the means of regular occupation or ordinary subsistence, and who do not come under the social laws which regulate either the order or the subsistence of the community. Having made these preliminary observations respecting the general principles by which a law of this kind should, in my opinion, be administered, I come now to the statement of what I conceive should be its application in reference to Ireland. I do not wish, as far as I can avoid it, to enter into any disputed or controverted points; but still it cannot be denied that till a very late period, indeed till towards the latter end of the last century at least, there did not prevail in Ire-
480
land that general communication to all its inhabitants of the benefits of a free constitution, that general participation in the rights and liberties which we in England have enjoyed. It is stated, that the consequence of this has been, that for centuries past Ireland has been always misgoverned. I do not wish to enter into that question one way or another, except to state what has been, according to the best evidence we can procure, the condition of the poorer classes in that country, and how it has happened, as far as we can trace it, that the condition of these classes has not improved as the condition of the people of England has improved from the time of Queen Elizabeth to the present day, but that, on the contrary, there are now existing in Ireland great masses of people in respect to whom we have to consider, not their rights and liberties, but actually as to their physical condition, and how it may be improved. The first authority I shall quote is Sir William Petty, who gives the first authentic account of the population of Ireland at the time of the Protectorate. Sir William states in 1672:—
"The number of people now in Ireland is about 1,100,000, namely, 300,000 English, Scotch, and Welch Protestants, and 800,000 Papists, of whom one-fourth are children unfit for labour: and 75,000 of the remainder are, by reason of their quality and estates, above the necessity of labour, so there remain 750,000 labouring men and women, of whom 500,000 do perform the present work of the nation. The said 1,100,000 do live in about 200,000 families or houses, whereof about. 16,000 have more than one chimney, and about 24,000 have but one. All the rest, being 160,000, are wretched nasty cabins, without chimney, window, or door, even worse than those of the savage Americans, and wholly unfit for making merchantable butter, cheese, or the manufacture of woollen, linen, or leather."
Such is the appalling description given us by Sir William Petty of a population of upwards of one million persons. We have no very accurate accounts of the increase of population for a long time after that. In 1695, Captain South estimated the population at 1,034,102, but this is of doubtful authority. In 1731, Mr. Dabbs published an account of the number of houses in Ireland in the years 1712, 1718,1725, 1726; for which an estimate of the population has been inferred (allowing six to each house) to have been in 1712, 2,099,094; and in 1726,

481
2,309,106. An inquiry instituted by the Lords in 1731 made the population of Ireland only 2,010,221; but this is considered entitled to little credit. Ireland, however, was then essentially a grazing country; and to such an extent was this carried, that in 1727, under Primate Boulter, a law was made to compel every occupier of 100 acres, to cultivate five acres at the least. No very great increase seems to have been made in the population of Ireland in the reign of the first princes of the House of Hanover. The following estimates have been formed from the returns of the hearth-money collectors, allowing six inhabitants to a house, viz.:—

Population.

In 1754

2,372,634

1767

2,544,276

1777

2,690,556

1785

2,845,932

If we could conceive that sufficient laws had been introduced, and that the people had been well united as one community—if the causes of dissension, which have since unhappily, though perhaps necessarily, prevailed, could have been avoided, there is no reason why the increase of population should not have been accompanied by an increase in the comforts of the people, and the general improvement in their social condition—that population and improvement should not have gone on hand in hand. But there were several causes, of which I shall only enumerate a few, which seem at that time to have produced very considerable and rapid increase in the population, without leading to a similar increase in the comforts of the people or the nature of their condition. One of these causes was the particular encouragement given by the Parliament of Ireland to the cultivation of arable land. An export duty of 3s. 4d. per parcel on the exportation of wheat and other grain was enacted in 1784 by the Irish Parliament. Another cause, as it appears to me, was the practice, which grew up immediately after the conversion of pasture into arable land, of very much dividing properties, and of both landowners and farmers sub-letting small parts of their property, and thus, by giving to every small proprietor the means of having a cabin and a small piece of land, increasing greatly the population, without, at the same time, increasing the comfort
482
of the people, or improvement in their habits and condition. Another cause which is a political cause, may be found in the law of the Irish Parliament in I793 respecting the right of voting for Members of Parliament. I think, that if any one could dispose of the history of the country according to his own wishes—if any one had considered the slate of Ireland under the Government of this country in the last century, and wished that state could have been changed to one of equal laws, such as that established by the law of 1829—I say, that I believe such a person, looking calmly and impartially at that state or condition of things, would say, that the best way of proceeding would have been, that the higher classes of Roman Catholics should have been first admitted to the privileges granted by the British constitution to their Protestant neighbours, and that these privileges should afterwards have descended until they embraced the whole community. The course, however, which the Irish Legislature followed, was one of a precisely different description. The first privilege granted to the Roman Catholics was that of voting for Members of Parliament. It enabled the Roman Catholics to vote, but it did not change the general state of legislation in the country as respected the relationship between the Roman Catholic and Protestant population. The consequences were, as has been stated to the Committee of this House in 1825, that nothing was more usual than for the great proprietors to manage to have a vast number of small freeholders on their estates, whose votes they considered themselves altogether masters of, and whom they brought up to the poll and used as mere instruments for their political purposes, rather than as conducing to the welfare of their estates, or, still less, to the welfare of the community itself. These are the causes which have tended to produce a great increase in the population of Ireland, without any commensurate increase in the capital of the country, or in the improved social condition of its community. Since 1785, the population has increased with wonderful rapidity. In 1805, Mr. Newenham estimated the population at 5,395,456. In 1821, the first complete census was taken, by which it appeared the population then amounted to 6,801,827; in 1831, 7,767,401. The population at the present time has been

483
fairly calculated at upwards of 8,000,000. Thus we have, in the short comparative space of fifty-two years, a population increasing from 2,800,000 to upwards of 8,000,000, without its being possible to say that all the sources of industry have been at the same time opened, or that there has been, as in England, a general corresponding increase in either mercantile, commercial, or agricultural occupations, and in the general well-being of the community. This, Sir, is, as I conceive, the present state of Ireland, without going into the details of the report of the Irish Poor-law Commissioners. These Commissioners went with very great labour, and at the expense of a considerable portion of time, into the consideration of the subject of a Poor-law for Ireland. But I certainly do think, that in the result of their labours, on the report which they have presented to Parliament, they have confounded two subjects which ought to be kept quite separate. It appears to me, that they have bestowed too great a degree of consideration on the question—by what means, by what state measures, you can improve the general welfare of the country, and have not confined themselves entirely to the question as to the destitute classes, which was more particularly put into their hands. With respect to the improvement of the general condition of the community, I certainly still think, that that must come in the main from the general government and legislation of the country. I conceive, that you cannot expect, by any special laws, declaring that the state shall set up public works in one place, or drain a bog in another, or start a company in a third—I do not think that by any means or contrivances of this sort you can interfere with the general progress of the community with any great and decided benefit, though you may remove obstacles and give facilities. An hon. and learned Friend behind me has introduced bills into this House on this subject, and proposes to remove obstacles and take away some of those obstructions which have prevented the application of capital in Ireland; and so far I think I shall be doing good service if I aid my hon. and learned Friend in his endeavours, but I think it would be a perilous task for us as a Government to hold forth any hopes that by any immediate arid direct measure of ours we could improve the state of the Irish population. I am con-
484
vinced for my part, knowing the industry of the Irish people, knowing their many high qualities, I am convinced, I say, that if we can give them a full participation in the enjoyment of freedom, and the security of property, the Irish people will make prosperity for themselves. But when I speak thus of the report of the Commissioners, I must beg also to call the attention of the House to some particulars in which I think these Commissioners are mistaken, and which must induce us to pause before we act on their recommendations. I will mention now only one sample of what they have thought proper to advise. They deem it expedient with respect to mortgages to advise us to tax mortgages, although it is evident that the mortgagees have lent their property on the security that, having nothing to do with the privileges, or the dignity, or the enjoyment of land, they will receive their due from it free of taxation. The Commissioners, however, contrary, as I think, to all just principles, deem it advisable that mortgages shall be taxed. Sir, with respect to other parts of their recommendations, and which belong more immediately to the subject, there is, I think, insuperable difficulty in adopting their recommendations. They have stated that great evils would flow from the adoption of the workhouse system. They have stated that vast numbers in Ireland (the numbers I will afterwards revert to) are in a state of great distress; that the workhouses would overflow with the numbers; that restraint would be impossible; and they propose, therefore, that only the sick and the blind, and persons totally unable to work, should be received into the workhouses. With respect to this division of the subject, had Ireland been in the condition of Scotland I think we might have said, as was said by those who framed the Scotch law, that the able-bodied should not receive relief in the workhouses; because the population of Scotland falling rather short of what was needed, there was security in the disposition of the able-bodied that they would not become a burden upon the community. But when such a claim is likely to be made, when we have a superfluity of labour, I do not see how, having a workhouse you can shut the door of the workhouse, to the able-bodied. One comes and says, "I am old and a cripple, and unable: longer to work; I have nothing to sustain

485
me; admit me to this house, where I understand you give raiment, and food, and shelter; and let me pass the rest of my days protected against entire destitution." That person is admitted. Well; another comes and says, "It is impossible for me to obtain work; I have looked everywhere to find employment; I cannot obtain land—there is not any one who will let it to me; I cannot obtain hire for my labour; I am therefore in a state of complete destitution, and I ask you to receive me into the workhouse." Now, is it an answer to that man to say, "It is very true that you must starve if you are not received into the workhouse, but you have strength of limb, you are able-bodied, and we can-not receive you." Is not the one man who is able to work, but who cannot obtain labour—who cannot obtain a single twopence for his labour—is he not in a state of as great distress as the man who is prevented from obtaining work by infirmities and age? I say, that in a state of society such as that of Ireland, in making that distinction you make a distinction which is untenable. But there is another proposition in the Report of the Irish Poor-law Commissioners which requires consideration. I allude to their recommendation to establish a system of emigration, and have dépôts where certain persons are to be received, whether able-bodied or not, for the purpose of emigrating. Now, I must say generally, with regard to emigration, that though it is a wholesome resource in some respects, those who propose it ought not to look only to the wants and convenience of this country; they ought not altogether to overlook the wants and convenience of the place the emigrants are to be sent to. If you say "these men are not needed in this country, and, therefore, are to go abroad," you must at the same time, admit that those persons who are resident in your colonies have a rig-lit to say "We are very much in want of persons who shall occupy themselves either as labourers or as artisans in this colony, but if you tell us that you will send none but persons of bad moral character—persons who are physically unable to work—persons who are unfit to be members of your community, we say, on the other hand, do not let them be members of ours." I think that this claim on the part of the colony is a fair claim, and that in considering the advantage to the mother country you must
486
at the same time consider the disposition and wants of the colony. But what would have been the effect, such a view being taken by the colonies, of amassing in these dépôts, in these workhouses, without regulation (for such in fact they would have been), a number of persons with no other title to admission than that they were candidates for emigration. They would not have been subject to regular rules—none could be laid down to them; and when the ship for which they had been waiting was ready to take them, a number of them might say that they were not willing to embark, and the agents for emigration, might protest against receiving the scum of our population for their colonies. So that, while the Poor-law Commissioners have put a negative on workhouses, in proposing these dépôts they propose a worse kind of the same establishment, and one which I think would lead to great evil. Such were the reasons which induced us to think that a further inquiry must be made; that further deliberation must take place before any scheme or plan of poor-laws could be introduced under the authority of Government. I must now advert to the calculations which have been made by the Poor-law Commissioners, in so far as they will assist the scheme which I had the honour to propose to the last Parliament, and which I am about to propose to-night. I do think, certainly, that the Commissioners have overlooked many circumstances in the calculation they have made. I have already stated, that I think it is the business of the Government, with respect to a poor-law, thus to frame a provision for the destitute; and in framing a provision for the destitute, let it not be thought that we accomplish a trifling or unimportant advantage. In furnishing relief for the destitute, we do, in the first place, afford to all coming under that denomination, the security of food, raiment, and shelter, which, considering the misery which must exist in any country deprived of poor-laws, must, by every humane person, be deemed a very high advantage. In the second place, we thereby obtain the power of preventing and punishing mendicancy. We are enabled to provide a better police, you have the means of establishing a greater security for property, we can establish better order in society, and we thus promote civilisation and a general improvement throughout the country. In the third place, we connect the

487
interest of the landed proprietors with the state of the labouring classes. The effect of there being, at any moment, a great number of persons out of employment, leads to the consideration on the part of the landowners as to whether it is better for them to have those persons employed at wages, and doing some profitable work, or is it more advantageous to have them in workhouses where their labour is of no avail? With respect to the number for whom the Poor-law Commissioners think that provision ought to be made, I find they say in their Report, "We cannot estimate the number of persons out of work and in distress, during thirty weeks of the year, at less than 585,000, nor the number of persons dependent upon them, at less than 1,800,000, making in the whole, 2,385,000." That is the general estimate of the Commissioners; but, if it be analysed with care, it seems not to rest on any sufficient data. With respect to the particular towns or villages to which they refer, their estimate does not seem to be borne out. I will not, however, go into the details, but endeavour to show, generally, that their estimate cannot be maintained. They do not state that those persons are in a state of destitution for thirty weeks in the year. In a pamphlet written in opposition to the Report of Mr. George Nicholls, and the plan proposed by the Government, it is stated, that the meaning of these persons being in distress, was, that during the thirty weeks in the year, they had not more than one meal in the day. I ask, could that fact be known to any individual, even by the most careful investigation? There may be individuals in Ireland, who, for a certain time, have only one meal in the day, but without the most accurate and searching of investigations from day to day, from hour to hour, and even from person to person, I don't think it could be said that there is any precise number of individuals in that particular state. I imagine, what was meant was, that this number of persons, though not in a state of destitution, are in a state of comparative distress, and have insufficient means of subsistence. I have no doubt but there are a great number of persons with insufficient means of subsistence. I think, however, that there are several deductions of great importance to be made from the estimate of the Commissioners. A gentleman of Dublin, Mr. Stanley, has taken great pains to analyse
488
the population returns, and other statistical documents respecting the condition of Ireland, and from him, and on his authority, I will state one or two very important deductions which must be made from the Commissioners' estimate. One is as to the number of persons who are employed partly in manufactures. There are statements made in the population returns with respect to the landowners, which would appear to show, that there are very few persons employed in trade, and that great numbers are employed in agriculture. Now, this refers to the calculations that, have been made with respect to the number of persons dependent on agricultural employment. In the census returns for Ulster, it appears that the number employed in the linen trade, was only 8,859; but when the British Linen Company made their return respecting the value of the unbleached linen sold in 1824, they stated it to be 2,109,309 l. In the county of Armagh, 1,683 adult males appear to have been employed in every branch of manufacture, but the return states the quantity of linen sold to have been 568,799 l. In 1831, there were in Ulster, 189,087 landholders, not employing labourers, and only 29,301 employers of labourers. Now, I think it is obvious, that there is a considerable number employed in manufacture in Ulster, besides those employed in the cultivation of the land, and that the population derives profit partly from the one and partly from the other. This, I say, forms a considerable deduction from the general estimate by the Poor-law Commissioners. There is another point which appears to me to have been overlooked, and it is one of no little importance, as it affects the income enjoyed by the labourers of Ireland, as the produce of their labour. Many of the labourers come over here every year in great numbers, and are engaged in gathering in the harvest. It is stated, that from Dublin alone, 20,000 come over to this country annually, and carry back with them from 5l. to 15 l. each. The amount of the earnings of the Irish labourers in Great Britain was inferred from the fact, that a bank in Lincolnshire (that of Messrs. Handley and Sleaford), pays about 8,000 l. annually for the labourers employed in that district. When we take into our calculation the whole of the produce of the labourers of Ireland and the whole of their income, we

489
ought not to forget the sum obtained by their labours in England, because, whether engaged in any preliminary occupation, or whether in assisting at our harvest, their occupation equally tends to the increase of their income; and whether the money be earned in Ireland or from English employment, it is clear their carrying over this 10 l. or 15 l. each, is an income for the benefit of themselves, and for the general advantage of the labourers of Ireland. I think it cannot be calculated that less than 500,000 l. is earned by the Irish labourers in this country every year. And let me observe with respect to the habits of the Irish people, that I do think it speaks very much for their industry, for their foresight, and for their prudence, that they make this long journey every year, and carry back the money they have earned in order to pay their landlords their rent. I know that in instances in which Englishmen are engaged in the army, the navy, and as casual labourers, or as manufacturers, it often happens that if they receive 5l. or 10 l. at once, they spend it in three or four days, and instead of laying it out profitably, waste it in dissipation. Whereas these men from Ireland, coming over in great numbers every year, carrying back with them what they have received through the banks of England, and placing it in the banks of Ireland, is great proof that they are not that improvident, or careless, or indolent people that some persons suppose. I say, then, that if many omissions have been made by the Poor-law Commissioners, it is necessary that we should endeavour to come to some more correct conclusions, though we cannot come to any that are perfectly free from doubt with respect to the number of the destitute poor in Ireland. It has been calculated by Mr. Stanley, upon various data, with respect to Dublin, on information supplied to him from every accessible source, that the total number of destitute poor in Dublin, throughout the year, is precisely two per cent. on the population, or 5,646. Taking one per cent. for the rest of Ireland, we should have 82,806; or, were we to take one and a halt per cent. for the rest of the population, we should have 121,386. Without placing faith in this calculation as entirely correct, I think we may safely consider that it is founded on better data than those given by the Poor-law Commissioners. It should be remembered, with regard to the num-
490
ber of persons to be provided for by a Poor-law of this kind, that though there are a great many in a very bad condition in life—though their cabins are very miserable, and their food is of a very mean kind, yet there are persons who would rather remain in that condition than receive alms or go into a workhouse. There is certainly a remarkable difference with regard to the statistics of Great Britain and Ireland with respect to this subject. It is stated by the Poor-law Commissioners that in Ireland there are 884,000 families (in round numbers) for 15,000,000 of acres, while in Great Britain there were 901,000 families for 34,000,000 of acres. The difference is to be found chiefly among the landowners not employing labourers, the employers of labourers in Ireland being as 95,000 to 187,000, or nearly as one to two—a proportion not differing very greatly from the proportion of fifteen to thirty-four: but the landholders not employing labourers are as 564,000 to 168,000, or more than three to one. In like manner the families wholly dependent on hire are in Ireland 224,000, and in Great Britain 605,000—not more than one to upwards of two and a half. The landholders not employing labourers may, I think, be reckoned as persons in a low condition of life, but still not among the destitute persons for whom the Poor-law ought to be provided. I said at the commencement, that I did not intend to moot the various points which may be matter of discussion in the progress of the Bill which I have the honour to propose. In the first place, I wish to state the general principles on which the Bill is framed, and then the general nature of the evils against which it is intended to provide. The Bill is founded, as I stated last year, on what in England is called the workhouse principle; it does not propose to provide out-door relief. I think I should not be justified in proposing out-door relief. With respect to the workhouse system, there is the testimony of various persons—of the governor and deputy governor of St. Peter's Hospital Bristol; of Mr. Weale, the assistant Poor-law Commissioner; of the vestry clerk of Birmingham; of the clerk of the Liverpool workhouse; of the governors of the Birmingham workhouse; and of others employed in districts to which the Irish resort; and these persons declare that the repugnance of the Irish to enter into a

491
workhouse is as great, if not greater than that of the English. This, then, will form an answer to the opinion that there will be shoals of those persons, who could obtain labour if they pleased, ready to enter into the workhouses in Ireland. But while we prove the existence of the repugnance on the one hand, on the other we establish the fact that greater means will be at our disposal for the relief of the needy, and when we afford wholesome and good food and raiment and shelter to the necessitous— when it cannot be said that the means of existence are denied, no man will have a right to become a common beggar, or to prey on the property of the community. I am well aware, that with respect to a part of this evil, the relief of the destitute, there are other resources that must be looked to; but as I said before, I should not think it expedient to place on them any great reliance. As regards certain parts of the country, no doubt there exist evils which cannot be cured unless the means of emigration are provided. Taking that view, we have thought it proper to introduce into this Bill a clause nearly the same as that in the English Poor-law Bill, which allows means to be taken, with the consent of the Commissioners, to provide for emigration. Though, however, this power is given, I do not hesitate to say, that it must be exercised with caution—it must be used with great care; those to whom it is confided must never think of exporting to the colonies the dregs of the population, or persons who are unfit to remain in this kingdom; it must be considered rather as a drain by which a certain portion of the population may be taken off. We are in justice bound not to excite the jealousy of the colonies by giving them reason to suppose that we are about to export to them those whom we think unfit to live among ourselves. With respect to public works, no doubt they may be useful, but it is not in instances where the work begins and ends in the work itself: it is only where it leads to increased means of communication; it is only by opening fresh channels for the profitable employment of capital that public works can be rendered permanently useful. I will not now enter into the various disputed questions, and that most justly disputed of all, the question of settlement, which must be raised in the course of the further discussion on this
492
Bill; my object is to state the general principle, viz., that the Act is intended to provide relief by means of the workhouse, and, further, to provide for the relief of the destitute only. Sir, I would not lend myself to the belief, I would not encourage the persuasion that by means of this we are about to raise half a nation from a state of distress to a state of affluence and prosperity; but I think it one of many improvements, by which the security of property may be increased—by which order may be maintained—by which poverty may be relieved—and by which the various classes in Ireland may be better united—the landlord with the peasant, the man of capital with the man who depends wholly on his labour. Sir, it is for this Parliament to endeavour to devise means by which the condition of Ireland may be improved. It would be absurd to think that evils which are of long continuance—some of which may be said to be centuries old, others being of a more recent date—it would be ridiculous to suppose that such evils will be cured in three, four, or ten years by means of legislation: but this I do believe, that Ireland being now in possession of nearly all those political and civil rights which she ought to have—I say, in possession of nearly all those political and civil rights which she ought to have; because I think that those which still remain will—nay, must soon be granted—Ireland being in that condition, it appears to me she has a career before her in which the genius, the talent, and the industry of her native population will raise her to that degree of prosperity for which her soil and her country are fitting. Let us endeavour that all our measures shall aid and promote this tendency. Let us endeavour to act in a fair, impartial, and benevolent spirit towards that part of the people whom we represent as fully as we represent any other portion, thus aiding by our measures the promotion of that prosperity which from themselves must have its chief source. I maintain that if we act thus we shall perform our duty to that country, and we may look forward, not in a short time, but as the ultimate result of our labours, to the period when we shall have no reason to be ashamed of the condition of Ireland. I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide relief for the destitute poor of Ireland.
Mr. Shawsaid, that as that was only a

493
motion for the introduction of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) he (Mr. Shaw) would not trouble the House at any length. He was not disposed to discuss the various generalities, upon which the noble Lord had dwelt with reference to the former state and former Government of Ireland—though he could not avoid expressing his acquiescence in one sentiment of the noble Lord on that subject, and it was that, if Parliament and the executive Government ensured to the people of that country the enjoyment of rational freedom, and security for their properties and persons—they would soon work out their own prosperity. He would confine the few observations he had to make to the consideration of the present as a practical measure for the relief of that mass of destitution amongst the people of Ireland, which both sides of the House admitted and deplored, and for which it must be the desire, as it was both the duty and the interest of all parties to provide to the utmost extent that it was possible a legislative remedy—and he rejoiced that they could approach that one Irish subject free from political animosity, party bias, or personal bickering. A great part of the speech of the noble Lord had been in the nature of an attack upon the report of the Poor-law Commissioners, and inasmuch as they had been appointed by the Government with which the noble Lord was connected, it was rather unreasonable that the noble Lord should throw their defence upon him—at the same time, he must say, that he agreed with them on some points on which the noble Lord had dissented. He certainly thought that the Commissioners had formed rather too high an estimate of the amount of destitution, while on the other hand, he was persuaded that Mr. Nicholls had fallen into the opposite extreme. He felt, however, that the country was greatly indebted to both for the ability and labour they had applied to the subject, and he wished to treat the opinions as well of the Commissioners as of Mr. Nicholls, whether he agreed or differed with them, with every deference and respect. He entirely concurred with the noble Lord that "outdoor relief" should be excluded from the present plan. In a country circumstanced as Ireland then was, he could apprehend nothing but the most ruinous consequences from a system of out-door relief. It must absorb all independent
494
labour. The whole Irish population, as was observed in Mr. Nicholls's second report, would become a mass of paupers. Relief beyond the limits of the workhouse would soon degenerate into the allowance system, which had produced such evils in. England; and in a country where population so abounded, and the wages of labour were so low as in Ireland, would speedily work a virtual confiscation of the whole landed property. He was apprehensive of the effect of holding out too large an expectation of relief, and approved of the Commissioners recommendation that it should be limited to the aged, the infirm, and the impotent—and that they alone should be received into the workhouse or asylum. He was aware that there were difficulties on this point in preventing abuse and nicely defining the age or infirmity which should entitle the party applying to relief—but still where there was no right to relief given and an ample discretion vested in the Commissioners he thought those difficulties were to be overcome; and that on the other hand they should ever bear in mind that they were not, as in England, dealing with an old existing system, but introducing an entirely new one in Ireland; they could not therefore proceed with too much caution. Let them not encourage expectations which they could not realise. It was easy to advance in concession, but impossible to draw back, and in answer to an objection of the noble Lord's, as to refusing the able-bodied relief, recollecting that all you were giving was a boon, it was to be considered, that in providing for the sick, the aged, and the infirm, you were removing, pro tanto, a pressure from the able-bodied poor who now had to support them. In his view of the case, it was very important, too, that ancillary measures should be taken to assist the able-bodied labourer, and he was glad to hear from the noble Lord that some provision for emigration was to be made in the present Bill; he knew emigration was a question of difficulty, but still he did not think the particular difficulty suggested by the noble Lord on the part of the colonies was likely to arise; for surely where we had a surplus, and they an inadequate population, the benefit would be reciprocal, and he must own that he would greatly prefer that a considerable emigration of the able-bodied destitute poor of Ireland, should be substi-

495
tuted for the spontaneous emigration of those who are now, as it were, pushed out from that country for want of room, but who are too frequently the most enterprising, intelligent, and well conducted of our own population. He also felt that useful public works would be an auxiliary, and fully acquiesced in the general principle of public works stated by the noble Lord, that they should not be such as merely to afford temporary employment and then throw back the labourer on the labour market, but such as, by facilitating communication and opening the internal resources of the country, would conduce to the general and permanent advantage of the community. The noble Lord had not stated whether the new Bill was to contain a provision for the general establishment of the measure, in the first instance by the simultaneous opening of the workhouses or not. The simultaneous introduction of the system, so far as it was practicable, he thought very desirable, and that it would greatly tend to its ultimate success. It would also have the advantage of obviating what he had been pressed by last year as the strongest argument in favour of a law of settlement, for clearly the most difficult period to dispense with such a law would be during the partial and experimental introduction of the measure and he still held the opinion he had expressed in the discussion of the Bill of last year; that it would be simpler, and, in all respects, better, that there should be neither a law of settlement, or a right to relief; the terms were not quite convertible—but still he thought it easy to show, that the law of settlement, and the right to relief, were so inseparably connected, that the adoption of the one must inevitably lead to the establishment of the other. He felt some difficulty on the subject of the immediate suppression of mendicancy by positive enactment. The questions of rating assessment, and, above all, the of the local administration of the system, would open a wide field for future discussion; but he would not detain the House by entering upon them then —or further, than to express his anxious expectation that every Irish Member, of every shade of politics, would unite with the Government and those who take an interest in the subject, to surmount its intrinsic difficulties which undoubtedly were considerable—and, in obedience to her Majesty's gracious
496
injunction, which had that night been read at the table, consult together upon the establishment by law of some well-regulated means of relief for the destitute poor in Ireland—But one word more, and he had done. The same speech from which he had just quoted asserted the prevalence of domestic tranquillity throughout her Majesty's dominions. He trusted that as regarded that less favoured portion of them for which they were then legislating, the present measure might be accessory to an end so devoutly to be desired; but he was sorry to be obliged, and this was the first opportunity he had, to enter his sincere and solemn protest against the statement—that domestic tranquillity at present prevailed in Ireland.
Sir Charles Styleswas favourable to the establishment of a Poor-law in Ireland. He considered that workhouses would afford a sufficient test that none but those who were really destitute should receive relief. Looking, he said, to the expenses of the Poor-law in this country, where the number of poor was comparatively low, he calculated that when a Poor-law was brought into operation in Ireland, the expenditure certainly would not be less than 2,000,000 l. a-year. In order to limit the expense a discretion ought, he thought, to be given to the Poor-law guardians. It was his opinion, that if it were only intended to give relief to the aged and the sick, the machinery proposed must be more expensive than the necessity of the case could require; but if, on the other hand, it was intended to relieve the whole mass of destitution now in existence in Ireland, then the landed proprietors should be prepared to raise 2,000,000 l. a-year; but which ever was intended, it was absolutely necessary that relief should be insured.
Mr. Frenchshould not trespass on the House for any time. Indeed as far as the Bill about to be introduced was concerned, he had been anticipated in all he was anxious to say, by his right hon. Friend, the Recorder of Dublin; he perfectly agreed with him, that if they were to have a Poor-law in Ireland, the safest test of destitution that could be applied was the workhouse system, and his views of the necessity of placing some limit to the power proposed to be vested in the Commissioners, whether that limit was to be as to the amount to be levied under

497
their authority, or as to the description of persons to whom relief was to be afforded, remained unchanged since last Session. He was in accordance with what seemed to be the wish of the House, content to postpone discussing the several provisions of this measure until the Bill went into Committee. But he could not refrain from alluding to two parts of the speech of the noble Lord, which had not been touched on by his right hon. Friend. He begged the House to remember it was of the utmost importance, as far as the interests of Ireland were concerned, to know whether the estimate of the Poor-law Commissioner or that of Mr. Nicholls, a to the amount of destitution, was the correct one; it was indeed a vital question to them, whether the number of persons likely to require relief were two millions three hundred and odd thousand, or but 80,000, for such was the extraordinary difference between the two statements. The noble Lord concurred in Mr. Nicholls's view, but gave no data beyond stating his opinion that the Commissioners had confounded poverty with destitution, that would lead others to do so. In support of his view he read some extracts from tables prepared by Mr. Stanley, the accuracy of which he had no reason to doubt, as he was aware he was a gentleman of considerable talent, who had devoted much time to the subject; but it must not be forgotten that on the other side there were high authorities. Dr. What the Archbishop of Dublin; Mr. Blake, and others, who were, not with standing Mr. Nicholls's report, not yet convinced of their statements being incorrect. For his own part, he could not believe, he could not bring himself to imagine, that 80 or 100,000 persons could be a correct estimate of the number that would probably seek for relief under this Bill. He assured the noble Lord that one item in his calculation of the resources of Ireland was perfectly erroneous—that of 500,000 l. being the annual amount brought to Ireland from England by the harvest labourers; in place of the average amount as calculated on by the noble Lord brought back by each individual, being from ten to fifteen pounds, he confidently asserted, from his own knowledge, having for years been in the habit of making inquiries on this subject, that in a favourable season the average did not exceed three pounds, and that if the weather was
498
broken, or that the harvest did not come in together, it seldom varied from one to two pounds, and that for this sum, independent of the labour performed, upwards of six hundred miles was walked. He had in some instances been aware of the unfortunate creatures having performed a journey of this length, and their expenses having exceeded their earnings. The noble Lord had stated there was a clause in this Bill relating to emigration, and alluded to it as a new matter. This he could not admit, as although there was not an gave clause in the last Bill, it was distinctly stated that a separate Bill for the encouragement of emigration, should be introduced as a concurrent measure. Nothing had been said by the noble Lord about the two remaining measures, which had been promised at the same time, and both of which had been actually introduced in Parliament last year—the Medical Charities' Bill, and that for the promotion of public works; the first of these he would not say anything about, as it was the intention of his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, to again bring it forward, but the second he could not lightly pass over, and begged to call the attention of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, to the statement he was about to make—it involved a serious principle—whether a Treasury order was to supersede an Act of Parliament or not. Last Session a Bill was carried through both Houses for the encouragement and promotion of public works in Ireland, and declared by the noble Lord who introduced it into the other House, to be a measure in connexion with the Poor-law; what statement had been made in that House he could not say, as he was in Ireland when it was brought in; this Act placed at the disposal of the Board of Works in Ireland the sum of 50,000 l., and enabled them to grant half the estimated cost of important public works, on an application being made to them by the magistrates and cess payers at special Sessions, to be called for that purpose. Several Sessions were held under this Act; amongst others, in the barony where he resided, certain works were approved of, and a demand for the assistance specified in the Act duly made; an engineer of professional eminence was sent down by the Board of Works, who reported favourably on the utility of the works, and recommended the assistance

499
being afforded. After some delay, a communication was received from the secretary of the board to the effect that the treasury, considering the Act to be intended to give relief to temporary distress, which distress was passed, did not purpose putting the Act in force. He denied there was anything in the Act which entitled them to give it this construction; it did not contain a single word about famine or temporary distress, and was in direct contradiction to the statement of the noble Lord to which he had alluded. He considered the line that had been adopted neither politic nor just, and had moved for a return on the subject, when he should again bring it forward. At present he alluded to it for the purpose of she wing the noble Lord, that last Session it had been deemed advisable to introduce accompanying measures with the Poor-law Bill, and to press on him the necessity of adhering to the same course, as he was convinced without it this Bill would neither prove popular nor efficient.
Mr. Lucashad heard with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Lord. He begged, however, to observe to the noble Lord that any statement which could be made as to the linen trade in 1824 was not at all applicable to the same trade in 1837, as the linen trade had greatly diminished since 1824. He hoped that this question would never degenerate into a party one. As to a law of settlement, he begged to say that he would bring forward a motion on that subject similar to that which he had submitted to the House last year. He wished that a point of so much importance should be again considered, in order that it might receive the solemn decision of a new Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for Roscommon,(Mr. French) explained that an act had passed last year, to enable the Government to advance, in cases of great emergency, the public money under the superintendence of the board of works. It would, he thought, be a most unfortunate lesson to teach to the people of Ireland, it would be most unfortunate for themselves, if they were to expect that in every case of distress, they were to calculate upon receiving money from the Government. A case of very great and extraordinary emergency could alone justify such an application. The Act of last year was intended to apply to such a
500
case, and for the purpose of doing so, it actually passed over the functions of the grand jury. The application to which the hon. Member for Roscommon had referred was considered by the treasury not to come within the objects of that Bill, and, therefore, it was refused.
Mr. O'Briencontended the Act did not bear the meaning given to it by the right hon. Gentleman, and that it never was intended as a temporary measure nor was there anything in it that could justify such a supposition, and trusted the benefit that would derive from its being carried into effect would not longer be withheld from the country.
Mr. Lynch, as a lawyer, had no hesitation in asserting the act did not bear the construction put on it by the Chanceller of the Exchequer; he could instance several cases similar to that stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon, and joined with the hon. Member for Limerick, in hoping a line of conduct which really could not be justified, would not longer be persevered in.
Mr. John Younghoped, that when the Bill had been read a second time, as he supposed it would be without opposition, the noble Lord would not pass it through the Committee, immediately after the recess. Time should be allowed for receiving and weighing observations and suggestions from Ireland, especially from the grand jurors, who would probably begin to assemble the last week in February. He hoped the Committee would be fixed for after that period; the more information afforded on the subject, the more discussion that took place, the better—they would facilitate the introduction of the measure, and exaggerated anticipations of mischief on the one hand, and of indefinite and impracticable good on the other, would be dispelled. Indeed, Mr. Nicholls's second report presented that morning stated the public mind of Ireland was now much better informed on the subject than formerly. The hon. Member concluded, by saying, he was not sorry to hear that the further consideration and more extended inquiry they had afforded the question, had confirmed Ministers in their adherence to the main features of their former measure — to an absolute rejection of a law of settlement, and an exclusively in-door system of relief.
Lord Clementsremarked that Mr. Nicholls had, in his last report, referred to

501
the county of Donegal, and had remarked that there were two points necessary to be attended to before it could be expected that a poor law would work well: they were, the facilitating of emigration, and the affording of employment to the people. He agreed with Mr. Nicholls upon both these points. He also thought that a Poor law never could be efficient unless the people had the means of taxing themselves for the purpose of carrying on public works. The rate-payers ought to have a direct control over their own money, and to be afforded the means of opening the resources of their country. There was, he declared, no man more anxious than he was to have a Poor-law, if the Government would only apply to Ireland the same improvements which had benefited England so much, and give to the rate-payers a control over their own expenditure.
Mr. Slaneysaid, that the state of destitution which existed in Ireland was such as ought not to exist in a Christian country. This was not an Irish question only; the people of this country were deeply affected by the state of the people of Ireland. It would be useless to endeavour to raise the condition and tone of feeling of the people of this country, if they did not at the same time elevate the condition and moral tone of their brethren in Ireland. It was a matter of great congratulation to him that on one Irish question there was not any difference of opinion, and he entertained strong hopes that this would greatly contribute to the success of the experiment.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, he was glad to be able to concur in the proposition of the noble Lord. With respect to the subject of out-door relief, he thought it was utterly impossible to think of extending it to Ire land. He was not in favour of the workhouse system if they could find a better; but in Ireland he thought they must be content with this system, and the only object was to see that it was well applied. He entertained a strong opinion against the law of settlement. He thought that, if possible, it ought to be avoided, and he was not certain that it could not be avoided. There might be times when there would be such a pressure of population in a particular district as really to swamp all the means of supply, if there was not a law of settlement. He thought that it would be found necessary, unless there was a law of settlement, to have a
502
simultaneous provision made for all the unions; because without this was done, and without a law of settlement, every man would go to that union which was nearest to him. He would give his best attention to the details of the measure, and if he could afford any assistance in the further progress of the Bill he would do so with the greatest possible pleasure.
Lord John Russellsaid, he was very glad his proposition had been so fairly received. It was his intention to propose the second reading before the holidays, as he did not anticipate that on the second reading there would be any difference of opinion, and he hoped to be able to go into Committee rather early in February. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden), he would not enter upon the questions referred to; he would merely say that he considered that if there was no law of settlement they must either have unions established simultaneously, or make some provision for the unions first established until the others were established. This was a point well worthy of the consideration of the House, and, he must add, of the Government and the Commissioners.
Mr. F. Shawinquired, whether there had been any provisions made for establishing the unions simultaneously.
Lord John Russellsaid, no provision had been made.
Mr. D. Rochesaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Lucas) would persist in the motion of which he had given notice when the Bill came forward, as if there was not a law of settlement the Bill would have an injurious effect on the state of society in Ireland.
Leave given, Bill brought in and read a first time.

POST-OFFICE RETURNS.
Mr. Wallacerose to call the attention of the House to the most extraordinary document that had ever been laid before them. From a return which had been laid before the House, it apeared that in a period of eight years no less a sum than 640,000 l.had been abstracted from letters in their progress through the Post-office. He saw by the newspapers of that day that it had been stated by the Postmaster-General in the House of Lords, that of this sum 400,000 l. had been restored to the individuals from whom it was taken. He was very much

503
astonished at the statement that this money had not been abstracted, as he could not comprehend how it could have been restored unless it was first abstracted. He did not know how this money could have been abstracted without a violation of seals. It was a general practice in the country post-offices to break the seals of letters and read their contents; but he believed the practice of opening letters was carried on to a greater extent in Glasgow than anywhere else. The hon. Gentleman referred to two cases in which parties had put money-letters into the Glasgow post-office, which letters had never reached their destination. A good system existed in Ireland in 1831; but it had been put down when the Irish and Scotch offices were united with that of England. They had in Ireland at that time an excellent system of registry, which, while it saved 20,000 l. a year, cost only 100 l. He hoped that her Majesty's Government would take up the subject in one way or other. It was not to be endured that the Post-office should have a monopoly of the carriage of the country, that there should be a penalty upon using any other mode of carriage, and yet that they should not be bound to make up losses. The hon. Member complained that whilst Ireland and the north of England had now the benefit of the Irish express by the railroad, Scotland was still deprived of that advantage. There was another matter of which he had to complain. At his instigation the Post-office had consented to send two mails daily to Glasgow and Edinburgh. They had certainly done so, but they had sent a mail-bag by only one of them, not a single letter or paper being taken by the other mail to Scotland. He considered this a complete breach of faith. He moved for leave to bring in a bill for the registration of letters.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas glad the hon. Member, by making a motion, had given him an opportunity of making a brief reply. He was not surprised that the hon. Member had drawn the attention of the House to these returns, seeing the amount of money involved in them. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that this sum, 600,000 l. represented the amount abstracted from the Post-office. Now he would show that the return bore no such meaning. He would first ask of any mercantile Gentleman pre-
504
sent, whether, as a matter of common sense, he believed it possible that 600,000 l. could have been abstracted from the correspondence of the country without raising such a clamour on the part of the trading interest of the country as to induce them to complain of the grievance, and not leave it entirely in the hands of the hon. Member for Greenock? Would they not have heard of it before through the representatives of Manchester, of Bristol, of Liverpool, and of every other commercial town in the country, which must have felt its interests deeply affected by such proceedings? It was therefore unlikely that the conclusion come to by the hon. Member should be correct. But not only was it not likely, but it was impossible. This 600,000 l. was not a return of the amount of money lost; it arose in this simple way. Suppose a person expected a letter containing money, and the letter was delayed in consequence of some accident one or two days; under these circumstances he makes an appeal to the Post-office, and the appeal is registered, she wing the amount of money thus detained. But it did not by any means follow that the money should be lost, and the party receiving it did not always inform the Post-office of the fact. There was also another case which was not impossible, namely, parties sending their servants to put money letters in the Post-office, which letters might never have been posted. The House must not therefore, in looking at these returns suppose that the sum of 600,000 l. in anyway represented the amount of money actually lost in the Post-office. He was not prepared to deny that a considerable sum of money was lost in its passage through the Post-office; but that was a circumstance which could never be wholly prevented. With respect to the transmission of money in letters, he believed that in nine cases out of ten, unless an additional envelope were put upon the letter, the money was so carelessly put in that it would fall out. He did not wish to deny that an evil existed in the present system, to which he should be anxious at the first opportunity to apply a practical and efficient remedy. He thought, however, that nothing could be done with any approach to success until a system for the registration of letters had been adopted. By this means the safe delivery of every letter would be ensured, though of course the same responsibility could hardly be attached

505
to any alleged or supposed contents of it. With respect to the proposal for establishing day mails, he had only one word to say. It must be evident that if this proposition were adopted, the mails would arrive in London at different times of the day instead of at one general and fixed hour. Now, it was only within these few days that he had been complained to of the irregularity of the arrival of certain letters from Liverpool and elsewhere, and a desire expressed that the period of the arrival of letters should be well understood and permanent. His own opinion certainly was, that it was far preferable that the letters should arrive at one fixed hour from all parts of the country, as at present, than that there should be one hour for the Liverpool letters, another for those from Glasgow, another for the foreign letters, another for the Edinburgh, and so forth. In conclusion, he had only to say, that he hoped, at novery remoe period, to introduce a measure for the registration of letters at the Post-office upon the principle he had already stated.
Mr. Humethought, that as the right hon. Gentleman threw some doubts upon the accuracy of the supposed losses to the public, as manifested in this return, the Post-office should be at some pains to ascertain whether those returns were correct or not. He thought also that it was high time that the public, having only this one means for the conveyance of their letters at their disposal, should enjoy something like security as respected their letters and the contents of them. There was the case of 71. 10 s. sealed up in a letter before the Postmaster, and treble postage paid, and yet the letter was lost; and when the Postmaster-general was applied to, he wrote a letter saying that "He was not aware of any law which rendered the Post-office liable for any losses by reason of a letter's not reaching its destination." Now he maintained that the Postmaster-general who could write such a letter as that should not be suffered to remain in his situation, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he sanctioned such conduct, ought not to remain in his. The public were prevented by penalties from sending letters by any other means of conveyance than that of the General Post-office, and in return for this valuable monopoly the Post-office owed the public something like security in the conveyance of their letters. There ought
506
to be responsibility somewhere. Before he sat down he begged to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, in a most able manner, the abuses of the present system of Post-office management, and said that things ought not to remain as they were. The right hon. Gentleman at the same time brought in a Bill to reform these evils; but when that Bill arrived in the House of Lords, the nobleman who had been Postmaster-general under all these abuses caused the Bill to be turned out, and then laughed at the Government and this House for the trouble they had been at for nothing. Now, he begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was his intention again to bring in, and to pass into a law, the Bill which he had formerly introduced on this subject?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was quite true that, in conformity with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of the Post-office, he had introduced a Bill for the reform of that department, two Sessions ago. At that time he certainly did state that he could not approve of the present system of Post-office management; but, at the same time, he said so without at all impugning the conduct of the Duke of Richmond, or of his successor, the Earl of Lichfield. On the contrary, he bore testimony to the zealous efforts of those two noblemen to contend against the radical defects of the system under which they had to act; and the conclusion which he then drew was, that, if after all that had been done by them, there were still defects at the Post-office, there was the greater necessity for a complete reform. He had succeeded in carrying that Bill through that House, but he could not be held responsible for its fate in the other House. He had only to add on this subject that nothing but the early termination of the last Session had prevented him from again introducing a Bill on this subject, and that he certainly proposed to do so in the present Session. With respect to the letter which the Postmaster-General had written in reference to a letter containing money which had miscarried, and upon which the hon. Member for Kilkenny had commenced by declaring, that the man who had written such a letter should not remain in his situation, he begged to submit that, however such a circumstance

507
might be received as an additional argument for a reform in the present system, yet as long as the present system remained unaltered by act of Parliament, the Postmaster-general had given a perfectly correct statement of the law of the case, and in his opinion, therefore, it was the only letter which could have been written by the Postmaster-general on the subject.
Sir G. Stricklandthanked the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this motion for his exertions in a matter of so much public interest. It was highly necessary that a system of increased security and vigilance should be introduced without delay into the post-office department. He was glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to take a step towards this by introducing a Bill for the registration of letters.
Mr. George F. Youngbelieved, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the merchants and bankers of the metropolis would not be in favour of any alteration in the conveyance of letters which should subject them to deliveries at different periods of the day instead of at one fixed and uniform hour.
Mr. Laboucherebelieved, that most of the charges against the post-office which had been made this evening were extravagant and unfounded. He admitted that the security of letters at present enjoyed was not such as the public had a right to look for from a public department; and he believed that the best remedy which could be applied to this evil was that of a registration of letters as proposed by his right hon. Friend. Such a registration, he thought, could be very easily carried into operation as far as the security of the letter was concerned; but as to the contents of it, that, he thought, could hardly be attempted to be ensured, as it would be impossible to examine every letter in the midst of the hurry of business at a place like the post-office. Registration was already to a certain extent carried on at the twopenny post-office whenever the letter contained money or otherwise, on the demand of those who sent the money, and it had been found so efficient, that in upwards of 100,000 letters which had been registered in this manner, only two losses had occurred. He thought, however, that if the post-office were responsible for small sums, it would be of great convenience to the poorer classes.
Mr. Wallacewas glad to hear, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to bring in a Bill for the reform of the post-office, and that he should, therefore, withdraw his motion.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Commissions of the Peace.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of SUTHERLAND, from several Dissenting Congregations in Somersetshire, against the Apprenticeship system in the West Indies.

EDUCATION.
The Marquess of Lansdownehad a petition to present to the House, which was most respectably signed by the inhabitants of Manchester, on the subject of the Bill of which the noble Lord on his left (Lord Brougham) had given notice for that evening—National Education. The petition was originally intended to have been introduced to the notice of the House by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, but owing to his being absent from town attending to some important duties, he had undertaken
426
to present it, and in doing so he was authorised to say, that the right rev. Prelate to whom he had alluded fully concurred in the prayer of the petitioners. The object of the petition was, as set forth in the statements which it contained, that such a system of education should be adopted as would admit every class of her Majesty's subjects to have the means of obtaining a proper education, and that the difficulties which at present existed, proceeding from a difference of religious opinions, might be removed; and with these suggestions he most cordially agreed. It was unnecessary for him to say, after the conversation which took place in that House a few evenings ago, that no intention existed on the part of the Government to force the adoption of a compulsory system of education, and there was no person more convinced than he was, that that could not form a part of any well-conceived plan, and he must also say, that it was not contemplated either by the Government or by any other body of persons whatsoever. A society had been alluded to which was known by the name of the Central Society of Education, and which was composed of many persons of the greatest respectability and of high rank in the country; and an opinion had been stated to be entertained by them, which, although it was afterwards qualified by the right rev. Prelate who had referred to the matter, was yet of a nature calculated to induce a feeling of distrust in the public mind in relation to the society. On referring to a volume which had been published by the society, he found, that it contained statements of a variety of opinions, but they appeared to be the collection of the opinions of other persons, and not to have proceeded from the society upon any belief which they entertained upon the subject; and it was put forth merely as a means of acquainting the public with the various propositions which had been made with regard to education. In speaking of the adoption of any plan, he must say, that he believed that the Government would better discharge their duty by taking the opinion of a noble Lord who had made education the subject of his particular attention, and whose qualifications and inquiries rendered him most competent to give an opinion upon the matter, and to adopt his plan, provided it should appear fit and proper, than by following any other system of their own,

427
the feasibility of which they might not have had an opportunity of ascertaining; but he most sincerely hoped that no unnecessary delay would be permitted to occur before some measure was taken with a view to the providing for the education of the poor in a mode more extensive and more appropriate than that which was now employed; for he believed that, although the system had been improved in some degree, yet that it was still very inefficient both in the towns and in the country. He believed that it was not the wish of any Member of that House that any system of education should be received unless religious instruction formed a portion of it; but he could not help pointing out to the House that there were many schools which were founded professedly with a view of providing a religious education for the children of the poor, but in which the objects of the institution were so badly carried out that the morals of the scholars suffered materially, and some improved plan must therefore be provided in order to give effect to the benefits which it was intended should be conferred; for unless religious instruction was combined with the inculcation of general good principles, and unless also the general topics of an ordinary education were introduced, he was convinced that no improvement in the morals of the people would take place. He could not but express his firm belief that the introduction of some good system of education was essential as well for the diminution of crime as for the general welfare of the people.
The Bishop of London, having heard the remarks which had fallen from the noble Marquess with reference to what had been said the other evening in that House, could not suffer the opportunity to go by without again alluding to the statements which he had made, and which had been attempted to be controverted. He was not at present prepared to substantiate, by the production of documents or other evidence, the facts which he had brought under the notice of the House, but he could again state that two of the members of the society to which he had alluded had gone through the country making speeches, and that it was only in two or three instances, when they had been admonished by the expression of the feelings of the people, that they had changed the tone of their addresses, which before had been directed against
428
the introduction of the Scriptures in the course of the system of education which they proposed should be adopted. Now, when a Member of Parliament and a barrister were heard advocating such a plan, and when it was known that they were both members of the central society of education, and that one of them was also the editor of its publications, he would ask whether it were possible for any man to draw any inference from their conduct other than that the society of which they were members professed to advise and to advocate the adoption of the same system? Was it not too plain for any person possessing common sense to deny? Besides this, he would suggest to any noble Lord to read the correspondence which had taken place between a Mr. Simpson and Mr. Colquhoun, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and to draw that inference which his judgment would suggest; and he would venture to say, that the same idea which he had founded on the facts to which he had already alluded would at once present itself to his mind. But in suggesting this he must guard himself from the suspicion of being supposed to impute improper motives to every Member of the society who might really and seriously be desirous of diffusing education among the people, and who might be far from countenancing or giving their sanction to the principles which had been advocated by the persons to whom he had alluded. Nor would he even allege such motives against those who had expressed the strongest opinions upon the subject; but he would declare, without hesitation, that they had taken a wrong view of the subject and that they proposed to introduce a system highly detrimental to the object which they professed to have in view, and to the spread of religious knowledge through the country. He repeated, that he would not impute to them improper motives; but when Members of the society were thus seen going through the country and advocating a plan in which the use of the Scriptures was omitted, he could not but think that that was the object also of the society. He would say a few words further, because it would spare him the necessity of addressing the House at a later period of the evening. He must admit that the present system of education was far from being perfect. It was only within thirty years that national education had been tried in this country;

429
and although it had not yet been attempted On so great a scale as might be hereafter adopted, or at ail commensurate with the amount of the population of the country, yet it deserved great praise, and little surprise could be felt that very beneficial results had not yet followed its introduction. Another generation must be permitted to pass before any judgement could be formed of its absolute effect, for before the fruit could ripen the seed must be long sown. He would say, however, with regard to the schools which were connected with the established Church, and to the national schools at present established, that the observations of the noble Marquess would not apply, whatever imperfections might belong to the system on which they were conducted. He knew, indeed, that such schools did exist as those referred to, and to which the remarks might be appropriate even in their most odious sense, but they were not in connection with the established Church. The National Society had made great exertions to improve the schools which they had established, and to extend the system of education—not merely scriptural but general education, comprising instruction in the usual useful branches of knowledge. In the agricultural districts there was much difficulty experienced in getting the children to attend the infant schools, and even when their attendance was obtained, it was only for that portion of their life between the ages of seven and ten or eleven years; for so soon as their parents found that they were capable of earning a trifle weekly by their labour, they were immediately removed from the place in which they might obtain some education in order to work. He was a warm advocate of infant schools; but every one must be aware that little could be done in the instruction of children in so short a time as that which he had pointed out. He felt that he was anticipating some of the remarks of the noble Lord (Brougham), but he could not conceal from himself the impression that no system could be devised which would reach the extent of prefection which was the desire of the noble Lord, in common, he was sure, with every other Member of that House. For his own part, he believed that the best course the Legislature could take in respect to this subject, was to express its opinions strongly, and to assist by grants of money and other encourage-
430
ment the views of charitable individuals and societies, whose object was the advancement of education; but he was of opinion that the views which it had would thus be carried out in a manner far better than they could be by any enactment.
Lord Denmanfelt it due to the society and to himself to make some observations upon what had been stated, as well on a former occasion as now, by the right rev. Prelate who had just resumed his seat. He must admit that, from the qualification of the right rev. Prelate, no imputation had been cast upon any one individually, but he for one felt anxious that it should not go forth to the world that he had given his sanction to the projects which had been stated to have emanated from the society of which he was a Member. Although he was, as he said, a Member of the Central Society of Education yet he had no interest in it, further than his name being attached to it. He was applied to by some most respectable persons, as well as by some who were members of the same profession with himself, that his name might be attached to the list of Members, and he felt bound to acquiesce in this request, inasmuch as that he had a strong interest in the improvement of the system of education, and because he felt that it was defective. The evils of the present plan were admitted by the right rev. Prelate, and he was bound to say, that the remedy of those evils was the object of the society, and he confessed, that he thought it had been rather severely attacked. He was, unfortunately, not in the House when the matter was formerly discussed, but he understood that it had been stated, and it had gone forth that it had been stated, that the two objects of the society were to introduce a system of compulsory education, and that it should be purely and entirely secular—all religious instruction being excluded from it. He was authorised to say, that the society had declared no opinion whatever on the matter, but that the sole object which they had in view was—and it was admitted to be much wanted—to collect and diffuse information on the subject of education, and he would appeal to any noble Lord who had looked into the publications which had been put forth under the direction of the society, whether they did not contain much real and valuable intelligence? It might have been supposed, from the observations which had

431
been made, that the plans which it was said were entertained by the society had been learned from the publications which had been put forth as well as from the speeches which had been made by some of the members; but no such supposition could be justified by the books of the society. In them there was no opinion expressed upon the subject, the society only aiming to give the public as much information as possible upon which opinions could be justly founded. The name of the writer of every treatise was appended to his work, so that no error could well arise as to the source of the statement that the education recommended was of an entirely secular nature. He would say, that he had never met with more surprise than on the part of those whose opinion it was stated to be when the subject was alluded to in their presence. He thought it was impossible to draw any inference from any writings which the society had put forth such as had been expressed by the right rev. Prelate. Then it was said, that the notion was formed besides on the conduct of the members of the society; but he had authority to state, that the meetings to which allusion had been made had not been called by their desire, or by their permission. A meeting at which Mr. Wyse had presided had been referred to, and a communication from a Mr. Simpson to Mr. Colquhoun had also been spoken of: but Mr. Wyse had been called upon by the inhabitants to preside at the meeting, and Mr. Simpson was not a member of the committee of the society, so that on this ground there was no right to make any allusions of an improper tendency to the society. He repeated, that the sole object of the society was to convey intelligence to all parties on the subject of education, and this he conceived to be one which was likely to prove of a most useful character.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that he must repeat the observations which had already fallen from him on the subject of the schools at which religion was professed to be taught. He was surprised that what he had before said should have been taken to allude to national schools, for to them they had no reference, and he must express himself to be a most strong advocate of the system. He declared his belief that the only object which they had in view was the establishment of some system which should be founded on proper grounds.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that he had thought proper to endeavour to point out the error into which the noble Marquess had fallen in alluding, as he supposed, to national schools; because he knew that some very strong allusions had been made to them by the society—allusions which were preposterous and absurd, and which had already been ably controverted by those who had the management of the system.
Lord Broughamsaid: In rising to state to their Lordships the outline of the two Bills to which he was about to direct the attention of this House, he ought first to state the reasons why he adopted the unusual course of explaining to the House the nature of those measures on moving that they be read a first time; and why he did not wait until they were before the House in a printed form. He trusted that his plan would not prove inconvenient to their Lordships, for he felt that, if he were to wait in the ordinary manner until the Bills should have been read a first time, and then explain to their Lordships the grounds on which he requested their Lordships' support, he should neither do justice to the framers or to the promoters of the measures; moreover, he would not be able to explain either the details or the principles of the Bills in such a manner as they merited. He should have no opportunity of removing from their Lordships' minds any objections which might start up in relation to the arrangements he proposed, and in coming after those objections, unanswered as they would be, had taken root in their Lordships' minds, he should have a difficulty in removing them, and hardly be considered to have exercised ordinary care in preventing them. If it were said, that he might take the chance of their Lordships' attention being drawn to the Bills in the interval between their being read a first and second time, then he found an answer to that suggestion in the observations which had fallen from the right rev. Prelate and the noble Marquess, neither of whom seemed to understand that the measures which he was about to bring forward, had both of them before been under the consideration of the House; but they appeared to imagine that he rose to bring forward a new plan, and both the right rev. Prelate and the noble Marquess seemed wholly unacquainted with his views. He did not blame the noble Lords for not having paid attention to the Bills when they were before the House three

433
years ago, and he did not blame them for fancying that he was about to break open a new measure—to tread an untrodden field, and to introduce a new principle; because, time after time, the matter had been broached in Parliament, but the House would not give its attention to the subject. The plan was before the House last Session—on the first night of the Session, and it was printed; and for the purpose of preventing the confusion that usually arises in reading the clauses of Acts of Parliament, and to aid those to whom the repetitions to be found in a statute would be obstructions, he took the liberty of circulating a digest—an abstract of the provisions of the measure, that no one should have the ordinary excuse for not reading the Bill, in consequence of the tediousness of wading through its details. At the end of the Session it was broached again. It was not attended to at the beginning of the Session, because it was too early, and it was not attended to at the end of the Session, because it was then too late. He could not say, that the reason for its not being attended to at the beginning of the Session was on account of the pressure of business of the House, for there was none; and for some time afterwards, the House did just as much. The Bill was, in truth, unfortunate at all times, for even in the middle of the Session, when they had literally nothing to do, it could not be proceeded with. At the end of the Session, there came an event which diffused universal joy among all classes of the people, which followed an event which had before produced extreme sorrow —it was the change of the Sovereign. It was incidental to matters of that description, that business like that of education should not be attended to; and, in consequence of the desire of her Majesty, that no further public measures should" be entered into that Session, and of the pressure of business, he was going to say— but of pleasure —which followed, it became necessary that it should again stand over. One Bill, then, which he now had to bring forward was, in its principles, the same as that which he first introduced; but in reference to the second Bill, there had been some alteration in the measure originally proposed, and this was to be introduced for the first time. With respect to this second Bill, he must observe, that he had last Session, anticipated that the necessity for introducing it would have been obviated by his hon. Friend, who was then Member
434
for Middlesex, having brought forward a measure in the House of Commons; but that having fallen to the ground, he was left to devise some new provision to supply the deficiency caused by it; and the matters, therefore, contained in the second Bill which he had to present to the House were now brought before their Lordships for the first time. In all other respects, the Bills were the same. It was true, that the Bill had been divided into two, that part which related to education generally having been separated from the portion which had reference to the better administration of charitable funds, and this division had taken place for reasons which must be obvious to their Lordships. He thought, that he should best discharge his duty to their Lordships and do justice to the great subject which he had to introduce, especially as the point had been indirectly discussed in the conversation which took place that night, as well as in that which occurred two nights before, if he began by stating what appeared to him to be the great general principles to be followed in any attempts the Legislature might make towards the improvement, the extension, and the perpetuation of the education of the people; and if, after having stated these general principles, he should then state the modifications to which those principles must be subject, from the peculiar policy of every country, and also from the peculiar circumstances of this country and of the present time. No one was better acquainted with the peculiarities of this country, as regarded education at present, than the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), and no one was more aware than himself of the difference between universal principles applicable to all countries and to all times, and those principles which are drawn from the peculiar circumstances of the present time and of this country; and without minutely attending to this material distinction, it would be impossible for their Lordships' labours to have a good result. After detailing these general principles, he should proceed to unfold the several points of the particular measure to which he wished, on the present occasion, to direct their Lordships' notice. First, he thought, that there ought to be, in no time, in no country, whatever might be the constitution of the country, and the state of society, any positive and direct compulsion as to the education of the people. He was aware that some most

435
respectable persons differed from him on that subject—they were not a numerous body, but they were persons of great weight, because they had paid much attention to the subject, and because almost all of them were possessed of great general information; but still he could not help feeling assured, that they had been led away by looking at the circumstances peculiar to the several countries in which such a system now exists. His opinion of the system pursued in those countries and of those circumstances was, that they were totally inapplicable to the situation of England, and that they were absolutely pernicious. He thought that those persons had been led away in consequence of the mitigation of the compulsory system, from the peculiar situation of the states in which it exists; and, instead of seeing that what might work well there might be bad in itself, they had been led to believe that the compulsory system should be adopted here. They had been the more led away from their honesty, order, and zeal for public instruction; and they had not brought their own minds to the due consideration that there was a line over which the lawgiver ought not to pass, and beyond which he forfeited all claim to support, by the violation of some of the most sacred principles. If he Were required to prove that the compulsion ought not to be introduced, he would ask any man who calmly reflected upon the subject, how dangerous a thing it would be, upon whatever grounds they put it—whatever temptation there might be for extending education—whatever risk there might be in the continuance of ignorance—whatever might be the duty on the part of the parents to educate their children—whatever mischief might arise, or whatever consequences might infest the whole community, from the breach of that duty of parents—he would ask that man to consider how delicate, how perilous a matter it would be to usurp the parental office by public authority, and prescribe, by a command of the State, fortified perhaps by the penalties attached to a civil offence, the line of parental management which the father and mother should pursue in taking care of the offspring which Providence and nature had committed to their care? Another answer against the compulsory principle, if indeed any other were wanting, would be, that it was a violation of individual liberty—that it was a tyranny, introduced no doubt, and he admitted it, for a laudable purpose, but
436
nevertheless declaring, that in order to educate people they would enslave them, that in order to diffuse instruction amongst them they would contract their liberty, and introduce a system which would be intolerable to the citizens of a free state, and only fit (if fit at all) for a country ruled by a despotic government, where liberty being little known, slavery was the more bearable. He would next proceed with the principles and details of the measures he was about to propose. [Interruption in the House.] If noble Lords would neither read nor hear, he was not surprised at their want of knowledge on the subject. He knew the dryness of the subject, but he trusted they would at least bear with him while he stated his views on this important question. The details might be found tedious, but unless he made the House acquainted with them, it would be impossible for their Lordships perfectly or properly to understand the measures themselves. The next general rule he was disposed to lay down as fit to govern the conduct of those called upon to frame or consider measures of this kind, was not only that there should be no compulsion exercised and no interference on the part of the Government as regarded who should or who should not be educated at all, but that there should be no power given to the Government to educate the people— that was to say, that their interference should be excluded beyond what was absolutely necessary. With regard to the question of what course of education ought to be chosen, he would look with the greatest jealousy at the government of any country in deciding it. It appeared to him nothing more nor less than tyranny for any government to have the power of saying, "You shall have instruction, and you shall have none"—of deciding the number of schools to be established, the kind of instruction to be afforded in them, the mode of teaching to be adopted, and the description of books to be read. He was for no interference on the part of any authority whatever, but for leaving all parties uncontrolled and ungoverned. He would have no rules laid down either by law, or by boards, or by the joint operation of law and boards together; neither would he have the executive Government or the Legislature to prescribe a course of instruction, and teach the people according to its own model. He held it to be a right, that no Govern-

437
ment should appoint instructors—that no Government ought to be intrusted with the power of naming those from whom the public at large were to receive the benefit of secular instruction. Although he was stating most strongly and distinctly that there should be no compulsory authority exercised by the state upon the question of whether or not children should be taught, at all, or if to be taught, in what manner and in what things they should be instructed, and if to be instructed in certain things and in a certain manne by what persons that instruction should be given, although that was the principle upon which this plan was founded from beginning to end, and which he held to be the corner-stone of any system of education for a civilised community, or indeed for any community; yet he was at the same time disposed to add, upon all these points, not that an exception or modification could be admitted, far from it —but that concurrent principles might be adopted which would reconcile" all difficulties, and enable him to gain a benefit without incurring a loss. Thus, though decidedly against compulsion, against forcing parents to educate their children, he would be disposed to say, not that he would hold out inducements or encouragement to them to neglect the education of their children, because that it was a duty on their part to have them instructed, and that the breach of that duty was in one sense a moral offence, an offence, however, which ought not to be visited by the law, for that the obligation was imperfect, was admitted on all hands; but he felt that this made it the more necessary, if they could, without any violation of principle or undue interference, without infringing on the liberty of the subject, without commit ting any innovation on his rights, or without any such risk, to hold out an incentive, an encouragement, and to give facilities of every sort to enable the parent to discharge his duty, and to induce him by all possible means no longer to neglect it. If such a course as this were pursued, then would he say he had gained a benefit without incurring a risk. Accordingly, first of all, these inducements and facilities should consist in making education cheap, good, and easily acquired; but he need scarcely say, that he was prepared to go further. That the proposal for amending the law in one or two important points, with a view of making education desirable, had found
438
favour in his sight. Such amendments formed no part of his present plan; but it had been often said, with a view to afford an indirect encouragement to education, why not extend that provision of the Statute of Frauds which prevented certain contracts from being valid unless they were in the handwriting of the parties? It. had been also said, that society in this country was now in a very fitting state for the application of such a. provision under that intention. He had no great objection, therefore, on occasions where they could do so without great interference with right to extend the rule of the State's interference in the administration of a man's domestic affairs, and where there was quite a clear ground for interference, where they were absolutely certain that their direction and plan were correct, and that they were fully justified in the attempt, not only to extend excitements and incentives to the discharge of this duty beyond mere encouragement, and to render its neglect disadvantageous to the parties concerned, if not to make it attended with serious consequences. The propriety of the penal interference of the State, however, even in matters of acknowledged utility, had been matter of much controversy. He remembered an illustration on this point which had been employed in the discussion of a question of political economy that had been often broached—namely, how far a government was justified in interfering with the industry of the people in point of policy or in point of right. The illustration to which he alluded was drawn from the history of Russia under Peter the Great. The people of that country had not at that time acquired the use of the saw. Their great staple trade was in the exportation of deals, which being cut with a hatchet, were, of course, badly fashioned, besides that great waste attended the use of that instrument. It appeared to the Government—indeed, it was almost as self-evident to them as it was to us, that it is the duty of parents to educate their children—it appeared to Peter the Great —and if he had never done worse he would have earned the epithet bestowed on him —so clearly wrong and so prejudicial to his subjects to use the hatchet instead of the saw, that he commanded them to substitute the latter for the former instrument. A discouraging duty put upon deals cut otherwise than with the saw might, it was thought, have the effect of accelerating the use of it. A tax was ac-

439
cordingly imposed, and his recollection was, that the first year it produced a great return to the Russian exchequer, but that the next year there was scarcely a ruble received for deals cut otherwise than with the saw. Now, if he thought the people of this country had come to an universal understanding of their own, that they all felt the use of education as well as the duty of imparting it to their offspring, then should he be disposed to listen to the proposition, not certainly of compulsion even by the impost, but that some such disadvantage, or some such disqualification, should be thrown upon the uneducated: while, on the other hand, some such advantage should be given to the educated as must constitute a distinct and tangible preference between them, and thus accelerate the object the Legislature had in view. So far he was for non-interference he would not fix the kind of education, nor determine the parties who should receive it, but he would bring it home to the door of every man, by multiplying the number of schools; and not only would he, by making it cheap, bring it within the reach of all, but he would assist in improving the style of education, by providing schools for the training of schoolmasters, by giving them greater facilities for acquiring knowledge, and greater power to the people to avail themselves of these teachers' better qualifications. These were his ideas; he would interfere as little us possible; he would render assistance; he would not force, but help, not control, but co-operate. Considering the circumstances in which this country was placed, and the principles applicable to its present situation and time, he thought that any measure which should be propounded should not be based on any general principles, but should have particular reference to them, and to the actual state of education in England. The vast number of schools was one circumstance to take into consideration. There were somewhere about 50,000 schools established throughout this country, 39,000 or 10,000 of which were unendowed, and supported by the exertions and subscriptions of private individuals. The remainder were endowed. Now, he was by no means disposed to agree in the opinion that all children taught at those unendowed schools ought to be considered charity children. The greater proportion of them were not in any sense of the phrase charity children. He had the greatest respect for those who
440
maintained Sunday-schools; he looked upon them as having done great service to the country, but at the same time the education afforded by them must of necessity be very limited and imperfect, at least to those who attended no others; but he spoke of the unendowed day schools, and how many children, he would ask, of those who attended those schools were in a situation to be called charity scholars? Not one-half. Many years ago there might have been one-half, but even then the endowed schools were included. In the year 1820, about 600,000 was the number of children who attended all the schools, endowed and unendowed, and of that number but 300,000 were free scholars, while the other 300,000 paid. Look, then, at the increased number of day schools, and compare those who paid with those who were gratuitously educated. He found that about 1,120,000 children attended those schools, and that out of that number less than 390,000 were gratuitous, while 730,000—nearly double—paid for their education. These were facts which had been hitherto much overlooked and underrated in his opinion by many individuals who agreed with him (Lord Brougham) on other points, but who underrated the value of the present amount of education, attributing it all to charity and avowing rightly that a system supported by mere charity was pregnant with evil; that it tended to lower the character of the children; that it made too great a distinction between the different shades of society; that it was not based on the reciprocity of good offices and kindly feelings; that the kind offices partook too much of a patronising spirit, and a presumption of authority which could hardly fail from being attended with the submission, not to say degradation, of the recipients. It was supposed to be accompanied by feelings which lowered the individuals who received the education, and gave them a notion that they were not independent, but that, being the victims of poverty, they were therefore objects of charity. Now no one would go further, and he would say no one had gone further, than he in deprecating the extension of more than was absolutely necessary of that charitable system, and in wishing to see it superseded by one which would make that matter of right, which was too often considered matter of charity. But to say that all those were charity schools merely because they were supported by subscriptions, and by the

441
personal efforts, which was more valuable still, of public-spirited individuals, and that all the children who, by the exertions of those individuals, were enabled to receive instruction, were charity children, as if they were taught in workhouse schools, was stating what no one, who had minutely examined the real state of things, would venture to assert. Another fact which made it impossible that a general system of education could be established without regard to local circumstances, and the peculiarity of different situations, was, that whereas a system which might work well in one place, would be found totally inapplicable in another. Suppose, for instance, they adopted the course pursued by the Scottish Parliament previous to the Revolution of 1688, which had been often since recommended in the English Parliament,—namely, the parish-school system. The first answer to the proposal of establishing by law a school in each parish was, that there was perhaps half-a-dozen schools in each parish already, and that to add one more without considering the circumstances of that parish, would be a very preposterous proceeding, giving it very probably where it was not required, while other parishes stood much in need of it. That system had been adopted in Scotland when there was hardly a school in the country, and trade and manufacture being in their infancy there existed very little difference in the parishes, or between town and country; but in the present state of our towns and parishes it would be absolutely and entirely inapplicable. A system that might be good for a commercial, might not be good for a manufacturing, town. If applicable to a manufacturing, parish, it might not be to a rural parish, differing perhaps in every respect, even as to its inhabitants. Every system of education, therefore, if it were meant to succeed, must be so framed as to be capable of expansion and contraction, and easily susceptible of such variations and modifications as might suit the different parts of the country, and meet the views, the wants, and the altering state of the various towns and even villages which were found to exist in England. Another circumstance imposing restraint on the introduction of a general system was, that not only were these funds raised by the exertions of individuals, but there were also many funds arising from the endowments. In some parts these endowments were more than sufficient to
442
provide for the required instruction; in others they just met the exigencies of the place, and in others, they were entirely wanting. How, therefore, could they frame any general measure, which, operating alike in all parts and in all places, could have a beneficial tendency? What would be perfectly sufficient for one place would be utterly inefficient for another. The peculiar state of this country, as regarded the religious feelings of the people, presented another obstacle to the well-working of any uniform measure. They had in all places the Established Church, but in some parts a great proportion of the people did not believe in the tenets and conform to the usages of that Church; in some places there were hardly any Dissenters, in others they were superabundant, in some districts they amounted to a majority, and in others they were almost on an equality with the members of the Establishment. Nay, the sects themselves varied in different parts, one sect prepondering in one district, and another elsewhere. If they founded one system which might be adapted to the religious peculiarities of one sect or district, and if they applied that system to other districts, it would be wholly inappropriate. Such was the present state of education here, so much had been done by private individuals, so many schools were at present in existence, the present funds, with the assistance of endowments on the one hand, and the payment by the scholars added to private subscriptions on the other, were so considerable, and the funds required for the universal establishment of some system adequate to the wants of the whole community were so large, that it became absolutely necessary to use the greatest care and precaution, so that the efforts of individuals might not in any manner be relaxed, and so as not to intercept the funds at present appropriated to this most desirable object; they ought to assist the further efforts of persons disposed to advance the good work, rather than supplant them, always bearing in mind that the measures adopted by the Legislature should not prevent the adoption in each locality of the system best adapted to the peculiar wishes, feelings, and exigencies of the inhabitants—that they ought not to interfere with the exertions of individuals who had already assisted in their own districts, and that they ought to excite, to encourage, and to stimulate those individuals for the purpose of increasing their exer-

443
tions. Not merely were the present means of instruction deficient in amount, not only were the schools already established by far too few for the number of the younger portion of the population, not only were there too few children attending these schools, for at the present period there were not more than one million and a quarter of individuals receiving instruction, or, he believed, in England and Wales, about 1,270,000, but the most lamentable part of the case was that which had been already adverted to that evening, that the majority of the schools, at least many which were called such by courtesy, or which by courtesy, and courtesy only, had the name of school applied to them, and to the operations pursued in which the application of the term teaching was also by courtesy applied, were no more fit to be called schools-if by the name schools were meant places in which anything was taught, and if by the term teaching were implied the communication of some knowledge by some method which enabled the attendants to learn, and which added something to the acquirements which were previously possessed by the pupil-they no more deserved the names by which those things were known than did any other operation to which no person would ever dream of applying the term instruction. He did not say such was the character of all the schools. No doubt many of the schools at present in existence afforded admirable instruction to the pupil attending them; and it was as certain that there were scarcely any, however good, in which the system of instruction was not capable of some improvement, if judiciously introduced. He did not mean to say that the misapplication of the name of school to places in which instruction was pretended to be imparted referred to any of the great schools; it did not refer either to the seminaries commonly designated National Schools, or to those established under the superintendence of the British and Foreign School Society- seminaries which he believed to be well conducted; but the misapplication was to the places called schools, to the operations pursued in which the name of teaching could by no kind of flattery or courtesy be legitimately given. He believed that in a large number, he thought in more than one-half of the whole 40,000 unendowed schools, the education afforded was exceedingly imperfect. He believed he should not at all overstate the fact were
444
he to add that at least one-fourth—he was confident above one-fifth—but at least one-fourth of these schools were in such a state of discipline and accommodation—of indiscipline, he meant, of course, and utter want of accommodation—and in respect of capacity and learning, those appointed to conduct them were so utterly unprovided, that, except by courtesy and by an excess of flattery, they could not be called otherwise than pretended schools. That immediate steps should be taken to correct this they were all agreed, and the right rev. Prelate had most justly observed, that there was no one course which could be taken by the Legislature more sound or more beneficial for improving the kind of education to he given at the schools than that of providing a large supply of well-taught and properly remunerated schoolmasters. At present there was no security for the continuance of the existing schools in any given district. In many parts of the country, and particularly in those places where education was most wanted-he meant in great cities and large manufacturing towns-where the number of schools was most defective, and the kind of teaching was most lamentably deficient, this insecurity was especially felt. In some of the great towns of the north, and, he would say, in the metropolis itself, where education was most of all wanted, people were not to be found who had the power of lending their assistance towards the education of themselves or others. They had neither time to give labour, nor a purse to afford money, and yet those were the places where education was most wanted, and for which, therefore, of course, it was most incumbent on the Legislature to provide the means. It was with a view to meet all these purposes, and after considering the course which was proper and fit to be taken, that he imposed on himself the task of framing a measure in the course of last Session, to which he had since added those points that appeared to him necessary to make his plan complete, and to which he would now beg to call their Lordships' attention more particularly in detail. In the first place, it seemed to be on all hands admitted that whether they were to go further in the way of making grants of money or not, at any rate a public department was essentially necessary-called abroad the Department of Public Instruction, but which we should call the Education Board. This department was

445
absolutely necessary, if it were only for the purpose of making a judicious application of the public money. Accordingly, the plan which he had prepared consisted in the first place in the establishing of such a board. His object now was to call their Lordships' attention to the duties which that education board would have to discharge. This formed the subject of the first Bill which he intended to submit to their Lordships. With respect to those | duties relating to the superintendence and administration of charity funds, to the remedies for breach of trust, to the better and proper application of the funds for the purposes of education, they were all matters of arrangement to be considered by themselves, and which would exclusively form the subject of a separate Bill. This division of the subject into two Bills was adopted for various good reasons. Many persons felt a great difficulty with respect to a legislative measure relating to the administration of charities, who experienced no difficulty at all with respect to the duties of an education board. That was his reason, therefore, for separating the subjects. They could not perhaps be ultimately separated, because such a board could not properly discharge its duty without having some control over the application of the charity funds. The board, as it was originally proposed by him, was to consist of three paid Commissioners, not removable unless by address to the Crown by both Houses of Parliament. To these were added three ministers of State, and the Speaker of the House of Commons. But in the plan he now proposed, he had omitted the Speaker of the House of Commons, and had also omitted one of the ministers of State, so as to make the board consist of two ministers of the Crown and three life members. It was needless to state why he had made this change. Many persons were of opinion that the Speaker could have no time to devote to this subject; and it being avowedly his (Lord Brougham's) intention that the Speaker should only interfere in cases of an extraordinary nature, where his experience and authority would be required, he (Lord Brougham) thought, upon the whole, that it might be proper to omit the Speaker altogether. Then, with respect to the omission of one of the ministers of State, many persons were of opinion that it would be as well to reduce the number of ministers on the board to two, which would, at the same time, avoid the incon-
446
venience of having an even number of members constituting the board. Accordingly, two ministers only were retained. It was necessary that there should be some members of the Government on the board, because there were many things in which the concurrence of Ministers would be required. If he were asked what those things were which made it necessary to have the constant interposition of a minister of the Crown, his answer was, that under the proposed system there would be grants of money, and there would be the administration of those grants; and it was well known that they could not intrust the task of distributing those grants to any board of Commissioners with that degree of confidence that would be felt were the distribution of them made with the concurrence of a minister of the. Crown, whom both the country, and the Parliament who made the vote, would look to as responsible. It was not, however, intended that the ministers of the Crown who were members of the board should have any power with respect to the appointments of schoolmasters, in order to prevent the possibility of turning the authority of the board to purposes of abuse, nomination, and political jobbing. Having stated who were to constitute the board, the next questions were, what powers were to be vested in them, and what was the board to do for the purposes of improving and extending education? In the first place, they were to distribute the grants made from time to time by Parliament, and the funds which, were now as the law at present stood, or which, as the law respecting charity funds might hereafter be made, might become disposable by that board for the purpose of education. In the next place, the board were to have the power to provide schools but with the concurrence of the local authorities. To this point, before he proceeded further, he prayed the particular attention of their Lordships. The great leading principle of the Bill, grounded on those rules which he began to state before he entered into details, was, that there should be a concurrence in every case of the local authorities—that was to say of the people amongst whom education was to be planted, or extended, or improved—with the central body before any change whatever could take place in any one of them. He thus took security, on the one hand, against too great an interference on the part of the Government — against abuse arising from that interference,

447
against too great power being exercised by Government, against control over the education of the people by Government; and, on the other hand, he took security against what was also a possible risk, and to be carefully provided against, namely, against local abuses, against a disposition on the part of local authorities for any peculiar purposes to obtain possession of funds which they ought not to have, or to raise funds even amongst themselves which they ought not to be permitted to raise. He thus took security against both the local and central authorities, by requiring, in every instance, the joint concurrence of both. Their Lordships would presently perceive how the Bill was calculated to work out these objects. The country, for the purposes of this measure, might be considered divided into two descriptions of persons—one into municipal corporations, whose local affairs were committed to town councils who represented the people; the other into those districts of the country lying beyond the bounds of any municipal corporation, where the people had no councils, nor any body in whom the functions exercised in corporate towns were vested; in short, where, in his apprehension, there was not at present existing any competent, safe, and beneficial body to discharge those duties which were intrusted to corporations. Now, supposing both the one and the other of this description of persons to desiderate the application of the provisions of the Bill he wished to introduce, it became incumbent on him to show in what manner those provisions would work. Suppose in any town or parish there was a great deficiency found in the means of instruction: it might either be that there was no school, or that there were too few schools, or it might be that the schools already existing were of a bad description, and ill provided with teachers, or it might be that two or more of these defects, or all of them joined together (which he was afraid was too often the case), existed. Immediately, and of course, an attempt would be made when the Bill came into operation to amend these defects, by-providing a sufficient supply, or a better kind of education, or by extending the number of schools, or improving those that existed. But the town council of the place could do nothing of itself. It must make its application to the education department. It must lay an estimate before the board, with all the particulars of the wants complained of, It must lay a plan before the
448
board, an estimate of what was required; it must also lay before the board a statement of the kind of school required, the different branches of education to be taught, the mode of teaching best adapted for the purpose of their local situation, and also a statement in respect of the rules and regulations for the management of the school, for the choice of the teachers, for the discipline and for the visitation and inspection of the schools, and for the relations between the schools and the patrons. All these rules must, by the town council, or the new local authorities (of which he should afterwards speak), be prepared and laid before the board, with the reasons for requiring the sanction of the board to their proposals. If the board, on listening to the reasons, were convinced, on examining the plan approved of in it, and on scrutinising the estimates, had no objection to them— if, above all, and first of all, after examining accurately the rules and regulations of the schools either proposed to be established, or proposed to be extended, or proposed to be improved, the board approved of them—then the board, and not till then, might give its sanction for further proceedings. The board might then say to the local authorities—"We see you require so much money to be advanced out of the parliamentary grant. Furnish a certain proportion according to the rules which we have laid down, and you shall have the sum required." It was unpleasant to interrupt oneself in a statement, but the right rev. Prelate had made an observation which justified him in stepping aside for a moment from the point he was pursuing. The system hitherto adopted in extending assistance from the Parliamentary grants, was exceedingly imperfect. The rule laid down by the Treasury was, that as often as any application was made from any quarter for assistance from the Parliamentary grant, it should only be given after a certain proportion—one half, he believed—of the sum required being raised by the parties making the application. It was said, that this was holding the balance quite even between the British and Foreign Society, and the National Society. He himself first thought it was so, and during the first year it was perfectly just, for the same application was made "from us" and from the National School. When he said "us," it was because he happened to be a member of the British and Foreign School Society, having, indeed, presided at its first meeting thirty years ago. In the

449
beginning, then, it seemed that both societies were on an equal footing with regard to the advances made to them from the Parliamentary grants. But this was confined to the first year. The British and Foreign Society actually exhausted their funds during that year; it was therefore unable to make a proportionate advance in subsequent years, so that next year upwards of two-thirds or three-fifths, or even four-fifths of the Parliamentary grant went to the National Society, and necessarily so, because that society being richer, was able to make the required proportionate advance. It did not, however, at all follow, that because applications were not made from any given place, therefore there did not exist an equal want of assistance. He could name places where the assistance from the Parliamentary grant was most pressingly wanted, and yet where there were no means of raising twenty shillings towards a fund. It was therefore imperative upon the Treasury to alter their present system. They must have a system capable of contraction, expansion, variation, and adaptation. To require a particular place to furnish two-thirds or three-fourths of the proportion of the sum wanted, might in some cases be too little, and in others to require even a much less proportion of the money, might be too much; and to require what was actually right, might probably occur only once in five hundred cases. The consequence was, that the money granted by Parliament was exhausted, and that yet education was wanted in many places. For aught he knew, the mere education and training of teachers might be alone sufficient to exhaust the Parliamentary grants, or it might be, that the Parliamentary grants should never be allowed except in those very rare instances where no fund could be got by rate locally, nor by private assistance locally. In all other cases he apprehended a school-rate might safely, and ought justly, and would beneficially, be directed under the authority of the Board, with the concurrence of the local authority. The people of such places could not complain, because they had consented to it by their representatives; they could not complain of their burden, because they had asked it by their representatives. They, and they alone, were to originate the plan. Unless they desired it they were not to be rated; unless they called for the rate, or for the power of rating themselves, the Bill gave no authority to impose any rate whatever upon them. So much for the
450
liberty which the Bill gave to what might be called the voluntary principle, in the proper sense of the word upon the spot. But then, on the other hand, that they should not at their own will and pleasure have the power of rating themselves without the authority of the central body he took to be perfectly clear also; because it did so happen that even representatives chosen by the rate-payers at large were sometimes disposed to incur expenses which their constituents if left to themselves would not have allowed. Therefore it became not at all superfluous to interpose a protection against the possibility of such a step. Accordingly the joint consent of the local authority of the district and the central department was required before any rate could be made. He would now call upon their Lordships to observe how the Bill would work with respect to these regulations. Suppose a local body were to propound to the Board, with an estimate and statement of the want of education in their district, a set of rules extremely injudicious—a set of rules to which the Legislature and the country ought not to afford its sanction; suppose there should be any intolerance in the case; suppose, for instance, the majority of the town council should be disposed to oppress the minority; suppose that the Dissenters should have obtained a great preponderance in that body, and should propose, for instance, that no clergyman of the Established Church—(he was sure that such a case was not the least likely to happen, but he put it merely as an illustration)—suppose that the Dissenters, having authority in that body, should propose that no minister of the Established Church should ever be a teacher in their school, it would then be for the board to say—constituted, as it would be first, by the three irremovable Commissioners, and then by the two responsible ministers of the Crown—whether the school applied for should be established under their authority, and under the powers and provisions of this bill, from being a master of which one of the school-rules positively and imperatively excluded any minister of the Established Church. He would suppose another case, which he hoped, nay, which he was quite sure, could not happen; but suppose there should be any town-council where, instead of the Dissenters having obtained a majority, the Churchmen had a majority, and that they should be disposed in their rules to propose that one of them

451
should be, that no Dissenter, or any other than a member of the Church of England, should ever be master of their schools. The board would then have the power to say to the town-council, "It is utterly impossible one can consent to this. It would be oppressive to the Dissenters; intolerable to all who were not members of the Church, not creditable to the Church itself, nay, it would be injurious to the Church; therefore, as friends of the Establishment and friends of toleration, it is our bounden duty to refuse our sanction to schools, one of the rules of which is of that exclusive and intolerant description." Why, then, it might be asked, what would be the consequence? The majority of the representatives of the rate-payers might say, "We have required to have schools established, and because one of our rules is, that no Dissenter shall be a teacher in them, we are refused assistance. Is it not hard that if we choose, as a majority, not to admit a Dissenter to be a teacher, we should be deprived of any assistance from the Parliamentary grant?" To which he would answer thus. "It is all very well for you who happen to be a majority, that there should exist such a rule, but there happens to be a minority as well as a majority, and I feel it my duty to interpose the shield of the board of education to protect that minority, so as to prevent the majority acting intolerantly towards them, and from excluding them and their children from those very schools to the support of which you, the majority, require the board to give you authority to levy a rate from that minority." Well, then, what happens. The board refuses to give the council authority to levy a rate. They must be left without a rate, and the parish must be left as it now is, and no school can be established upon this principle. Those who wish to subscribe to a school of their own, where the rule shall be that no Churchman, or no Dissenter, as it may happen, shall be the master of the school, may subscribe according to the voluntary principle out of their own money; but they can have no portion of a grant from Parliament; they shall have no power to levy a rate in an unjust, unequal, and intolerant shape. In all these cases matters would be left as they now are. He believed that those cases would be very rare, and that they were much more likely to happen in argument than in practice. Their Lordships would, therefore, perceive that compulsion being excluded, that intolerance
452
being excluded, that the joint operation of the board and the local authorities—and only the control of the board were necessary, and where safe as well as advantageous— being alone allowed—it might be truly said, that the voluntary principle, as far as it could be applied, would, according to the disposition and desires of each place, be exercised in applying and putting in force the power and authority of this bill for the improvement of the school and the adoption of conciliatory measures, But he might be asked, as had been frequently asked out of doors, and once or twice asked by one for whom he had the greatest possible regard—he meant a noble Friend in the other House of Parliament—he might be asked why, when stating that additional means would be rendered necessary to carry this measure into effect in places where there were no municipal corporations, he did not take the machinery that was in existence, instead of introducing new machinery? "You have, it is said, the machinery of the new Poor-law, you have the boards of guardians that have already been formed, and unions are likely to take place in all those parts of the country where they do not at present exist." The Poor-law Bill, he was told, would sooner or later extend over the whole country, and why not, therefore, take advantage of the arrangements of that important measure for the purpose of enabling the establishment of schools under the provisions of the Bill he now proposed, in places beyond the limits of the municipal corporations. He thought he could answer that question very satisfactorily, and show how utterly it was impossible, with a view to the well-working of this measure, as well as the right-working of the Poor-law Bill itself, to make this junction between them. In the first place, the Poor-law Commissioners were sufficiently worked already. The boards of guardians were sufficiently worked already. Indeed, he knew of places where it was complained of that they did not attend. But he passed that over, for that was really the least of his objections. No person was ever a more strenuous friend to that great measure than he was. He had often times had reason to repeat his opinion of the absolute necessity of that Bill; he had done so before the event, and since the event of its entire success in most places, and in all places of its succeeding better and failing less than he could ever have expected. Nevertheless,

453
he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that in some places that important measure—a measure calculated to work so much good, and in the end, he would venture to say, absolutely certain to conciliate all men's favour and affection—a measure which had already done so much good, not only to those who pay rates, for that was the least part of its merit in his eyes, nay, it was no part of its recommendation with him in supporting it, but in bettering the condition of the poor themselves, in increasing their comforts, and above all things in giving them a higher tone of moral feeling, a greater self respect and self-dependence; notwithstanding his partiality to that measure, and his absolutely certain conviction that in the end all men, even those who most oppose and most denounce it, would be reconciled to it, and approve of it, nay, further, would be grateful for it, yet he could not disguise from himself, nor conceal from their Lordships, that in some considerable portions of the country it had not met with that favour which it merited, but had been met in some quarters of the country, by a spirit of opposition and of attack which had not been confined to the measure itself, but had been extended even to its authors, and it was still in some places what might properly and shortly be termed an unpopular measure. But because the new Poor-law Bill was in some respects and in some places an unpopular measure, was he, to extend any part of the unpopularity of that measure to the Bill which he was then submitting to their Lordships' consideration? Was he to load with any unnecessary unpopularity derived from a connection with the Poor-law Bill, and which was peculiar to the Poor-law Bill, and which did not naturally belong to this Education Bill—was he to load with any unnecessary unpopularity, derived from such sources, a measure which to succeed must depend much upon the good feeling of the people? A general system of education, whether under the Bill he then proposed or under any other Bill, could not possibly be extended and improved, much less made universal over the country, unless the affection and respect of the people were, by all possible means, conciliated. That being the case, it would be one of the least prudent and least safe courses that could be taken to load this new measure, and through the medium of this measure to load education generally, with any one atom, however small, of the unpopu-
454
larity which at present, and only at present, attended the other measure. In like manner, no doubt, certain controversies would arise with respect to the administration of the new system of education. Great heats and contentions would doubtless at times arise as to the mode in which the provisions of the Bill should, in certain instances, be carried into effect. The board might differ from the local authorities—the local authorities might split amongst themselves —disputes, no doubt, would oftentimes run high, and frequently, perhaps, upon the very questions upon which there was the least real ground for difference, and upon which it were most desirable that there should be a perfect union of feeling and conduct. Against such difficulties the Bill could not provide, because they were difficulties that arose out of the infirmity of human nature. But with such difficulties to contend against, was he further to load his Education Bill with any of those matters of contention and of controversy to the Poor-law Bill? or, on the other hand was he to load the Poor-law Bill with any of the difficulties which were peculiar to the Education Bill, which might arise out of the Education Bill, but which could not by possibility arise out of the administration of the Poor-law, unless some injudicious union of the two were effected? It was his wish, and in the framing of the Bill it had been his endeavour, to keep the two measures totally and completely separate. He would not in any way unite them. Foreseeing a sufficient amount of difficulty in the administration of the one, he was most anxious not to introduce into it an of the bitter strife of the other. He now came to that part of the measure which related to the extension of the new system to those places in which there were no municipal bodies. For this purpose, keeping still to the voluntary principle, which ran through the whole of the Bill, he proposed, that if any parish or township, not having municipal institutions, chose, it might obtain for itself such a body as should give it the power of availing itself of the provisions of the Bill, and of putting those provisions in force in the way he had already described by the mutual assent of the local authority and the central board. For that purpose it was provided, that if any given number (five or six for instance) of persons in the parish or township made a requisition to the parish officer, the parish officer should call a meeting of all persons who liked to attend such a meeting. Who

455
those persons were he would presently state to their Lordships. The bulk of them, no doubt, would be the rate-payers and owners of property in the parish or township. When these persons, together with those whom he should by and by mention, had been summoned and assembled at the meeting convened by the parish officer, this question was to be propounded to them—"Did they choose to have a school committee appointed? "If the majority of them said," No, we do not want "it—we have education enough," he would not force it upon them; he would leave them as they were, waiting till the general progress of improvement had extended to them, and made them desirous of availing themselves of the utmost advantages that an improved system of education could afford them. If the majority of the meeting did not agree to have a committee, still it might be said amongst them, "We are the friends of education, but still we think there is enough here—we do not like anything in the shape of Government interfering, even through the medium of such a board as this—we do not like rates —let us remain as we are." Very well, they would remain as they were; the Bill would not apply to them; they might continue in the course which they deemed best, or which was the most agreeable to them. But if, on the other hand, the majority said, "We want schools, or the schools which now exist want steadier friends to support them—it is not right that we should allow our education to rest upon such precarious grounds—we want a better system of instruction and more money for that purpose," then if they chose they would appoint a school committee, which school committee would be composed of rate-payers, and the members of the committee so appointed would have the power of levying the rate for school purposes upon the parish. Having thus provided for the manner in which the school committee was to be appointed, the Bill afterwards detailed the manner in which the committee was to act, and defined with much exactitude the limit to be imposed upon the authority of the board on the one hand, and of the committee on the other. From the statement he had just made their Lordships would perceive that what the council were with respect to education in corporate towns, the school committee would be in places which had no corporations; and, further, that by the institution of the school committees, the system, according
456
to the principle he had already described, would be made quite universal throughout the whole of the country. Then the question arose, how was the constituency to be formed which was to choose the school committee? He besought such of their Lordships as honoured him with their attention upon that important question not to be staggered with the proposition for the qualification of voters which he was about to explain; because he began by stating that it was entirely new, and therefore he knew was not likely to find favour in the eyes of some of those whom he addressed. It might also be objected to by those who were against increasing the weight of the people in their elective capacity. Furthermore, he admitted, that after it had been once adopted—and he was sure candour could go no further than he was then going, for he was raising against himself that which he felt to be the most powerful argument that could be employed against his proposition, and running the risk of alarming such of their Lordships as were generally favourable to the Bill, on account of the possible perversion to other uses of the principle he proposed to introduce—a principle carrying with it all the startling effects of per. feet novelty, with a strong liability to be extended, nay, with a great temptation to be extended, to other uses which many of their Lordships would think a perversion and an abuse of it—he admitted that this part of the Bill was liable to all these objections; but still, with the feelings that he entertained upon the subject, it was utterly impossible that he could do otherwise than incorporate it in any measure upon the subject of education which it might be his lot or his fortune to introduce to the Legislature. He must add, having with the utmost candour pointed out the very formidable nature of the objections which he was quite sure would be used against him, and having also adverted, although he hoped only for the purpose of warning their Lordships against their own feelings and their own prejudices (if he might take leave to use such a term upon such a subject)—having with that view stated the objections to his principle in their broad dimensions, and painted his project, he really thought, in its very worst colours—having so done, might he be permitted to add, in fairness to himself and to his measure, that the principle to which he had thus adverted was not so combined with the Bill as to be

457
inseparable from it if there were found to be an invincible repugnance to it, so that those who approved generally of the rest of the measure, but objected to that one point of it, would not be under the necessity of voting against the whole Bill? That part of the Bill, if the objection to it were invincible, might be lopped off and cast away without injury to the remainder. If their Lordships were to tear out that provision of the Bill with all the disgust, abhorrence, and aversion that men could properly entertain towards any proposition, they might do so if they pleased—it did not necessarily affect the rest of the measure. He hoped it had vigour to survive the operation. His first hope was, that the operation would not be performed: it did not follow that death should ensue. Did their Lordships suppose that it was universal suffrage that he proposed to introduce? He thought that something might be said for universal suffrage in an Education Bill. The qualification of those who were alone to levy the tax required that they should pay the tax themselves which they joined in levying. He did not propose universal suffrage as regarded the election of the school committee. Not at all. The school committee was to be composed of persons who paid as their neighbours paid, and who had no right to put their hands into their neighbours' pockets without at the same time in proportion putting their hands into their own. So that universal suffrage, if' applicable to the education franchise, that was to say to the franchise for the choice of a school committee, whose duties and labours were to be confined solely and exclusively to the management of school concerns, was not liable to the same objection in this instance as it would be if applied to the elections of Members of Parliament, because the party chosen had the qualification of being a rate-payer himself. But in truth, it was not universal suffrage that he was about to propose; he proposed a qualification for the franchise—a qualification not only, he was much afraid, infinitely restricted in comparison with universal suffrage—not only a qualification, he was sorry to add, that would exclude a vast portion of the industrious, honest, worthy fellow-citizens in every part of the country—a qualification that would not only keep out from all concern and all voice in the affairs of any one parish or township a vast many thousands of their fellow-citizens, who, if
458
there were not certain qualifications required for performing the duties of the office, which unhappily they had not yet attained, would in every respect be most fitted to take part in the proceedings of these committees—but a qualification, a franchise, so restricted that when he stated the nature of it their Lordships would at once perceive that it was peculiarly appropriate where the question was the choosing a committee for the superintending the affairs of a school. He proposed an education qualification. The Legislature had given a right to choose Members of Parliament to persons who possessed a 10 l. franchise or a 40 s. freehold. It had also given a right to choose town councillors to persons who were rated in anyway. Of course his object was, that all those persons who were rated at any amount whatever should in the first place enjoy the franchise of voting for the school committee; but then he went further. He held that there could be no harm, but every kind of benefit possible, in extending it in the direction he was about to mention. They wanted well-informed persons; they wanted persons of sober and industrious habits—men whom they could safely trust —men who were not likely to be led away by their ignorance, or to be debauched by bribery and corruption, to which persons of dissipated habits, and who were not respectable in their life and conversation, were liable. He proposed, then, to take those men who had given a proof that they were of sober habits, that they were of industrious lives; that they were friends to education; that they had made efforts to educate themselves; and men who, to a certain extent, had profitted by their successful efforts, and had already, to a certain extent become educated men. In the first place, he might, perhaps, be asked what test he had that these men were sufficiently educated? and in the next place, it might be inquired how, when he had proved the extent of their education, he proposed to unite them with the particular locality in which the provisions of the Bill were to be put in force? In reply to these questions he would state, that in order to combine the voters with the locality, he required twelve months' residence. It was provided in the Bill that no person, otherwise qualified, should be at liberty to use his qualification unless he had been resident in the parish or township for the full period of twelve months. These, then, were the persons who inde-

459
pendent of the rate-payers, would be admitted to the franchise, The board would have the power of enrolling, by an act of its own, all mechanics' institutions, all associations for education, all literary societies for all classes, and all education societies for all classes, under certain restrictions and according to certain rules; so that all persons who had for a certain time been members of those most useful, most advantageous, most meritorious bodies—all persons who for a certain time had devoted themselves to the affairs of those societies and associations, and thus promoted the education of others and improved their own—it was provided by the Bill that all these persons, having passed a certain time in such course, and being inclined to become members of such a body, should have a right to vote, each in the parish in which he resided, for the members of the school committee. He went a step further. He proposed to extend this privilege to all persons of whatever rank who had been educated at either of the universities, at the inns of court, at the inns of chancery, at the public schools, or any schools whatever, and of all classes of the community whatever, were it high, middle, or low—he proposed that all these persons, the time they had spent at school being taken as guarantee that they were not ignorant, illiterate, uneducated persons, should, after a year's residence, be admitted to the right of voting on the school affairs of the town, parish, or district in which a school committee should be appointed. He had thus detailed boldly and at once all the points of the Bill upon which he anticipated the strongest opposition. The principle of election which he had last explained was, he knew, the most formidable. He might have omitted it altogether; he might have left the franchise in country districts and in unincorporated towns upon the same footing as that upon which it already stood. But as he entertained now, and had always entertained, a very strong and decided opinion in favour of this kind of encouragement to education, in favour of this species of indirect, he could not call it compulsory, furthering of education—as he had always had a very strong opinion of the merits, the transcendant merits, of those industrious classes, who, to their immortal honour, struggling with every disadvantage—struggling against narrow circumstances and cramped means—struggling against the difficulties and the disadvanta-
460
ges that resulted from an imperfect education—struggling against the obstacles and impediments presented by those who would discourage them in their efforts to improve, from a foolish and preposterous jealousy of their treading upon their own heels, and who, for that cause, would prevent them rising in society by the best and most meritorious ladder— mental superiority—who against all these disadvantages and disencouragements, still occupied the highest place in the estimation of those who looked at man beneath the surface— with the heartfelt respect which he had always cherished for those persons—with the affection and love which he entertained for those classes from a long and intimate knowledge of them, and from a deep and daily increasing sense of their transcendant merit, both of understanding and honesty, and he must be permitted to add of genuine independence, he believed he should not have discharged his duty, nor have acted fairly towards his own feelings or principles, nor fairly towards the persons he had mentioned, nor fairly towards this measure of education, if he did not in the outset declare and explain the nature of the principle he had introduced into it, and which he hoped would be permitted to receive the sanction of the Legislature. He preferred making the statement boldly and at once because he knew he could not press the Rill through another stage without the necessity of apologising to their Lordships for having in the first instance avoided any allusion to so new and so important a principle. He took leave to add that he had never concealed from their Lordships, for the last two or three years, the strong impression which prevailed in his mind of the necessity, as he stated the other night, of a material extension of the elective franchise, properly so called. He spoke then not of the school franchise, but of the parliamentary franchise. The parliamentary franchise, it was true, had nothing to do with the measure he was then bringing forward, and ought properly, no doubt, to be altogether excluded from their consideration upon that occasion. If he adverted to it at all, it was for the purpose of reminding their Lordships of what he had stated a few nights ago, and which had elsewhere been most unaccountably misunderstood. It was stated, that the idea of a further extension of the suffrage was a new opinion that he had recently taken up—an opinion that he had never advanced before. Why he stated the very same

461
thing in the last Session of Parliament. He stated only a few months ago, standing in his place in that House, that his opinion was, that to amend a few of the details of the Reform Bill would not be sufficient, but that it would be absolutely necessary to extend the right of voting. He had got no new light upon the subject, although he believed others had. He held now the same opinions that he held the last Session, and which he had then declared. At the close of the Session, he expressly and explicitly declared what his opinions upon that point were; and only about six weeks ago he had repeated them, in a letter addressed by him to the people of Manchester. To say, therefore, that he had received anything like a new light upon the subject, was a mere forgetful ness of the whole facts of the case, and he should not be doing justice to other persons, nor common justice to himself, if he did not take that opportunity of alluding to the erroneous statement. But this had no connexion with the Education Bill, the franchise conferred by which was, as he had already explained, a very ample extension of the franchise as it was given either by the Reform Bill or the Municipal Corporation Bill. But that part of the Bill which related to the franchise was separable from the rest. It mixed itself up with none of the other details of the measure. It appeared to him (Lord Brougham), to be a great improvement; and, he hoped and trusted, that the Bill would not pass without it; but if any man objected to it, unless he objected to the rest of the Bill upon other grounds, he would have no right to endeavour to defeat the whole measure on account of any disinclination or aversion which he might feel for this part of the proposition: it could, with ease, be separated from the remainder. He had not introduced the vote by ballot; he did not consider that the vote by ballot would be applicable to this subject. His opinion upon the ballot had undergone some change, and he was not ashamed nor afraid to avow it. He still thought that the ballot would afford no protection to the tenant; he still thought, that it would be inefficacious to the protection of the tenant in towns; but, at the same time, he could not shut his eyes to the fearful position in which the working of the Bill had placed another class of voters, who deserved protection as well as the tenants—he meant the inhabitants of the towns, the honest tradesman who dared to vote as his conscience
462
dictated. Therefore, it was, that he had come to the opinion that the ballot must be tried, unless some other measure could be devised and passed for the protection of that valuable class of the community. Having come to that opinion with the utmost reluctance—having had all along, for reasons which he need not then repeat nor explain, having oftentimes adverted to them in the other House of Parliament— having throughout the whole of his career entertained a degree of repugnance and aversion for the ballot, which he had never found words sufficiently strong to express —nothing but an absolute, uncontrollable necessity—nothing but the total want of any other remedy—nothing but the despair of finding (after so many fruitless attempts had been made) even the shadow of a protection to the honest and conscientious voter in any other direction, or from any other quarter—nothing short of this could have persuaded him to overcome the aversion and repugnance which he entertained to the ballot. But the experience of the last two or three years, and more particularly of the last election, compelled him, with great reluctance, to come over to the opinion that the ballot should be tried. However, he did not think that any necessity existed for introducing the ballot in school elections. Here, he thought, the common mode of voting would be preferable. At all events, he expected it would succeed. Whether their Lordships, and the other House of Parliament, should be of opinion that the education suffrage should he proposed, should be taken to its full extent, or with restrictions and modifications, or should be omitted altogether, leaving the rate-payers only to elect the school committee, in either case, he was quite sure, that there would be no necessity to prescribe any other than the ordinary mode of election in the choice of these local bodies. He had now stated the outline of all the provisions of the measure. He was perfectly ready to admit that it was one of considerable extent, in many respects new, and in all respects dealing with interests of the highest importance. He thought, that the more their Lordships considered its details, and the principle upon which it proceeded, the more it would be found to deserve the name which he last year gave it, namely, a measure for the purpose of doing all that is wanted for the education of the people without doing more, of interfering on the part of the Legislature and the Government as far as

463
is necessary, and no farther, a measure for reconciling all wishes and all local interests, and interfering with none, supplanting nobody, suppressing no efforts, and giving rise to no vexatious heart-burnings or jealousies, but simply consulting the improvement of the people, and the bettering of their condition, without at all interfering with their domestic affairs, or endeavouring to enforce those who, to be really improved, ought to be enticed and drawn. It was a Bill which reconciled many apparent inconsistencies and established forms which amounted in the whole to one great universal system of education, as far as anything systematic could be applied to a country the diversity of whose local circumstances were so great and various as in England. If in bringing forward a measure upon this subject, he had overlooked or neglected the great number of schools already established, the great amount of charitable funds applicable to the purposes of education, the unequal distribution of those funds, and the state of the country with respect to its religious denominations; if, neglecting all these circumstances, he had at once framed a plan upon some general systematic, symmetrical principle, it would have appeared far more plausible to their Lordships, much more beautiful to contemplate, much more deserving the name of a system, much more entitled to the useless praise of symmetry and proportion, but when it came to be worked would be found applicable perfectly to no place, perhaps repugnant to the feelings, and irreconcileable to the interests of many places, and in almost all places less advantageous than a measure founded upon the same principles as that which he was then introducing to their Lordships' attention. He entreated the attention of their Lordships, he solicited the attention of the country, to the subject; he anxiously hoped for the support of the country, and for the support, above all, of those who had been the steady, the indomitable, and the zealous friends of education for all classes and all sects. That there should be any clause in a measure of this sort excluding religious instruction no man in his sober senses would ever for a moment dream of. That there should be a clause providing for religious instruction, and laying it down as an absolute rule that the whole of that branch of education should be given in such places, could only be supposed by a man equally out of his senses. That there should be no exclu-
464
sion of religious instruction, but that, on the contrary, there should be a direct recognition of it, he was decidedly of opinion. He certainly was one of those who thought that the Bill should contain, in positive and express terms, a provision that in all schools founded, extended, or improved under the Bill, the Scriptures should be read. He had accordingly introduced into the measure, a provision making it imperative upon the board to give its sanction, whether for the foundation, extension, or improvement of schools, to none of which the rules and regulations did not prescribe, that a part of the reading of the scholars should be from the bible, and that the whole scriptures should be read. He did not mean that the scriptures only should be read, far from it, God forbid, but that they should form a part of the reading. The clause was of course accompanied with this proviso, that the children of any Jewish or Roman Catholic parents who might attend the schools, should not be required to be present when the scriptures were read, unless the parents desired it. He had no doubt that this was fit and proper to be added to the Bill; and he was equally of opinion, that it would still all differences of opinion upon the subject of a national system of education. He had sanguine hopes of the success of the measure. If it were well administered—if education continued popular in the country—if nothing were done to raise the spirit either of political faction, or, above all, of religious discord, in the course of the passing of the Bill—and if, after it had passed and come into operation, those feelings should continue which took their rise out of a common and universal and truly wise, as well as truly Christian regard for the right instruction of the people—then he verily believed that the Legislature which had passed the measure, would be acknowledged in all time to come to have bestowed the greatest blessing that ever lawgiver conferred upon a nation. He felt that he ought to apologise for having detained their Lordships so long, but he conceived that he should not have discharged his duty if he kept back any one feeling that he entertained either upon, or in connection with, this important subject. The noble and learned Lord then laid the Bills upon the table.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, he should not have troubled their Lordships on the present occasion but for something which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord

465
in the latter portion of his observations. He had no hesitation in declaring that there were many sentiments in the long and powerful speech that had been delivered by the noble and learned Lord in which he heartily concurred; and more especially he had great satisfaction in finding that from the noble Lord's proposed system religious instruction was not excluded. Nay, so far was religious instruction from being excluded, that in every school the reading of the Scriptures was enjoined.
Lord Brougham: The reading of the Scriptures is to form part of the system of education.
The Earl of Winchilsea: It was to form part of the system of education; and, therefore, instead of religious instruction being excluded from the noble Lord's plan, it was required. This was in accordance with the sentiments on the subject contained in the petition which had been presented by a noble Marquess from Manchester, and in the petition which had been presented by a noble and learned Lord. He repeated that that part of the noble and learned Lord's proposition gave him great satisfaction; for he had always held it to be the first and most positive duty of a Christian legislator of this country, however disposed he might be to extend the education of the people (and he was far from being indisposed to extend that education as widely as it could, with propriety, be extended), to take care that of that education, religious instruction should form the foundation. He felt that he had not sufficient ability to follow the noble and learned Lord into his numerous details on the subject; but he was apprehensive that those details were so extensive and so complicated, that it would be impracticable to found upon them any general system of education throughout the country. There was one point to which he certainly objected, and that was the establishment of boards of commissioners for life, armed with powers to counteract the wishes of the majority of those by whom the schools were to be supported; for, if he understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, where the majority of a parish or district was in favour of the establishment of a school on such or such principles, the Commissioners might overrule their decision, and give effect to the opinion of the minority.
Lord Brougham: All that the Commis-
466
sioners could do under such circumstances, would be to decide that there should be no school.
The Earl of Winchilsea: Then the minority would triumph.
Lord Brougham: There would be no school at all.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, he should be sorry to see a board of commissioners armed with such power as to render the decision of the majority ineffective. He would not go into any consideration of other opinions which in the course of his speech had been maintained by the noble and learned Lord; especially as they were not connected with the subject before their Lordships. If it should be proposed to extend the suffrage under the Reform Bill, or to introduce voting by ballot, on those questions he should be prepared to state his opinion whenever they might be brought before their Lordships; but he could not help expressing his great regret that the great question of Parliamentary Reform, the agitation connected with which had begun to subside, was to be again thrown open; and he could not avoid anticipating the most prejudicial consequences from the proceeding.
Lord Broughamwished to explain with respect to the provision of the Bill, to which the noble Earl had adverted. It was only to prevent a majority from levying a rate for a purpose in which the minority was uninterested, and to which they were opposed. The majority might still subscribe money among themselves for the purpose of having the description of school which they preferred. For instance, suppose the majority of the inhabitants of a parish were Dissenters, and they wanted to have a description of school which would include the children of the Church of England persuasion, and to levy a general rate for that purpose, "Oh no," the Commissioners would say, "we will hold the balance between the members of the Church of England and the Dissenters, and we will not allow the Dissenters to levy a general rate for their particular purpose." The same would take place, if the majority of the inhabitants, being members of the Church of England, wished to include the children of Dissenters.
Bill read a first time.