Sitting of 15 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Highways (No. 2).—Read a second time:—Slave Trade (Portugal).—Read a third time:—Soap Duties Drawback; and Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Mr. W. Roche, from Limerick, in favour of the Corporations (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Hawes, from Lambeth, against the Poor-law Commission Continuance and Collection of Rates Bill.—By the Solicitor-General, from Falmouth, for a Uniform Penny Postage.

LONDON POLICE.—RIDERS TO BILLS.
Mr. F. Maule Mr. F. Maule moved the third reading of the London City Police Bill, and brought up some clauses to be added, by way of rider, to the Bill.
On the last clause being brought up,
Sir G. Clerk,said, that as this was the last of the numerous clauses which had been added by way of rider to this bill, he must protest against this unparalleled mode of legislation. He thought if the journals of the House were searched from the earliest period, no instance could be found of clauses, to the number of thirty or forty, many of them penal, being added to a bill in this its last stage. It was true that these clauses were merely a transcript of clauses which had been introduced into the Metropolitan Police Bill, but still this was a most irregular mode of proceeding, and one which, if not guarded might be drawn into a very inconvenient
332
precedent. The better course would have been to have adopted the mode of proceeding followed with regard to the local small debts courts' bills, which were all withdrawn, and new bills introduced containing all the clauses and provisions approved of by the select committee on the General County Courts Bill. In the same manner in this case, the more regular course would have been that this bill should have been withdrawn, and the corporation of the city of London directed to bring in a new bill, embodying all these clauses, instead of their having now been hurried through all the three stages at once. He repeated, that he did not object to those clauses being brought up, because they were mere transcripts, as he had already said, of the clauses of the Metropolitan Police Bill, but he thought it would be necessary that the Speaker should make an entry on the journals, stating the peculiar grounds on which this course had been adopted, in order that it might not be drawn into ail inconvenient precedent.
Mr. F. Maulegave the hon. Baronet full credit for a laudable desire to maintain regularity, but he thought the hon. Baronet, if he really was so anxious about the matter, might before this course was taken, have suggested that the bill should be withdrawn, and a new bill introduced. The hon. Baronet would, perhaps, remember that the object of these clauses was to establish uniformity in the police regulations both in the city of London and the east and west ends of the town, and that clauses identically the same as those now proposed had been fully discussed in committee on the Metropolitan Police Bill. He was sorry if the proceeding had been at all inconvenient to the House, but he did not think it would be worth while to make an entry on the journals, as had been suggested.
Mr. Humewould be glad to know if what had now been done was contrary to the rules of the House, because, if not, these was no necessity for any entry on the journals? He apprehended that it was only on extraordinary occasions that such a course as the present was taken, and then only at the discretion of the House.
Sir G. Clerkwas only afraid this proceeding might be drawn into a precedent, and therefore he had thought it necessary that a note should be appended to the journals, stating the circumstances of these

333
clauses being mere transcripts of the clauses in the Metropolitan Police Bill, and introduced for the sake of establishing uniformity.
Mr. Humesaid, the only course was for the hon. Baronet to move a resolution to that effect. If the House had a discretion in these cases, he did not see there were any grounds to find fault.
Clauses added.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Patteson Mr. Patteson moved an amendment to the effect of giving to the mayor, aldermen, and commons, in common council assembled, power of suspending the chief commissioner if they thought fit, that power being confined by the clause, as it stood, to the Court of Lord Mayor and Aldermen.
Sir J. Grahamadmitted, that the subject to which the Hon. Member adverted was an important one, but observed, that it had been fully considered and discussed in the committee up stairs. The committee agreed that popular influence should have its effect in the appointment of a commissioner, and therefore left the power of nomination in the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council; but with respect to dismissal, they thought that that power should either remain in the Crown, or be placed in the hands of the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. The committee finally agree, though by a small majority certainly, to confer the power of dismissal on the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, and they arrived at this conclusion because they were aware that the commissioner would have unpopular duties to discharge, and that, therefore, it would be unfair to render the retention of office contingent on the will of a popular body such as the Common Council. He concurred in this view, and had heard nothing to induce him to alter the opinion which he had formed.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that, without very strong reasons for it, he could not consent to alter the proposition which the committee had adopted. It was no doubt right that the Common Council should have a voice in the selection of the commissioners, but he at the same time thought they would not be a fit body to discuss the question of removal. He felt it to be his duty, therefore, to abide by the recommendation which the committee had given.
Mr. Williamssaid; the citizens of Lon-
334
don had been most unjustly treated by the course pursued with respect to this bill, for they had been led to believe, that they were exempted from the harsh and tyrannical provisions of the Metropolitan Police Bill, whereas the city Police was now placed precisely on the footing of the Metropolitan Police. It was most anomalous that one party should be allowed to appoint and another to dismiss an officer of so much importance. He trusted the power of dismissal would be virtually, ere long, placed in the Crown. If the noble Lord would prove, that the Court of Aldermen was not one of the most corrupt Courts that ever existed, then he would agree to the course proposed by the noble Lord. At present he would support the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. F. Mauledenied, that the City had been unfairly dealt with by the present Act. He trusted, after all the consideration the subject had undergone, that his hon. Friend would not press his amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Original question again put.
Mr. Mackinnon Mr. Mackinnon moved as an amendment to the clause, disqualifying the City Police Commissioner from sitting in Parliament, that the following words be inserted in the seventh clause, at the end of the words, "House of Commons," "for the city of London, or for any city or borough within the metropolitan district." He considered that the clause, as it at present stood, must have been inserted in the bill by mistake. It was perfectly anomalous to insert a clause of general disqualification into a private bill—it was copied from the Metropolitan Police Bill, which was a general bill, and therefore was properly introduced there, but could not be with propriety introduced into a private bill. The Police Commissioners, under that Act, were appointed by the Crown, and were removable by the Crown, and therefore they were properly disqualified from sitting in Parliament. But, in this case, the individual was appointed by the City of London, and was removable only by an address of the City of London. He had heard that this clause had been intended against one individual, but, as he generally voted in opposition to that individual, he could not be supposed to have any private feeling on the question, but he objected to the clause as it stood, on principle. His amendment would prevent the individual

335
from sitting for any of the metropolitan districts, including the borough of Southwark, because it might be supposed, from his official situation, such an individual might have undue influence in those districts. It was a complete anomaly, and if the right hon. Gentleman could show him any instance of a general disqualification being introduced into a private bill, he would withdraw his amendment; otherwise, he should press it, and take the sense of the House on the subject, as it might establish an inconvenient and dangerous precedent.
Mr. Williamsseconded the amendment. He did not see why the Commissioner should be prohibited from sitting in Parliament any more than the Recorder, the Common Sergeant, or the Lord Mayor. The citizens of London wished to put the police force under a gentleman with whom they had been connected for many years, and in whom they had great confidence—that Gentleman was the hon. Member for Southwark, and his belief was, that this clause was directed against that hon. Member. He, therefore, opposed the clause.
Mr. F. Maulecould not agree to any alteration in the clause. The hon. Member who had last spoken had placed him in rather a delicate position by the insinuation he had made, but he could positively state that this clause had been introduced without reference to any person. The committee to whom this bill had been referred, had looked to the Act of the 10th George the 4th, which regulated the police of Westminster, and it was found in that bill there was a clause excluding the commissioners from Parliament. It was but right that the citizens of London should have the whole time of the Commissioner, considering the salary they would pay him.
Mr. Humewould not say, that it did, but he thought it looked very like as if the clause was intended to apply to the hon. Member for Southwark. He doubted very much whether it would be fair to persevere in this motion. If the Commissioner was not to be allowed to sit in that House, he did not see why the Recorder of London should.
Sir J. Grahamcould not assent to the proposition that the office in question would be entirely in the gift of the people. The appointment was to be given with the approval, and to be held during the
336
pleasure, of the Crown. The Sovereign was to have the absolute power of removal. His principal reason, however, for supporting the clause, was the immense patronage which would be annexed to the office, and the way in which it might be exercised for electioneering purposes. Another reason why the office should constitute a disqualification for sitting in that House was, that the importance of the situation, and the amount of salary attached to it, gave the public a right to require, on the part of the individual who filled it, an entire devotion of his time and attention. Therefore, on all these grounds, the influence of the Crown, the patronage annexed to the office, and the magnitude of its duties, he thought the clause ought to pass.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, the argument of the right hon. Baronet would go to disfranchise policemen as voters, and might be used as an argument against every officer of the State sitting in that House. The Secretary of State had multifarious duties to perform, was well paid, and the country was entitled to the whole of his time. This question would involve the discussion of a principle which had never yet been settled, the propriety of official functionaries having seats in the House. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the acceptance of office ought not to disqualify from a seat in Parliament.
Mr. Villiersagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. There was no general principle on this subject laid down at all, and the argument of the right hon. Baronet would apply to a great many cases. To Lords-lieutenant and county magistrates for instance. No body of men possessed more important patronage than Lords-lieutenant, and yet they had seats in that House; two-thirds of the Members were county magistrates, who possessed the important power of granting or withholding licences; and he felt convinced that more votes were obtained from the fear of having licences withheld, or from the hope of having them granted, than from any other cause. If the argument was of any force, it applied to county magistrates. As far as he understood the reason for these disqualifications, it was from dread of the influence of the Crown; that did not apply in the present instance. The Corporation would take care not to appoint an unfit person, and the electors would see that the Member attended to

337
their interests. He should therefore vote against the clause.
Mr. Hawessupported the clause, and was anxious, that all questions relating to the police should be discussed without party or political feeling. He objected for several reasons to the Commissioner having a seat in that House: the Secretary of State was the head of the department, and responsible for the conduct of the police. It might happen, that a discussion might take place, and a difference of opinion be manifested between the Secretary of State and the commissioner, and the police would not then be able to look up to one head alone for orders. He would have the appointment of the men, and his patronage would consequently be just as great whatever borough he represented. The police were intended to act as arbiters between different parties, and therefore it was important they should not exhibit party feelings. He utterly disclaimed any individual feeling on the subject, having always supported this clause.
Mr. Harveysaid, that he should not permit the accidental reference which had been made to him by his hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, to induce him to withhold the expression of his opinion upon the clause of the bill then under discussion. In the course of the remarks which had been made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Patteson) to the effect that the dismissal of the commissioners should be vested in the Common Council assembled, the Under Secretary laid great stress upon the circumstance, that the clause had received the sanction of a committee, and though it was intimated, that the clause itself was only carried by a majority of one, an hon. Member on the other side of the House attached as much importance to that vote as had her Majesty's Ministers to the vote which they had recently obtained on a majority of two. A motion like that which was carried in the committee had been made in the Common Council, in consequence of a report current at the time, that the commissioner would not be qualified to sit in that House, and out of the whole number but four persons were found to support it, while the other clause to which he had alluded had been carried by a majority of
338
one. So much for the high respect which the Under Secretary of State was disposed to pay to the majority of the Common Council. It appeared to him, that that House was singularly unacquainted with the law affecting their own privileges. He doubted if hon. Members were aware of what constituted disqualification, and what ineligibility merely. He had observed, that great stress had been laid by the right hon. Baronet opposite upon this being an appointment under the Crown, because it was an office from which the party might be dismissed at the pleasure of the Crown. But it was not so; the law had made a difference in that respect. Under the statute of Anne, where there was a new office of profit under the Crown, the party must also be dismissible at the pleasure of the Crown, in order to bring it within the statute; but the party was not disqualified from sitting in that House if appointed under the same tenure as proposed in this clause, that was to say, being dismissible on account of misconduct or other reasonable cause. That was precisely the same cause for which a judge might he dismissed or a minister impeached. But it did not disqualify a person appointed to a new office of profit under the Crown, from a seat in that House, if he held it as long as he conducted himself well. Besides, this was not an office under the Crown; it was an office to which the Common Council alone should appoint. It was true, as stated by the right hon. Baronet, that the Crown could exercise a veto upon that appointment, but it had nothing to do with the appointment, nor, when made, could the Crown dismiss the party appointed, except upon some obvious cause of evident misconduct. The House was, therefore, going to establish a precedent of interfering with appointments vested in the people. If that was to be a principle which they were to carry out by legislative means, why, let it be a general principle. Although he repudiated the narrow impression that this law had a personal origin, yet it was unfortunate that it was open to this suspicion. Was there the same zealous anxiety for the integrity of that House and its Members running through all their legislation? Look at the bill which was standing for the fiat of that House, giving to the judge of an ecclesiastical court a salary of 4,000 1.,—a bill which had been brought in by the

339
Government, and which would have already passed that House, but for the vigilance of his hon. Friend near him. Why was not the same anxiety evinced for the integrity of the House in other bills, and in that in particular, as was so directly recorded against the city of London in this. It was very well to disclaim all personal intention in this instance, but the course which was adopted certainly exposed the parties to an inference of that description. The House should not, it was said, qualify the holder of the office in question for a seat in that House, because he would have constant and numerous duties to perform. Might not the same be said of the judge of the Court of Admiralty, who was to receive a salary of 4,000 1. and sit in that House to represent the people and support her Majesty's Government? Under the Municipal Corporations Bill, all corporations had the power of establishing a commissioner or superintendent of police of some kind. Had they put this disqualification clause into that bill? He did not know if the hon. Member for Liverpool were present, but if he were he should wish to ask him, if the police force of the town of Liverpool was not greater than that of the city of London, and whether the commissioner at the head of that force was disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons? He would tell the slumbering legislators of that House, that there was no clause in the Municipal Corporation Bill disqualifying even those who were police constables; whereas, by this clause, if any police constable should be found to vote at an election for the city of London, he would be subjected to a penalty of 100 1. Why this vigilance to disqualify the citizens of London? Was it that Gentlemen fancied that the constituent bodies of the county were indifferent to the parties upon whom their choice should fall? If persons were to be excluded from that House, on the ground of having other occupations to attend to, he would just ask the House to look at many of its own Members to whom the same objection would apply—lawyers, for instance, who were occupied in the courts all day, and all the evening in their chambers. He objected to the amendment of the hon. Member, because it conceded too much, and because he thought it would be better to have no disqualification at all. The hon. Member for Lambeth thought it undesirable that the com-
340
missioner of police under this bill should sit in that House, inasmuch as he would have to arbitrate between conflicting interests. Now, he (Mr. Harvey) conceived it would have been very desirable if the commissioner of police had been in that House the other evening, when an imputation had been cast upon him by the hon. Member for Oldham; or on another recent occasion, when the House might have had his opinion as to the propriety of transferring the police from London to the scene of struggle in Birmingham. Another objection he had to this disqualification was, that they destroyed one of the few recompenses left in the hands of the people for consistent services. He was one of those who thought that there should be no disqualification, save that which the public mind imposed. Let the constituent bodies judge of the individual's pretensions. If his time were so occupied, as obviously to prevent the performance of his duties as representative of the people, that would be a sound reason why the constituency should not elect him. The discretion must be vested somewhere, and, in his opinion, it ought to be vested in the people.
Sir Robert Peel—Sir, I should be quite ashamed if I felt it necessary to disclaim any influence of a personal nature. I am sure that the proposition is made solely in reference to the general consideration of public benefit, and it is therefore scarcely necessary for me to disclaim any feeling of personal hostility in the course which I may think proper to pursue. I do not know what are the hon. Gentleman's chances of succeeding to this office, and I can only hope that the authorities who shall have the nomination of those officers may be afforded a fair opportunity of selecting those who have the best pretensions to discharge the duties efficiently. If I understood the hon. Gentleman, he said, those persons only were excluded from seats in Parliament, who held offices during pleasure. Why, the judges were not allowed to sit in Parliament, and they hold their offices independent of the Crown. In the reign of George 2nd, the Scotch judges were deprived of their eligibility to sit in Parliament—not upon the ground of their tenure of office, but upon the same ground that our criminal judges were rendered ineligible—because it was thought that it would be better if those who filled the judicial seat as civil

341
or criminal judges, should not appear upon the hustings, to appeal to the political feelings of the people as political partisans. It was held, therefore, that the public interest would be benefited by preventing those who held such offices from sitting in Parliament. In my opinion, it would not conduce to the public benefit, or to the more efficient discharge of the duties which belong to the office of the commissioner, to have such commissioner known as a political partisan. It may be very well to have political partisans in this House, but when such an important duty is to be intrusted to a person, when he is to have the command of 500 men, and when we are aware how far the efficient discharge of his duty may depend upon the impression which the public may form as to his impartiality, I say that, under these circumstances, it is better such an individual should not have a seat in Parliament. It was, therefore, because we were of opinion that the duties which attached to that office would be discharged with more satisfaction to the public by a person who was not a political partisan, that I advocate such a provision, and not with any personal view. But the exception proposed with respect to the city of London, goes against the hon. Member's argument, for the citizens of London ought to be best qualified to judge of the efficiency or capability of the individual who held that office, to be a Member of this House; and if there may be allowed a power to exclude them from representing the city of London, why not a power to exclude them from other places as well? The hon. Gentleman had said, that the superintendent of the Liverpool police is subject to no such provision? Why not? Because the duties of the superintendent of police in Liverpool are totally incompatible with his holding a seat in Parliament; and if the superintendent of the Liverpool police held a seat in this House, and attended to the discharge of his political duties in this House, I have no doubt the people of Liverpool would soon say to him, "You are a political partisan—you devote so much of your attention to politics, that it is impossible you can remain longer at the head of our police force." But in London the case is different from that of Liverpool: there is no physical impossibility here, and it is on that account that, in order to provide for the more satisfactory fulfilment of the duties, such a provision has been
342
thought necessary. I put it to the hon. Gentleman whether he can be of opinion that the public would be satisfied if the commissioner of police were to appear in the character of a candidate for a seat in Parliament, addressing himself to the passions and feelings of the people, flattering one party, and abusing the other, which would be fair enough in a political candidate, and still having the command of 500 men? Would, I ask, those who were abused by that individual, place the same confidence in his impartial discharge of his duties as those in whose favour he declared himself? Is it not contrary to the dictates of common sense that they could have the same confidence in him? But now look to the position of such an individual with respect to the other two commissioners. I venture to say, his relation to the others would be perfectly changed, that they would be subordinate officers to the commissioner who might have a seat in Parliament, who would undertake to answer questions connected with the police force, and who would, from that position become totally paramount. Suppose the commissioner who held a seat in Parliament should be a clever debater, who took every opportunity of attacking the Secretary of State. Suppose that whenever he spoke upon the police, he turned into ridicule the views of the Secretary of State with respect to that body, and called them narrow and confined. Supposing that the Secretary of State was unable to engage with that gentleman in debate, and found himself unsuccessful, what would be the consequence? Would the commissioner feel his authority lowered? The Secretary of State would say, this man is constantly attacking me, but I cannot remove him, as people would say it was on account of his popularity; and thus in what relation would he stand to the others? Persons will always place most reliance upon such a person in consequence of his not being a political partisan, and, therefore, I had great pleasure in bringing over a gentleman from the sister country. I placed him purposely in the office, and, as I expected, he was fully successful in gaining the public confidence. If the person at the head of the police be a political partisan, it is quite impossible he should have as much of the public confidence as if he were not such a partisan. Such an exclusion would also prevent unseemly con-

343
filets between the Secretary of State and the commissioner who might have a seat in this House on the grounds of discipline and subordination. I am opposed to it, and whilst I say that, I do not mean that such a commissioner should abandon his political opinions, but that he should not put them ostensibly forward as a partisan. The right hon. Baronet concluded by again disclaiming any personal feeling in the vote which he was about to give.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House by entering into a discussion of the question then before them. Thus much, however, he might say, that if the appointment of commissioner rested with the Secretary of State, he should not by any means recommend the appointment of a Member of that House. He was sorry that it should become necessary to exclude them by an Act of Parliament. He regretted that it should in any case become necessary to narrow the choice of the people, for he would much rather leave motions of this sort to the special circumstances of each individual case. Being of opinion, however, that, in such a case as the present, there ought to be such a provision, he should support the clause.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Mackinnon be inserted:—Ayes 32; Noes 108—Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pechell, Captain

Bowes, J.

Polhill, F.

Bridgeman, H.

Power, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pryme, G.

Bryan, G.

Redington, T. N.

D'Israeli, B.

Salwey, Colonel

Duke, Sir J.

Sheil, R. L.

Fielden, J.

Turner, E.

Harvey, D. W.

Vigors, N. A.

Heathcoat, J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hector, C. J.

Wakley, T.

Hindley, C.

Walker, R.

Humphery, J.

Williams, W.

Kemble, H.

Wood, Sir M.

Morris, D.

O'Brien, W. S.

TELLERS.

Parker, R. T.

Hume, J.

Pattison, J.

Mackinnon, J.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Baines, E.

Alsager, Captain

Baring, F. T.

Archdall, M.

Barnard, E. G.

Bagge, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

344

Blair, J.

Hutt, W.

Blake, W. J.

Hutton, R.

Brownrigg, S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Buck, L. W.

Irving, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Jones, Captain

Burroughes, H. N.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Byng, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Marshall, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Cole, Viscount

Morpeth Viscount

Colquhoun, J. C.

Muskett, G. A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Nagle, Sir R.

Darby, G.

Packe, C. W.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Palmer, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Palmerston, Viscount

Duff, J.

Parker, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Parker, M.

Egerton, W. T.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Egerton, Sir P.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Elliot, hn. J. E.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Ellis, J.

Philips, M.

Estcourt, T.

Pigot, D. R.

Evans, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fector, J. M.

Rice, E. R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Richards, R.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Forester, hon. G.

Russell, Lord

Freshfield, J. W.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Sheppard, T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Smith, J. A.

Grant, F. W.

Smith, A.

Greenaway, C.

Smith, R. V.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Grimsditch, T.

Spry, Sir M. T.

Hale, R. B.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Halford, H.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Hall, Sir B.

Steuart, R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Stewart, J.

Hawes, B.

Strutt, E.

Hawkins, J. H.

Surrey, Earl of

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Thomson, rt. hn. C.P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hodgson, R.

Williams, W. A.

Hogg, J. W.

Worsley, Lord

Hope, hon. C.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hope, H. T.

Hoskins, K.

TELLERS.

Howard, F.

Maule, F.

Hurt, F.

Wood, C.

Bill passed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (IRELAND)
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the third reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.
Sir R. Inglisrose to object to the measure, to which he felt bound to offer his most strenuous resistance. His opposition to it was not produced, either in its extent or character, by the resistance which had been shown to the several amendments which had been proposed for the improve-

345
ment of this bill. He would not hesitate to say that, even if those amendments had been passed, his hostility to the bill would still remain unchanged. The only argument which had been used in favour of this measure with any plausibility was that derived from the fact that similar measures had been passed for Scotland and England. But that was no argument in his mind, for the working of that measure in England showed how dangerous it would be to extend a similar measure to Ireland. He believed that in England the measure had produced no good. The passing of this bill would be neither more nor less than the annihilation of all the existing Irish corporations. The present corporation of Dublin could not exist within six months after the passing of this bill. He believed, that her Majesty's Government had brought forward this bill, not in obedience to any principle of consistency, but to gratify the wishes of a certain number of their supporters—men who were not ashamed to be considered anti-Protestant in their views, but who, on the contrary, considered it to be a distinction that they were so. The expectations formed from this measure would prove delusive, for he believed that the measure would turn out to be nothing more than a hollow truce. He had witnessed the mischief that had been produced by former concessions. He had, consistently, opposed those concessions, and the result convinced him that he was right in doing so. Therefore, seeing the mischief that this bill was likely to produce, he should now move that the bill be read a third time that day three months.
Mr. Plumptreseconded the amendment.
Mr. O'Connellwould detain the House only a very few minutes. If the bill had been an extension, as it should have been, the people of Ireland would have been reproached with receiving a boon, and yet remaining unsatisfied. He wished those who were inclined to make that statement would recollect the fact, that none of the measures of reform given to Ireland had been placed on an equal footing with those for England and Scotland. What the Irish demanded, was equality; and why should they be content without it? No measure of relief short of English franchise and privileges would satisfy them. They would always continue their efforts to raise their position to the Eng-
346
lish standard. Nothing could be so absurd as this species of legislation, which conceded a part, and withheld the rest of their rights. What the Parliament gave conferred on the people the power of obtaining the rest, and compelled them by agitation to keep up the public excitement until they accomplished their object. If the House wished to put an end to that state of things, let it at once concede the same measure of liberty the people of England possessed. With the bill, as it now stood, he was discontented. It should have been founded and carried into effect at once on the principle of the English franchise, whereas for the first three years they were restricted to a different and higher qualification. Under the Irish Reform Bill, only one-fourth per cent. of the full grown males possessed the franchise, while in England the proportion was 20 per cent. Could the Irish people be content with such a state of things? They could not, and ought not. Without equality of representation and privileges, the union was a fraud and a deception. Profitable it might be to one party, but not binding on the other. He protested against the bill as it stood; but if it came down to that House from another place, with a franchise still more restricted in one iota, he would appeal to both countries against the bill—to the Reformers of England when they should have recovered their senses and given up the Chartists, and to the people of Ireland, where agitation was always consistent with perfect obedience to the law.
Mr. Darbysaid, when he first sat in that House, the principle of municipal corporations for Ireland was conceded by the Conservatives both of that and the other House of Parliament; and the only anxiety was, that the qualification should be a bonâ fide one. This bill, however, was unamended for any substantial purpose, and he should vote against it.
Colonel Percevalhad voted for the second reading of the bill, in the hope that the Government would adopt a 10 l. rating; but in that respect it was even less regardful of the interests of the Protestants of Ireland than the measure of last year; in fact, at the end of three years, there would be no rating at all. He should have preferred, that corporations should have been abolished altogether, and he should vote against the bill.
The House divided on the original question: Ayes 97; Noes 21: Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

O'Brien, W. S.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Connell, D.

Baines, E.

Palmerston, Ld. Visc.

Baring, F. T.

Parker, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Barry, G. S.

Pechell, Captain

Bernal, R.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Bowes, J.

Philips, M.

Bridgeman, H.

Pigot, D. R.

Briscoe, J. I.

Power, J.

Brotherton, J.

Price, Sir R.

Bryan, G.

Pryme, G.

Callaghan, D.

Pryse, P.

Cave, R. O.

Redington, T. N.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Rice, E. R.

Clive, E. B.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Roche, W.

D'Eyncourt, right hon. C. T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Russell, Lord John

Divett, E.

Russell, Lord

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Salwey, Colonel

Evans, W.

Scholefield, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sheil, R. L.

Finch, F.

Smith, B.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Smith, R. V.

Gisborne, T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Greenaway, C.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Stewart, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stock, Dr.

Hall, Sir B.

Strutt, E.

Hawes, B.

Surrey, Earl of

Heathcoat, J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hindley, C.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Turner, E.

Hodges, T. L.

Vigors, N. A.

Hoskins, K.

Wakley, T.

Howard, F. J.

Walker, R.

Howick, Lord Visct.

Ward, H. G.

Hume, J.

White, H.

Hutton, R.

Williams, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Williams, W. A.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Wood, C.

Macleod, R.

Wood, Sir M.

Marshall, W.

Worsley, Lord

Maule, hon. F.

Yates, J. A.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Muskett, G. A.

Stanley, E. J,

Nagle, Sir R.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Fector, J. M.

Archdall, M.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bagge, W.

Grimsditch, T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Henniker, Lord

Burroughes, H. N.

Jones, Captain

Cole, Lord Viscount

Kemble, H.

Cooper, E. J.

Palmer, G.

Egerton, Sir P.

Parker, R. T.

Ellis, J.

Perceval, Colonel

348

Perceval, hon. G. J.

TELLERS.

Plumptre, J. P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Polhill, F.

Darby, G.

Bill read a third time and passed.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
The House went into Committee on the Admiralty Court Bill.
On the first clause,
Mr. Humeobjected to the increase of salary which was proposed to be given by this bill to the Judge of the Admiralty Court. He did not think that either the duties which this learned functionary was called on to perform nor the present state of the revenue warranted this increase of salary which was proposed to be given by this clause. He thought it would be very desirable to know, whether any increased duties were to be thrown upon the Judge of the Admiralty Court by this bill, for he certainly saw no reason for coming forward, under the present circumstances of the country, to propose this increase of salary.
Lord John Russellthought, that the hon. Member had not paid sufficient attention to this measure. The object of the bill was to alter the principle on which the Judge of the Admiralty Court had hitherto been paid, and instead of the payment by fees to pay the Judge, a fixed and permanent salary. During the time of war, owing to the increase of fees, the emoluments of this office had amounted to between eight and nine thousand a-year, whilst in time of peace the salary was under four thousand a-year. He thought that it was very objectionable that a person filling an office of this kind should receive a salary liable to so much variation in its amount, and that was a reason why it was thought much better to fix it. In making this provision, however, the hon. Gentleman would perceive, that the amount of salary had been fixed considerably lower than what the Judge was in the habit of receiving in time of war.
Mr. Humedid not see the necessity of providing for time of war, for whenever such a time arrived, which he trusted would be far distant, it would then be early enough to provide for an increase of salary. They had an assurance from her Majesty at the commencement of the Session, that there was every prospect of the continuance of peace in Europe, and he certainly did not see the reason for providing for such a remote contingency.

349
The reasons just stated by the noble Lord did not satisfy him, and he certainly should continue his opposition to this proposal.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to have mistaken the principle on which this increase was demanded. They were not asking the House to vote a war salary to the Judge of the Admiralty, but they asked the House, now at a time of peace, to vote such a salary as would form a mean between what the Judge received in time of war and what he received in time of peace. He did not think that this Judge ought to be in such a position that his emoluments should be high at one time and low at another, but his salary ought to be equal at all times and regularly paid. A few years ago an alteration was made in Ireland, and the salary of the judge of the Prerogative Court in that country was fixed at 3,000 l. a-year, and this was not thought to be more than a fair proportion, in reference to the emoluments of a man in first-rate practice at the civil bar. Now, he certainly thought, that 4,000 l. a-year in England, was not more in proportion to the larger emoluments of the English bar than 3,000 l. was in Ireland. When it was considered, that the person appointed to this office should be able to determine questions of great importance not to this country alone, but to every civilized country throughout the world, and that the effect of his decisions was to reach distant countries, he thought that it would indeed be a most miserable economy which would not enable them to secure the best services for a situation of such eminence and importance.
Mr. Williamsobserved, that no advance of salary had been made to Lord Stowell, to Sir Christopher Robinson, or to Sir John Nicholl; and the country was not in a better state now than formerly to give an increased salary. He had been told, that the judge of the Admiralty Court had sat only twenty-four days during the last year; but if the number of days had been double, the present salary was quite sufficient. He objected to the increase because the country was not in a condition to make it.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, Lord Stowell had had the benefit of his war income for sonic years. If the hon. Member who spoke last would refer to the evidence before the committee of 1833, he would find, that
350
the number of days the judge of the Admiralty Court sat was no criterion of the duty he performed. A salary of 4,000 l. for a time of war as well as peace was not too much.
Mr. Humedid not like that the Liberal party should be reproached with having increased the salary of this office when filled by one of their friends, after Sir John Nichol, and his predecessors had received only the lower salary. If the increase was fit to be made, it ought to have been made when preceding judges were in office; but he thought it a most unfit time to acid to the salary, when a judge had little or no duty to perform. If the learned judge had a duty to perform at the Privy Council, he would rather give him a salary of 1,000 l. for that. As it was, it appeared a partial and improper proceeding.
Mr. C. Woodhad omitted to mention, that by this bill there was a considerable increase of business thrown on the Admiralty Court, by the extension of its jurisdiction.
The Solicitor-generalregretted, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny should have suggested that this increase had been made because the present judge of the Admiralty Court was one of their party. The hon. Member must, he thought, feel satisfied that no case more imperiously called for an increase of salary. The hon. Member said, there was at present very little business in that court; but it was most important to have there at all times a judge competent to do the business that was to be clone, and to get such a person he must be taken from a class of the highest professional eminence. It was a miserable economy to run the risk of not being being able to procure the services of men of the first eminence. Was it prudent or consistent with sound policy to make it the interest of the judge, who had to adjudicate questions not of meum and tuum, but which might plunge Europe in war, to decide in a case of capture something that might lead to hostilities?
Sir R. Inglisagreed with the Solicitor-general, that it was important to have a judge of the highest eminence, as his decisions might influence the great question of peace or war. Those who recollected the decisions of our Court of Admiralty in the time of the Orders in Council would be aware how materially those decisions affected our foreign relations.
Mr. Wakleywas really much obliged to Government for not proposing a higher salary than 4,000 l. a-year. Had the sum been 8,000 l. instead of 4,000 l. he had no doubt it would have been easily granted, for the extravagance of the House was without limit. He protested against adding to the burdens of the people, by an unnecessary increase of at least one-fourth in the salary of this judge.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, he found, that in point of form it would be impossible to go on with this clause, as a preliminary resolution would be required.
Clause postponed.
On the 17th clause,
Mr. Humeproposed, as an amendment, the insertion of certain words, which would give to all barristers indiscriminately the power of practising in the High Court of Admiralty. At present the practice in that court was monopolised by the doctors of civil law.
Mr. Wakleysupported the amendment. Perhaps the learned judge of the court, as the money clauses of the bill were postponed, would favour the Committee with his opinion as to the propriety of opening the court.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that as he was thus personally called on, he had no hesitation in declaring, that though it might not be inexpedient in principle to rescind prospectively the rule which excluded from the court all advocates who were not doctors in civil law, still in practice it would be productive of considerable injury to the present advocates in that court to let in upon them suddenly a new class of competitors who had not acquired the same qualifications or undergone the same long and laborious ordeal with themselves. The advocates in the High Court of Admiralty must have acquired their degrees of doctor in civil law in a strictly regular way, for if the degree were obtained by any grace or favour, it was not sufficient to admit the person so obtaining it to practise as an advocate in that court.
Mr. Sheilsupported the amendment. Catholics and other Dissenters were at present disqualified from acting in this court, because they could not obtain the necessary degrees in the English Universities.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that there was one other consideration to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee.
352
The High Court of Admiralty was the only school of public law in this country, and he was afraid, that since the death of Lord Stowell, we had not been at all able to vie with the professors of public law in other nations. Any measure, then, which tended to diminish the emoluments of that portion of the profession, which devoted itself to the study of public law, must also impair its character for learning and talent. And let not that be considered as a matter of slight importance, for the King's Advocate was consulted daily on matters of public law, and any mistakes on such points might involve the country in war.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 28; Noes 69: Majoity 41.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Power, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Salwey, Colonel

Brotherton, J.

Scholefield, J.

Collins, W.

Sheil, R. L.

Dashwood, G. H.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Duke, Sir J.

Turner, E.

Easthope, J.

Turner, W.

Fenton, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Finch, F.

Warburton, H.

Gisborne, T.

White, A.

Hall, Sir B.

Williams, W.

Harvey, D. W.

Yates, J. A.

Hawes, B.

Hutton, R.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Hume, J.

Pechell, Captain

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Howard, P. H.

Ainsworth, P.

Howard, Sir R.

Alsager, Captain

Howick, Viscount

Baring, F. T.

Hurt, F.

Barry, G. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blake, W.

James, Sir W. C.

Bryan, G.

Kemble, H.

Buck, L, W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Clive, E. B.

Loch, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Dalmeny, Lord

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Darby, G.

Macleod, R.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Marshall, W.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Evans, W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Packe, C. W.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Palmer, G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Parker, J.

Gordon, R.

Parker, R. T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Greenaway, C.

Pendarves, hn. W.W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Pigot, D. R.

Grimsditch, T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Harcourt, G. G.

Pryme, G.

Heathcoat, J.

Rice, E. R.

Hoskins, K.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

353

Rich, H.

Thomson, rt. hn. C.P.

Russell, Lord J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Walker, R.

Scrope, G. P.

Williams, W. A.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Wilshere, W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Wood, Sir M.

Stuart, R.

Worsley, Lord

Stewart, J.

TELLERS

Strutt, E.

Wood, C.

Surrey, Earl of

Solicitor-general, the

Remaining clauses agreed to.

CONTINUANCE OF THE POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the second reading of the Poor-Law Commission Continuance Bill.
Mr. Grimsditchsaid, he had strong objections to the measure. The predictions which had been made in that House as to the manner in which the Poor-law Amendment Act would be carried out, had been fully realized. It was not his object, at the present moment, to animadvert upon the gentlemen to whom the duty of conducting and carrying out that measure had been confided; he believed them to be most respectable and honourable men, but this much he must say of them, that they, or at all events those who acted under them, did not possess, in his opinion, sufficient practical knowledge. The host of sub-commissioners which had been sent out through the country was composed principally of barristers-at-law, of very short standing at the bar, who had not had any experience of the social feelings and habits of the people of the country. But he objected to the present bill as unnecessary. The unconstitutional powers vested in the Commissioners, it was provided by the Poor-law Amendment Act, were to continue fur five years, and until the end of the then next Session of Parliament. Now, surely five years was ample time to try and ascertain the working of the measure. The measure had, with one or two exceptions, he believed, been carried into effect throughout the kingdom, and within the term the commission would now continue—namely, until the end of the next Session—an ample opportunity would be afforded fully to try the experiment. But with respect to this bill. At the commencement of the present Session, and frequently during its progress, questions had been put to the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) as to his intentions with respect to this law, and early in the Session, the noble Lord stated his intention to bring in a bill, not
354
only to continue the powers of the existing Commissioners, but also to remedy a number of defects which it was allowed existed in the carrying out of the new system. It, therefore, was with very great surprise to him (Mr. Grimsditch) that it was only within the last few weeks that the bill, together with five other measures connected also with the question, made its appearance before the House, and it was evident that the powers of the Commissioners were not to cease even at the time fixed by the bill of the noble Lord, than which a more objectionable and oppressive measure had scarcely ever been brought forward. One of the bills brought in created a new office—that of reviser of rates—it gave the commissioners power over all books, papers, and documents, belonging to the unions; it enabled the guardians to make and levy rates, to recover them by distress and sale; the right of appeal was taken away in certain cases; all these provisions served to show him that there was a determination on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, to perpetuate the unconstitutional powers at present possessed by the commissioners, to a much longer period than the noble Lord professed. He, however, trusted that, looking to the strong feeling existing throughout the country, with reference to the extraordinary powers of the commissioners, her Majesty's Ministers would pause. It was notorious, that the present bill was brought in in the face of state prosecutions arising out of a resistance to this very law, in the north of England; it was notorious, that her Majesty's Attorney-general was proceeding both to Chester and to Liverpool to try persons for resisting this law. And where, he begged to ask, was the necessity for the present bill. It would be much better to postpone this bill, and in the mean time, the Government might take such active measures as would enable them to mature those amendments which were necessary in the existing law. To any further continuance of the powers held by the commissioners at Somerset-house, and those under them, he entertained strong objections, arising from the evil effects which had been produced throughout the country. If it was actually necessary to have a controlling power, in order to carry out with effect this law, it would be better to leave it to a Secretary of State, as in that case there would be a

355
responsibility, while at present there was none. Feeling strongly that this bill ought not to pass into a law, in the present Session at all events, he should move, as an amendment, that it be read a third time this day three months.
Mr. Darbysaid, that though it was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the bill, he thought there was some justice in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield as to the course which had been pursued by the noble Lord opposite with respect to it. It had been truly stated, that the noble Lord said he would bring in a bill in the second week of May to effect certain amendments in the existing poor-laws, and now the House had arrived at the 15th of July. The noble Lord had not redeemed his promise, but had waited until many hon. Members interested in the subject had left town, and consequently the present measure would not receive that discussion which it called for and deserved. But though the bill to continue the Poor-law commission was now before the House, still those clauses of amendment, including the bastardy clauses, which the noble Lord promised to lay on the Table, were not forthcoming, and up to the present moment, nobody knew at what time they would be brought forward; still less did anybody know what provisions they would contain. The noble Lord had said, that the object of this bill was to continue the commission but for one year longer; but, on looking at the bill, he found it provided, that the commissioners "should hold their offices until the expiration of one year from the 14th of August, 1840, and until the end of the then next Session of Parliament." So that the bill proposed a continuance of nearly three years. He should not vote against the second reading of the bill, because that course might prevent him moving those amendments which he desired to see effected in the present laws. If the noble Lord refused those amendments when proposed in Committee, he should vote against the third reading, on the principle that he might then probably get an early opportunity next Session of pressing his amendments upon the House.
Colonel Sibthorphad great pleasure in supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Grimsditch). The Poor-law Amendment Bill, it had been promised, would be a
356
boon to the poor of the country. It was no such thing; but, on the contrary, it had been now proved to be an imposition on the public. The whole of the news. papers—a means of information on which some reliance ought to be placed—teemed daily with complaints of the cruelty of the Poor-law Amendment Act. His hon. Friend who had just sat down had expressed his surprise that the noble Lord had delayed this bill until this late period of the Session; but his hon. Friend forgot that it was the practice of the Government to postpone all their measures until that late period when but few Members remained to resist their machinations. Let the House look at the expense to which this commission had put the country. He had not the whole returns, but he was sure, if he said it had cost 60,000 l. it would be the minimum. The returns up to 1836 spewed it had cost 38,000 l., and though the last return was incomplete, he was sure he understated the entire expense of this commission alone when he fixed it at 60,000 l. On the consideration of the Appropriation Bill, he should certainly move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state and expense of the various commissions now in force in this country, and he pledged himself to prove before that Committee, a more gross statement of expenditure than ever had yet been laid before the public, and especially by a Government which came into office on the principle of economy. But they had lost the confidence of the country; that fact had been told them the other day, when the other House went up with the Address to the Queen, and he must say, that men more unworthy the confidence of the country never before existed. This bill was brought on at this late period of the Session, not with any regard to the feelings or wishes of the people, but because the Government knew they could carry it by numerical strength; the noble Lord was afraid to bring it forward early in the Session, and now sought to smuggle it through. He called upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had declared the Poor-law Amendment Bill to be oppressive, to withdraw from the Government and come to his side of the House in opposing this renewal. He should join the hon. Member, with great pleasure, in throwing out this bill, and although he was no Chartist—although he deprecated violent language

357
—yet, if any Gentleman would bring forward, in temperate language, a measure for the repeal of this accursed law, he should have his support.
Sir J. J. Guestwould oppose the second reading of the bill, inasmuch as the poorer classes of his constituents complained that the existing law was cruel and oppressive, especially in those provisions which permitted the separation of husband and wife, and the refusal to afford out-door relief. If, however, the bill went into Committee, he now gave notice that he should move clauses to amend the provisions of the existing law to which he alluded.
Mr. W. Tatton Egertonsaid, that having opposed the former bill in every stage, he felt bound now to say that subsequent experience had confirmed him in his opposition to its principles. A very strong feeling existed against the Poor Law Act, and much difficulty had had to be encountered in obtaining the attendance of guardians to carry its provisions into operation. He himself entertained a strong feeling against the act, and he thought there was also much reason to complain of the mode in which it had been carried into effect. In this part of the country rules and regulations had been sent down to them, and when it was attempted to moderate their severity, the commissioners had insisted on those regulations being observed in the most rigid manner. Those rules had been much complained of, and he would therefore press upon the noble Lord the propriety of withdrawing this bill for the present, and early in another session of introducing a new measure, into which some modifications of the present system might be introduced. If the amendment was pressed to a division, he should vote against the bill.
Mr. P. Howardsaid, few Acts had received the sanction of Parliament which, in his opinion, had been productive of more beneficial effects in the northern districts than the Poor Law Amendment Act. He could not help expressing his thanks for the great reduction in the rates which had taken place under the new system.
Sir W. Jamessaid, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield pressed his amendment to a division, he should certainly vote with him, for he entertained many objections to the bill. He was not inclined to revert to the old system, but
358
he could not but regret that this bill had been introduced at so late a period of the session, that it was utterly impossible that any modifications could be made in the existing law.
Mr. Blackstonewould freely confess, although he should vote against this bill, that he was not prepared to vote fur the total repeal of the existing law. When the guardians had acted independently of the commissioners, the Poor Law Amendment Act had been beneficial; but when the guardians had submitted to the dictation of the commissioners, the worst results had followed. For himself he wished to see the guardians invested with a discretionary power of granting relief, and there were other alterations which he trusted would be made. He should support the amendment.
Mr. Buckbelieved, that the country was more indebted to her Majesty's Ministers for the Poor Law Amendment Act than for any other measure which they had brought forward. He acknowledged that he had at first looked with suspicion on that act, but having been the chairman of a board of guardians for a considerable period, he was now convinced from experience that the Poor Law Act had been of the greatest possible service to the country. There was one clause, however, to which he felt it his duty to call the attention of the Government, viz., the clause relating to the relief of the able-bodied poor. He thought it absolutely necessary, with reference to this part of the system, that a discretionary power should be vested in the guardians, and he was sorry to see any bill introduced at so late a period, that due consideration could not be given to this important subject, so as to enable them to effect some practical improvements. If the commissioners would allow a discretionary power to the guardians, he was sure the concession would be attended with very beneficial results.
Mr. T. Parkersaid, he would support the amendment which had been moved, as he objected strongly to be system which allowed no discretionary power to the guardians with respect to out-door relief. He objected also to the extensive powers vested in the commissioners. It might have been imagined that some modification of the extraordinary powers of the commissioners, which they exercised in a more extraordinary manner, would have been proposed; but he found by a

359
bill which had been introduced by the noble Lord that they were to be intrusted with still more extensive powers. The bill to which he alluded was the bill for the collection of rates, and in one of the clauses of that bill, by which the guardians, under the direction of the commissioners, were empowered to appoint collectors, it was provided, "that the powers given by the said act to the said commissioners for directing the execution by guardians of the laws for the relief of the poor, shall be deemed to extend, and shall extend, to the making, collecting, and distribution, of poor-rates, and to the custody thereof." [Lord J. Russell: it is intended to alter the clause.] He had a right to found his argument upon the bill as he found it, as he could not know what alterations might be proposed by the notble Lord. He had a right to allude to the clause as it stood in the bill, in order to expose this insidious attempt to extend the powers of the Poor Law authorities.
The Speakerbegged to intimate to the hon. Member that the House was not debating the Collection of Rates Bill at that time. The question was, that the Poor Law Commission Continuance Bill be read a second time.
Mr. T. Parkerwas aware that such was the fact, and he was only endeavouring to show that very extraordinary powers were to be granted to the commissioners by another bill. The words of the clause in the Collection of Rates Bill to which he had alluded were, that the powers of the commissioners should extend "to all monies, papers, goods, and chattels, applicable or relating in any way to the relief of the poor, as well as to the relief, maintenance, and removal, of the poor." The effect of that proviso would be, that not one single charity which had been established for the relief of the widow and the orphan would escape the control of the Poor Law Commissioners. That was one of the strongest objections which he had to the bill before the House, as the bill went to continue the powers of the commissioners, and although he stood alone he should vote against it.
Mr. Wakleysaid, it appeared to him very extraordinary that a bill of this kind, and of such vast importance, should have been introduced without one word of explanation. He could not comprehend how Ministers could propose such a bill without stating the grounds on which it
360
was introduced, and without explaining the reasons which, in their opinion, rendered such a measure necessary. The bill was intended to continue one of the most odious statutes that had ever been placed on record, and was to extend the powers of the Poor Law Commissioners for two years longer. Had the noble Lord's attention been directed to the complaints which had been made against the Poor Law Amendment Act? There was no part of the country from which complaints against the Poor Law Act had not been made, and those complaints had been directed against the system of out-door relief, the gigantic extent of the unions, the system of plural voting, and the consequences resulting from the plan of ex officio guardians. Society was torn to pieces by the operation of the new system, and instead of the hostility to the measure decreasing, his firm conviction was, that it was on the increase. Yet, notwithstanding that such was the case, here was a proposition brought forward for extending and continuing the powers of the commissioners, and yet Ministers had made no statement, offered no explanation, to show the necessity for the adoption of such a course. He trusted that the noble Lord would yield to the suggestions which had been offered, and that he would not proceed further with this bill, but wait till another Session, when a comprehensive measure could be introduced to remedy the defects of the existing laws. This bill was a piece of mere patch-work, and could not be satisfactory either to that House or to the country. The hon. Member for Devon had expressed himself pleased with the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Bill, but let the House appeal to the poor, and hear what they had to say on the subject. He wished the hon. Member could have heard some of the complaints which he had heard in Devon, where, notwithstanding all that was said about the bill raising the rate of wages, no such result had taken place, and where no allowance had been made for rent, or for the increase in the price of corn, although there might have been some allowance of sour cider. This bill ought not to have been brought forward without its having been shown that there was a paramount necessity for its introduction; and if the noble Lord offered no satisfactory explanation of the grounds on which he justified this proceeding, he

361
should vote for the amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, the hon. Member for Finsbury had blamed the Government because they had offered no explanation on the introduction of this bill; but although it was not his duty to defend her Majesty's Ministers, yet he must observe, that as it was merely a bill to continue certain provisions of a former Act, it did not appear to him that any explanation was necessary. The hon. Member had also alluded, and in terms of censure, to the ex officio guardians; but in his opinion the ex officio guardians had contributed in a very high degree to the beneficial operation of the Poor Law Act. The size of the unions had also been objected to, and he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member that the unions were too large. The poor were bound to make application for relief in person, and for that reason the unions ought to be of moderate extent. He had risen, however, for the purpose of expressing his approbation of the Poor Law Amendment Act. He was aware that a great outcry had been raised against the measure, and that many persons had striven to excite strong feelings of hostility against it, and as he had been convinced from experience of its beneficial effects, he felt bound to say, that in his opinion, if there was one act to which posterity would look back with gratitude to the present Ministers, that Act was the Poor Law Amendment Act. An hon. Member opposite had spoken of the reduction of rates which had been effected, and no doubt such had been the effect of the bill; but it was not on that ground that he was favourable to the new Poor Law, but simply because he believed that they had tended more than any other enactment to elevate the moral character of the working classes, and to promote their real welfare and their best interests. The part of the measure in regard to which he entertained the strongest doubts was the bastardy clauses. He objected to the trial of bastardy cases before the Quarter Sessions, and he could not see why the corroborating evidence which was required should not be taken before the petty sessions, when all the disgusting parts of that evidence would be prevented from becoming public.
Mr. T. Attwoodhad no hesitation in saying, that a more odious measure than the Poor Law Amendment Act had never
362
passed that House. He had always believed that the object of this bill was to break down the labourer's wages to the Irish level. That effect would have been already produced but for the accident of the general construction of railways, which during the last five years had employed 400,000 labourers. When the construction of these railways was completed, those labourers would be thrown upon their hands, and he knew not how they would provide for them with the glaring defects of the existing monetary system. Hon. Members were as ignorant of this subject as he was of music, or of the cloisters of Oxford or Cambridge. He could assure them that they would find it impossible to persevere in the present system—compelling the people to pay a large sum of money for their bread, and to receive a small sum of money for their labour. Ground between these two iniquities, the people of England looked to the workhouse as their resource. But the workhouses were shut in their faces, and bastiles opened in their stead. This was an attempt in which they could not succeed. They might think him enthusiastic, but he thought them indiscreet. He implored of them not to harden their hearts, but to open their eyes to the distresses of a well-nigh infuriated people.
Mr. Freshfieldwould vote for the second reading of this bill, being desirous to go into Committee, with a view to restricting the term of its operation to a single year. He should have preferred instead of enacting the existing poor law, returning to the statute of Elizabeth, taking care not to permit abuse in its operations.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that there was a fraud on the face of this bill. It purported to be a renewal for a brief period, yet upon inspection of its contents, it turned out to contain a renewal of the provisions of the Poor Law Bill for three years from the 14th of August next. The most arbitrary powers had been conceded to the Poor Law Commissioners—powers which had been objected to by the whole people of England, and this bill proposed to commit a fraud on the people of England, and extend their powers for three years more. It was a modification, not an augmentation of these powers that the country expected. Was it proper, in the present state of the finances of the country, to entail upon us an expense of 70,000 l, per annum? He hoped that,

363
where local acts existed, the people never would consent to the introduction of this measure. He knew of 160 parishes in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and other parts of the north of England, which were included in the Gilbert incorporation, and were determined to resist any attempt to introduce it. The Poor Law Commissioners had recommended, that the Gilbert incorporation should be immediately put down, without affording them the opportunity of having their case stated in Parliament. Her Majesty's Ministers had exhibited their discretion in not attempting to interfere with this incorporation. If they attempted to do so, they would raise a nest of hornets about their ears. He had no doubt that the Government would be able to carry this bill, but when it was in Committee, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon the powers of the Commissioners being continued only for a single year. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw his opposition.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that when he introduced this bill to the House, it did not appear to him to require any explanation. He had stated, that his object was to enable Parliament to have a full opportunity of discussing any amendment which it might be proposed to introduce during the ensuing Session. If the next Session should happen to be very long, the powers of the commissioners would last to the end of the Session; if the Session, on the contrary, should happen to be a brief one, their powers would terminate with it. In reply to the remark of the hon. Member for Sussex, he had to observe that, considering the quantity of business which was before the House, it would have been almost impossible, during the present Session, to have secured such an attendance of Members as would have enabled them to go through all the different amendments in the present law, which hon. Members would have proposed for their consideration. The hon. Member for Finsbury had complained of the proposed duration of the powers of the commissioners. Now, he had thought that it was agreed upon all hands, that these powers should be conceded to the Commissioners for five years, and that Parliament should, at the expiration of that period, have an opportunity of considering whether they would continue them, But he had never contemplated that these powers should
364
cease at the expiration of five years. The term of continuance which the bill proposed having been objected to, he would have no objection to shorten the time. He thought it generally rather an objectionable course to make a bill last to the end of the next Session of Parliament. He thought it better to specify a fixed time; and was, therefore, ready to consent to the proposed alteration. His object was, to prevent the abrupt cessation of these powers, and allow full time for the discussion of any new measure. The principles of the Poor Law Amendment Act, which he looked upon for the most part as perpetual, did not come properly into discussion upon a bill of this kind; but if assailed at all, should be assailed by a proposition for their direct repeal. He was glad to hear several hon. Members, on both sides of the House, bearing testimony to the good effect of the Poor-law Amendment Act. He was convinced that that measure had been very beneficial to the country, and had been beneficial, not merely in reducing the amount of the rates, but also in rewarding the industrious, and correcting the idle. The hon. Member for Birmingham could hardly have given sufficient attention to the operation of the act, probably because his mind was quite filled with other matters, or he would not have spoken as he had done that evening. But it was obvious that the operation of the act was exposed to the remark which had been that night made upon it—namely, that if it were beneficial, why should it have caused so much objection and unpopularity? No doubt, an act of that description, administered as it was by those commissioners, to whom the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln was not very partial, was open to much more unpopularity than attended the old system, under the administration of the parish authorities. There might be abuses under the present act, but every case was magnified to a great degree, and the evidence by which it was supported was very much exaggerated, and brought to tell against the Commissioners and the Government; while under the old system, if in a small parish workhouse, the paupers were ill treated, or jobbing was carried on in the greatest possible degree, it was a mere local affair; it concerned only a few parish authorities, and it was the interest of no one to bring the case forward, either in the public prints or in Parliament, nor would he be listened to who did bring it

365
forward. But when a case was to be made out against Commissioners, or against a Secretary of State, it then became a matter of great importance and paramount interest. He thought, that no one who looked into the reports of the commissioners, setting forth the operation of the old law, could say that such a system ought to continue. He trusted that the bill would then be allowed to be read a second time, and to be committed on Thursday next. The hon. Member for Droitwich, who had spoken favourably of the operation of the act in general, had complained of the proposed bastardy clause, and other clauses, not being in the hands of hon. Members; he had sent them to be printed, and expected they would have been ready a week ago. The purport of the bastardy clauses would be to transfer the power which was now exercised at the Quarter Sessions to the Petty Sessions, with such provisions as now existed with respect to the Quarter Sessions.
Mr. G. Palmeropposed the second reading, not with a view of returning to the evils of the old system of Poor-laws, but to prevent the introduction of that piecemeal system of legislation and infringement upon the rights of the people to which the Ministry resorted on every occasion. There was quite sufficient time before the operation of the present provisions would expire, to introduce such a measure as would put the Poor-law of this country upon a proper basis.
Mr. Hindleythought it intolerable that it should be left to the three kings at Somerset-house to determine what food should be given to the poor, and how they should be treated. He required no better proof of the effect of such a law than the dietary which had been issued by those three kings for the support of the poor. In a part of the country which he had lately visited, and where the New Poor-law was in operation, he found the price of land was from 3l. 10 s. to 5l. per statute acre. Now, he did say it was abominable, when landlords got such a price for their land, that the present system should be pursued towards the poor. In the last Session but one he had moved for returns to show the mortality in the workhouses under the new and old system of poor laws, but those returns had never been made. If he were acting for the purposes of agitation he could produce returns of his owns with re-
366
ference to this part of the question, which were very little in favour of the new law. But then it was said, although the poor were not happy, because they had no right to be happy, yet how virtuous and moral they were rendered by this law. This was so constantly said, that he almost persuaded himself that it had been proved; but what was the fact? Why, that taking the numbers of births of illegitimate children during three years previously and three years subsequently to the passing of the act, the latter exceeded the former by 12½ per cent. He had no objection to an improvement of the present law, but he thought the measure ought to be deferred till next Session, when there would be time to pay due attention to the subject, and to make such alteration in the existing law as Parliament might think advisable.
Mr. Fieldenwas understood to say that while the Poor-law had produced so much misery, it had wholly failed in producing what it was intended to effect—namely, an advance in the wages of the poor. He never heard the Poor-law praised except by Members of that House—who perhaps might have objects of their own to answer. It had been said, that the new Act had improved the condition of the labouring classes, but how could that be when their wages were in fact lowered? Did such a result justify the extending of these unwarrantable powers to the commissioners? If the act had worked as well as it had worked ill, he would never have consented to continue to any men such unconstitutional powers, and this measure should not pass without encountering all the opposition which it was in his power to give it.
Mr. M. Philipsthought the Poor-law Amendment Act, had conferred inestimable benefits upon that part of the country with which he was particularly acquainted, by keeping the labourers in constant and regular employment, and in a state of greater comfort, respectability, and happiness than they had previously known. He thought a fair trial ought to be given to the act, although he was ready to concur in any improvements upon the measure which at present, could only be regarded as an experiment.
The House divided on the original question.—Ayes 120; Noes 35;—Majority 85.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Aglionby, H. A.

Adam, Admiral

Ainsworth, P.

367

Baines, E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Baring, F. T.

Muskett, G. A.

Barrington, Viscount

O'Connell, M. J.

Barry, G. S.

Ossulston, Lord

Berkeley, hon. H.

Paget, F.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Pakington, J. S.

Bernal, R.

Palmerston, Viscount

Blake, W. J.

Parker, J.

Bowes, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Bridgeman, H.

Pechell, Captain

Briscoe, J. I.

Philips, M.

Broadley, H.

Pigot, D. R.

Buck, L. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Ponsonby, G. F. A. C.

Burroughes, H. N.

Power, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pryme, G.

Darby, G.

Redington, T. N.

Divett, E.

Rice, E. R.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Rice, rt. hn. T. S.

Dundas, F.

Rich, H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Roche, W.

Euston, Earl of

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Evans, G.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Evans, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Russell Lord C.

Filmer, Sir E.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Salway, Colonel

Freshfield, J. W.

Sandon, Viscount

Gisborne, T.

Scrope, G. P.

Gordon, R.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Seymour, Lord

Grant, F. W.

Sheppard, T.

Greenaway, C.

Smith, J. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Smith, R. V.

Hastie, A.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Hawes, B.

Stewart, J.

Henniker, Lord

Stuart, Lord J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Stock, Dr.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Style, Sir C.

Hogg, J. W.

Surrey, Earl of

Hope, hon. C.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hope, H. T.

Thornely, T.

Hoskins, K.

Townley, R. G.

Howard, P. H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Howick, Viscount

Vigors, N. A.

Hume, J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hurt, F.

Warburton, H.

Hutt, W.

Wilshere, W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Wodehouse, E.

Irton, S.

Wood, C.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Wood, Sir M.

Langdale, hon. C.

Worsley, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Wyse, T.

Loch, J.

Yates, J. A.

Macaulay, T. B.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Macleod, R.

Marshall, W.

TELLERS.

Maule, hon. F.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Canning rt. hon. Sir S.

Archdall, M.

Collins, W.

Attwood, T.

D'Israeli, B.

Blackstone, W. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Brotherton, J.

Duncombe, T.

368

Fielden, J.

Palmer, G.

Finch, F.

Parker, R. T.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Guest, Sir J.

Sanderson, R.

Hall, Sir B.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Hawkes, T.

Scholefield, J.

Hector, C. J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hinde, J. H.

Turner, W.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Hodgson, R.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

James, Sir W. C.

Williams, W.

Kelly, F.

TELLERS.

Kemble, H.

Grimsditch, T.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Egerton, W. T.

Bill read a second time.

CATHEDRAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL PREFERMENTS.
The House then went into Committee on the Cathedral and Ecclesiastical Preferments Bill, of which the first and second clauses were respectively passed without amendment.
On the third clause,
Sir R. Inglissaid, that he wished to add a proviso. It was to meet such a case as this:—A chapter, say the chapter of Canterbury, bad borrowed 25,000 l. from the treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty. This debt is to be paid off, principal and interest, from the chapter funds. Those funds, if the number of prebendaries be complete, are divided amongst them; and each pays an equal sum, that is, receives less than he otherwise would in respect to this debt. The first recited bill provided, that the share of any prebendary who might die during the existence of the Ecclesiastical Commission should go to the general fund for augmenting, small benefices. But that corn-mission had expired; and since its expiration a prebendary had died. What shall be done with his share? If the present bill were not in question, the chapter would either divide his share among themselves, or, if they had a joint debt, would pay it to their creditor in part discharge of their obligation. The treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty claims it not as a payment of the chapter debt, but as an instalment for other and distinct purposes. The object of his proviso is to allow the treasurer to receive the proceeds of a stall vacant under such circumstances as so much paid in liquidation of a debt. If it were otherwise, the treasurer would first take the chapter money, and then make the chapter pay interest upon it.
Lord J. Russellcould not consent to this proviso, which would have the effect

369
of placing the chapter generally in a better position than that in which they would have stood if the stall in question had been filled up.
Sir T. D. Aclandproposed that such a sum should be taken from the amount of the vacant stall as would have been paid as the proportion of the prebendary if the stall had been filled up.
Lord J. Russellassented to this proposition.
Mr. Aglionby Mr. Aglionby moved upon the 5th clause, that the commissioners should have power to continue leases, but not as the clause proposed, to extend them.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he would prefer omitting the clause altogether.
Sir J. Grahamthought that there would be injustice to the clause as it stood; the condition of the lessees would be much damaged by it.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, that he could not admit the term of justice to be applied to the state of things supposed. A lessor had a right to grant or refuse a renewal of the lease, and it could not be said that there was injustice in his refusal.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that he withdrew the word injustice, but it would work a practical hardship.
Mr. Aglionbywas surprised at the doctrine of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. For his own part, he would prefer the omission of the clause.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that this was the first instance in which the agency of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been recognized and introduced into these Suspension Bills. But the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth wished for the omission of the 5th clause, and as he also on a truly opposite ground wished it, he trusted that it would be removed from the bill.
Lord J. Russellassented. Clause struck out.
Report to be received on Wednesday.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Highways and Turnpike Roads Returns; Gaol Delivery.—Read a second time:—Bankrupts Estates (Seotland); and Supreme Courts (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Lord Redesdale, from St. Mawes, for a reduction in the rate of Postage.—By the Earl of Harewood, from Bradford, for further protection to the Church.

EDUCATION.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in consequence of the great length at which he addressed the House on the former occasion when the subject of education was under the consideration of their Lordships, he should feel induced to make a very short speech in proposing the second reading of the bill, which he had introduced. In the first place he must state, that he, as well as those who took the same part with himself in the discussion on Friday week, must feel disappointed at the result that was then arrived at; but, notwithstanding this feeling of disappointment, he felt disposed to take encouragement in consequence of what he drew from what was said on all hands. It was something very consolatory to himself and to others who had long adopted the same views as himself on the subject, and who had regarded popular education as a matter of great consequence to the well-being of the country, to find, that their opinions were becoming general. He regarded religious instruction with peculiar satisfaction, and he was one of the last to appreciate the vast importance of it when combined with secular instruction. In the outset of this statement, however, he wished to say, that it could only arise from a total want of reflection if any one confounded the present bill with the matter

309
formerly under debate, or supposed that what passed on Friday had anything whatever to do with the substance or body of the present bill. Let noble Lords only recollect what were their objections to the Government plan of education. It was deficient in the means of religious instruction, as some contended; and by others it was urged that the machinery which would be created by the plan would prove detrimental as regarded the ecclesiastical establishments of the country. Nothing of this kind could be urged against the present measure; but if it could, it could not be urged against it in its present stage, for the objection could only apply to the details, and these must be considered when they came to examine them in Committee. Some might think that the present bill went too far in the provision, that it proposed to make for religious instruction, while others might think that it did not go far enough. If any such objections existed as he had first alluded to in the minds of noble Lords, they might be able to get rid of them in Committee by striking out those clauses which it was supposed were open to the objections while, if others thought the measure was open to the second objection, they might easily propose, that provision should be made for an increase. But he believed, that with regard to the general principle it was admitted on all hands, that the means of religious instruction for the people were greatly deficient, and that provision should be made, so that they were increased. The object of the bill which was before the House was to enable the people of this country to obtain religious instruction with more facility than they at present could. But there was a main ground of opposition to the Government plan which formed a ground of objection both to its principles and details, and was a constitutional objection to the very frame work of the resolution on which the plan rested. This was a full justification for carrying the address in opposition to the plan to the foot of the Throne, and vindicated almost all the arguments that were urged against the mode of proceeding, and which required a full and complete answer, and which was strongly pressed on its proposers by the antagonists to the other parts of the plan in the debate of Friday week—namely, that Parliament was not to be consulted with respect to the expenditure of the public money to be voted for this purpose, and that instead of any general measure or act being passed through
310
both Houses, the plan was to be effected and passed by some bye proceeding, and that by the vote of one House of Parliament a certain sum of money was to be placed at the disposal of the Crown for the purposes of education, and that this was to be expended by certain persons named and appointed under a certain Order in Council. It was said, and with considerable force, that this was too important a measure to be passed in this way, and that the stipulations should be made, and that the control should be exercised behind the back of Parliament. This was a fair constitutional ground of objection to take. He fully admitted this, and it was a point which he was obliged to admit, in answer to a right rev. Prelate. He also said, that the 30,000 1. voted would not give satisfaction in carrying out the plan with effect by these means. This was an irrefragable argument against any extensive plan of national education which was to be adopted and carried out by the Crown without the immediate control of Parliament. The course he pursued now was, to introduce a bill to Parliament which could undergo a strict investigation in that and the other House, and no other means could be resorted to which would afford so much satisfaction as applying the wisdom of both Houses of Parliament to the perfecting a measure for this purpose. The bill had been introduced to their Lordships in the first instance, and he thought, that respect was due in having the measure brought forward before them rather than before the other House. It was possible, that an arrangement might be raised against it as to its having been brought forward at a late period of the Session, as no great measure should be hurried through the Legislature. But he begged them to recollect, that he had introduced it several months ago, and he had left it on their Lordships' Table, that it might be fully investigated, and its bearing and enactments considered. He admitted, that there would be great difficulty in so framing the words of a bill in Committee as to steer completely clear of polemical topics and disquisitions. He felt this strongly, and he could not help saying, that a great portion of the inconvenience and trouble that had arisen was caused, he would not say by a want of toleration, because in these days a spirit of intolerance in any quarter was out of the question, but from a want of a feeling of mutual accommodation on the part of many different sects on the one hand, and on the

311
part of the Church on the other. He thought that blame was justly attributable to both parties for their want of a spirit of accommodation. He had exerted himself on several occasions in making attempts to allay these feelings of jealousy in a matter of so much importance and deep interest to the community generally. Both parties said, they could not sacrifice their conscientious feelings. But these feelings for the most part, seemed to arise from jealousy. Dissenters were as much to blame as churchmen, and he had not hesitated for a moment to state this to a meeting of the Dissenters consisting of from 500 to 600. He considered, as he told them, they were to blame for not taking one step in the nature of conciliation towards having a more enlightened flock. "That the soul be without knowledge is not good;" above all, it is not good for religious purposes. Far from undervaluing religious instruction, if he were asked whether he would have the children of the labouring classes—for it was entirely to these persons and their children that the question related—taught or instructed with or without religion, he should not have the slightest doubt or hesitation in answering, by all means have religious instruction combined with secular instruction. He thought religious instruction the most important of all instruction, and was desirous of assisting in carrying it out to the most utmost extent. But if he was asked, supposing it to be impossible to combine religious instruction, whether he would have secular instruction without it, or that the people should remain in ignorance? he should at once give his answer. Give by all means secular instruction without religious instruction, rather than the people should remain in ignorance. He would even for religious purposes, rather that the, people should be educated in that way than that they should remain a mass of brutalized rabble; for the Church and the clergy would have a much better chance with persons of some secular education than with those remaining in a state of mere brutal ignorance. Such was his opinion; but it was not one on which he had acted in this instance, because this Bill made provision for giving religious instruction. He had shown how different this measure was from the proposition that was under discussion ten days ago. He admitted, that notwithstanding the great differences that existed in the minds both of clerical as well as Jay persons as to the nature of the education that should be given, it was
312
a matter worthy of rejoicing at, that this important subject of national education engrossed so much of public attention. About thirty years ago it would have been impossible to have got such an assemblage of their Lordships together—unexampled in point of numbers except on one occasion—who took such a deep interest in the debate—who continued till such a late hour in the next morning, and who, at length, divided so numerously—that division being on nothing more nor less than the subject of national education. Thirty years ago the man who should have avowed his belief that be should have lived to see such a state of things as that the fate of the Government should have been dependent on a question of general education, and that there should have been such a debate and such a division in that House on the subject, any such man who made such an avowal would have been reckoned as a mere enthusiast and a visionary, and he and his speech would have been laughed at as chimerical. He gratefully acknowledged with many of his friends this extraordinary change that had taken place, and bestowed for it all praise on the wisdom and goodness of that Power that brings good out of evil. The want of education and the deficiency of the means of popular instruction were almost universally admitted. He did not say universally, because there were some exceptions as to the extent; and on this point he must allude to the erroneous returns which had been put into the hands of the most rev. Prelate respecting the account of the deficiency of education, and as to the extent to which it existed at present. He should be happy to learn that the statement was incorrect as to the amount of popular instruction furnished by the national schools and the British and Foreign Society, and that it was as great as the right rev. Prelate had described it. He had a strong disposition to believe the statement, as to the extent of education, made by the most rev. Prelate; but he feared that he should be too sanguine if he did, and that it would not bear investigation. The Lancasterian Society was established at the end of 1810; and a few months afterwards—namely, in May, 1811—the National School was founded. There was a great similarity in these two institutions: the only difference was, that the one said the catechism must be taught in our schools and in the other not. In larger towns both these schools could exist with great advantage, and there was very little dif-

313
ference between them. In smaller places he thought that the British and Foreign Schools would be better, because they would exclude none, although he admitted that in many places Dissenters sent their children to national schools. It was stated by the most rev. Prelate the other night that the number of children attending the national schools was 1,102,000, and it had been satisfactorily shown that the British and Foreign School Society educated at least the same number. It would therefore appear that in the schools of these two societies there were 2,204,000. If this were the case, this country was the best educated people in Europe, for in addition to the number he had just stated there were at least 800,000 children attending other schools, both of a public and private nature. Taking these numbers together, they would have one-fifth of the whole population of the country attending school, which, as was very truly said the other night by his noble Friend the President of the Council, would be considerably more children than were to be found in England and Wales. It was clear that 2,200,000 could not be taught at the schools of these two societies, as could be easily shown from the Parliamentary returns. These returns had been moved for by a noble, learned, most distinguished, and pureminded Friend of his, upon whose memory and great merits he should not have been able to restrain himself from passing some encomium, were it not that he was aware that he was in the presence of those to whom any allusions on the subject must occasion painful feelings. But the returns to which he alluded were moved for by his late noble Friend (Lord Kerry), and they were prepared by the ministers and churchwardens of every parish in England and Wales. The result was, that 1,270,000 children were educated in every kind of school in the country, including Westminster, Winchester, and Eton, as well as the national and other schools. This included the schools for the rich as well as for the poor, and also all those numerous schools for the middle classes. This was, then, a return of the number educated in all the schools in England. If, according to the most rev. Prelate, the national schools educated 1,100,000, they would leave to the British and Foreign Society no children at all to educate; therefore it was utterly impossible that the returns furnished could be correct. If they took the number of children in the national schools at 1,100,000,
314
and the same number for the British and Foreign Schools, and 800,000 for all other schools, they would have a return of the children now under education about three times as much as the returns made on the motion of Lord Kerry from the ministers and churchwardens of every parish in England and Wales showed attended all the schools in the country. They had also other returns on the subject to which they could refer, which would confirm this view of the case. By returns made in 1818, it appeared that the whole amount of children educated in schools in England was 678,000. At the same period, however, the number educated in the schools of Bell and Lancaster was 150,000—another proof that the calculation in question could not be right, as it went to show, that they had multiplied twenty-four in twenty years, a pace which would be almost miraculous, and which, with all his good wishes to education, he could not allow to be probable. The simple truth was, that instead of there being education for one-fifth of the children of the country, there was not education for one-tenth or one-eleventh. But the deficiency in the quantity of the education was not the least defect in the present state of things. If we had less in quantity of education than France, Prussia, Central Germany, Holland, and the Protestant cantons of Switzerland, still, if the education given was good in quality—anything worthy of the name—he would be slow to move for any legislative measure on the subject of education; but he felt bound to say, that the quality of instruction at present afforded in this country was very inferior. That he might not be suspected of exaggeration, he would quote the statements of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury on the subject of the education given at the schools in Manchester and its immediate neighbourhood. The hon. Gentleman had himself quoted from the published papers of the Statistical Society of Manchester, who had looked to, not merely the holiday appearance of the schools, but had gone into them, and examined the pupils and the conductors of the schools also. It appeared, from their statement, that 49½per cent. of the boys of Manchester could not read at all, and 67 per cent. could not write their names, and these were all children above fourteen years of age, above, therefore, the factory age, and consequently beyond the operation of that Act. Of the girls 57 per cent. could not read, and 88 per cent. could not write their names. The rooms were dark, small,

315
damp, dirty and ill ventilated, many of them used for dormitories as well as schools, and in almost all cases inadequate in point of size. One instance was mentioned in which the size of the room was only ten feet nine, up two pair of stairs, and not less than forty-seven children were contained in it, and the little window, which alone lighted this apartment, was obstructed by the person of the schoolmaster, that being the only part of the room in which he could perform his duty. A great many of these day-schools were conducted without any attempt at order or system, and nine-tenths of the children received no instruction whatever that was worthy of the name. The greater number of the instructors were persons utterly unfit for the performance of the duty, and many of them had merely adopted the profession in despair of obtaining any other mode of livelihood. Some of these individuals were examined. One of them, after giving a series of off-hand answers as to the nature of his instruction, was asked whether he knew geography and the globes. His answer was, that he knew geography and both the globes, and when asked for an explanation, he answered, that he knew that one of the globes meant one part of the world, and the other the other. Another was asked whether he understood Greek? Yes. Geography? Yes. Latin? Yes. Then one of the examiners observed, "Aye, we have multum in parvo here," upon which the teacher, seeing the notes of his answers were being taken, added, "yes, and you may put down multum in parvo too." In one of the girls' schools, the teacher being asked how she taught religion to children of different persuasions, replied, that she kept both catechisms going at the same time. In another place a teacher was asked, whether proper attention was paid to the morals of the boys under his care, when his answer was, that they did not teach morals there, as they belonged to the girls' school. Such were the statements quoted by Mr. Slaney, and upon them he could not help remarking in the words of a noble Lord, a Member of that House, that although such anecdotes might be very amusing, they, at the same time, exhibited a most melancholy picture of the state of things in this country as regarded education. In justice to the two societies, he must say, that his observations did not attach to their schools; but, unfortunately, the number of schools where the children were taught in comfortable apartments, and by competent teachers, was unfortunately
316
very small, even in connection with the societies, for when the right rev. Prelate spoke of the 11,000 schools, he, no doubt, referred to the schools "in connection" with those societies. The next question, after having ascertained the existence of a want of education, was how to supply the deficiency, and with a view to this he would venture to lay down a few principles which he conceived were essential, and which formed the foundation of this bill. The first principle he would endeavour to lay down was, that all education must be voluntary. He did more than repudiate, he abjured and abominated, all plans for compulsory education. He was aware of the offence he gave to many worthy and excellent fellow-labourers of his, who, blinded by their honest zeal and enthusiasm for the cause of popular education, closed their eyes to the totally irreconcileable difference in government, manners, customs, and institutions between the people of this country and those of Prussia—a people who were drilled as if they were in a camp, and considerably more like regular troops than the inhabitants of a free country. He objected to all such institutions, and could no more approve of them than he could approve of other regulations of that country, under which a friend of his was prevented from leaving Prussia, because he could not get an apothecary to make up a prescription of Sir Henry Halford, until countersigned by a Prussian Physician, who, in his turn, would not sign unless it were previously signed by another physician. Against any attempt to force education on the people of England, he would only give one reason—that he was quite sure that if the people of England was now for education, the effect of such an attempt would be to make them against it. The next principle which he proposed to lay down was, that there should be no attempt to ensure the universal adoption of any one kind of schooling or mode of instruction, because in different places different sorts of instruction were required. For instance, one kind of instruction was required in the manufacturing districts and another in the agricultural. In one part of the country one set of rules was required, and in another part of the country another. The third principle might be said to govern the other two. It was that all those who contributed towards the expenses of the schools should have a considerable share in their management. It was as a friend of education that he proposed the adoption of the rule,

317
satisfied, at he was, that if a school were opened in a parish, the inhabitants not being called upon to pay a farthing towards its support, such a school would not be willingly attended. One of the great uses of the voluntary system in education was to induce persons to send their children to the schools, which they would not do if the management of the schools were taken out of their hands by the Government. What he proposed, therefore, was, that under due control and check on the part of the Government, those who contributed ao the support of the schools should have share in the management of them. The effect of this would be that not only would they send their own children to the schools, but the children of their poor neighbours also. The fourth provision was, the organization of a central board, which under due restrictions should have the check and control over the local management of the rate-payers. The fifth and sixth principle was, that the central board was useful, not only in controlling and superintending, under due restrictions, the local boards in their management of the schools, but also in maintaining communication between the Church or the Government (as might be provided) and the schools; and, above all, in collecting from all parts the lights and improvements which experience would produce, and diffusing them generally throughout the country. A fundamental principle of the bill was this—that without compelling any parish or place to have a school where a school was not wanted, yet due facilities should in all cases be given to the establishment of schools. For this purpose, he proposed to give power to summon a meeting of the rate-payers, a majority of whom were to have the right to communicate with the Central Board of Education, for the purpose of establishing the school. He would now describe the constitution of the proposed Central Board. He proposed that there should be on the board two great officers of state, who would, of course, be responsible to Parliament; and removeable by Parliament; and also three irremoveable commissioners to be appointed by the Crown, or by statute, as might be hereafter decided, but only removable by address of the two Houses of Parliament. Thus a communication would be established between the executive Government and the board by whom the money was to be spent, a provision which would be enforced by this additional one—that no act of the board involving the payment of money should be
318
valid unless agreed to by a majority, one of them to be a Minister of the Crown. He would apply the same principle to the distribution of school patronage, the appointment of school inspectors, secretaries, or clerks, in all which instances he conceived the same constitutional principles should prevail, of not vesting such powers in irremoveable commissioners. The first duty of the board so established would be to distribute the Parliamentary grants. At present the distribution was discretionary on the part of the Government. They had hitherto chosen to give them in proportion to the two societies, but there was nothing to have prevented them from giving all to either of them. He would much rather see so very important a function as this vested in a body subjected to the veto of the Minister, at the same time that the Minister could not exercise that function without the assent of a majority of the board. Another important function of the board would be the discretionary power vested in them of sometimes controlling the decisions of the local rate-payers. It sometimes might happen (as it often did in local affairs) that the majority of rate-payers might, for mere jobbing purposes, agree on the necessity of a school. In such a case, the board would exercise the power of protecting the minority, and the others would still have the option of establishing a voluntary school of their own. The board would also have the power to name the inspectors, whose functions should extend to all schools that might choose to put themselves in connection with the public; to all schools maintained by rates; and to all that were extended out of the funds. Two parts of the subject he had reserved to the conclusion—the religious instruction to be given—the schools and the qualification of the voters at the local meetings for the institution of schools. With regard to the first, it was a great question with those who were friendly to education whether any religious instruction at all should have been combined in this bill. Some were of opinion that as the subject was sure to be raised, it had better at once be raised by the bill itself; while others thought it had better be raised in the course of the debate. On the other hand many zealous friends of education, and some of them most pious men, were of opinion that it would be quite easy to keep secular instruction quite apart from religion, just as religion was now kept apart from secular education. He was of opinion, however, that the ab-

319
sence of instruction in the Bible would totally preclude clergymen and other religious instructors from teaching religion, and he thought that they must ultimately resolve that religious instruction must be given under the provisions of this Act. He had had the honour a short time ago of meeting forty or fifty individuals, who had come to town chiefly on account of a very important question which then agitated the public mind, and in which he had taken very great interest—he meant the termination of negro slavery, and they having also paid considerable attention to the subject of education in obedience to a request which he made, held a conference with him in reference to it. He did not mean to say that it was not without preparation, for they had communications together, by means of which each was able to ascertain the opinions of the others; but at the conference he had a good opportunity of hearing what were the prevailing opinions among them. He confessed that the one question which they wished more particularly to discuss among them was that of mixing religious with secular instruction. There were many of them members of the Established Church—many of them members of the Society of Friends, and of various dissenting congregations; but among them all he found that there was one only who had any doubt at all as to the propriety of making some provision for religious instruction. He had had very great doubts upon that point himself, and he had often stated the grounds of those doubts; but he could not deny the impropriety of giving any weight to those doubts, and he at once admitted the force of the reasoning employed, because it was quite true that, if a system of secular education only were adopted, teachers of religion must be employed, as well as those instructors who were ordinarily engaged, and that would be too much for the child of the poor man. He proposed, therefore, that this measure should provide that it should not be lawful for the board to sanction the establishment of any school in which it was not part and parcel of the regulations, that the scriptures—the authorised version of the Scriptures—should be taught: then if a Catholic should not choose that his child should be in the school where the authorized version of the scriptures was read, he might withdraw him at that time, but unless he signified his wish, in writing, to that effect, the child would not be removed. The same regulation would also be adopted in
320
the case of the Jews, so that no hardship could be complained of. In speaking of this last class, he could not help saying that he had never met with more zealous co-operation or more liberal and munificent aid for the purpose of Christian education than from the Jews, and that whenever in such a cause pecuniary assistance was required, the largest sums had been subscribed by them. He now came to another question. He proposed that if any school the local directors, being members of any sect should chose to lay down as part of their rules that the catechism, the liturgy, and the articles of the church should be taught, the board should be allowed to sanction the establishment of that school, provision being made in the cases of children, not members of the Established Church, analogous to those to which he had just alluded, and the schools being established under the same restrictions. Having thus stated the grounds of his motion, he begged to state that so great was his desire to attain the great object of education, and so important did he consider that object for the religious and the moral welfare and for the spiritual good of the public, that, if he could not get religious instruction to be included in his scheme, he should say by all means take the secular branches of knowledge. The people will then be all the better prepared to receive religious instruction hereafter. But he should add then, that if he could not get them secular instruction, unless coupled with such religious information as he should disapprove, he should say—and he had come to the conclusion after infinite discussion and mature deliberation—that although he should lament that it was so, and he wished it was otherwise, and might have the greatest possible desire to see a different kind given—yet, so great was his alarm, and so great was his fear of the bad consequences to the morality and the peace of society likely to be produced by the continuance of the prevailing ignorance, that he should much rather have them taught a creed which he disapproved than not taught at all. That opinion was founded upon a very high authority. It was from Scotland, from a Presbyterian, and it was from one of those who objected to the Roman Catholics, and who had proverbially an almost hereditary dislike to that religion. He himself was as much opposed as any man to all sectarian and exclusive principles; but there was nothing which he so much desired to see removed as ignorance. He would now say a few words

321
upon the subject of the qualification, but he would first add a word in reference to that which was the most important of all plans of education, because it went at once to the amount of crime in the country, and to the whole administration of criminal justice—he meant infant education. He verily believed from experience that though the law might be executed, the good of preventing crimes by the force of example was lamentably less than they could wish. It was from the bad passions of men that the evils arose, but let the principle, "Train up a child in the way he should go," be adopted, and then when the child should become a man, if they had instilled into his mind a regard for truth, and kindly feelings towards his fellow-creatures, avoiding everything low or detestable, keeping them out of the contamination of their families, if they happened to be persons of low habits, and keeping them in a moral atmosphere, and making their minds hospitable to better feelings, then he should hope that as much had been done as the frail nature of man could do towards eradicating the evil. He would now observe upon the subject of the qualification, which he knew had staggered many, and for which certainly he must admit, that he did not feel the usual partiality of a projector. The persons to whom he proposed to give the power of voting at school meetings were those who had been members for three years of a Mechanics' Institute; and he would go a little farther, and say, that the right of voting at the choice of the school committee should also extend to every person who should possess the certificate of a schoolmaster of his due attendance at any of the public schools. The plan and principle of the bill, and the only principle, which would be affirmed by giving it a second reading, would be this, that a Central Board should be established for the purpose of directing public education, and that public education, as superintended, should be further established by the joint consent of the Central Board and of the local authority. The subject was of the greatest importance, and as he had never grudged his attention to the subject, he hoped that the House would not hesitate also to give it that consideration which was due to it.
The Bishop of Chichesterpresented himself early to the notice of the House, not from any vain persuasion that what he had to say was calculated to give that degree of light and interest to the important subject
322
before them, which their Lordships had a right to expect from those who put themselves voluntarily forward in front of the debate, for he was far too conscious of his own deficiencies far such a thought; still less from any ill-advised eagerness to contend with the noble and learned Lord, whose exertions in the cause of education he had long admired; but because, having been unable to deliver his opinion on a former debate on the same subject, when he had the misfortune to differ from the most rev. Prelate, to whom he owed, and towards whom he was desirous to cultivate, all canonical obedience, he was anxious to profit by the present occasion for the same purpose, and the more, because the noble and learned Lord had alluded to the discrepancy on the right rev. Bench. He trusted, therefore, that before he applied himself to the scheme of education propounded to the House by the noble Lord, he should be pardoned for offering a few remarks which, while they might serve to throw light upon the grounds of his former vote, would acquit him of any inconsistency in now opposing, as he intended to do, the motion of the noble and learned Lord. He dissented upon that occasion from the motion of the most rev. Prelate, and of the right rev. Prelate who presides over this diocese, not because he differed materially in opinion respecting the great principle of national education, for he agreed cordially in much that fell from both, but because he could not honestly and conscientiously bring his mind to the conclusion to which they had come, and expressed in the resolutions submitted to the House only a few hours before the members were called upon to decide upon them. He could not think that there was that difference either as to responsibility or regulation between the new authority and the old, appointed for the distribution of the Government grant, which should authorise the extraordinary measure of an address to the Queen, and justify those who approved of the regulations for so many years in disapproving and condemning, the minutes of the new Committee. On the contrary, he felt that in some respects, the alterations suggested in the minutes of the Committee constituted a ground of preference in its favour. That a Committee of the Privy Council, with the Lord Treasurer at its head, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at his side, was quite as responsible as the Chancellor of the Exchequer alone; and that a power to deviate occasionally from the stoical regu-

323
lations respecting local subscriptions for the purpose of assisting destitute parishes, was a truly Christian improvement, and one which he had recommended in a charge to his own clergy; and that the appointment of government inspectors, not for the purpose of regulating or interfering with the instruction, but to satisfy the Government that the money raised from the people had been spent for the advantage of the people with respect to those matters for which it was granted—these were differences which he approved; and whereas the resolutions affirm that there was no assurance on the part of the Government that the plan of model schools proposed in their former minutes, and which had been abandoned, should not be resumed at their own discretion, he felt and believed, that there was an assurance of the very strongest kind—an assurance partly derived from the circumstances themselves—namely, the inadequacy of the sum left at their disposal, the largest portion of it having been already distinctly assigned to other objects: the limitation by Parliament of the grant to a single year, in consequence of the necessity of applying at that period for a renewal of their powers;—above all, in the declaration of the noble Marquess the President of the Council, and in the character and honour of the persons appointed to manage the grant, he felt an invincible assurance that no unfair advantage would be had recourse to, to renew, but in the most open manner, what they had professed for a time to abandon. He trusted that this explanation would suffice to acquit him of all inconsistency in the motion he was about to make. The noble and learned Lord had declared in his speech that the two questions were distinct; and in justice to his own (the Bishop of Chichester's) feelings, he might now add, that in all substantial points there was little difference betwixt his own opinion and that of the great majority on the right rev. Bench. They were at this moment all labouring together in the great cause of popular education collectively in the National Society, and separately in their several dioceses, and through the powerful and zealous agency of the parochial clergy. And they were not without a well-grounded hope, that they should be able, by great and united efforts, to establish throughout the country an harmonious system of national education, which, while it was founded upon the basis of Christian instruction, according to the principles of the Established Church, would
324
be so extended and improved in all secular subjects, as to satisfy the most sanguine friends of popular education; and when known to the noble and learned Lord, would induce him to withdraw the plan which he had proposed to them, and which he himself could only hope to carry upon the ground of some deficiency in the present means. The bill of the noble Lord proposed a scheme for the education of the people in a country earnest, intelligent, and humanly speaking, religious above their neighbours, living satisfied for the most part under the spiritual superintendence of the ministers of an Established religion, the doctrines of which they approved, and the benefits of which they were desirous of transmitting to their posterity. For which purpose they were well aware that the education of the people was an important means, widely diffused and long practised throughout the country. For this people a scheme of education was proposed which had this remarkable defect, that it had no reference whatever to that established Church, or to any of its offices or ministrations hitherto held to be so influential in this department of instruction. He had read the bill with great attention, but he could not find in any of its clauses the word clergyman expressed or implied, or any other reference whatsoever to the office which he bore; no more, in truth, than if there had been no established religion in the country. This was the first great objection; but looking further into the bill it would be seen, that every part of the minutes of the committee of the Privy Council, which had been lately the subject of animadversion in the House, would be found in the learned Lord's bill, but carried to a far greater extent, and without any of those limitations and restrictions, which served to reconcile the minutes of the committee to his mind. For instance, the committee of the Privy Council had been condemned, because it consisted of lay members of the Privy Council only, without any of the bishops—though it was constituted solely for the distribution and management of the Government grant, and did not pretend to regulate the quality and matter of the instruction. But the scheme of the noble Lord set out with the establishment of a commission much more comprehensive in its aims—to be intrusted with the management of much larger funds, and with authority to consider and control all matters relating to the education of the people, and having three paid com-

325
missioners, only removable by a vote of Parliament. But this was not all. While the committee of the Privy Council left the schools in villages and towns to the superintendence of the clergy, the scheme of the noble Lord aimed at establishing in every parish and every town a committee, with power to manage the schools and to make rates for their maintenance. And then, let it be considered of what this committee might consist. He would not say, that such a case might occur frequently, for the good sense of the country would prevent it, but there might he many approximations to it; for as the rate-payers were to elect, the chairman might be the shopkeeper or clerk of the parish, and the clergyman might sit as one of the committee. Surely such a change as this in country parishes could never be tolerated. Again, it was objected to the committee of the Council that they retained the right of inspection; though, as explained by the noble Marquess, this matter was restricted to those matters for which the money was granted. But the inspectors of the noble and learned Lord, ten in number, were to have power to take under their examination and review the whole state, condition and conducting of all the schools connected with them, and, indeed, of many others that were not so, and to report upon them; and the commissioners upon such report were to give opinion and advice touching the conducting of the same. And whereas it was imputed to the Government that they had intended to establish one model school for the advantage of all classes of her Majesty's subjects, of all persuasions in religion, a scheme which they afterwards abandoned on account of the difficulties which surrounded it, the plan of the noble Lord contemplated the establishment of schools for mixed education through the whole country, and proposed at once that indefinite extension of the scheme, the distant possibility of which was regarded with alarm by the supporters of the Address. It was not, however, necessary for him to dwell longer upon objections which would better appear in committee, should the bill ever reach that stage; he would rather apply himself to the only grounds upon which such a strong measure as the noble Lord's could be fairly advocated—the alleged inadequacy of the present means of education in the country—namely, the National Society, as the great centre of communication and direction, the schools in union with it, and the clergy who were the sup-
326
porters as well as the superintendents of popular instruction throughout the country. With respect to the National Society, he was disposed to think, that the noble and learned Lord had greatly underrated the numbers that were educated under its influence, and that the returns furnished to the committee were, in point of fact, much nearer to the truth. There might possibly be some error in combining Sunday-schools with day-schools—the same children being sometimes liable to be reckoned over twice. But this error was not common, and great pains had been taken to prevent it, as he well knew; and he himself had instituted inquiries in his own diocese, and had reason to believe, that the reports of the society were correct. He could not doubt, indeed, that the number of children now receiving education under the auspices of the society now at least amounted to nearly a million; and he had reason to know that many schools, whose teaching was in perfect conformity with the National Society, were not now reckoned in the number, because not actually and technically in union. But whatever deficiencies might be supposed to exist, he had now the pleasure to state, that they were in a way to be removed. Great accessions of numbers and of force were daily made to the society. New measures were taking for extending and improving the education; diocesan and local boards for education were forming or already formed in every part of the country; a college was already in preparation for the more effectual training of masters, and for a model school, and a most liberal salary of 400 1. a-year and a house were offered to the person who should be thought qualified to undertake the important task of superintending its management. He would next pass on to the consideration of the clergy themselves, and the assistance which they had hitherto given and were still disposed to give in the furtherance of education. The noble e and learned Lord bad argued more largely, indeed, on a former night, but shortly on the present, that the clergy of our Establishment, occupied as they were or ought to be, in labours of a purely ministerial character in compositions for the pulpit, in pastoral visits, and in all those subsidiary cares and studies which served to adorn or to commend their lessons, had not sufficient time to instruct the children of the parish even in religious knowledge, much less in those secular acquirements which the times required. He was con-

327
vinced that the clergy of this country would at once disown this plea, and repudiate the leisure they might obtain by it. If the case should ever come to this—if the whole burden of educating the poor should be thrown upon them—they would be ready to spend themselves, and to be spent, in such a cause; and rather than deliver to others a charge which their divine Master solemnly committed to his apostles, and which had been transmitted by direct succession to themselves, they would still gird themselves for the task, and persevere even to their own injury. But how stood the fact? Were the clergy of the Church expected to be schoolmasters? Were they required practically to teach even the spiritual, much less the secular lessons given in the school? To watch over the whole progress of the scholars and to administer the punishments and rewards? If this were the case, of what use would be the schoolmaster, and why should we now unite in the cry of the noble and learned Lord, for better masters and new training schools? No; what was required from the clergy was this—to be the alone superintendents of the christian doctrines and lessons taught in the schools; to select the books; to visit frequently the classes; to try and examine the children, especially in their catechism and religious progress; to council and to aid the masters. This was all that they were charged to do; this was what they were willing and what they were able to do; and they could do it in their daily walks with little sacrifice of time. But there was another fact corroborative of the sufficiency which had been stated, and which he would not refrain from bringing before the House; a fact so creditable to the clergy, so conclusive upon the point before them, and so instructive of our present moral state. There was no person acquainted with the actual effects of the Poor-law Amendment Act but must have observed—and he wished it might not furnish another arrow to the quiver of the noble Lord—that it compelled the parents to take their children from the parish schools at an earlier age than they were wont to do before; and for this reason, that, to guard even for their present independent support, much more to provide against the future, it was absolutely necessary that the poor man should bring to market the labour of his children as well as his own, from the moment that any value was attached to it. The earliest period, therefore, that a parent could profit by the labour of a child, that period put an end to his instruction at the
328
day-school; and this happened often at so early an age that all the previous instruction was in danger of being entirely lost. But let it be remarked how the ingenious zeal of the clergy had endeavoured to supply this defect. Already evening schools have been established in many parts of the diocese of Chichester, for the express purpose of continuing and supporting instruction, both religious and secular, till they could arrive at an age when education would be no longer necessary. He trusted therefore, that there was no good ground for believing that the clergy had not sufficient leisure for this task; and when it was considered, further, what a beautiful provision was made in this early intercourse in the school for a confidential spiritual communion between the clergyman and his flock, of what great advantage it might become in every season and circumstance of their lives, more especially in preparations for confirmation and the holy communion, the friends of the Church would surely be desirous to pause before they adopted any plan which should be the means of removing the clergy from that superintendence in the schools which was now practically committed to them. The noble and learned Lord had already pointed out the great distinction between the inhabitants of this free country and those of Prussia, with respect to the arbitrary regulations of the government; and if he would extend his enlightened views a little further he could not, he thought, fail to perceive that for a similar reason every scheme of education that, in the present state of the public mind, should embrace all sects and persuasions of religion as did that of the noble and learned Lord, was impracticable. They were not indifferent enough nor cold enough for such an experiment, and there was one striking dissimilarity between England and Nassau and Prussia which would prevent the same general education from being practicable here, namely that in this country there was much greater zeal and earnestness connected with religion and religious opinions than in any part. This was not said boastfully; it might appertain in some measure to our national character and only showed a tenacity and earnestness which had appeared in our history before; but so long as this difference did exist, so long would it be impossible to educate the children of all persuasions of religion together, supposing every other objection to be removed, without pain, jealousy, and heartburnings. Under these

329
impressions he was desirous to move, what he wished at least to be the most respectful mode of opposing the plan of the noble Lord, that the bill should be read this day six months.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that in all the discussions upon this question it had been stated, and generally admitted, that some more extended system of education was necessary, in consequence of the increasing population, and the increasing intelligence of this country. His noble and learned Friend had certainly brought forward his bill in a clear, an able, a distinct, and a comprehensive manner, he had unquestionably stated grounds for this measure, he had well shewn the objects he had in view, and the means by which, as he conceived, they could be effected. His noble and learned Friend had also stated, that all he meant to establish by the second reading of this bill was, that a system of education should be founded, and that there should be such a general control as would give an improved system of education to the people of this country; and that the details of the measure, and the objections which might he taken to it, were open to consideration in Committee. With respect to the constitution of the board, and all other matters of detail, such as the qualification for voting, they were open to alteration in Committee. Concurring in the object of the bill, and in much of the argument of his noble and learned Friend, on which he had founded this motion, he unquestionably, if the motion were pressed to a division, did not see how he could refuse to enter into a consideration of the subject, when, by universal agreement, and by the common voice of all mankind, the present system required speedy and effectual alteration. When, however, he considered the objections which might be taken to this bill, and when he considered the period of the Session, he saw little probability of a successful termination of his noble Friend's labours, or that the bill could pass into a law during the present Session. He would, therefore, put it to his noble and learned Friend, whether it would not be wise and prudent, whether it would not be consistent with his honour, and better further the object he had in view, by withdrawing the bill in the present Session, and bring it forward in an early part of another Session, with such alterations, as with his great knowledge of the subject, and his
330
great ability, might suggest themselves to him.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he and his noble Friends were agreed as to the principle, and he could not help feeling the force of what his noble Friend had said, when he recollected that this was the 15th of July. His only objection to a delay, without pressing his motion to a division, was that it might look like neglect on his part, and even if he did divide with a small number, the minority would, he was sure, increase; he should not be disconcerted, even if there were but small additions at first, for he knew that he was right, and he was sure that the more his plan was discussed, the more converts it would gain. Still, at that period of the Session, he thought it better to withdraw the bill, declaring, at the same time, that he was not to be prevented from pressing it next Session, and at an early period of the Session, if he should think it necessary. He was gratified by what had been stated by the right rev. Prelate, for if that was all that could be said against his plan, he looked to early and eminent success. He certainly would withdraw his bill altogether, if he thought that it would have the effect of checking the useful exertions of the clergy, in the cause of education. The only injury this bill could be to the exertions of the clergy was, that it would plant schools where there were no schools in connection with the Church. But the use of his central board would be, to prevent the planting of schools where there were efficient schools at present. He knew by experience, the great and regular calls on the incomes of the right rev. Prelates for many purposes, which greatly reduced their nominal incomes; but he was glad to find that, notwithstanding this, they were giving large subscriptions for education. God prosper their work! The clergy had been his fellow-labourers in the cause of education for the last twenty years; he had borne testimony to their labours in the House of Commons, and the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) had kindly drawn attention to his remarks. To them he adhered. But suppose the clergy should succeed in raising 100,000 1., what would be the use of that amount compared with the 200,000 1., or 300,000 1. a-year which the board could raise? As to what the right rev. Prelate had said on the subject of an ecclesiastical member of the board, there was nothing

331
in his bill which prevented a prelate from being one of the commissioners nominated by the Crown; but by putting a prelate on the board, they would be raising the question, whether a dissenting clergyman ought not to be there also. [The Marquess of Lansdowne—"That was the difficulty."] He thought that it might be found advisable to adopt the rule laid down for the poor-law boards in Ireland, of allowing neither a clergyman of the Established Church, nor a dissenting clergyman to sit on the board; but it was not necessary to discuss that point at present. As, however, the churchmen and the dissenters were all agreed that something must be done to better the present system of education, these amicable dispositions would have the effect of smoothing tile difficulties, and he hoped that before long the time would come when the present difficulties would be removed, and when the wish of all would be carried into effect.
Motion and amendment withdrawn.