Sitting of 15 July 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public. — 1a East India Bishops.
2a Election Petitions Trial.
3a and passed:—Testimony Perpetuating.
Private.—Reported.—Earl of Devon's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir M. Wood, from the Ward of Aldgate, Spa Fields, and Broad Street, London, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo and the other Metroplitan Bridges.—By Mr. M. Gibson, from Manchester, for an Inquiry into the cause of the Distressed state of the Shopkeepers of Manchester.—By Mr. Plumptre, from Uppington, Preston, Wing, and Llanfihangel, against any further Grant to Maynooth College. —From Padiham, Oldham, and Whit church (Salop) for Inquiry into the course of Instruction pursued at Maynooth College.—By Mr. Labouchere. from Duxford, for the Substitution of Affirmations in lieu of Oaths.—From the Wigton and Horsham Unions, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—From Taunton, for the Appointment of a Medical Commission.—From the Lincoln and Lincolnshire Mechanic's Institution, for Exemption from Rates and Taxes.—By Sir Howard Douglas, from Liverpool and Ballyshannon, against the Tobacco Regulations Bill.—From the Magistrates of the Quarter Sessions at Beccles, praying that Owners instead of Occupiers of Small Tenements may be rated.

CEMENT-STONE—THE TARIFF.
Mr. Laboucherebegged to remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) of the question which he had formerly put on the subject of the duty imposed by the new tariff on the exportation of Cement-stone. He wished to know whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to adhere to that duty? If it were carried into effect, the impost would entirely destroy a trade which employed a great number of industrious persons. He asked, then, whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take any measure for removing the grievance complained of? And further, he wished to know whether, if it were deemed expedient to remove the duty on Cement-stone, he would not take care that the Lords of the Treasury should adopt such measures as would prevent this trade from suffering any interruption until the alteration was effected?
Mr. Gladstonesaid, the attention of her Majesty's Government was called to this subject at a late period. The proposal for laying a duty on Cement-stone was printed
176
and lay before the House for three months, from the 11th of April until July, without attracting the notice of the persons connected with that part of the country where the trade was carried on. He mentioned this, because it would afford a justification for an unwillingness, on the part of the Government, to re-open a question connected with duties after the decision of the House of Commons. However, after the tariff had passed, it was stated that the duty on the exportation of Cement-stone would have the effect of destroying that trade altogether; and, therefore, an inquiry was set on foot to ascertain the facts of the case. It would be here proper for him to atate the grounds on which the duty was originally proposed. The reason was, because strong representations had been made to the Government by persons connected with the manufacture of cement in this country, to the effect, that if the exportation were not checked, the material of which cement was composed was likely to be exhausted. It was alleged that the public works in this country required a great deal of cement, and that if the exportation of Cement-stone continued to a great extent, the material would, after the lapse of a few years, disappear from our coasts altogether. He believed that the representations made by these parties, as to the probable disappearance of the material, were bonâ fide representations. But they had deemed it necessary to make inquiries on the subject; and, after hearing the statements of the different parties, after investigating the whole case, they had come to the conclusion that there was no likelihood, within any assignable period, of the exhaustion of this material. They, therefore, thought that the duty imposed on the exportation of Cement-stone, resting as it did on this mistaken ground, ought not to be persisted in; and he should propose to the House to repeal that duty. He believed that, if the duty were continued, it would have the effect during the summer months of depriving 500 or 600 men belonging to the hard-working and industrious class of employment. It was proper, therefore, that it should be repealed. The next point to be considered was, how this object was to be carried into effect? It would be extremely inconvenient to introduce a bill for this purpose alone. Circumstances, however, rendered that course unnecessary; for, in consequence

177
of a printer's error, it would be necessary to introduce an amended bill with reference to the customs' duties. The matter stood thus:—In the timber schedule, after the resolutions had passed the committee, and when the bill was printed from the manuscript of the Chairman of the committee, it appeared that "1842" was inserted instead of "1843;" that error passed from the reprint of the bill to the engrossed bill, and was now the law of the land, though contrary to the intention of Parliament. This, as he said before, rendered it necessary to re-introduce a bill, and by that bill they might remove altogether the export duty on Cement-stone. He should, therefore, now move, with the permission of the House—
" That the House resolve itself into a committee on the Customs' Acts, with a view of moving a resolution that it is expedient further to amend the law relating to the customs."
When that bill was introduced, it would touch upon other matters, not, however, relating to the duties, which he would explain at the proper time. It was very proper that in the interval between the present period and the passing of the bill there should be no interruption to the export of Cement-stones. The fire at Ham burgh had created an increased demand for the article, which was of very great use in the construction of public works. On that point the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman had been anticipated. A letter had been addressed to the Lords of the Treasury on the subject, and directions had in consequence been given to the officers of the customs at Harwich to allow the free exportation of Cement-stone, the parties exporting giving security that they would abide by the decision of Parliament, whatsoever that decision might be. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving:—
" That the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House for the purpose of considering a resolution relative to the Customs Act."
Mr. B. Woodsuggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade the propriety of extending to China clay the same principle which he was about to adopt with respect to Cement-stone. The two articles stood precisely in the same situation. A great number of people were employed in the China clay trade, and the revenue which the duty would produce was very trifling.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that in the committee on the bill which it would be his duty to introduce, the hon. Member would have an opportunity to propose a motion on the subject. He, however, would assuredly set his face against: re opening any question where the parties had been previously heard, their petitions received, and the decision of the House taken.
The Speakerleft the Chair. In committee, Mr. Gladstone moved—
" That it is expedient further to amend the laws relating to the Customs."
Mr. Laboucheresaid, he conceived, that the proposition of his hon. Friend had very fair claims on the House, and in his opinion, steps ought to be taken to remove the duty to which he alluded. With respect to the duty on cement stone, he was extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman was about to adopt the course which he had stated. He begged, however, to impress on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, the necessity of being extremely cautious in adopting the mischievous principle of taxing the exports of the country. The danger of taking that course was clearly exemplified with reference to the sulphur trade of Sicily. The Neapolitan government having a complete monopoly of that trade, laid a very heavy duty on the export of the article. What was the consequence? Why, the ingenuity of our manufacturers was immediately called into activity, and from the pyrites of iron, sulphur had been extracted as good and as cheap as could be procured from the mines of Sicily. The sulphur trade was, therefore, no longer a source of large revenue to the Neapolitan government. He had mentioned this circumstance to show the danger of levying duties on the exports of this country, since it might lead other countries to devise the means of dispensing with those exports. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be more favourable to levying duties on exports than was desirable, and it was right, that the danger of the principle should be pointed out to him.
Viscount Howickentirely agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. The principle on which those export duties proceeded was decidedly erroneous. It was especially so in the case of coals. The consequence of the export duty on that article, in the course of the ensuing winter, would be greatly to

179
diminish labour in the collieries, and thereby to add to the distress and suffering that already prevailed there. Such would be the inevitable consequence of adopting this most mistaken principle.
The resolution agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution reported. Bill to be brought in.

DEFACING THE COIN.
Sir G. Clerkmoved the Order of the Day, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, he had given notice of his intention to put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury, upon going into committee of supply, as to the power of cutting or defacing light gold coin; but as the right hon. Baronet was absent, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give him art answer. It was unnecessary for him to remind the House, that a short time ago, a proclamation was issued with reference to the great quantity of light gold that was in circulation. Great alarm was excited by that proclamation; and dishonest individuals taking advantage of that alarm, had exacted from the holders of light gold, much larger deductions than the actual deficiency of weight justified. Whether proper precautions had or had not been taken by Government before issuing that proclamation, he would not stop to inquire; but of this he was quite sure, that the evil arising from the circulation of light gold had arrived at a height which required the immediate interference of Government. All that they could do, was to call the attention of the public to the matter, by issuing a proclamation. That proclamation, in fact, only pointed out the actual state pf the Jaw, but he believed, that the alarm which had been excited was in a great degree caused by the suddenness with which the law on the subject was made known. He did not know what was the state of the law relative to the gold coinage previous to the re-coinage in 774. Before that time he doubted whether allowance was made for the wear of the current gold coin. By an act passed in 1774, all persons were not only authorised, but required, to cut or deface any gold coin below the current weight, as fixed by the King's proclamation, and the person holding the coin was compelled to bear the loss. In 1776, a proclamation
180
was issued, declaring what the weight of a guinea ought to be; and from that time, the Bank and other persons marked such guineas as were tendered to them, and were not of the current standard. The consequence was, that the marked coin no longer passed current. As the guineas gradually became light, they were gradually withdrawn from circulation. No alarm was excited, and no inconvenience felt, beyond the trilling loss on each coin, The extent to which this went, is proved by the fact, that between 1777, and the period of the Bank restriction, in 1797, no less than 17,500,000 l. of light gold was brought to be re-coined at the Mint. Such was the law and the practice up to 1797, when cash payments were suspended. When, after the return to a metallic currency, sovereigns were substituted for guineas, a proclamation was issued in 1821, fixing the allowance for wear, and sovereigns below a certain weight, were, of course, not legally current. A doubt, however, existed as to the state of the law with respect to cutting and defacing gold under the standard weight. He (Mr. Wood) did not understand, that the act of 1774 was repealed, but the last act on the subject of the coin, gave the power of cutting such coin only, as should be suspected" to be diminished otherwise than by fair wear, or to be counterfeit." Owing to this doubt as to the power of cutting sovereigns diminished in weight, by fair wear only, the practice was discontinued, and thus, instead of being put out of circulation, such coins went on accumulating to a great amount, in the hands of the public, and the evil, lately experienced, became inevitable. It seemed to him exceedingly desirable, under these circumstances, not, perhaps, that all persons, but, certainly, that the Bank of England, and the officers of her Majesty's revenue, should be empowered and directed to cut and deface light gold so as to prevent its again coming into circulation. If light gold were cut and defaced in the first instance, it would soon be taken out of circulation, instead of, as at present, passing from band to hand for a considerable time. The question, then, which he wished to put to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, whether any doubt existed as to the power of cutting and defacing light gold, which power was in existence up to the passing of the Bank Restriction Act, and if there

181
was any doubt, whether Government was prepared to pass an act for the purpose of giving such power?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it would be desirable, that the question relating to the power of cutting and defacing should be decided. It was one which had been subjected to legal inquiry, but there was a difference of opinion on the subject amongst legal men, There were two acts relating to the subject passed in 1772 and 3774; one of these enabled all persons to cut. and deface gold which had been improperly reduced, or which was counterfeit. The other gave the power of cutting all gold which was below weight. By the 2nd of William IV., the first of these acts was repealed, though again re-enacted in the same act of William, and the question was whether the 2nd of William repealed the other statute, a question which, as he said before, wash now under legal consideration.

SUPPLY— MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply. On the motion that a sum of 84,000 l. be granted to defray the charges of allowances or compensation granted as superannuation or retired allowances to persons formerly employed in the public offices or departments, or in the public service,
Mr. Williamssaid, that where high class salaries were paid, those in the receipt of them ought to be compelled to provide something towards a superannuated fund out of their salaries. There was one person—he would not mention the name, but it would be found in page 8—whose salary was 500 l., and he was superannuated upon 400 l. His age was stated at 57, and his service at 41 years. The person to whom he alluded might be a meritorious officer, but 400 l. allowance to a person of 57 years, whose salary was 500 l., appeared very considerable.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that various acts had been passed from time to time, all tending to limit the power with respect to the granting of retired allowances. 'f he last of these was passed in 3834, and since 1839 all persons having salaries to a certain amount paid 5 per cent. out of them. With reference to the particular case alluded to, the allowance had been made under peculiar circumstances.
Mr. Humecontended, that ever since 1830 the tendency with respect to retired allowances was rather towards their in-
182
crease than towards their diminution, and in his opinion something ought to be done to check the practice.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that 39,200 l. be granted for foreign and other secret services.
Mr. Williamsobjected to this vote; at least, such part of it as was expended for the Home Department, for there was a general impression on the public mind that it was employed for electioneering purposes. He saw no reason why such service money should be voted for the Home Department, arid he therefore moved, that instead of 39,200 l. being granted, only 39,200 l. should be voted, and that that sum should be exclusively expended for foreign services.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a great error in supposing that the secret service-money was expended for electioneering purposes. For the last three years no secret service-money had been voted for the Home Department, but he did not mean to say, that it might not be necessary from time to time for the Home Department to have a sum at its disposal for secret service. There still remained, however, a portion of the sum last voted for the Home service. With regard to the Foreign Department, the business of the country could not be conducted unless a sum of this kind was placed at its disposal.
Viscount Palmerstonconfirmed the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that no part of the secret service-money was applied to electioneering purposes; and that the public service of the country in regard to its foreign relations, could not. be conducted, unless a sum of money was granted which the Secretary of State might dispose of under his own responsibility, without being obliged to render a public account of it, which would defeat the object for which it was expended.
Mr. Humewould vote in favour of the reduction proposed by the hon. Member for Coventry, as he thought nothing ought to be done in secret under a representative Government.
The committee divided on the question that the sum be 19,200 l.:—Ayes 13; Noes 117:—Majority 104.

List of the AYES.

Bowring, Dr.

Ewart, W.

Brotherton, J.

Fielden, J.

Cobden, R.

Gibson, T. M.

183

Hindley, C.

Wawn, J. T.

Morris, D.

Wood, B.

Pechell, Capt.

TELLERS.

Protheroe, E.

Hume, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Williams. W.

List of the NOES

Acland, Sir T. D.

Henniker, Lord

Acland, T. D.

Hervey, Lord A.

A'Court, Capt.

Hinde, J. H.

Aldam, W.

Hodgson, R.

Allix, J. P.

Hope, hon. C.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Hornby, J.

Bagge, W.

Howard, P. H.

Bankes, G.

Hussey, T.

Barnard, E. G.

Jackson, J. D.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Jermyn, Earl.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H

Borthwick, P.

Kemble, H.

Bramston, T. W.

Knatchbull, rt. hn.Sir E

Broadley, H.

Knight, H. G.

Broadwood, H.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Lefroy, A.

Buckley, E.

Legh, G. C.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lemon, Sir C.

Busfeild, W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Campbell, A.

Lindsey, H. H.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Litton, E.

Chute, W. L. W.

Lowther, J. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lyall, G.

Clive, E. B.

Mackenzie, T.

Cochrane, A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Mc Geachey, F. A.

Collett, W. R.

Masterman, J.

Courtenay, Lord

Meynell, Capt.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Northland, Visct.

Darby, G.

O'Brien, A.

Denison, E. B.

Paget, Col.

Douglas, Sir H.

Palmer, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Egerton, W. T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fellowes, E.

Praed, W. T.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Pringle, A.

Flower, Sir J.

Richards, R.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Rolleston, Col.

Ffolliott, J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Forbes, W.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Fuller, A. E.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Gaskell, J. Milnes.

Sheppard, T.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Stanley, Lord

Gordon Lord F.

Stewart, J.

Gore, M.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gore, hon. R.

Tollemache, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Trotter, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vane, Lord H.

Grimsditch, T.

Verner, Col.

Grogan, E.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hamilton, W. J

Waddington, H. S.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wall, C. B.

Hampden, R.

Wood, Col.

Harcourt, G. G.

Wyse, T.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

TELLERS.

Hawes, B.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Henley, J. W.

Baring, H.

PROTECTION OF HER MAJESTY'S PERSON.
Lord Stanleymoved that the Chairman should now report progress and ask leave to sit again, in order that the House might take into consideration the amendments which he understood the other House had made in the Bill for the Protection of Her Majesty's Person.
The House resumed. The Chairman accordingly reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again the same evening.
Messengers from the Lords brought down the Bill for the Protection of Her Majesty's Person from the Lords, with amendments, which were agreed to on the motion of the Solicitor-General.

SUPPLY— MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
On the proposition that a sum be granted not exceeding 11,817 l., to pay the salaries of persons employed in the care and arrangement of the public records, and for compensations to keepers of the records, and others whose offices had been abolished.
Mr. H. Hindebegged to call the attention of the House to the circumstance of the work entitled The Historians of Britain, undertaken by command of his late Majesty King George 4th, being left unfinished in consequence of the death of Mr. Petre. The expense of the work had been already not less than 12,000 l.., and it would cost 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. more to complete it; but if it was completed, the sale of it would probably pay the expense. There would be no difficulty in finding persons to undertake its completion. He would also recommend that the other unfinished publications of the late Record Commission should be completed.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he understood that Mr. Petre had left papers yearly amounting to a second volume, and it would be for the Government to consider whether any advantage would arise from its being finished as nearly as Mr. Petre's labours would allow. With respect to the other publications, he would refer the House to the letter written by the present Master of the Rolls to his own predecessor, Lord Normanby, recommending the publication of only certain of the old records, and would say that he was fully inclined to concur in the recommendation.
Dr. Bowringasked what locality had been determined on as the ultimate receptacle for the national records
Sir J. Grahamreplied, that the Victoria tower in the new Houses of Parliament (as we understood) would be selected.
Mr. Protheroethought a tower would be awkward for librarians and visitors, with all the interminable journeyings up and down corkscrew staircases. A building like the great college libraries would be more convenient.
Dr. Bowringremarked, that at Copenhagen there was a tower appropriated to such a purpose into which a coach and four might enter.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—EDUCATION.
On the question that 30,000 l. be granted for Education,
Mr. Ewartregretted the smallness of this grant, which was utterly and discreditably inadequate to its momentous object. He also could not help observing on the benefit which would result from the presentation to Parliament of an annual statement or report on this great subject by some Minister of the Crown, so as to place before the Legislature the state of education in all its branches, and thus awaken more attention to it. He wished to ask, whether there was any intention of altering the grant or its application?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the Government were not prepared at present to alter the amount or the application of the grant, adhering closely to the last minute of council on the subject; and of course it would not be well, on such an occasion, to make any declaration as to future proceedings on so important a subject.
Mr. M. Gibsonconcurred in deprecating the extreme paltriness of the grant; but he was yet more concerned on account of the quality of the education. Our national schools, as they were called, gave nothing but mere church-catechism instruction, with no information calculated to interest the mind, or expand the understanding. The authority of the hon. and rev. Baptist Noel would probably be respected on such a subject; and that rev. Gentleman stated (in the last report of the inspectors) that—
" With the best intentions, those who had conducted the national school education system had given even to the eldest children nothing beyond church catechism instruction, the Bible being the only class book, and the effect has been most injurious. The thirst for
186
variety, which, for the wisest purposes, had been implanted in the youthful mind, was thus led to seek pernicious gratification. Nothing could exceed the contrast between the eagerness for information manifested in a well-taught school, and the apathy in those conducted after the manner stated. The Bible was thus associated with all the uneasiness and discomfort connected with faults in reading or spelling; and it was well if through after-life this appropriation of the sacred volume to purposes for which it never was designed, did not lead to a great distaste and aversion for religion."
Was not such a state of things highly discreditable, and did it not call loudly for alteration? The mere hammering at formularies could but load the memory, and that at the expense of the mind. To show how mischievous was the working of this system, numbers of instances might be given of answers, painfully ludicrous, given to questions put by Mr. Noel to the children in different schools; as when a child, asked what religion St. Paul was before his conversion, replied "a Roman Catholic." Was this education? Was this instruction even in that which it professed to be,—viz. religion? And what information was communicated to the children of a general nature? Nothing at all. Surely, there was no use, but great evil, in confounding and confusing together secular and religious education; the result was injurious in respect both to one and the other, and neither would be well administered till they were kept separate. It was fervently to be hoped that, for the growing generations of this country, Parliament would, ere long, provide at least a really sound and salutary system of secular instruction.
Mr. Brothertonexpressed his regret that. Government had not proposed a larger grant. They had voted between 300,000 l. and 400,000 l. for the punishment of criminals; they had voted large sums for the punishment of crime, but only a miserable sum for the prevention of it. He was sure, that if the Government had asked for a larger grant that the House would have been very ready to accede to it. So far from an increased grant being an additional burden, it would, in his opinion, be an act of well-timed liberality.
Dr. Bowringthought it a great reproach to a nation so opulent as England, that they should vote the miserable sum of 30,000 l. for the most important of all na-

187
tional purposes. When he considered the amount which foreign Governments devoted to the purposes of education, in many instances an amount larger than what they expended in support of the army, he felt ashamed that the Government of England should dole out such a paltry sum. Considering the great number of uninstructed people in this country, he did hope that the time was not far distant when a larger amount would be voted.
Mr. Protheroeobserved, that the people of England were not agreed as to what they would have in the way of education. The Church would not permit the Dissenters to participate with them in the advantages of education, and some of the Dissenters objected to any community of interest with the Churchmen; still he thought, that a system of education might be adopted which would give a great deal of satisfaction, and be productive of beneficial results. No doubt, the reading of the Scriptures ought to be made a sine qua non, and to that the Protestant Dissenters would not object. Then the church catechism might be taught during two or three days of the week, and that species of instruction might be confined to those who were members of the Established Church. He was aware, that such a plan would have the effect of excluding a large portion of her Majesty's subjects, he meant the Roman Catholics; but they were chiefly to be found in Liverpool and Manchester, for which places special grants might be made without in any respect impeding the progress of national education.
Mr. Childerswished to know from the right hon. Baronet whether he intended to propose any grant for the classes which were taught at Exeter-hall? The hon. Member complained, that the Government had not developed any plan as to their future operations on the subject of education. The question was one of vital importance. There was not one of the northern nations of Europe in which the people were so ill educated as in England; and of the three kingdoms subsisting under this Government, there was not one in which the people were so imperfectly educated as in that part of the United Kingdom called England. The Scotch were decidedly in a better condition, and the Irish were rapidly improving. In England, there were many towns
188
of 6,000 or 7,000 inhabitants in which there was not a general school, national, or belonging to the British and Foreign School Society. In the town of Oldham, where there were 60,000 or 70,000 inhabitants, there was no school belonging to either of those establishments. [An hon. Member: It is not correct.] The present Government enjoyed the confidence of the ecclesiastical authorities in this country, and he hoped that they would avail themselves of that circumstance to bring about the establishment of a good system of education.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he had heard with amazement the statement that there were no schools in Oldham; that assertion, however, having been contradicted by an hon. Member who had the means of knowing, he should say no more on that point. When the hon. Member who spoke last stated as a matter within his own knowledge that there were towns containing 6,000 or 7,000 inhabitants destitute of the advantage of public education, he (Sir J. Graham) was bound to admit that it must be so; but if he had heard that statement from any one else he should be greatly disposed to question its accuracy. Complaints had been made that a sum of 30,000 l. was too small— it would be very much too small if that were the only sum available for the purposes of education; but it could not be forgotten that pious, benevolent, and rich men had appropriated large sums for the purposes of education; that portions of those monies had been misapplied was a matter which did not affect the present argument, as a considerable part of them was available for the objects of education, and education in this country, so far from retrograding, was rapidly advancing. On the part of her Majesty's Government he disclaimed any want of sympathy with the public on a subject the importance of which it was impossible to overrate. Hon. Members would recollect that the sum of 30,000 l. had been appropriated to education only within the last three or four years, and that after much discussion, it was at length agreed to be granted, and the mode of its application was to be proceeded with on what was called neutral ground. The present Government now asked for the same sum as their predecessors, which sum was to be applied to the same purposes and according to the rules formerly adopted. As to the singing-

189
classes at Exeter-hall, it was the opinion of Government that no portion of the present vote should be granted for their encouragement, for it was not thought that those classes fell within the terms of the original vote. It was the intention of Government to take the matter into consideration, and if they should decide upon proposing any vote on the subject it would be a specific vote, and form no deduction from the sum now under discussion.
Mr. Childerssaid, that in Lincolnshire, in Cambridgeshire, and other counties, there were towns of the size he mentioned without general schools.
Mr. Humesaid, that the lamentable state of education in England was a reproach to the nation. It was lamentable to think that they had asked 20000 l. for a prison here, and another 20,000 l. for a prison there, and that they were so disinclined to give the people the means of that instruction which would prevent crime. The late Government were well disposed to act liberally on this subject, but hon. Gentlemen opposite stepped in and prevented them. They had the power now, and he hoped they would use it, in order to obtain an efficient system of education for the people of this country. The destitution in this respect was deplorable. In some parts of Lancashire he found, from the rev. Baptist Noel's report, that only a thirty-fourth part of the people were educated, while he believed the proportion in Prussia was one-sixth. It was one of the evils of an Established Church that it prevented any education of which it did not possess the control. He wished the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) would apply the principles which he had introduced into the system of education in Ireland to that pursued in England. Government could carry this point if they pleased, and it was a great reproach to them that they had not done so. He wished the Government to take the whole responsibility of the education of the country. Instead of 30,000 l. he believed the House would be perfectly prepared to give ten times thirty thousand pounds for such a purpose. The House of Commons were willing, but the Government were unwilling to act liberally on this question; and he thought that the Government was not doing its duty in thus neglecting to give to the country a sound system of secular education, leaving the religious instruction to the care of the clergy.
190
An hon. Member called the attention of the Government to the report of the commission appointed some years ago, at the suggestion of Lord Brougham, to inquire into charities, which report, he was sorry to say, had produced no practical benefit. The funds of many charity schools were misappropriated; in fact, he knew instances in which they were pocketed by individuals; and there was no remedy against these abuses except the extensive and tedious one of going to the Court of Chancery.
Mr. Hardythought, that if a religious education was to be given, something specific must be taught, otherwise the children would be left in a state the most deplorable, of uncertainty as to their faith and those principles which the hon. Member for Halifax had observed ought to be implanted in the heart and to govern the affections. An hon. Gentleman had said be would not. exclude the Bible, nor would he (Mr. Hardy). He would have the children scripturally instructed; but how was that to be done unless the meaning of the Scriptures was explained? And would there not be as many different modes of explaining them as there were teachers? Suppose, for instance, the passage to be read which declares that "We are bought with a price, and therefore ye should glorify God with your bodies and souls, which are his." Suppose the scholar were to ask the meaning of our being" bought with a price? "Would the hon. Member for Montrose prevent him from being taught that the purchase was made by Christ offering himself as a sacrifice for our sins? But would the Socinian permit that? The doctrine would be inculcated by teachers connected with the Church of England, and by those of orthodox denominations, such as the Independents, the Methodists, the Baptists, and others; but there were some who would not tolerate it. Suppose that narrative of the dialogue between Philip and the Eunuch formed the reading lesson of a class. It was there stated that Philip "preached unto him Jesus." Were the scholars to ask the meaning of that statement, would it not be necessary for the teacher to go into a full explanation of the whole doctrine of salvation as held by the Church of England? The orthodox denominations would not object to that course, but there were many that would, and give very different interpretations.

191
If the Bible were used as a class book, it ought to be properly explained, in order that the minds of the children might be furnished with sound and right principles, which would influence them to discharge the duties of life faithfully, honestly, and zealously. It was not for the mere teaching of letters that the Scriptures should be used in schools—that could be accomplished by a more secular course: but for the inculcation of morality and religion, for all true morality was founded on religion. A mere moral man was responsible only to himself, but a religious man looked higher, and owned that he was responsible not only to man, but to the Almighty. As soon then as such feelings were established in the mind of a child you had a guarantee for the soundness of his principles, and a security for his future good conduct. He should be sorry then to see any system of education flourish which excluded the principles of the Church of England— those principles which the country required the Sovereign to recognise and maintain.
Mr. Gibsonmust press his question on the Secretary for the Home Department. The inspectors had reported that the instruction in the national schools was wholly inefficient, both in a secular and a religious view of it. Why, the hon. and rev. Baptist Noel, and others, had been formally appointed to report upon the state of those schools. It was understood that the public money had been granted in order, that as far as that money could go to procure it, a bonâ fide education should be given to the people. The clergy had for years the whole apparatus of education in their hands; they had been tried, and found wanting. The consequence was a lamentable deficiency of public instruction. The inspectors who made that report were not indifferent to religion; they were clergymen themselves, and were not likely to say or do anything to discourage religious education; yet they said that the whole system of the national schools was calculated to maintain ignorance, as it taught nothing but mere formalities without any solid information. A plan was about to be put in execution for the establishment of industrial schools for pauper children—would they not also provide for the proper training of the children of the industrious and independent labourer? Let them adopt a sound system of education for the national schools, and
192
not leave them to the mere lifeless and mechanical teaching of the Church catechism.
Sir R. Inglisearnestly hoped, that his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not suffer himself to be misrepresented as he had been by a noble Lord in another place. He had, from the very first, contended, that no system of education deserved the name that was not based upon religion; and he felt it impossible to reconcile the inconsistency of granting a sum of money to any joint institution composed of persons of entirely different religious sentiments, to support a school in which the Scriptures could not be explained by one party without his being checked and told that he was violating the feelings of another; still, as the grant had been sanctioned by Parliament, as the system had in fact become the law of the land, he did not think her Majesty's Government were to be taunted because they had formerly opposed it, for administering it as they found it, and without carrying it beyond its former extent. He must say, however, that the doctrines which had been set forth elsewhere in relation to this subject, by one of the Colleagues of her Majesty's Government went far to violate that principle of neutrality, and to encourage sentiments which were destructive of the rights and privileges of the Established Church. The hon. Member for Montrose, in a whisper which he intended should be audible, said, that it was high time the interests of the Established Church should cease. He hoped the House would bear in mind that declaration of the hon. Member. But, perhaps, he was not sincere in it. At all events, he hoped that the hon. Member was sincere in another sentiment to which he had given expression, and in which he fully concurred. [Mr. Hume held up his hands with astonishment.] Why, the hon. Member seemed ashamed of it already. [Mr. Hume "No."] The hon. Member had stated, that while we were squandering large sums to repress crime, as he called it, we were sparing of money for the education of the people. He took down the words of the hon. Member at the time:—
" We should save thousands and thousands by educating and instructing the people— those who are now perishing in ignorance and vice."
Why, that was the very opinion which

193
he (Sir R. Inglis) bad endeavoured over and over again to enforce upon the House, and particularly upon the hon. Member and his Friends, with whom he differed only as to what was education. He asserted it was that which was begun in Christian schools under Christian teachers, and perfected in Christian churches under Christian ministers. That was a very defective education which left a youth at an age when he was most exposed to dangerous temptations without a church to go to, and a watchful training of him up to the state of manhood.
Sir J. Graham: I am most anxious to say a few words after what has fallen from my hon. Friend, who must think me unworthy of his friendship, if I could sit still and hear a Colleague assailed who is not present, and, therefore, unable to answer the charges made against him. My hon. Friend is peculiarly unfortunate this evening. My hon. Friend is a great stickler for order in this House, yet nothing could be more disorderly than the course he has pursued upon this occasion. My hon. Friend has not been content with referring to proceedings elsewhere, but he distinctly referred to a speech delivered by a noble Lord in the other House of Parliament. In that respect he had departed from order. My hon. Friend declares himself to be a sincere friend to the present Administration, yet, upon this occasion, he has taken a course which—though not designedly, perhaps, is calculated to foment jealousies and sow dissensions amongst the Members of her Majesty's Government. I cannot accept of any compliment from the hon. Member, at the expense of my noble Colleague, the President of the Council, with respect to whose conduct concerning a bill which has been mentioned, I will say, that bill has been read a second time in the Lords, and that whenever that bill shall be returned, whatever alterations may be made in it, I shall still adhere to my opinions. With the declarations made by my noble Friend, the President of the Council, as I understand the nature of them, fully concur. I am not aware of any one sentence in his speech, from which [am prepared to dissent. My hon. Friend has stated in general terms, that those declarations are subversive of the Church of England. [Sir R. Inglis: If I used a phrase so strong as subversive, I retract it.] The moment my hon. Friend disclaims
194
the expression, of course, I must cease to impute it to him; but he said, that those declarations were injurious to the Establishment. When my noble Friend made the speech alluded to, there were present the Primate of England, and several Members of the Bench of Bishops; not one of them reprobated the sentiments of my noble Colleague. Not one of them expressed opinions similar to those which the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, has this night given utterance to, The hon. Baronet may consider himself a better guardian of the Church than the Archbishops and Bishops in Parliament assembled, but I must be allowed to retain my opinion, that if the learned Prelates who adorn the Bench of Bishops, and who were present when that speech was made in the other House, had heard the President of the Council make use of a single passage which merited the censure of being injurious to the Established Church, they would have risen in their places, and repudiated it, and denounce the measure which had been brought forward. But no objection was taken at the time by the Bench of Bishops to the speech of my noble Friend and Colleague, the President of the Council, I would ask, what does the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, object to? The hon. Baronet has talked in general terms, but I have yet to learn what his specific objections are. With regard to the grant for the purposes of education, I will inform the House that her Majesty's Government adhere, as the President of the Council stated in another place, to the Minute of Council of 1839. That Minute was the result, it may be said, of a compromise, but it was a compromise dictated by the political opponents of the late Government. Who were the parties to that compromise? The Archbishops and Prelates of the Established Church. They were consulted on the question. Who are the inspectors? The inspectors of the national schools are appointed with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has an absolute veto. The arrangement which was then entered into was one adopted by her Majesty in Council in consequence of the course pursued by those then in opposition to the Government, and who now constitute the Government of the country. That arrangement met with the full concurrence of the Prelates, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and particularly of the Bishop of

195
London. I can inform the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, that what fell from the President of the Council in another place, is in strict accordance with the Minute of Council of 1839, to which the Government strictly adheres. In the distribution of the grant of public money for the purposes of education, it is the intention of her Majesty's Government to act upon the terms of the Minute of Council of 1839, to which I have already referred. I repeat, that it is the opinion of the Government that no portion of the sum should be appropriated to the classes at Exeter Hall. It is thought that they do not fall within the limit of the Minute of Council, and that such an appropriation would be inconsistent with the terms of the grant now under the consideration of the House. On this point, I will say, that if her Majesty's Government should think it expedient to apply for a grant for the classes to which I have alluded, they would consider it their duty to submit, for that special purpose, a supplemental estimate, and take the sense of the House on the subject. If I were asked my opinion of the classes at Exeter Hall, I would not hesitate to assert, that a more innocent, a more moral or desirable recreation, and one more calculated for the amusement and instruction of the working classes after the arduous labours of the day, could not be well devised. I consider the efforts which have been made by those who have the direction of those classes praiseworthy in the highest degree. [Sir R. Inglis: That is not the question.] I must say then that I do not understand the purport of the hon. Baronet's observations or the ground of his objection. The hon. Baronet declared that the opinions of my noble Colleague the President of the Council have a tendency to encourage sentiments destructive of the rights and privileges of the Church, and are subversive of the principles upon which all education ought to be based. Is not singing an innocent recreation? I cannot conceive what especial objection the hon. Baronet can urge against. What are the other three classes? They are instructed in arithmetic, linear drawing, and writing. I would ask whether there can be anything less exceptionable, or more advantageous and useful, than instruction in the three branches I have specified? It is said, this is education. I say no. The classes are composed of adults and
196
artisans. Education, according to my view of the subject, consists in training the mind of the infant population with reference to their moral and religious duties. This is the recreation mixed with the instruction of the adults, at the class, after hours of labour. It is innocent and useful amusement instead of profligate debauchery. In reply to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester, I will observe, that a large sum has been granted to the normal schools, and in Scotland such schools have been established in Glasgow and Edinburgh, in direct connection with the religious establishment of that country. The hon. Member for Montrose has observed that I speak like a person under the influence of great restraint. I can assure the hon. Member that I endeavour as far as I am able to speak frankly my opinions. I know nothing so indiscreet or unworthy, I was going to say dishonest, on the part of a Government, as to hold out vague generalities, big with promise, before their plans have been deliberately considered and well matured. The course which the hon. Member deprecates is not that which my right hon. Friend at the head of her Majesty's Government is in the habit of pursuing on any question likely to be brought under the consideration of Parliament. My Tight hon. Friend does not conduct the business of the Government on those principles. It is the endeavour of the Government to mature the measures which they bring forward, and having done so they will manfully support them. The subject of education the Government has been anxiously considering. The system of education which we recommend is based on the principles to which I have already referred. It is our own basis, and not that of our opponents. We will not only adhere to it, but do our utmost to extend it. Normal schools I think most desirable. With reference to those it is the intention of Government to enforce a most rigorous system of inspection. I think that it is wrong to suppose that 30,000 l. is the whole of the expenditure for the promotion of education. It is true that the grant amounts to that sum, but 120,000 l. or 130,000 l. is annually appropriated by private individuals for educational objects in aid and in addition to the public grant. I acquiesce in the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock. I believe that there are large sums be-

197
queathed for purposes of education, which are misappropriated, and which may be made available. It will be the duty of the Government to investigate this matter, and to apply to the purposes of national education every fund, which in equity and law may be made answerable to this sacred use. If we should find it difficult to carry out these views with reference to education into effect, it is our intention to trust to the liberality of Parliament for an additional grant.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that he admitted the force of the rebuke, and his justification must be that he followed the example of the hon. Member for Montrose.
Mr. Vernon Smithwas too much rejoiced at the manner in which the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had spoken out, to wish to say anything in contradiction to what he had stated, except on one point. The right hon. Baronet seemed to be in difficulty as to the object of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. Now it appeared to him, that the only object of the hon. Baronet was, that the Government should revert to the opposition which was given to the Government upon this subject in 1838. There was one expression which had been used by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) in reference to this question, to which he (Mr. V. Smith) objected. It was that the minute of council of 1839 was a compromise. It seemed to him to be an abuse of words. A compromise must consist of mutual concessions; but when the Government of 1839 brought forward their proposition, they did it with as much good faith as they proposed it in 1838. They brought their proposition forward, believing that it was the utmost measure the country would receive from the Government. He hoped the present Government were prepared to act up to that proposition. He conceived that the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, wished to create dissention between the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and the noble Lord the President of the Council upon this subject. He, however, trusted that upon the question of education, the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) would move on hand in hand. He exceedingly admired the speech of the noble Lord the President of the Council; indeed, it was admired by the Marquess of Lansdowne, who was as competent a
198
man as any to pass a judgment upon it. He was also much delighted to hear the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), and he had risen simply for the purpose of correcting what he believed, if the right hon. Baronet had to speak again, he would admit to be an error, that the compromise was not dictated by the political opponents of the late Government, but that it was the result of mature consideration of the then Government with the heads of the Church, it being deemed essential to so important a measure as that of public education, that there should be perfect unanimity between the Government and Parliament.
Sir James Grahamwould gladly retract the word "dictation," but he must repeat that the minute in council was a compromise, and that that compromise resulted from the resistance offered by the then opposition to the proposals made by the then Government.
Mr. Wysewas much pleased that the Government had determined upon establishing the system of a normal school. He had always anticipated that a light would flow in, and that a period would arrive when both sides of the House would be anxious to assist in the spread of education, and he was glad to find that her Majesty's Ministers were the most forward in advancing those measures which they had formerly opposed. He thought the system should be one of a most comprehensive kind. Not only those schools which were under the immediate cognizance of the council should be the subject of inspection, but private establishments should be invited to place themselves under the same inspection, and should be included in the report of the inspectors to Parliament. He begged, in conclusion, to express his sincere joy, at the recent declaration of the noble President of the Council in the other House of Parliament.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY — LONDON UNIVERSITY.—
On the question that 4,516 l. be granted for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the university of London.
Mr. W. Woodinquired whether the vote was the same as last year, and if not why it had been diminished.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, there was a diminution in the vote of 587 l.. Communications had been had with the

199
University, and the reduction in the salaries to that amount had been agreed to.
Mr. G. W. Woodbelieved the senate did not concur in the proposed reduction. They acquisced, but were opposed to it.
Sir J. Graham: The reductions made were principally in the salaries of the examiners, and as several of them were interested in the vote no doubt many of them were opposed to the reduction. They had also seats in the council, and voted in the apportionment of their own salaries. He was glad to say, however, that many of them approved of what Government proposed. One of the originators of the University, Mr. Warburton, highly disapproved of the examiners being also Members of the Council.
Mr. Humewished to know whether any report had been made of the manner in which the former grant had been expended. He had always been opposed to the system of the council appointing Members of their own body to the office of examiners, which was a paid office, and the salary settled by themselves. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would call for a report in future, and would take care not to submit any other estimate without the House being made acquainted with the manner in which the former grants had been spent by means of a report. He wished to see the names of the examiners, in order that he might know if they were really Members of the Council; for he could not countenance a system under which a man might apportion a salary to himself. He was one of the first supporters of the University, but he must say the expense had very greatly exceeded his anticipations, and might be reduced with advantage to the establishment.
Mr. G. W. Woodsaid, the Members of the council had been asked to undertake the duty of examiners; they did not seek the office.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—REGISTRATION.
On the question, that the sum of 30,000 l. be granted for defraying the allowances and expenses of revising barristers.
Mr. Humewished to know, whether the decisions of those Gentlemen had been more uniform last year than they had been in the previous ones? In former times take any ten of them upon any
200
one question and they would find five of one opinion and five of a contrary one.
Mr. Crippshad had the honour of being appointed a revising barrister, and he could assure the hon. Member and the House, that the conflicting decisions did not arise so much from ignorance on the part of the barrister as from the obscurity of the act of Parliament—some of the clauses of the act were utterly irreconcilable. If the Government were to apply their minds to the formation of a good registration bill, they would much benefit the country; of course he could not expect it in the present Session, but if the law were much simplified they could do with much fewer barristers, and, of course, the vote would not be so large.
Sir J. Grahamdid not intend to recede from his pledge. It was his intention, before the end of the Session, to ask leave to bring in a registration bill. Whether the hon. Gentleman would think it a good one or not he did not know, but it would most likely lead to a uniformity of decision, inasmuch as it would contain a provision for constituting an appellant tribunal.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY — COLLECTIONS FOR THE MUSEUM.
On the question that the sum of 4.740l. be granted to enable the trustees of the British Museum to purchase certain collections now offered to them.
Dr. Bowringwished to know why all the money required for the Museum should not appear under one head?
Lord Stanley: The Government were quite aware of the ordinary current expenses of the Museum; but when particular offers were made of particular collections, which it was for the advantage of the public should be accepted, then a specific vote became necessary.
Mr. Humesaid, he thought some of these collections were purchased at prices far exceeding their value. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer received any reports relative to the value of the collections previous to their purchase, from persons who were qualified to form a just opinion of their worth; and if, that was the case, whether there was any objection to present those reports to the House?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the opinion of parties competent to judge of the value of these collections

201
was always taken before the Government consented to purchase them. There was no objection to print these reports, if the House expressed a wish for their production.
Mr. Ewartsaid, the celebrated drawings collected by Sir Thomas Lawrence had been recently purchased by the University of Oxford. He considered that such a collection as that to which he referred to ought to have been placed in London, for a French writer had justly said that such places as Oxford were the cemeteries of the arts. He wished, therefore, to ask whether facilities for the inspection of these splendid drawings would be afforded to artists who would probably resort to Oxford—as well from abroad, as from all parts of this country—for the purpose of viewing them.
Sir R. Inglisthought he. was bound to say that the collection to which the hon. Gentleman alluded would not have been obtained by the University, had it not been for the liberality of a noble Friend of his, Lord Eldon, who had subscribed 4,000 l. towards the fund for their purchase. With reference to the question of the hon. Gentleman, the University of Oxford would of course exercise their discretion with regard to their own property; but he might state that they never had refused to admit artists, as well as other persons, to view this collection; and he had no reason to suppose that they would depart from this practice.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—PRINCEEDWARD'S ISLAND.
On the question that the sum of 3,070 l. be granted for defraying the charges of the civil establishment of Prince Edward's Island,
Mr. Humesaid, that in 1818 this colony, through the Lieutenant-governor, proposed to bear its own expenses, on condition that the appointment of the officers of Customs, was placed in its own hands. He thought it was advisable that the colonies should have the management of their own civil establishments. He wished to know whether the officers of Customs in Prince Edward's Island were appointed by the Governor of the colony, or by the Home Government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that the Custom-house officers held their appointments from the commissioners of
202
customs in this country, and not from the colonial authorities.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—WESTERN AUSTRLIA.
On the vote of 7,099 l. for defraying the expenses of the settlement of Western Australia,
Mr. Williamsthought it would be much better if the colonies maintained themselves, instead of their being supported by this country.
Lord Stanleysaid, experience had shown that in the infancy of colonies it was impossible they could bear their own expenses, and they must necessarily entail some expense on the mother country.
Mr. Wardcomplained of the course which had been pursued with respect to South Australia. If they created expensive colonial establishments and sent out officers over whom the colonists had no control, it was not surprising that their efforts at colonization failed.
Mr. Humesaid, that in one instance an immense grant of land had been made to one individual in South Australia. He was convinced that if the Government dealt fairly by the colonies, they would soon be able to bear the expenses of their own maintenance.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY —COLONIAL ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
On the question that a sum of 13,215 l. be granted for defraying the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Establishments of the British North American provinces, and of New Zealand,
Mr. V. Smithsaid, since the proposal of this vote last year, an addition had been made to it for the salary of the bishop of New Zealand. It was proposed by this vote that a sum should be granted by Parliament for the erection of a colonial bishopric in New Zealand. He was aware that the noble Lord opposite in making this proposal, was only following the example of his noble Friend near him, who had in 1840 made a similar suggestion. On that occasion he (Mr. Smith) urged his noble Friend to reconsider the proposal, and he was successful in inducing the noble Lord to relinquish his intention. He would not now enter into the question as to the policy of supporting the Church of England in our colonies. He was only anxious to ask the noble Lord opposite to withdraw from this vote the sum required

203
for the Bishop of New Zealand, in order that the principle might be brought before the House for discussion in a more substantial form. Many colonies, some of them entirely Protestant, had no Episcopal establishment, and they at any rate had equal need of one with New Zealand. He was not arguing that no bisphoprics should be established, but what he contended for was, that they should not be paid for by the mother country, but by the colonies themselves. He had also another objection to the manner of supporting this bishopric. He had often heard the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies object to placing the payment of the church on estimates, and he was surprised at his proposing this vote. He had great objections on religious grounds to such a mode of payment. The vote might be agreed to one year and refused the next.
Lord Stanleycould assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was not laying down any general principle in this instance, or assenting to the principle, which he condemned as much as any man, of making the clergy of the Established Church dependent on the votes of this House for their stipends. He begged to call attention to the grounds on which he proposed the vote. On the 31st of December, 1840, an official letter was written by the direction of Lord John Russell, then Secretary for the Home Department, to the Lords of the Treasury, in which it was stated that the subject of constituting bishoprics in the Colonies had engaged much of his attention, and after mature inquiry he intended to advise her Majesty to found bishoprics in the Colonies of New Brunswick, Van Diemen's Land, and New Zealand; and that his opinion was that the Imperial Parliament should make provision for each of them to the extent of 600 l. per annum, "which charge shall appear in the estimates." To that letter an official answer was written from the Treasury, which stated that their Lordships did not object to the proposed application to Parliament for provision of stipends to the bishoprics in question to the extent of 600 l. each. As to the noble Lord having reconsidered the question, it was certainly true that no vote was taken on the estimates; but it was equally true that, so far from the noble Lord having given up his intention, he (Lord Stanley) found, when he came into office, not only that a decision was taken to appoint a Bishop
204
for New Zealand, but that the rev. Mr. Selwyn had been appointed—that he was prepared to set out, and that the patent was in course of preparation, on the promise of Lord John Russell that he should go out on that provision in the Parliamentary estimates which was intended to be proposed in the former year, and which the right hon. Gentleman supposed he had persuaded the noble Lord to abandon. On the 10th of November last, he stated to the Treasury that, under the circumstance of Lord J. Russell's promise, and of the bishop's patent being in preparation, he conceived they were bound, in good faith and honour, to make good the promise of their predecessor, and, however objectionable he thought, the placing of bishops' salaries on the annual estimates of Parliament, he was of opinion that, in this case, they had no alternative but to fulfil an engagement which was formally and officially entered into by the noble Lord, But he went further than this, for on an application to him by the committee for establishing bishoprics in the colonies, including New Brunswick and Van Diemen's Land, he stated that, with every desire to forward their views of appointing bishops, and placing the clergy of the Church of England in the different colonies under the superintendence of constituted authorities, yet where there was no colonial fund and no contributions from the society for that purpose, he could not take upon himself to propose to Parliament to place an annual vote for colonial bishops on the estimates, and, therefore, he declined to submit to Parliament a vote of 600 l. for the Bishop of New Brunswick, or for the Bishop of Van Diemen's Land. The Bishop of Van Diemen's Land had been appointed by joint contributions from the colonial fund and the voluntary society. Another had been recently appointed for the Mediterranean; and by the assistance of the public and of the society, with aid from the colonial fund, he hoped to be able to appoint bishops in several other of our possessions; but be still retained his objection to placing a vote for colonial bishops upon the estimates. Therefore he had not taken a vote for any other colonial bishop than New Zealand, which he felt bound in honour to propose.
Mr. Humesaid, it appeared to him to be an insult to the people of England to call on them in their present state of dis-

205
tress to pay money in this sort of way, and for such a purpose. If Lord John Russell had made this promise to Dr. Selwyn, Lord John Russell ought to pay the money himself. He should propose as an amendment," that the amount of the vote should be reduced by 874 l. 13 s. Id., the expense of this bishopric." If his amendment were rejected, he should propose, that Lord John Russell be called on to pay the amount. He believed the noble Lord's salary was all paid up, so that they could not seize upon that. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the vote be 12,340 l.
Mr. V. Smiththought it better on such a subject to abstain from party allusions. He had made no attack on the noble Lord. On this point he did not agree with his noble Friend (Lord John Russell.) He was extremely sorry that the noble Lord had taken this occasion to make a mere miserable personal attack upon him.
Lord stanleysaid, he had made no personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman. In consequence of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, it was necessary for him to explain the precise circumstances under which he was called on to bring forward this vote.
Mr. Humewished it to be understood, that if the House rejected his amendment, he should propose, that Lord John Russell do pay the amount which lie had promised to Dr. Selwyn.
Mr. W. Williamswas sorry his hon. Friend had not objected to the whole vote. It was an insult on the oppressed peopled of this country to call upon them to contribute to the ecclesiastical establishments of the colonies.
Mr. Pakingtonobjected to the inconsistency which appeared on these estimates, that while this country was paying to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec, there was no vote whatever for a Protestant Bishop of Quebec. No duty was more incumbent on the mother country, in his opinion, than to support the Established Church in Canada.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, he should certainly vote for granting this salary of the Bishop of New Zealand, as it was the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell); but he did not vote for it on the ground that this country ought to pay and maintain ministers of religion in all her colonies. That practice ought to be the exception, not the rule. But in the case
206
of New Zealand, where, as the colony was recently founded, there existed no means of making provision for a bishop, he thought it was right that the purpose should be accomplished by a vote of the Imperial Parliament. He therefore voted for the estimate, riot wishing that this should be a permanent arrangement.
The committee divided on the question, that the grant be 12,340 l.:—Ayes 25; Noes 131 -. Majority 106.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, w.

Philips, M.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

plumridge, Capt.

Bernal, Capt.

Redington, T. N.

Brotherton, J.

Bundle, J.

Browne, hon. W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Colborne. hn. W.N.R.

Tancred, H. W.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Thornely, T.

Duncombe.T.

Ward, H. G.

Gibson, T. M

Wawn, J. T.

Greenaway, C,

Williams, W,

Hawes, B.

Wood, B.

Hindley, C

TELLERS

Martin, J

Hume, J.

Morris, D.

Smith, V

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Egerton, W. T

A'Court, Capt.

Eliot, Lord

Aglionby, H. A

Escott, B

Ainsworth, I

Fellowes, E.

Antrobus, E,

Flower, Sir J.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Arkwright, G

Ffolliott, J.

Bagge, W.

Forbes, W.

Baird, W.

French, F.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Fuller, A. E.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Boldero, H. G.

Gill, T.

Bradshaw, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Bramston, T.W

Gore, M.

Broadley, 11.

Goring, C.

Broad wood, H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bruce, Lord E,

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Buckley, E.

Grimsditch, T.

Burroughes, H. N.

Grogan, E.

Campbell, A.

Hamilton, W. J.

Chapman, A.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Childers, J. W

Hardy, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Clive. hon. R. H.

Henley, J. W

Cochrane, A.

Herbert, hon. S.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G

Hodgson, F.

Courtenay, Lord

Hodgson, R.

Cripps, W.

Hope, hon C.

Darby, G.

Hornby, J.

Dick, Q

Howard, P. H.

Douglas, Sir H.

Hussey, T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hutt, W.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

East, J. B.

Jackson, J. D.

Eaton, R. J.

Jermyn, Earl

207

Kemble, H.

Praed, W. T.

Knatchbull. rt. hn.Sir E

Pringle, A.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Repton, G. W. J.

Lefroy, A.

Richards, R.

Legh, G. C.

Rolleston, Col.

Leicester, Earl of

Russell, J. D. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Sandon, Visct.

Lockhart, W.

Scott, hon. F.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Lowther, J. H.

Sheppard, T.

Lyall, G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Mackenzie, T.

Smyth, Sir H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Somerset, Lord G.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Stanley, Lord

Maclean, D.

Stewart, J.

Mainwaring, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Meynell, Capt.

Taylor, J. A.

Milnes, R. M.

Tollemache, J.

Morgan, O.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Neville, R.

Trollope, Sir J.

Newry, Visct.

Trotter, J.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Tumor, C.

Northland, Visct.

Tyrell, S. J. T.

Packe, C. W.

Verner, Col.

Pakington, J. S.

Vivian, J. E.

Palmer, G.

Wood, Col.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wood, Col. T.

Patten, J. W.

Young, J.

Peel, J.

TELLERS.

Pigot, Sir R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Corry, rt. hn. H. T. L.

Original question agreed to.

SUPPLY—EDUCATION (IRELAND).
On the question that a sum not exceeding 50,000 l. be granted to her Majesty, to enable the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to issue money for the advancement of education in that country.
Mr. Plumptreobjected to the grant. Very few Protestants could feel themselves justified in sending their children to schools under the present system, and he Las, therefore, strongly opposed to the vote, the would not press it to a division.
Mr. Lefroyconcurred in the view of the hon. Member for East Kent. The petitions from the clergy of Ireland showed, that they were desirous to obtain a share of this grant, for the purpose of giving an education, founded on such principles as would make those receiving it honest men and good citizens.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellcould not really see what the hon. Gentlemen opposite were looking for, except that those public funds should be devoted to the education of a peculiar sect. He should be the last man to disturb the harmony, which happily prevailed at present in both countries (with the exception of a small section of hon. Members opposite), and between both
208
parties in the State, on the subject of edution. He believed experience had proved in both countries, that religion was not promoted by enforcing peculiar religious opinions in a system of education, but that it was far preferable to impart sound knowledge indiscriminately, leaving religious instruction to be conveyed through the tenets of each persuasion. The man who doubted the efficacy of this plan, must doubt the soundness of his own views on religion.
Mr. Campbellcontended, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Connell) was quite wrong in supposing that any change had taken place in the views of Gentlemen on his side. If he thought it necessary to divide the House, he was sure he should have a large number voting against this grant, on the ground, that the Scriptures were garbled in the national schools.
Captain Jonesobjected to this grant, because the system it went to support was ' a complete failure. He knew, that Protestants did not send their children to these schools, because the Scriptures were not used in a complete form.
.Mr. V. Smithmust say he was surprised, that the noble Secretary for Ireland left the system of Irish education to be defended by those at his side. The Secretary for the Colonies, too, was unaccountably silent when his own measure was attacked. How was it that the hon. and learned Solicitor-general, who was so active an opponent of this grant, was now a perfect mute, and that they had no opportunity of knowing his opinion, if some indiscreet person on his own side did not force a division. This was certainly a great night for education ! First, the proposal of the Whig Government of 1839, as regarded England, was adopted. [Sir J. Graham: No; it was a compromise.] At all events, the Tories receded from the high ground they originally took when they acceded to the proposal of 1839, and it was denounced now with all the original bitterness of party animosity by the hon. Member for Oxford. Then came the vote for education on the most liberal principles; and, lastly, this Irish grant, which was assented to by all parties, or which would seem to be so if some inopportune division were not forced on by Gentlemen opposite.
Lord Eliotfelt that the taunt of the right hon. Gentleman was not altogether undeserved, for he ought to have risen at

209
an earlier period to reply to the attacks which were made on this system. The Gentlemen who had made those attacks had been guilty of gross misrepresentation, and he thought they could not possibly have read the report presented to that House. Had they done so they would have perceived that the secular instruction of the schools was open to all, and that the religious instruction was given at particular hours set apart for the purpose, and at particular places according to the direction of the local patrons by whom the funds were mainly provided. That was the basis of the system, but he denied that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had been the author of it, because it was embodied so far back as 1812 in a report on the subject of education, which report was signed by the Primate of Ireland, the Archbishop of Armagh, the Archbishop of Cashel, and the Bishop of Killala. He must also deny that mere garbled extracts from Scripture were all that was allowed to be read in the national schools. The Scriptural extracts used in those schools comprised the historical books of the Old Testament, St. Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles; but they did not supersede the use of the Scriptures; and he must say that the accusation made against the board, of garbling the Holy Scriptures, was entirely unfounded. In 1824 the commissioners reviewed all the education societies which had previously existed, and they found them totally inadequate for the purposes of education. They said, that owing to the system of teaching the Scriptures without note or comment, the system which was adopted by those societies, the children were absolutely ignorant of the very principles of religion, that they were ignorant of the meaning of what they read, and that they learned it, like parrots, purely by rote. This was the opinion of men of impartiality. It was stated by his hon. and gallant Friend, that Protestant children generally did not attend the national schools. Now, he could assure the House that there was no unwillingness or dislike to attend them on the part of any portion of the people; and that, where there was a non-attendance of Protestant children, it was owing, he much regretted to say, to the influence of the Protestant clergymen, who, no doubt, were actuated by conscientious motives, believing as they did that the present system was one which they
210
could not fairly countenance. But the fact was, that the people had most willingly sent their children to be instructed in those schools, from which they had in many instances been withdrawn by clergymen. Mr. Hall, who was probably known to most hon. Members, stated in his pamphlet that the system was a total failure, but he went on to say that it was admirably well managed, and that it was only in consequence of the unwillingness of the clergy to co-operate that it was rendered ineffective. There was no doubt that in some places there were only four or five Protestants to 100 Roman Catholics, but then in other places the preponderance was just as much in favour of the Protestant children. If hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble of looking to the character of the population, they would at once see the cause of that. The average number of Protestants, compared with that of the Catholics, was not more than 4 or 5 per cent., while many of those Protestants were in easy circumstances, and beyond the necessity of availing themselves of the benefit of the national education. He asserted then that a very fair proportion of the Protestant children did receive education under the present system; and he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that he had received reports from authority which fully bore him out in stating that a fair proportion of Protestants compared with the rest of the population did attend the national schools. He would not state positively, but he believed that one-eighth of those who attended the schools were Protestants. Looking to the nature of the population, and considering that a large proportion of the Protestants were in easy circumstances, and did not choose on that account to avail themselves of the system, he could not admit that the system was in any respect a failure. The commissioners stated in their report, that in the first year of its operation the number of schools was 759, in the next year 1,206, that in the last year the number had increased to no less than 2,377, and that the number of children to whom instruction was imparted in those schools was 281,345, and the number was continuing to increase. In the month of September last he attended the examination of the inspectors, and nothing, he assured the House, could have been more satisfactory than the statement which they made respecting

211
the state of those schools. The system, as ail who were acquainted with it must know, was what was called "intellectual" — a system by which the minds of the children were cultivated to a high degree. The books were well adapted to that object, and were drawn up with considerable talent and ability, and the teachers were men who were in every respect qualified for public instruction. Upon the whole, be must say, that the result of his inquiry, and he had taken no small pains to inform himself on the subject, was that, under all the circumstances of Ireland, a system better adapted to the wants of the people of that country could not be adopted.
Sir W. Somervillesaid, that he had listened with the sincerest pleasure to the speech of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had most correctly described the working of the system, and he had also correctly stated the reason why its operation was in some cases limited, that reason being that the clergy of the Established Church, he was sorry to say, had conscientiously considered it to be their duly to oppose the system. Something had been said about "raising the people of Ireland." Did not that mean depressing them to their former condition, when no Catholic could educate his children? [Cheers from the Opposition benches.] This cry, at all events, was most frequently in the mouth of that party who first prevented the mass of the population from receiving instruction according to their own religious tenets, and then reproached them for turbulence and ferocity.
Mr. Jacksonsaid, he was persuaded the committee would feel that, considering the position in which he now stood, and the part he had for so many years taken in regard to the education of the poor in Ireland upon Scriptural principles, it was impossible for him to remain silent on the present occasion, more especially when it was recollected that he had been so pointedly alluded to from both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman, and those who acted with him, were anxious to call him (the Solicitor-general) up in this debate, hoping that some party advantage might be gained by eliciting points of disagreement upon this all-important question, between the present Government and some of its most steady friends and supporters. He (the Solicitor-general) deeply regretted that he should be placed in a position which compelled him to rise in apparent opposition to her Majesty's Government,
212
but he did so under a deep and solemn conviction of imperative duty. He did not, however, rise to oppose the present vote, which was to place 50,000 l. at the disposal of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, for the purposes of education in Ireland, and he did hope that at least some portion of it might be applied in promoting education in that country upon sound principles. He was, however, bound to say, that even had this been a vote directly to the National Board of Education in Ireland, decidedly as he disapproved of their system, he should not feel justified in giving his vote for withholding the grant at this period of the Session. He thought that it would be manifestly unjust that the board should have been permitted to reckon upon the continuance of the annual grant which they had enjoyed for some years, and to enter into engagements and incur liabilities, but he fervently entreated the Government and the House most carefully and candidly to reconsider the whole question. He spoke under impressions of imperative duty, when he declared the noble Lord most utterly to have been in error on the subject of the Kildare school system. The new system had not been justified, but the contrary, by the inquiry of the commission. That commission consisted of Mr. Frankland Lewis, well known in that House—Mr. Glasford, a Scotch gentleman of great talent and respectability—the late lamented Judge Foster—Mr. Anthony Blake, a Roman Catholic gentleman of much talent, but who acted with perfect impartiality throughout the inquiry—and Mr. Grant, an English gentleman, who he believed was at the English bar. His noble Friend had stated the matter as if that commission of inquiry had been unanimous in their report; the fact, however was, that two of the able and enlightened members of the Board had dissented, and had supplied the grounds and reasons of their dissent, from the conclusions arrived at by their brethren. The dissentients were Judge Foster and Mr. Glasford. Now, he (the Solicitor-general), on the part of the Protestant people of Ireland, and of the Roman Catholic population also, most earnestly but respectfully called upon his right hon. and noble Friends composing her Majesty's Government, to take into account the propriety of carefully considering this great question. It was one of the most momentous importance. He would

213
not disguise his opinions upon it. They were not taken up hastily, nor did they emanate from any unkind or uncharitable feeling towards any portion of the community or towards any human being. On the contrary, he trusted he might say, with perfect truth and sincerity that they sprang from the most anxious desire to promote, by the best means, the temporal and eternal interests of all classes and denominations of his countrymen. With regard to the Kildare-place Society, what were the facts? When the Parliamentary grant was withdrawn from that valuable institution, in the year 1832, there were, according to his recollection,—and he begged to be understood as only speaking from recollection, not recently refreshed as to the numbers—(for he had reason to believe that this vote would not have been brought forward to-night)—but according to his recollection, there were then upwards of 1,500 schools, containing more than 130,000 scholars, in connection with that society; and he could say that a very large number of them were of the Roman Catholic persuasion. He believed that at no period were there so few as one-half of of the scholars in those schools Roman Catholic. What was the state of fact in 1824, at the unfortunate period when the commission of inquiry was set on foot? At that period the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood in Ireland, anxious to put down scriptural education, and to obtain grants of public money for schools under their own control, used every effort to withdraw the children from the schools of the society. The commission called for returns from ail schools as to the number of children receiving instruction therein, and they required these returns to be made by the clergy of all persuasions, distinguishing how many were Protestant and how many Roman Catholic; and the clergy were apprized that they must be prepared to verify these returns upon oath. There could be no doubt therefore of the correctness of these returns, so far as they went; and the proof of their accuracy as to the relative proportion of Protestant and Roman Catholic children in the schools of the Kildare-place Society was this;— that the returns made by the Protestant clergy and Roman Catholic clergy corresponded to a small fraction in the results; and they showed, that at that period of persecution—for he could call it no less— when the parents of Roman Catholic
214
children were denounced, and the rites of the Church withheld from them, if they did not withdraw their children from the scriptural schools—at that period the returns showed that a majority of the children in the schools of the Kildare-place Society were Roman Catholic. This, then, was really a united system of education, and he challenged his noble Friend (Lord Eliot) to produce from the reports of the commissioners anything which was calculated to disparage the conduct or exertions of the managers of the Kildare-place Society. They did, undoubtedly, require as a fundamental principal, that the Sacred Scriptures without note or comment, should be used in its schools. This was "the head and front of their offending." But this did not impede its efforts for the spread of education. Quite the reverse; for he (the Solicitor-general) could say with truth, that the poor Roman Catholics of Ireland were desirous of access to the Scriptures. Bearing in mind the facts he had stated, he most earnestly but respectfully called on the Government to consider whether it were not a matter of the most grave and awful responsibility to exclude from contact with the Scriptures — the Scriptures of truth, which teach the way of salvation—the youth of the country, the great mass of the population, in that season, too, when the mind and the heart arc most susceptible of impression ! His noble Friend (Lord Eliot) spoke of the large proportion of Protestants attending the national schools. There might be many Protestants in those schools; but for the most part they were in separate schools, not united with Roman Catholics in receiving instruction. In some schools there was not a single Protestant; in others, not a single Roman Catholic was to be found. Now, the main inducement for, and object of, this new board was declared to be the establishment of a united system. In this there had been a failure. He believed it was in the very town represented by the hon. Baronet, his hon. Friend—if he would allow him so to denominate him—(Sir William Somerville), viz., Drogheda, in which there were two schools, at opposite sides of the street, circumstanced just as he had described. The great mass of the Protestant people of Ireland were opposed to this new system, both clergy and laity. It was quite true that he had presented a large number of petitions to

215
that House on the subject of education; but he must correct the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. J. O'Connell) in his statement that these petitions did not complain of the present system, and only sought aid for the Church Education Society. On the contrary, they one and all stated their conscientious objections to any system of education of which the perusal of the Sacred Scriptures did not form a part. They objected likewise to the constitution of the board, as being unfavourable to the Church; and that the working of the system, instead of tending to heal animosities in Ireland, had greatly aggravated them. He believed that he (the Solicitor-general) and his noble Friend the Member for Bandon (Lord Bernard) had presented petitions from every parish in the united dioceses of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, against this system. The clergy, also, of this diocese, petitioned and protested against it. They could not conscientiously participate in any plan of education from which the Scriptures were excluded. Were they to be censured for this conscientious disapproval of these national schools? Did they merit the rebukes bestowed on them by the noble Lord? It was in the highest degree creditable to them, in his judgment, that they did withhold their countenance and support from such a system of national education, impoverished as they were. [Cheers.] Yes, —yes, impoverished; your course of policy has grievously impoverished them." I believe," the hon. and learned Gentleman concluded," two-thirds of the benefices of Ireland were under 300/. a year when the clergy were deprived of one-fourth of their income. But impoverished as they have been, there are in the diocese I have named, which constitutes the county of Cork, 210 schools, containing between 8,000 and 9,000 scholars, who are supported by voluntary contributions, mainly of the clergy. They are in connection with the Church Education Society, and even in those schools in which direct instruction in the catechism and formularies of the Established Church is given, a considerable number of Roman Catholic children is to be found. But now I put it to the British House of Commons, I put it to the enlightened men who compose her Majesty's Government, is it fitting that the only portion of the community practically excluded from the benefit of the public educational funds should be the
216
humble Protestants of Ireland, and those Roman Catholics who wish to obtain scriptural instruction? This ought not to be so; and I again implore the most serious consideration of my right hon. and noble Friends near me to this all-important subject. The House will forgive me, I am sure, for this trespass upon them. I confess I feel warmly, and could not withhold the honest expression of my opinion, although I have the misfortune to differ from those with whom on so many other subjects I entirely agree.
Lord Eliotsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend had much misunderstood him if he thought that he meant in any way to depreciate the character of the Protestant clergy of Ireland. In regard' to the schools, all he had meant was, that other means of instruction ought to be provided for those children whose parents did not like to let them attend those schools.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, after what had taken place to-night, he would not suffer the matter to rest here, without expressing a hope that the Irish Government and the hon. and learned Solicitor-general for Ireland (Mr. Jackson) would feel it to be their duty to promote the great and paramount object of the Legislature in its previous acts, namely, the general diffusion of information and education throughout Ireland. He had witnessed with concern what he must consider a positive and unqualified attack made by the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the noble Secretary and the Government of Ireland for its conduct in respect to these seminaries. The course of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-general for Ireland was widely different from that which would be taken by hon. Gentlemen on this (the Opposition) side of the House, who were, he believed, most anxious to give their best support to her Majesty's Government in carrying out a liberal system of education for Ireland. He rejoiced at the announcement which had that night been made by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, believing as he did that it conveyed the sentiments of the Government generally upon this important subject.
Lord Stanleysaid, the hon. and learned Solicitor-general had been so long a member of the Kildare-street Society, that there could be no surprise at his defending it. The Government, with the responsibility

217
attached to it, and feeling respect for the opinions of those who supported them, had given their mature consideration to the subject, and their opinion was, that, notwithstanding many difficulties, the present system was one which gave the greatest amount of sound religious instruction to Ireland. He regretted the opposition, founded as it was on sincere motives, which had been offered to the system. The Kildare-street Society had been conducted in a most liberal manner, and that very liberality had prevented the attaining many of the objects it professed to gain. The rule calling together a number of children of different persuasions, and causing them to read the Scriptures without explanation, had the effect of making the language of Scripture sink more into the memory than the heart. A strong feeling having been manifested against the Kildare-street Society, he (Lord Stanley) felt that the effect of that education would be to exclude a great deal which should have been introduced in a school purely Protestant. He felt the present system contained the best solution of the difficulties, and gave the greatest amount of Scriptural education to the people of Ireland. He regretted that a certain want of co-operation, on the part of many Protestants, had interfered with the beneficial working of that system, and had led to a partial failure of it; but he believed that, notwithstanding those disadvantages, the system had done much to soften religious animosity in that country; and if they lost something from that want of co-operation, he was sure that they had gained much in the improvement of those schools, which the Protestants had established in a more exclusive system, arising from the spirit of rivalry which the Government system of education had introduced. He knew that many of his hon. Friends thought that a better system might have been introduced; he did not call upon them to sacrifice their opinions; but he said that there was nothing inconsistent in those hon. Friends of his, if they found that that system, mixed with evil though it were, had really advanced education in Ireland, and had taken a deep root in that country, giving a silent vote in favour of that system, though they would have preferred another. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not be called upon to divide on the question; but if it were, his opinions remained unchanged, and, having approved of the introduction of that system, in the first instance, as the best adapted to the circumstances of that country,
218
he should give his cordial support to the present vote.
Mr. Wysesaid that the wide differences between hon. Gentlemen opposite, Members of the same Government, were very remarkable; the Solicitor-general for Ireland as strongly opposed the present system as the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, supported it; and he must say that the reason given by the Solicitor-general for supporting this vote was more creditable to his talents as a lawyer than to his candour. He was, however, rejoiced to find that, of that great party which had, in the first instance, almost to a man, opposed the present system, but a few individuals now continued that opposition. The system had worked most successfully; it was realising the most sanguine anticipations of its friends, removing religious animosity, and teaching Irishmen of all persuasions, from their youth, to regard each other as brothers.
Viscount Sandonrose only for the purpose of expressing the opinion which he entertained, in common with many on that side of the House. He had opposed this system from the beginning, because he thought it not likely to produce happy results in a country circumstanced as Ireland was; but that opposition having failed, and the system having been established a considerable time, he, for one, should be most unwilling to disturb a great question like that, without being able to substitute another system more likely to succeed; and he confessed that he was not aware of any such system. Believing, therefore, it would be honestly administered, he would be sorry to disturb it; but he must say that he thought it the duty of Government to assist the exertions made by the Established Church of Ireland, in the cause of education, by other means than setting up a rival system. He might quote, in favour of that view, the practice in England of giving money to two societies; and he earnestly hoped that, in another year, the Government would take this matter into its serious consideration.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellcould not help complaining of the allusion made by the hon. and learned Solicitor-general of Ireland, when he spoke of Mr. Blake as giving impartial evidence, although a Catholic. Such an observation evidently showed that the mind of the hon. Member was still strongly imbued with the ascendancy feelings which he derived from his education. The language of the hon. and learned Gentleman formed a singular contrast to that used by the Members of the Government. It

219
was rumoured that the hon. and learned Gentleman was to be transferred to another place, and he therefore regretted it the more that he should give expression to such an uncharitable expression.
Mr. Jacksonsaid, that if he had used the expression imputed to him, it was not in the sense which the hon. Member conceived. He had never intended to attack' the Roman Catholics, for he believed chat] the statements of Gentlemen belonging to that religion were entitled to as much respect and credit as those belonging to any other church.
Mr. Wardwas astonished at the conduct of the noble Lord, after the scruples which he had expressed, with respect to this vote, on former occasions. The noble Lord's example had been followed by several other Gentlemen on the opposite side, who now declined opposing a vote they, on so many former occasions, objected to. It appeared that the hon. Member for the University of Oxford had skulked out of the House. [Cries of "Order."] He was not aware that he was disorderly, but he would then say had stolen out of the House. [Loud cries of "Order" and "Chairs."' Who, exclaimed the hon. Member, calls me to order?
Lord Stanley: I rise to call the hon. Member to order. I am sure that the hon. Member will, on reflection, be satisfied that he was out of order, and that he will regret having used the language that fell from him. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will feel that it was not orderly or proper to apply the terms skulking or stealing out of the House to another hon. Member. It was not possible for the hon. Member to know whether the hon. Baronet had left the House.
Mr. Wardwould merely then say, that the hon. Member had stolen away. [Loud cries of "Orders." He would appeal to the Chair as to whether he was out of order.
The Chairman(Mr. Greene) said, that the hon. Member must be fully aware that there was not much difference between skulking or stealing away. On reflection, he was sure the hon. Member would not persist in his expressions.
Mr. Wardobserved, then he would say that the hon. Member and other hon. Gentlemen whoa generally opposed this grant had walked out of the House. He was astonished that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not now divide against this grant, after they had made such serious complaints
220
on the subject. He confessed that he should have entertained greater respect for the hon. and learned Solicitor-general for Ireland, if that hon. Member, entertaining the opinion that he did, had resigned his office rather than pursue the course that he had that night done. He could not help thanking his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, for his generous and able speech on that occasion, in which he had expressed his determination to abide by the system.
Lord Clementscomplimented the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland on the speech which he had that night addressed to the House—a speech which would create as much satisfaction in Ireland as the speech of the Solicitor-general for Ireland would create dissatisfaction. He approved of the system of education proposed, believing that it would do a great deal of good in Ireland.
Mr. Sergeant Murphysaid, that it had been stated in the course of the debate that no division had ever taken place on this question, but on a reference to Hansard he found that a division, led by the hon. Member for Kent, took place on this question in June. 1840. The system of education adopted in the national schools was approved of by the people of Ireland, and he trusted that a division would shew who those were that opposed it.
The committee then divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 0: Majority 94.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Fellowes, E.

Ainsworth, P.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Antrobus, E.

Flower, Sir J.

Archdall, Capt.

Ffolliott, J.

Baird, W.

Forbes, W.

Baldwin, B.

Fuller, A. E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Gaskell, J. M.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Gibson, T. M.

Bateson, R.

Gill, T.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Gore, M.

Bradshaw, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Brother too, J,

Grogan, E.

Browne, hon. W,

Hamilton, W. J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hardinge. rt. hn. Sir H.

Campbell, A.

Hawes, B.

Childers, J. W.

Hayes, Sir E.

Clements, Visct.

Henley, J. W:

Clerk, Sir G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Colvile, C. R.

Hindley, C.

Courtenay, Lord

Howard, P. H.

Cowper, hon. W. F,

Howard, Sir R.

Cripps. W.

Hughes, W.B.

Denison, E. B.

Jermyn, Earl

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Jones, Capt.

Eliot, Lord

Knatcbull, rt. hn. SirE.

Escott, B.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Farnham, E. B.

Lefroy, A.

221

Leicester, Earl of

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lincoln, Earl of

Sandon, Visct.

Lowther, J. H.

Scott, hon. F.

Mainwaring, T.

Smith, right hn. R. V,

Masterman, J

Smyth, Sir H.

Morgan, O.

Somerville, Sir W M.

Morris, D.

Stanley, Lord

Murphy, F. S.

Sutton, hon. H, M

Newry, Visct.

Taylor, J. A.

Nicholl, rt. hon, J.

Thornley, T.

Norreys, Sir D. J,

Verner, Col.

O'Brien, A. S.

Vesey, hon. T.

O'Connell, M. J

Wawn, J. T,

O'Conor Don

Wood, B.

Packe, C. W

Wood, G, W

Packington, J. S.

Wyse, T.

Philips, M.

Young, J,

Plumtre, J. P.

Rashleigh, W.

TELLERS

Redington, T. N.

Fremantle, Sir T

Rundle, J.

Pringle.

Tellers for the NOES.

Bernal, Capt.

Ward, H. G.

The House resumed on the question that the resolution be reported on Monday.
Mr. Lefraysaid, that he had never given a vote with greater pleasure than that which he had just recorded in favour of the resolution; and his pleasure was the greater because he had shared in defeating the unworthy opposition of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. Wardsaid, that he did not mean to impute unworthy motives to any one, and certainly not to the hon. Member for the county of Longford; but he could not help noticing that the hon. Member for Kent, who voted against the grant on the last division, had not refused to support it to-night. He was perfectly satisfied with the result of the division, if for no other reason than the satisfaction it had given him of seeing the hon. Member for Kent recording his vote in favour of the grant. He only regretted that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University, had been cautious enough to walk out of the House before the division took place.
Mr. Plumpersaid, that the only reason why he voted in favour of the grant tonight was, because he was determined not to be driven to adopt the course which the hon. Gentleman opposite wished him to take. In order, however, to maintain his consistency, he begged to give notice that he would oppose the grant on the bringing up of the report.
Captain Bernalsaid, that he had consented to act as teller because he had been determined to show up to the country the inconsistent conduct of the hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Viscount sandon: All that I will say is, that it was a very bad joke, and, like all practical jokes, will not raise the character of those who practised it. The absence of their leader has, I suppose, caused hon. Gentlemen opposite to play these pranks.
Sergeant Murphythought that the extraordinary difference of opinion which had been exhibited between two Members of the Government was also to be attributed to the absence of their Lord and master.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday.
House adjourned at three o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS, Public.—1a' Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Chelsea Hospital; Military Savings Banks; Militia Ballot.
2aNew South Wales; Protection to her Majesty's Person.
Committed— Mines and Collieries; Dean Forest Ecclesiastical Districts; Protection to her Majesty's Person.
Reported.—Railways; Charitable Pawn Offices (Ireland).
3a and passed:—Right of Voting (Dublin University): British Possessions Abroad: Protection to her Majesty's Person.
Private.— Reported.— Wicklow Harbour; Cambuslang and Muirkirk Roads; Liverpool and Manchester Railway,
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the Poor, Penkridge Haigh Moor Colliery, from the Parish of Dean, against parts of the Mines and Collieries Bill. —From the inhabitants of Westminster, in Favour of the Bill. From Kilgariffe, Desart, and several other places in Ireland, for the Encouragemant of Schools in connection with the Established Church.

PROTECTION OF HER MAJESTY'S PERSON.
The Lord Chancellor,rising to move the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bill for the better Security and Protection of her Majesty's Person, said, he need hardly remind their Lordships that this bill had been sent up to them by the unanimous vote of the House of Commons; and when brought, up here yesterday, it had been met by their Lord-

167
ships in the same feelings, which he was sure were also those of the whole country. All were united in an anxious wish to give more effective security to her Majesty's person. Unfortunately, experience had shewn that such a bill as this had become necessary; and it was therefore the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to submit it for the consideration of Parliament. The bill had two objects: the first was,
" To extend the provisions of the act of 39th and 40th of Geo. 3rd, which was 'An Act to regulate Trials for High Treason and Misprision of Treason in certain cases,' to all cases of high treason, in compassing or imagining the death or destruction of the Queen, or in compassing or imagining any bodily harm tending to the death or destruction, maiming or wounding of the Queen, and of misprision of such treason, when the overt act or overt acts of such treason alleged in the indictment shall be any attempt to injure in any manner whatsoever the person of the Queen."
Their Lordships were aware that by the ancient statute, the 25th of Edward 3rd, compassing the death of the Sovereign was made high treason; but such compassing must be accompanied by some overt act, such as a direct attempt on the life of the Sovereign. That continued to be the law until the 36th of George 3rd, when any attempt to maim or wound the Sovereign or do him bodily harm was declared to be high treason. Their Lordships were aware that in the reign of William 3rd, an act passed for regulating trials for high treason. This act, which had become necessary in consequence of the arbitrary proceedings of the two previous reigns, enacted certain forms which were to be observed on trials for high treason such as, giving to the accused lists of jurors and witnesses and copies of the indictment so many daye previously to the trial. Experience had shown the wisdom of those enactments, and everybody felt that they were a necessary protection against the power of the Crown. There were however certain cases in which the treason consisted of an attack on the person of the Sovereign, in which it was equally felt they ought not to apply; and soon after the attack on his late Majesty George 3rd by Hatfield, an act was passed taking away the necessity for all those forms in cases where the offence charged consisted in compassing the death of the King by attempting to wound him, or to do him some bodily harm. One object, as he had observed, of the present bill was, to extend
168
the provisions of the 36th of George 3rd, not only to cases of compassing the death of the Queen by attempting her life, but also to cases where the attempt was only to wound or do some bodily harm. But there were, as their Lordships knew, and as recent circumstances had shown, cases which did not amount to high treason, but against which it had become necessary to protect her Majesty's person; and it was an object of this bill to provide against such attempts remedies similar to those which would be resorted to in cases of attack on the person of a subject. Their Lordships did not require to be told that the security of the person of the Sovereign was of much more importance than that of any other person in the country, and the more so on account of being more exposed as a female Sovereign, and that attacks in her case might lead to consequences the most disastrous, which it was not necessary for him to detail; but, notwithstanding these risks, her Majesty, as the law now stood, was not more protected than any one of her subjects. The bill now before their Lordships had for its object to provide for cases of attack—not alone of violence not tending to the death, or maiming, or wounding of her Majesty, but also to cases by which she might be frightened or alarmed by the wilful acts of any person or persons:—thus it enacted,
" That if any person shall wilfully discharge or attempt to discharge, or point, aim, or present at or near to the person of the Queen, any gun, pistol, or any other description of fire-arms, or of other arras whatsoever, although the same shall not contain any explosive or destructive material, or shall discharge or cause to be discharged any explosive substance or material near to the person of the Queen; or if any person shall wilfully strike or strike at, or attempt to strike or' to strike at, the person of the Queen, with any offensive weapon, or in any other manner whatsoever; or if any person shall wilfully throw or attempt to throw any substance, matter, or thing whatsoever, at or upon the person of the Queen, with intent in any of the cases aforesaid to injure the person of the Queen, or with intent in any of the cases aforesaid to break the public peace, or with intent in any of the cases aforesaid to create alarm to her Majesty; every such person so offending shall be guilty of a high misdemeanour, and., being convicted thereof in due course of law, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court before which the said person shall be so convicted, to be transported beyond the seas for any period not exceeding seven years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any period not exceeding three years, and during the period

169
of such imprisonment to be publicly or privately whipped, as often and in such manner and form as the said court shall order and direct, not exceeding thrice,"
Having thus stated the objects of the bill, he did not feel that he need say any more, for he was sure that the loyalty and zeal of their Lordships would anticipate him in everything he could urge further; and, satisfied that their Lordships would give their sincere and cordial concurrence, he would now move that the bill be read a second time.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that after the statement of the noble and learned Lord, which, though short, was amply sufficient to show the grounds for this bill; and knowing what was felt by their Lordships, by the other House, and by the whole country, it was almost superfluous for him to say that he gave his hearty concurrence to the measure. It was impossible to apprehend that there could be in any quarter a difference of opinion on the subject. The life of the Sovereign was unquestionably the most precious, the most valuable life in the community. It was the life which was of most consequence to all, and the sudden interruption of which must produce the greatest calamities and disasters. It was, he was afraid, not only the most valuable, but the most exposed to danger. It was exposed in the natural course of human events to dangers; and, unfortunately, recent experience had proved that it was to dangers from other causes which seem unintelligible, and incomprehensible, but which they knew to exist. Under such circumstances, it was the duty of Parliament to cat round that life every protection which could be given, without reference to the particular circumstances of the cases, as to the age or sex of the present Sovereign. The protection which this bill would give, was due to any Sovereign, and he entirely concurred in the motion of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Cottenhamdid not rise to offer any objection to the bill, but he was anxious to guard as far as possible against its being inferred that certain acts which were overt acts of high treason were not to be punished with any greater severity than those other acts mentioned in the second clause, and which not being overt acts of treason were to be punished only as high misdemeanours. The public should know that this bill did not take away any protection which the law had heretofore thrown around the person of the Sovereign,
170
but that, on the contrary, it was adding to it by punishing with due severity persons guilty of minor offences against the Sovereign's Person. He would have it clearly understood that this bill did not alter the law of high treason.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was not the object or intention of the bill to alter the law of high treason. It would leave that law just as it was, but it would decree a more severe punishment against the minor offence.
Lord Broughamfully concurred in the object of the bill and in the remarks of those noble Friends who had preceded him — subject to an observation on one remark that had fallen from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham). He was not friendly to general alterations of the law to meet particular emergencies, because in such alterations the principle of the law was apt to be lost sight of. He was also opposed to alterations which made criminal laws more severe; but he did not see that either of those objections could be fairly urged to this bill. It did not make the law more severe, nor did it in any way abridge the rights and liberties of the subject, nor did he see that it tended to introduce unsound principles of legislation. They found that certain acts were done which, as had been truly observed by his noble Friend, the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) near him, it was difficult, if not impossible, to account for, and which partook in some degree of a mysterious character—they saw that such acts were calculated to alarm the Sovereign, and, through her, all the subjects of the realm; and they were fully justified in taking such measures as would be most likely to prevent a repetition of such acts. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend, that it could not be too clearly understood that it was not an object of the bill to alter the law relating to high treason, or misprision of treason, and to prevent any doubt on the subject, he would suggest a proviso to the effect that nothing in the act should extend or be construed to extend to any alteration of any of the provisions made by law relating to high treason or misprision of treason. He cordially joined with noble Lords on both sides of the House in the strong interest they felt, not only in the life, but in the safety, comfort, and personal ease of the Sovereign. If their Lordships would look to the other side of the Channel, they would see, in the severe and melancholy calamity which had

171
just befallen their neighbours (the sudden death of the Duke of Orleans) an illustration of the sympathy felt by a whole people in the sufferings of their Sovereign— sufferings in which, he would venture to say, every human being in these kingdoms would sincerely sympathize, as well with the people as with the Royal family of France.
Bill read a second time.
On the motion of the Duke of Wellington, the Standing Orders were suspended and the bill committed.
In committee, Lord Brougham's suggestion was engrafted in the bill.
Lord Campbellproposed a clause the object of which was to make the possession of any gun, pistol, or explosive or other weapon, near the person of the Sovereign, with intent to use them to cause her hurt, fright, or alarm, a high misdemeanour, even though such gun, pistol, &c, should not be produced.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the amendment was quite within the scope of the bill, and he would not object to it.
Amendment adopted.
The bill passed through committee, was reported with amendments, and read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass,
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he could not but congratulate their Lordships on the unanimity with which they had brought this bill to the present, its last stage,—an unanimity which he was convinced would give the greatest satisfaction not only in the highest quarter, but throughout the whole of Great Britain. He could not avoid expressing in this place his entire concurrence in the few words that had fallen from his noble Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) on the subject of a most lamentable event that had occurred in another country. He was convinced that all their Lordships would concur with him in expressing deep concern and grief at that fatal occurrence.
Bill passed.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Lord Carberypresented a petition from St. Nicholas, in the city of Cork, for the encouragement of schools in connection with the church of Ireland. He considered the present system of National Education to be defective and erroneous, and would be glad to see the prayer of the petitioners receive their Lordships approbation and support.
The Earl of Clancartywould take ad
172
vantage of the presentation of those petitions of the noble Lord to draw their Lordships' attention to the seventh report of the Commissioners of Education, in which, after stating that they had established a model farm at Glasniven, they declared that no assistance would be afforded to any institutions, in the way of agricultural instruction, unless they were in connection with some elementary national school. If that rule were acted on, many persons in Ireland would be deprived of the benefit of the model farm. He approved of the institution of the model farm, but he did not approve of the benefit being confined to institutions connected with the national schools. He did not think that the Commissioners of Education ought to have the monopoly of the Parliamentary grant, and he considered the granting of public money for the purpose of instruction in husbandry and agriculture, was an invasion of the province of the Royal Dublin Society, which was incorporated for the specific purpose of promoting instruction in arts, agriculture, and manufactures. He hoped their Lordships would not allow the thirst for agricultural education, which now prevailed, to be made a means of forcing on the people any particular system of religious or literary education. The present system had not been successful, it had not given satisfaction to either Roman Catholics or Protestants. He therefore, hoped that if the Parliament chose to grant any additional sum for the Education of the Irish poor, it would be on a system more liberal and extended than the present, which placed the Established Church in the position of a dissenting body.
Lord Cloncurryhad objected to the Kildare-street society, because the system on which its schools were conducted was objectionable to the feelings of the Roman Catholics. He approved of the present system of National Education in Ireland, and he must remind the House that this country owed a great debt of Education to Ireland; for during the space of a century it made it capital for any priest or pastor to teach their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. He said, that the Church of Ireland, which had done nothing to improve the condition of the people ought not now to come forward and take away a portion of the small grant, which was applied for that purpose.
Lord Monteaglesaid, in the speech of the noble Earl (Earl of Clancarty) he had divided the subject into two questions;

173
the question of the agricultural schools and the national school. Nothing was more important than an agricultural education to the people of Ireland. He was sure that the Government, in introducing that education, would endeavour to do so in the most practicable manner possible. If their national schools required alteration in principle, which he did not believe, let them alter the principle; but if they set up Protestant schools in Ireland, he would say that they would render every National School now established a distinct Roman Catholic school. When Sir Robert Peel was Secretary for Ireland, he recommended the necessity of bringing together all classes of the community in one common school. Many of the noble Lords who were in favour of this double education, complained of the College of Maynooth; but what would they say if every one of the schools now in existence should become a little Maynooth? He was strongly of opinion that no grant should be allowed towards the establishment of schools in exclusive connection with the Church, as the present National Schools were open alike to Protestants and Catholics.
The Archbishop of Armaghsaid, that the national system was protested against by seventeen of the prelates of the Irish Church, not from any political causes, but because they thought that it was founded on the principle of excluding the reading of the Scriptures from the schools, and that was a principle to which no Protestant clergyman could agree. The practical result of the system was that in these schools there was an actual exclusion of Protestants. He might mention that in the five schools which were in the town of Drogheda, there was not a single Protestant at any one of them. Now, be must be permitted to ask, was that a fair system of education? What had the Protestants of Ireland done that they were to be excluded in this manner from the benefit of the grant? There were, at present, 70,000 children in the Kildare-street Society Schools, and 20,000 of these were Roman Catholics, and their parents did not object to their reading the Scriptures. He, therefore, must express his hope that some change would be made in the system.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the system was now completely in the hands of the Roman Catholics, and that being the case, it was the duty of their Lordships and of Parliament to consider, now that
174
there was no prospect of that united education which was so much desired, whether they would allow the present system to continue. He considered, that modifications might be made in it if the Roman Catholics would divest themselves of their hostility to the Protestants. He hoped, the Government would give some attention to the numerous petitions which had been presented to Parliament in favour of some grant to the Church Education Society. He hoped, that the Protestant Legislature of this country would in some degree sanction that religion in Ireland. He had always voted for the removal of the Catholic disabilities; and still this was a Protestant Legislature, and he hoped that some portion of the grant would be applied to Protestant purposes. As he was persuaded that the system was not effecting the object which its originators had in view,—namely, an united education of the Protestant and Roman Catholic children of Ireland, he certainly should feel it his duty to support any proposition which might be made for giving a certain sum for the support of the Church Education Society.
The Bishop of Norwichonly wished to say one word in answer to an observation which had fallen from the most rev. Prelate. The most rev. Prelate stated the national system of education in Ireland was one from which the reading of the Scriptures was excluded, and that no Protestant clergyman would support such a system. He (the Bishop of Norwich) thought, that there was a fallacy in that, for he maintained that as large a portion of the Scriptures was introduced into the Irish schools, as was introduced into any national schools in this country which he had visited, and he maintained that the selections used in those Irish schools contained every fundamental doctrine of Christianity— nay, more, every fundamental doctrine of the Church of England. This he maintained, and so far from the board of education in Ireland having any disposition to exclude the Bible, if their Lordships would have the goodness to read the preface to those selections, they would see that they urged upon the teachers and the children to consider the selections of these portions of Scripture as merely introductory to the Scriptures, and that they recommended them to read the Bible from beginning to end.
Petitions laid on the Table.

NEW SOUTH WALES.
The Duke of Buccleuchmoved the second reading of the New South Wales Bill.
Lord Monteaglecordially supported the bill, which he said would be attended with the most useful results, and he congratulated both the colony of New South Wales and their Lordships on its introduction.
Bill read a second time.
Adjourned.