Sitting of 23 April 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Removal Amendment.
2° Highways.
Reported.—Lunatic Asylums.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord J. Russell, from Rigby Wason, Esq., for Alteration of Law with respect to Bribery at Elections.—By Mr. F. Dundas, and Sir A. L. Hay, from several places in Scotland, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.—From Ratepayers of the Town and Parish of Presteign, in the Counties of Radnor and Hereford, in favour of the Rating of Tenements (No. 2) Bill.—By a great many Hon. Members, from an immense number of places, for and against the Government Plan of Education.—By the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from Halifax, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By Lord J. Russell, from Guardians of Carrick-on-Shannon Union, against the Introduction of a certain Clause in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Divett, from Governor, Deputy-Governor, Assistants, and Guardians of the Poor of the City and County of the City of Exon, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act.—By Sir H. Campbell, and other Hon. Members, from several places in Scotland, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill, and Marriage (Scotland) Bill; and by Mr. Hume, from Parish Schoolmasters and Session Clerks of Forfar and Argyleshire, for Compensation in respect of the same.—From Bath, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.

PORTUGAL.
SIR DE LACY EVANSrose to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government respecting the result of the intercession of the British Government, with that of Portugal concerning the generals and troops who were lately granted an honourable capitulation by Marshal Saldanha, and who were said to have been since transported to the penal and unhealthy colony of Angola. The troops referred to had retired with the honours of war, and expected and were promised to be treated as soldiers usually were under such circumstances. He regretted, however, that that had not been the case. They had been marched to Lisbon, put on board ship, and crowded together in a cruel and most oppressive manner. He admitted the right of the Government to detain those parties and keep them in safe custody, but he denied their right to transport them to an unhealthy penal colony. Nearly three months had now elapsed since the Government had promised to intercede, but as yet nothing had transpired. He trusted the noble Lord would be able to inform the House that an order had been sent out for the return of those unfortunate prisoners from Angola.
LORD J. RUSSELL: It is quite true that certain prisoners, who surrendered with the honours of war, were afterwards placed on board a ship of war in the harbour of Lisbon, and were afterwards or-

1273
dered to be sent in a brig to Angola. The ground stated for that determination was that a plot had been laid for their escape—that they had many friends in Lisbon—and that their escape could not otherwise have been prevented. In the opinion of the British Government that justification was not sufficient, and they instructed their representative at the Court of Lisbon to express very strongly their opinion of the harshness of that proceeding. We have not for the last ten days received any intelligence from Lisbon, but we expect shortly to receive further information. I am in hopes that those prisoners have not yet been sent to Angola; but we have received no intelligence that the original intention of the Portuguese Government has been altered.

SUPPLY—GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION—ADJOURNED DEBATE (FOURTH NIGHT).
LORD JOHN RUSSELLmoved the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the House going into Committee of Supply.
Debate resumed. Question agreed to. Order read.
On the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
SIR W. CLAYsaid, that in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, it would be necessary for him to trouble the House with but few observations. He had stated fully, last evening, the reasons which induced him to withhold his support from the Government scheme. The House had decided in favour of that scheme by a very large majority, and he bowed to that decision. Certainly, he could not repress his apprehension that the decision of the House might prove the fertile source of future anxiety and trouble. They had thought fit—instead of endeavouring to frame some comprehensive plan of national education—to place the State at the head of a vast scheme of sectarian education; and he feared they must be prepared for the perplexities and embarrassments which must of necessity flow from the State assuming so dangerous and unbecoming a position. But the House had approved of the scheme, and it was no longer competent for him to oppose it as a whole. His present Motion, therefore, was directed to the amending a portion of the scheme, the defective character of which the noble Lord had himself admitted. The defect he alluded to was the omission of any pro-
1274
vision rendering it incumbent on the managers of schools receiving pecuniary assistance from the State, to permit children, whose parents might object to the religious doctrines taught in those schools, to participate in that secular instruction of which the State contributed to defray the expense. It was true there was nothing in the Minutes to prevent such permission being accorded, but there was nothing to enforce it; and should the measure receive the sanction of Parliament in its present form, it was quite possible that there might exist thousands of schools throughout the country partly supported by the State, and from which those children that should be more especially the objects of the paternal care of the State, from having no other means of education, would be excluded. The object of his Motion, then, was to remedy this defect—to supply this omission—to secure the opportunity to all the subjects of the realm of participating, if they thought fit, to some extent at least, in the advantages of a system, to the support of which they themselves contributed. The most difficult problem, perhaps, in the science of government, as regarded free States, was how to protect the minority. The attention of the Governments of such States should accordingly always be turned to the solution of that problem, and to the averting the injustice which the working of the institutions of such States had a perpetual tendency to inflict on the minority. Now, in the measure before them, no such attempt was made; on the contrary, it afforded a very striking illustration of the tendency he had referred to. No moderately enlightened despotism would permit any portion of its subjects to be the victims of the injustice which would, beyond all doubt, be inflicted on the Nonconformist minority in this country, if the measure passed in its present shape. The scheme was fair in terms, and he had no doubt in intention; but a moment's consideration would suffice to show that it would be greatly otherwise in its practical working. It was certain that in every parish, or almost every parish, in the kingdom, there would be a Church of England school in a condition to claim the Government grants. He had stated last evening to the House his grounds for this anticipation, and need not repeat them; but its correctness could not be doubted. It was equally certain, perhaps, that in a very large proportion of the parishes in the rural districts there would not be found Nonconformist schools

1275
so supported as to be enabled to obtain the Government assistance. What would be the inevitable result? That in parishes where Nonconformist schools did not at present exist, none would be established; and that where they did exist, they would fall before their more powerful rivals. Such was his opinion, and such was the opinion almost universally entertained by the parties interested in the maintenance of Nonconformist schools. These apprehensions he believed to be well founded. The measure proposed would, therefore, work a twofold wrong to Nonconformists. In the first place, it would—as developed in the Minutes—in all places where the Nonconformists were so far a minority in numbers or property as not to be enabled to maintain a school in conformity with the conditions required—deprive the youth of such classes of all chance of participating in the advantages held out by the plan—of becoming pupil-teachers, stipendiary monitors, masters, or obtaining appointments under Government. But, secondly, if it tended to enfeeble and finally to suppress any Nonconformist school, it would not only fail to be a means of diffusing education, but actually, so far as the Nonconformists were concerned, be the means of checking and discouraging it. Let them take the case of a rural parish of from 1,200 to 15,000 inhabitants, and of that number let them assume one-sixth to he Nonconformists. On the ordinary calculation of school accommodation being required for one in six of the population, there would in such a parish be from 150 to 200 children of members of the Establishment, and from thirty to forty of Nonconformists to be educated. What would be the working of the plan in such a parish? Why, almost of necessity that there would be a Church of England school receiving the grants, and that the Nonconformist school would not be of a character to receive them. Was it at all probable that the school of the minority would continue to exist? Was it desirable even? Suppose that in such a parish some wealthy Nonconformist or liberal Churchman were to contribute the funds necessary to claim the Government grant, would it not be an absurd waste of the funds of the State and individuals to maintain two schools where one would amply suffice? The case he had supposed would occur, he was satisfied, not only in one or two, but in thousands of parishes of the kingdom. Were they prepared then to sanction so great an injus-
1276
tice, only to be averted by so great a folly? It was no answer to the case he had made out, to say that the scheme was fair in its terms, if its practical working were undeniably such as he had shown it to be. If they assented to the measure in its present form, if they refused to agree to his Amendment, beyond all doubt they would be committing a great injustice—they would be taxing the whole people for the benefit of a portion only of the people, and that the richest and more powerful portion. In one sense certainly the scheme would be scriptural—"To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Of course in parishes where the members of the Church of England were in the minority, the exact converse of the case he had supposed would exist; and he should equally protest against the injustice of which they would then be the victims. It had been remarked to him by several Members of the House, that his resolution contained no provision for the children of Dissenters attending Church of England schools receiving religious instruction. He had not thought it desirable to add any such provision to his Motion, as he could not have made it useful or intelligible without going into too great details; but if the House adopted his proposition, it would clearly be in the power of the Committee of Privy Council, in rendering compliance with such resolution one condition of receiving the grant, to prescribe to the managers of schools such rules as they might think proper for insuring on the part of all children permitted to participate in the advantage of secular instruction regular attendance at some place of divine worship. He concluded by moving that—
"It is expedient that in any plan for promoting the education of the people by pecuniary assistance from the State, provision should be made that in schools receiving such assistance, the opportunity of participating in all instruction, other than religious, should be afforded to children whose parents may object to the religious doctrines taught in such schools."
MR. CHRISTIEwas anxious to explain the reasons which induced him to differ in opinion from a large number of his constituents with respect to the subject before them. It was proposed by the measure of the Government to give aid to schools under certain regulations with which it would often happen that the schools of Dissenters could not comply; and the Dissenters would, in such cases, lose the advantages which it was proposed to give the

1277
schools complying with the regulations; but if the Motion of the hon. Baronet were agreed to, it would, in his opinion, afford facilities to the Dissenters to send their children to Church of England schools, which facilities would have a tendency rather to swamp the Dissenting schools, which now went on so well, notwithstanding the opposition of the Church of England schools. The proposal of the Government was a proposal not of a general plan of education on their part, but was a proposal for aiding and improving the voluntary efforts in favour of education. The Roman Catholics were not included amongst those which were to be permitted to partake of any portion of the sum to be granted by this measure—a sum which it would be recollected was not a large one, and which it was the duty of the Government to do as much good with as possible. The Jews were also excluded from it, although they were, by the Act of 9 and 10 Victoria, cap. 59, sec. 2, placed in the same position with respect to schools and places of religious worship as the Dissenters from the Church of England. The words of the second clause of that Act were—
"And be it Enacted, That, from and after the commencement of this Act, Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion, in respect to these schools, places of religious worship, education, and charitable purposes, and the property held therewith, shall be subject to the same laws as Her Majesty's Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England are subject to, and further or otherwise."
He understood that the Jews had in the metropolis three schools—one an infant school, another an industrial school, and another a free school, as it was called—the latter containing three of four hundred boys; and all those schools very much required assistance; and he hoped that when the claims of the Roman Catholics to aid for their schools came to be considered, the claims of the Jews would not be forgotten. With respect to the subject of including all sects, he would quote the opinion of Edmund Burke, stated in 1775 to a gentleman who claimed him as an exclusive supporter of the Church of England. Mr. Burke said—
"It is certain that I have, to the best of my power, supported the establishment of the Church upon grounds and principles which I am happy to find countenanced by your approbation. This you have been told; but you have not heard that I supported also the petition of the Dissenters for a larger toleration than they enjoy at present, under the letter of the Act of King William. My ideas
1278
of toleration go far beyond even theirs. I would give a full civil protection, in which I include an immunity from all disturbance of their public religious worship, and a power of teaching in schools as well as temples, to Jews, Mahometans, and even Pagans. Much more am I inclined to tolerate those whom I look upon as brethren. I mean all those who profess our common hope, extending to all the reformed and unreformed Churches, both at home and abroad; in none of whom I find anything capitally amiss, but their mutual hatred of each other. I can never think any man a heretic or schismatic by education. It must be, as I conceive, by an act in which his own choice, influenced by blameable passions, is more concerned than it can be by his early prejudices and his being aggregated to bodies for whom men naturally form a great degree of reverence and affection. This is my opinion, and my conduct has been conformable to it. Another age will see it more general; and I think that this general affection to religion will never introduce indifference, but will rather increase real zeal, Christian fervour, and pious emulation: that it will make a common cause against epicurism, and everything that corrupts the mind, and renders it unworthy of its destiny. But toleration does not exclude national preference, either as to mode or opinions, and all the lawful and honest means which may be used for the support of that preference."
He considered that the system which had been pursued in reference to the schools connected with the University of London was in itself an answer to the objection which had been raised against the measure on the part of the Dissenters. Again, in King's College, within the last few weeks, a Roman Catholic gentleman had been elected a professor for the express purpose of instructing, in the Chinese language, young men who were about to proceed as missionaries to China, The answer to the objections urged against the appointment was, that it was better to have a Roman Catholic professor of Chinese, than none at all; and, by a parity of reasoning, it seemed to him that it would be better to have Roman Catholic schoolmasters than none at all.
MR. VILLIERSobserved, that if the Dissenters persevered in what he must call a new principle, namely, in not receiving the public money, then the funds available for schools would be less than formerly, and the consequence would be that there would be more poor children in country parishes left without education than had formerly been the case. He did not blame the Government for this, because if he understood the history of the progress of what was now called State education, it was only owing to religious bodies that any steps had been taken in the matter at all, and it was in consequence of their pre-occupation of the ground that we were not able to

1279
make that advance which, the House and the country might desire. He saw that a difficulty would arise if the Dissenters refused to take the public money, from the circumstance that the House would then be voting money for one society only, which mixed up religion with education. He took it for granted that the people were determined to give the aid of the State to general education; and the question was how they were to give education to the children of the poor without religious instruction being mixed up with it We must have some kind of education that all could partake of in schools supported by the public money. He believed that the opinion prevailed much more generally in this country than was supposed, that secular education might be separated from religious instruction; and he thought that the children of Dissenters might be allowed to attend the National schools without being obliged to receive the religious education which was imparted there. He felt that we were only in the infancy of this subject, and he could not join with those who objected to the Government plan. He certainly thought that the Dissenters had rather taken their friends by surprise, because he did not see any difference in principle between this grant of money and former grants. With regard to the objection that this question should not have been discussed as one of the items of the miscellaneous estimates, he must confess that he thought that it had some weight. He knew that his Parliament; he must state, however, that the objection taken to the course followed by the Government was one which had been frequently taken, and he thought that the opinion prevailed that more caution ought to have been used on a subject relating to religion, than had been observed on this occasion. Every one knew that no man could bring in a Bill affecting religion or commerce, without the whole House being resolved into Committee; and it was upon that account, and that account only, that he did not vote against the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury. With that exception, however, he thought that the Government had done all that it was at present in their power to do. He could not sit down without giving expression to his hope that what the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had suggested might be carried into effect, and
1280
that we should lose no more time in squabbling about the mode in which fellow Christians might teach their children the Christian religion, but that some common ground might be discovered on which Christians of all religious denominations might meet in brotherly love and charity.
MR. FORBEScommended the noble Lord at the head of the Government for the manly way in which he had brought forward the scheme, but should feel it his duty to oppose the project hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth on the previous night. He regretted to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and would feel it his duty to oppose any system of education in which the authorized version of the Scriptures was not read.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he could not plead the excuse that he had not caught the Speaker's eye, for he had not endeavoured to catch it. He was not indifferent about the matter—not at all. He had suffered too much in the cause of civil and religious liberty to be careless of any subject connected with either. He did not agree with those who said the State was not bound to educate the children of the poor. He thought the Government as much bound to provide the means of educating those who were not able to educate themselves, as to collect the taxes. He voted against the Government plan, because he thought no class of Her Majesty's subjects who reason as he opposed this scheme—because he could not consent to pay for the education of priests for a section of the people. He had opportunities of seeing the advantages which education conferred, having been for forty years superintending a large number of workmen. Those who were educated were docile, easily governed, and attended to their employer; those who were not so were much more difficult of management. Catholics, Protestants, and Dissenters, were all educated in the same school in Birmingham; and why not elsewhere? There was nothing peculiar in the air of Birmingham. After all, he was more in favour of secular education by the State than any other; because it prevented the jarring and conflict of religious tenets. However, he thought, when the religious and the secular were mixed up, it ought at all events to be of universal application,

1281
and not of such a nature as to cast a stigma, by exclusion, on any portion of the Queen's subjects.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENsaid, the opinion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, as to the principle of applying the proceeds of taxation to the universal education of the people, lost some of its force by the fact that a large portion of the Community was wholly opposed to the reception of aid from the State for any system of religious education. There was great difficulty in proposing any general scheme in the present complicated state of society, distracted as it unfortunately was by conflicting religious opinions. He admitted the good temper and moderation with which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had spoken; but differed from the hon. Member's remark about the Dissenters, whose conduct, he said, had taken many by surprise. He thought that portion of the Dissenters who had sent delegates to London, who had met in Crosby Hall, and who had petitioned that House, had, at all events, been consistent, bold, and straightforward. He should not be doing justice to the Division of Northamptonshire which he represented, if he did not state that all the petitions which he presented averse to this measure — all the letters which he had read from Dissenters resident there — did not contain objections to the Government measures such as had been used generally in that House; but those which had been enunciated in Crosby Hall—those which were found in that circular which they had all seen; those persons could not be charged either with fanatical bigotry or political violence; they averred their dissent with moderation and with fairness, and were entitled to respect for their conscientious conduct. His opinion was, that it was better for the State wholly to abandon the cause of education, and leave it to the voluntary system altogether, than to endeavour to separate the secular from the religious instruction. If they considered politically the experience of the Dissenters since 1839, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was the last man to say that he had been taken by surprise, because the hon. Member had always advocated the principle of progress as opposed to the let-alone, the laissez faire principle; and he must have ill appreciated the force of his own eloquence, if he had supposed that it would be fruitless. It was not at all surprising to him that the Dissenters should have reasoned thus — the
1282
Government had declared that it could not properly interfere with commerce and trade, and so it should not interfere with education. The difficulty of that argument had been felt, and, consequently, the case in that House had been argued merely as a question of police—as though they were striking a balance between the expense of schools and of gaols; and the Crosby Hall arguments were better than that. But he wished that some hon. Member would rise up, and show that the Dissenters were not only wrong in resisting the measure, but inconsistent in resisting it on that principle. Had that principle of non-interference been persisted in? All the present Session the House had abandoned the free-trade principle; for whether they interfered with the wages of the labourer, or with the profits of the manufacturer, or whether they interfered with education, they still acted on that doctrine of interference for protection, which last Session, because it then suited their purpose, they had repudiated. The right hon. Baronet the apostle of free trade, which he had taken and adopted from the hon. Member for Stockport, last night said that the voluntary principle was not sufficient; then, that this measure was the voluntary principle; and then he selected the very worst example for the application of the voluntary principle. When hon. Members urged so vehemently the necessity of secular education, would they be so good as to say what education was? Was it mere instruction — mere book knowledge? or was it the training and educing of the better parts of our nature? Would the former ensure the institutions of the country, or give security to property and life? It might be very well for those who, like the hon. Member for Southwark (Sir W. Moles-worth), said that no advance had been made in the science of ethics since, the days of Aristotle and Plato, to advocate the exclusion of religious instruction; but if the great majority of that House, who thought that there had been a great advance in the science of ethics since those days, were to be content with such a system of education, they would certainly be visited with the punishment they deserved.
DR. BOWRINGsaid, a great part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was totally irrelevant to the question before the House. With respect to himself, he had never known votes cause him more pain than the vote which he had given and the votes he

1283
should be obliged to give on this subject, It pained him lest it might be thought that he felt less interest in the extension of instruction than those who supported the scheme of the Government. On the contrary, he deemed it a shame and opprobrium to the country that such multitudes were unprovided with popular education. He was bound to acknowledge that voluntary efforts had not accomplished the objects which were desired, notwithstanding the great and long-continued exertions made by the Dissenting body. Those exertions had failed, and much remained to be done; and he only regretted that the measure of the Government had not been so presented as to be universally acceptable. And the reason was, that in its practical workings the religious susceptibilities and convictions of many were interfered with, and a standard of religious faith introduced which necessarily led to exclusions and disabilities. He believed that the scheme, as presented by the Government, had not succeeded in any part of the world, and could not succeed here. State education could never be universal, if the State required certain conditions as to religious opinions. When he heard it stated that the Government instruction must be religious, he said that was only a controversy about words. All secular instruction was eminently religious that elevated the minds and purified the morals of the people. It was owned by every one, that, with respect to the Roman Catholics, the Government was in a false position. The Government admitted that wrong was done to the Catholics, and intimated that that wrong would be redressed at a future period; but he thought that there ought to be no delay in the redress of a wrong, the existence of which was acknowledged. A menace had been held out that the Government would hear of this question at the next election. They were to be held up as infidels, because, though they said they could not do justice to the Catholics now, they had held out a hope that justice would be done them hereafter. Religious instruction was not to be obtained for the people by a peremptory Act of Parliament, drawing distinctions between various classes of Her Majesty's subjects; the children of the families belonging to the several denominations ought to be instructed in religion by the clergy of those denominations respectively. And, after all, what fine distinctions were these between two versions, where the knowledge
1284
and the sincerity of the several translators was not impeached; ought the instruction of millions to be made dependent upon points like these? It must be confessed that the present controversy was in many respects eminently childish; and the conclusion might well be drawn, that our hearts were not sincerely set upon the great work pretended to be had in view. There were Gentlemen so attached to their particular theories and creeds, that unless these were to be inculclated, they declared that the people should not be educated. These persons assumed that they, and they alone, were the possessors of truth; forgetting that they were not gifted with the sagacity alone to discover what truth was. That was always one of the most entangled questions. For himself, he came to this conclusion—he did not know what was true, but he did know what was charitable; and men might be wrong in their creeds, but they could not be wrong if their principles were benevolent. There was in the world much truth and much falsehood; but the falsehood must be on the side of persecution, and truth on the side of kindness and charity.
MR. TRELAWNYsaid, he could not vote last night with the hon. Member for Finsbury, because he thought the present was a time not for deliberation, but for action. He had no objection to the Government measure, on the ground that it was unconstitutional; on the contrary, he held this grant to be eminently constitutional, because it left to Parliament the annual opportunity of reconsidering it; and as to the amount, if two millions a year were proposed for education, he should be ready to vote for it. Nor did he object on the ground that it was essentially different from the grant of 1839; for the two grants were, in principle, identically the same. He was a sincere believer in the voluntary principle; but he thought that the measure of 1839 violated that principle quite as much as the present. He repeated that the amount was quite inconsiderable. It was a sort of political bathos to ask for so small a sum; it was, as it were, damning the cause with faint praise. But he had some great objections to the Government measure. He certainly objected very strongly to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics. He objected to any test being introduced into schools; and on that point he agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for Bolton. He was sensible of the good effects which had followed the

1285
introduction of a more tolerant system of education into public schools. It had excited more kindly feelings among members of the community. To show the effect which the general tolerance which prevailed in that House had had upon his own feelings, he might mention that before he became a Member of it, there were hon. Gentlemen now present whom he could have seen flayed alive; but for whom he now entertained kindly and respectful feelings. As he had already mentioned, he was a firm supporter of the voluntary principle in the matter of religion; but whilst he would repudiate State assistance in that matter, he would not object to it in the case of education, because there was an essential difference between the two cases. In the case of schools, what was taught were facts upon which all were agreed; but as regarded religion, the same agreement did not and could not exist; because religious matters were not susceptible of the same degree of demonstration as the subjects taught in schools.
MR. BROTHERTON: The hon. Member for Staffordshire had asked what was education? He thought the best definition of it was such a training as would fit a man for performing the duties of his sphere in life, and, combined with that, some instruction as to his duties to his Maker and his neighbour. The House had heard much of this measure as calculated to extend the political power and influence of the Established Church; but the main question to be considered was, whether it was calculated to be beneficial to the people. Considering the amount of ignorance and crime, and the taxation for its punishment, in this country, he was compelled to acknowledge that the voluntary system with regard to education was not sufficient to meet the evil. In the votes he had given and might give, his object was to make the measure as perfect as possible, and that justice should be done to all classes of the community. Allusion had been made to the state of education in Manchester. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had alluded last night to the immense number of Irish in Manchester, amounting to 60,000. He believed, that in that district the proportion of those apprehended for various offences who were unable to read or write, had increased rather than diminished. From the returns made by the police, it appeared that the number of persons annually taken into custody in the borough of Manchester was about 10,000.
1286
Of that number in 1840, 50 per cent could neither read nor write. In 1841, 52 per cent, and in 1843, 55 per cent could not read. The average number of convictions from 1839 to 1843 in England and Wales was 93,877; of these, 36 per cent could neither read nor write, and 55 per cent could read only, or write imperfectly. From the report of the Registrar General it appeared that out of 123,818 marriages in 1843, 101,235 persons signed with marks. With such facts as these before them, who could say that the voluntary system had been successful? He had made a calculation which he believed would be found correct, that it cost this country more than 2,500,000 l. a year for the punishment of crime. He should be most willing to vote any reasonable sum for the prevention of crime. It appeared to him an extraordinary anomaly to expend so much money in gaols, and so little in schools. The cost of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance last year was 16,000,000 l. The people expended 50,000,000 a year in intoxicating liquors. There were 20,000 places of worship, and 120,000 public-houses and beer-shops. Surely it was time that something should be done to teach the people their best interests, their rights and their duties, that their physical and moral condition might be improved. One objection to the voluntary system was, that it appeared to him to be humiliating to the working classes that they should be dependent on the charity of their richer neighbours, for the education of their children, if they were to be educated at all. The love of power or ostentation was stronger in some persons than the love of usefulness. He said, therefore, let the people he educated at the expense of the State. He was not jealous of the power of the Church; if they educated the people they improved them. If they wished to make the people of this country religious, they must improve their minds by teaching them those truths which it was important they should learn. What was the reason that the light of truth had so little power over the minds of Roman Catholics, and their priests so much? Because the mass had always been kept in a state of ignorance and superstition. He had voted in favour of the Amendments proposed, because the measure of the Government was partial in its application, and therefore not just. Had the Government brought forward a perfect scheme, he should have had no objection to their proceeding by Bill;

1287
but looking to the state of society in this country, and the feeling prevalent in Parliament at present, he feared that if they were to proceed by Bill, the measure would be an imperfect one, and which, if passed into law, it would be impossible to undo. As long as there was an annual grant for education—as long as the matter was in the hands of Ministers, and the Commons of England had an opportunity every year of expressing their opinions upon the system—he had no doubt that the plan would be gradually improved and rendered of general benefit to the country; and sure he was, that if the time arrived when a measure could be adopted, founded on the principle of general justice, they might then proceed by Bill, and establish it for ever.
MR. ACLANDbelieved the Government had acted wisely in proceeding in the way they had adopted, and trusted that the spirit in which they had dealt with the question, and the spirit in which it would be received by the country, would be rewarded with blessings to the country, and to themselves, in the success of a well-intended measure. There had been, he considered, a great deal of misunderstanding on this subject. The Government, he believed, did not consider the present as the best possible measure, but as the measure which it was right for them to brine; forward in present circumstances. He contended that the objection to the teaching of Church of England ministers was not so widely diffused among Dissenters as was supposed. He knew of several places where the Church of England schools, superintended by clergymen of the establishment, were largely attended by the children of Dissenters. Far be it from him to say, that there was any want of sincerity in their peculiar doctrines on the part of Dissenting parents who sent their children to those schools; he thought the reason they did so was, that they did not consider there was so much difference in doctrine as should exclude their children From the benefits of the education given there. The bulk of the clergy, he believed, gave every real and practicable facility to those parents who conscientiously objected to their children being put under the teaching of the Church; but if the State were to lay down an unbending principle, that two systems of education—one full and complete, and the other marked out as different—should be pursued in the same school, the clergy would find it very difficult to do their duty. The practice of King Edward's school at
1288
Birmingham had been referred to on this subject. Now, he had the greatest respect for Mr. Prince Lee as an able and conscientious man; but he was sure he should be borne out, when he said that the school at Birmingham formed no example for ordinary parochial schools, and could not be beneficially held up in that light. Any one who knew what earnest-minded men were doing in their schools, must know that such a system as that was utterly impracticable in ordinary parishes. The reason why he adopted the Minutes of the Council might appear paradoxical; but he took them because he considered them an emphatic declaration on the part of the Government that the State could not be the educator of the people; for he said that it was not the duty of the State to educate the people, but to see that they were educated; to promote, assist, and encourage education; and, under some peculiar circumstances, in some degree to control it. He admitted that he had once entertained considerable apprehensions as to the spirit and the ulterior views of the Committee of the Privy Council, and had felt serious fears of the influence of the Secretary; but he could not help saying, that the spirit in which that gentleman had devoted himself to this subject, the conciliatory mode in which he had adjusted conflicting claims, but above all the eminently practical nature of the Minutes, were deserving of every acknowledgment and praise. He accepted the Minutes especially, because they showed the intention of the Government to adopt the exertions of men of humble station but of Christian spirit, who were labouring throughout the country and making voluntary exertions. He confessed that he had been sorry to hear the case of a Sunday-school pupil, who had been six years at school, held up to ridicule because he could not read, as the lad might have been idle or stupid, and the case proved nothing at all; and he believed that a great deal of zeal and of Christian faithfulness had been brought to bear in the Sunday schools by young men and women, who having worked ten hours a day during the week, had given up their time on Sunday to teaching, and, in the absence of a more perfect system, they had done great good. As to the voluntary system, if left alone, he knew it to be imperfect; but the course which the Government had pursued during the last ten years had drawn forth a great increase of voluntary exertion, and the 500,000 l. granted during the last few

1289
years had called forward nearly 100,000 l. a year of annual subscriptions. He agreed that even this was inadequate; and he hoped that nothing of religious discord would prevent the Government from meeting all cases of educational destitution. Hence he somewhat regretted the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, in which the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to be altogether endeavouring to assist the Government in carrying their measure into execution, when he pressed them to deal with the case of the Roman Catholics during the present Session. With respect to the Roman Catholics, indeed, he did not see what reason there was for charging the Government with acting otherwise than straightforwardly. They had not concealed their wish to assist Roman Catholic schools, or their intention to do so; and he was bound to say that there was no help for it. For himself, he thankfully accepted the plan of the present Government, and he had no desire to say anything against the right hon. Baronet; but if he had voted against the system of colleges in Ireland, it was because he thought it unnecessary to pass over the religious convictions of a great body of the Irish nation, and he believed that the conscientious Dissenters would spurn any plan which wholly excluded religion. He heartily welcomed the system of the present Government: he hoped it would succeed—that it would effect all the good which they anticipated—and that it would stand in the way of any such system as prevailed in the colleges in Ireland. He expressed his thanks particularly to the Government, for paying attention to the quality of the education rather than to the quantity; they had been building schools rather too fast—providing good schoolmasters was what was needed; and on this point the hon. Member for Waterford was entitled to receive much of the reward of the Government, for he had laboured honestly to make good teachers, as the only way effectually to effect the education of the people. In this respect the Government had hit the real difficulty of the question, by preserving the aid of intelligent lads who were now called away to other occupations. With reference to another objection, he agreed that the Church had many gentlemen clergy, and that they wanted members of the ministry of another order; but the money granted for schools ought not to be applied to support deacons for the Church, He would be no party to
1290
such a plan; but he know the good done by the Rev. George Moody, who, seeing the state of the Westminster model schools, had taken the office of National schoolmaster, being a gentleman and a clergyman. Again, because the Bishop of London had thought proper to make the present master, Mr. Wilson, a deacon, was he on that account to be disqualified from taking pupil-teachers, or receiving any advantage from the present grant? He asked the Government, therefore, to be careful in framing these Minutes, not to debar men who might do their duty more efficiently than any others, from rendering their services.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, the House would not be surprised that he should be anxious to say a few words, both as regarded the vote he had given on this question, and the vote he intended to give. Approving of the political conduct of the noble Lord's Government, and acting in conjunction with them as he had done and hoped still to do, it seemed to him that explanation on this subject was natural, not to say necessary. It was not the principle of the Government measure to which he objected, for it seemed to him that the funds of the people could hardly be put to a better purpose than in an attempt to dispel that dark cloud of ignorance which had so long overwhelmed the country, and disgraced it in the eyes of the world. In the principle he heartily concurred; and he thought to insist upon the voluntary system, which had notoriously failed to the extent of the exigency, and to refuse Government aid, if that aid could be made properly available, was little less than insanity. If Government could produce a system of national education which would give promise of working well, and with perfect equality to all classes of religion, let them proceed in the good work—it was deserving of all praise. In the case of the famine in Ireland, Ministers did not hesitate to step forward, and, freely using the funds of the people, endeavoured to check the evil, with the consent and approbation of all parties. Was the famine of the body worse than the famine of the mind? Were the evils attendant upon physical want, worse than those which followed in the track of moral destitution? If physical famine led from demoralisation to death, famine from the want of mental nourishment led from demoralisation to the destruction of both body and soul. To the principle, then, of national education, and to Government aid to carry that principle

1291
out, he yielded his perfect assent; and there he paused—for he felt that a measure might be excellent in principle, and yet in detail so faulty that it ought not to be carried into effect; and this he held to be the case with the present measure. To the details of this measure he had most serious objections; so much so that he had voted for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury; and he should decidedly vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. A great number of the petitions laid on the Table had prayed Government to bring the Minutes of Council before Parliament in the shape of a Bill; and this had seemed to him the best mode, because Members might have discussed the principle at the second reading, and the details in Committee; but he confessed that the reasons given during the debate against that course seemed to him to have considerable foundation; and, therefore, as the only notice he could take of the details, he should venture to point out a few of the circumstances in the Minutes which Jed him to oppose this measure. He could not vote for a measure which, professing to provide equally for the education of all classes of religion, evidently recognised the domination of the Church of England. It was impossible to come to any other conclusion after a minute inspection of the document now before the House. He should have emoted the omission of the Catholics; but from what passed in the first debate, he had hopes that they would be cared for; he used the word omission, advisedly, for to tell a body of men they might have the benefit of an institution if they would read a work, having first ascertained they would not—seemed to him tantamount to exclusion. Now, were the Nonconformists better off? He believed the operation of that measure would prove that they were not. The machinery proposed was to him suspicious, to say the least of it. The power given to a class of officers called inspectors was plenary, unlimited; now he found that these inspectors were the beginning, the middle, and the end of everything in these Minutes. Shall a grant be made to a school? Ask the inspector. Shall a master be continued or discharged? Ask the inspector. Shall a pupil-candidate become a teacher? If it so please the inspector, but he must consult the master; now, as the master was affected by the report of the inspector, whose voice would be most potential? If the master
1292
or mistress of a school desire to have a pupil apprenticed to him or her; ask the inspector. The stipends of pupil-teachers and of a curious kind of officer called in these Minutes a stipendiary monitor, all depend on the breath or pen of the inspector! The grant of an exhibition of 20 l. or 25 l. may be given to a pupil-teacher in normal schools, if it so please these grand viziers the inspectors. No pensions can be granted for long and meritorious services, unless at the pleasure of these mighty men the inspectors. Now he would ask who inspected the inspectors? By whom were these inspectors appointed? At present there were 15 inspectors, thus constituted:—9 for Church of England schools, by the Archbishop of Canterbury; 2 Church of Scotland; 2 lay inspectors; 2 Dissenting inspectors. How many more were to be called into existence did not appear in these Minutes. Was there no cause for inquiry here? Was there no cause for jealousy, none for suspicion? What were the motives and feelings which in the main loaded that Table with petitions for and against the measure? Some few there were in favour, emanating from men who omitting to look at the less prominent mischief of the measure, were anxious for education at any rate; and others, clergymen and strong advocates for a State Church, supported the measure because they saw in it excellent encouragement for orthodoxy; and on the other side the Dissenters saw in the measure the prospect of money and means being brought against them in favour of a powerful and rich rival establishment, and felt great jealousy on the occasion—and well they might; he participated in the feeling. The Church of England had above six millions of revenue, and in competing in the race of education with the Nonconformists, who were without a shilling to bless themselves with but that which arose from the voluntary system, had been disgracefully beaten. So said the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester; and yet still the laurels which they had won were to be torn from the Nonconformists, by the State Church being urged forward with Ministers at her back. [Cheers, and "No, no," from the Ministerial Bench.] Well, he sincerely hoped not; but he believed that such would be the effect of this measure: the clergy of the Church of England believed it, and so did the Nonconforming clergy. Seldom had been heard more eloquence than his noble and hon. Friends had displayed;

1293
never had more ability been thrown upon a subject than on the present debates by Ministers, and indeed by Members on both sides; but the theme was grateful and easy, the principle noble. The beauty of virtue, the ugliness of vice, the attributes of education, those of ignorance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had been particularly brilliant—he had however expected that right hon. Gentleman to have carried his history of ignorance down to the present day; he had given a graphic description of the horrors of ignorance and their fatal consequences, in the religious riots caused by Lord George Gordon; why did not the right hon. Gentleman carry his history down to the present time, and point out the mass of ignorance collected under the cathedral walls of the great diocesan, in that county so well besprinkled with clergymen, where the Plumtree and other holy trees blossomed?—and then he might have commented upon the gross and blind ignorance of thousands who believed in the divinity of a miserable maniac, and were by him led on to bloodshed and murder. Let the Church take the lead: he desired it; but as the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had said, let it be by eminence in good works. The measure before them would pass with acclamation, with great majorities; he cared not for that, he had seen worse measures so hailed. Two years ago the late Ministry came down to that House with a bad measure: it passed by acclamation, a Bill to abolish imprisonment for debt. The then Attorney General made a powerful speech on the horrors of prisons; the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) made a strong appeal to humanity. The Bill became a law; in six months half the tradesmen of England were on the brink of ruin. The following Session they came down to the House, repealed their popular bad measure, and invented a very good one. Thus would it be with this measure of the present Government. It never could work well, and they would have to substitute another in its place.
SIR J. PAKINGTONbegged to remind the House that the question immediately before it was the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. To the principle of that Amendment he assented. It was carried out at that noble institution, King Edward's School at Birmigham, under the direction of the Rev. Prince Lee, and at other schools in the country; but at the present time he was not pre-
1294
pared to make that principle compulsory. He thought it far better that its adoption should be left to the voluntary exertions of those at the head of the various schools, and he hoped that ere long that concession would generally be made without the interference of Parliament.
SIR B. HALLsaid, that as he approved of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he certainly should vote in favour of it. As it seemed clear that the proposal of the Government would be carried into effect, the best thing they could do was to make it as palatable as possible to the various classes of the community; and he believed that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would have that effect. He was not surprised at the course taken by the hon. Members for Stirlingshire and Kent, because they approved of no education save an exclusive and religious education; but he was surprised at the votes intended to be recorded by some hon. Members who expressed their approval of the principle of the Amendment, and yet intended to oppose it. He was no less surprised at the course which he supposed was to be taken by the Government. He had listened with great attention to a speech much praised in the House—the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh—and that right hon. Gentleman had said that no education was sectarian. But if education was not to be sectarian, why oppose the Amendment of his hon. Friend? In the course of his speech, with all its eloquence, the right hon. Gentleman had not touched upon the real arguments against the proposed measure. The conduct of the Government had given great dissatisfaction to the Dissenters of the country. The noble Lord had afforded a conference to the Wesleyans, but had refused an interview to other bodies of Dissenters, and to the Roman Catholic prelates. The Roman Catholics thought themselves very much aggrieved by the conduct of the Government. [Sir J. O. HOBHOUSE: There's a Motion on Monday on the subject.] Well, if there were a Motion on Monday—perhaps he should not be able to address the House upon it. He had already risen twenty times, and had not been able to speak, and, therefore, he thought himself entitled at once to refer to the treatment of the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics were, in his opinion, the very persons to whom the Government should afford education; for they were the persons

1295
against whom bigotry and intolerance raged most fiercely, and the Government were frightened by the threats of the cry of "No Popery." He thought, therefore, that Minutes ought at once to be introduced, admitting Roman Catholics to the benefits of the plan. When the right hon. Gentleman alluded to some small districts in which he said that the Dissenters would be in the minority, and the members of the Church of England in the majority, he made no allusion whatever to those districts in which the Dissenters would be in the majority, and those who professed the tenets of the Church of England in the minority. Now, he would give the right hon. Gentleman an instance of parish with which he was connected, and which he knew well. And, first of all, he would show the great progress of Dissent in Wales; and in so doing, he believed he should have to state that which might not be generally known in the House. Only 100 years ago, in the whole of North Wales, there were only six Dissenting chapels. But what was the case now? If they travelled through North Whiles, and it was not a very large portion of Wales, they would find at least sixty or seventy such chapels. And what was the cause of that progress of Dissent in Wales? Why, he believed that the chief cause was the appointments which had taken place in the higher stations of their own Church by the different Governments of the day. He knew the Welsh people. They were a moral and religious people, and the first desire of a person who became afflicted with sickness was that the spiritual pastor of the district should be immediately sent for, that he might pray with them. And did they suppose that he would send for a person to pray in a language which they did not understand? He believed, therefore, that the real cause of the rapid progress of Dissent which had taken place in Wales, was owing to the Government sending the bishops and clergy into Wales who could not preach to the people in a language which they understood. Why, let them fancy themselves to be placed in a similar position, would they not be inclined to adopt the course pursued by the majority of the people of Wales? Then they could not blame that people. He remembered being informed, on a visit which he paid to the right rev. the President of the Roman Catholic Institution, at Prior Tark, that they were actually educating Welshmen as priests, in order that they might go
1296
amongst the people of Wales and perform clerical duties amongst them. The Roman Catholics were always anxious to step in where they had the least opportunity of making converts, and he did not blame their zeal. He believed that the Dissenters had now taken possession of the heart of that country; and the House ought not, therefore, to be surprised at the extent of Dissent in Wales, because this country was the cause of it. He thought that this and every other Government should insist upon every clergyman whom they sent into Wales being able to speak in the language of that country, and that the bishops should properly discharge their various duties. In the diocese with which he was connected in that country, five clerical appointments had recently taken place, viz., one dean, two archdeacons, and two chancellors, only one of whom could read or speak the language of that country. Who, then, could be surprised at the extent of Dissent in Wales? He would now show the House whether the Church of England or Dissent was in the majority in the district in Wales with which he was connected. There were 25,000 inhabitants in that parish; 32 Dissenting chapels, the average attendance at which was 15,300; there were but five Church of England chapels, the average attendance at which was only 2,590. In the adjoining parish there was a population of 8,000; there were ten Dissenting chapels, the average attendance being 3,200; there were but three Church of England chapels, at which the average attendance was only 140. In such cases, therefore, as these, he thought that unless they passed some resolution of the kind then before the House, the people who were members of the Church of England would not have those advantages which they ought to have from the national grants for the purposes of education, for in such parishes there was scarcely anybody likely to give them the slightest support. He had no hesitation in saying, as a landowner, that he would not set up any school exclusively for the members of the Church of England. He could not do so; be could not put aside all the Dissenters whom he had mentioned; he must endeavour to make some arrangement by which the people might receive the benefits of a sound education. But supposing some one to succeed him there who might not hold the same opinions, then there ought to be some security afforded to the

1297
people that no intolerance should be permitted to exist in those districts on the subject of religious education. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Somersetshire. He should certainly offer his most decided opposition to any compulsory system of education by the Government. He did not think that such a system would be palatable in this country. He knew that there were some hon. Gentlemen who thought that such a system would work well, because they viewed with admiration what had taken place on that head in foreign countries. The House had often heard Prussia cited as an example of the excellence of the schools, and the great extent to which the Prussian people were educated. He ought to know something of that country; and he must say that a system of national compulsory education might do very well for a country in which the Government was truly despotic, but he did not think that it would do well for such a nation as this. He did not think that it would do for a country like this, where the people had been taught for many years to depend upon their own exertions, and they saw the proud result of those exertions. Now, what was the condition of Prussia? Why, in Prussia the State was everything, and the people nothing. It was very true that they had just had some sort of a constitutution offered to them; but it was, in fact, a mere nothing: it was only the first step in the right direction. It was very well known that in Prussia the King and his Ministers could compel the attendance at schools of the children of that country, the penalties for non-observance of their orders on the part of their parents being fine and imprisonment; and in case of a party not having attended school in his childhood, he was incapaciated from fulfilling any situation. Now, he was very much struck with a passage which occurred in a pamphlet written by Dr. Kay, descriptive of his tour through Prussia, in which he stated that, notwithstanding the people had been brought up under a compulsory system of education for the last three hundred years, yet the people were wanting in morality and good order, and that the children attending the schools were the most vicious he had ever seen in any country. He also said that he did not believe that Protestantism was an enemy to good order; but he did believe that Protestantism with an uneducated people was deci-
1298
dedly bad, whilst Catholicism was the reverse; that he would much rather have religious superstition, morality, and good order, than Protestantism and sensuality and revolutionary principles. He would say then, in conclusion, that unless some such Motion as that of the hon. Baronet were adopted, or unless the Government would give some assurrance that they would carry out their propositions in a proper spirit, he feared that great dissatisfaction would be experienced. In opposing the plan which had been brought forward by the Government, he did so because he sincerely believed that it would have a tendency to increase the unhappy differences which at present existed between the members of the Church of England and the various Dissenting bodies.
MR. HENLEYdiffered entirely, not only from the hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House, but also from the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he trusted that the House would indulge him for a few moments whilst he stated his views on this subject. He would not presume to go into the question which had been so much debated on the previous night. Now really it appeared very odd to him that this measure of education should be opposed by the so-called friends of education under the plea of liberty of conscience. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government some two or three nights ago, as well as several hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, spoke loudly in favour of this Motion, and he said it was a hardship that persons attending the Church of England schools should be obliged to repeat the Church catechism; but he said that he could not at the present moment propose any alteration in the plan in that particular. Now it was very unfortunate that the noble Lord and the many hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, should yet confess that at present they could not vote for it. Two right hon. Baronets (Sir R. Peel and Sir J. Graham) on that side of the House, had expressed themselves very friendly to the scheme of the Government, and they certainly took good care to facilitate its quiet passage through the House. He conscientiously disapproved of the principle of compelling persons to attend the schools established by the Church of England. He could not understand how any man who called himself a friend

1299
of liberty of conscience, could actually attempt to force other people to do that which might be painful to their conscience. He could not call that liberty of conscience: it was tyranny, which was very often attempted to be exercised under the name of freedom, or liberality. And he warned the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government to act with prudence when settling the Minutes of the Privy Council with regard to education. He warned them not to attempt now or at any time hereafter to force the Church of England to educate her children in a way that in her conscience she did not believe to be right; and that if he did so he would create such an opposition as he little dreamt of. There were some expressions in the speech of the noble Lord the other night on this subject which had been much noticed in the country. It had been well said by an hon. Baronet the other night in the course of the debate, that the Church was taking a very considerable hold of the people—much greater indeed than she had for some years back. He would ask whether they believed that she had got that hold by sacrificing her distinctive principles, by adopting a slip-slop religion, if he might so call it, and pretending to do one thing, and actually doing another? No, she had obtained that hold by her increased zeal, and the steady maintenance of her distinctive principles. He believed that she would not suffer herself to be controlled as to the manner in which she imparted religious education to her children. That had been her course hitherto. He believed that it was the sincerity of her professions, the zeal and good conduct of her members, which had taken the great hold on the people of this country alluded to by the hon. Baronet on that side of the House. Holding these opinions, then, he felt himself bound to vote against the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He hoped that the Church would steadfastly and honestly refuse to give up what she believed to be true. She had refused to teach falsehood to the people, and he hoped that she would ever continue in the same course, never omitting to instruct those who were intrusted to her charge in what she believed to be the foundation of all useful knowledge; and he had no doubt that if she did she would be crowned with success.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that not one word had been said that evening in the course of the debate, with respect to the specific Mo-
1300
tion before the House. It had been merely a continuation of the three past nights' debate, until the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who had certainly confined himself strictly to the terms of the Motion. He, however, widely differed from the hon. Member in some of his observations respecting the conduct which ought to be pursued by the clergy of the Established Church. He hoped that the clergy would rather follow the advice of the hon. Member for Droitwich, and the hon. Member for Oxford. It was not the intention of the Government, that in schools receiving aid from, the grant, any restriction should be imposed upon the religious teaching of the children, other than those that at present existed. He hoped that there would be an extension of that liberal feeling, and of that common sense which was daily becoming more prevalent, and which he hoped would soon become universal. The Government had not proposed to establish any system of their own. They merely proposed to assist existing institutions, thereby enabling them to extend their usefulness and efficiency, and to raise the character and position of the schoolmasters. To adopt the principle of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, would be inconsistent with the system upon which the Government had resolved to act. If they were to say to the British and Foreign School Society, to the Wesleyans, or to any other class of Dissenters, or even to the Roman Catholics, who he hoped would soon be included, that they were willing to give them aid, but that they could not do so until they had agreed to conform to the model which had been laid down, it would be wholly inconsistent with the present state of things, and with that voluntary principle which was now maintained. That children of different religious denominations might be educated at the same school, was a very different principle from attempting to interfere by arbitrary regulations which would defeat the very object they had in view. These were the reasons which induced him to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, which he conceived to be in opposition to the Government plan.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, there was one thing exceedingly gratifying to all friends of liberal education in this country, which was the wish expressed by every person whose opinion was worth having, as to its being absolutely necessary that there should be some system of public education

1301
for the people; and secondly, that that education should be one which would include all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. Those were propositions which had been ably maintained by many hon. Members during the debate for the last few nights, and by none more forcibly or eloquently than by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh. And he should say, that he did not think that persons holding the opinions of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, or of the noble Lord the Member for London, were open to the imputation of being infidels, because they did not come up to the strict measure of intolerance required by some persons in this country. To prevent any mistake as to the views he had, in voting upon the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he should beg to offer a few observations to the House. He took it for granted that it was an acknowledged fact, that the Government should educate the people. He assumed that it was the business of the Government to educate the largest number possible of the people. It had been said by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and re-echoed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that it would not do for the Government to half educate the people. But he should take leave to transpose some of those words. He should say that he did not think it would do for the Government to educate only half the people. The noble Lord said that he was not willing to give half an education. What then did he propose to do? To educate half the people—leaving the other half in that brute ignorance which had been described so forcibly by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who, in speaking of the condition of the people about Manchester, had used the words, "savage ignorance," in describing that condition of utter want of education by which they now oppressed society. And that reminded him of a prophecy of his own made a few nights ago, when he had said, that go as far as the noble Lord would, the right hon. Baronet would go beyond him. However unfortunate it might be for themselves, it was fortunate for England that they did so. The advocates of education, however, would get what they desired. They would get education for the people. They would get real tolerance in spite of the hon. Member for Kent. They should have the people made real Christians, but not after the
1302
fashion of one sect or another. They should have the noble Lord running a race of liberality with the right hon. Member for Tamworth; and they cared little who won in that neck-and-neck race, for it could only be won by that small fraction of liberality which was represented by such a distance. But what, he would ask, was the meaning of the phrase "religious education?"—which fitted equally the mouth of the right hon. Baronet and that of the noble Lord, and which issued with the same sort of efficiency from that of the hon. Baronet the member for the University of Oxford and from his own. If he understood aright what was education, he thought it was a sort of fashioning of the minds of the various persons who received instruction, so as to fit them morally and intellectually for the pursuit of happiness. To give knowledge was agreed upon by all parties as proper. The propriety of giving mathematical, geographical, or historical instruction to the people, was not disputed. It surely then could not matter whether the teaching that two and two made four, were conveyed by a Roman Catholic, or a professor of any other religious denomination. Education was a fashioning of the habits of the people, to the influences by which they were surrounded in society—those influences being the opinion of the family, the opinion of society out of doors, the law, and a belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. Did they not all agree that there was a future state of rewards and punishments? And did they believe that a child was likely to be influenced in his moral associations, in his habits, so as to be a recipient of happiness himself, and competent to communicate it to others, by entertaining that common creed? What, then, was it that was raised as a bugbear on the present occasion? Did any one doubt as to the means of forming the moral habits of the next generation? No; then what was it they differed about? Why, the fantastic dogmata propounded by those who desired to separate the community by prejudice, passion, and by ignorance, but never made use of by those who really intended the happiness of their kind. It was in consequence of these dogmata, these peculiarities of faith, as they were called, these differences between the Douay and the English authorized version, that all this great pother and disburbance about religious education had been created. The reality no man disputed; they all wished for that

1303
which every one admitted was desirable, viz., a belief in the minds of the people of a future state—that expectation of future rewards and punishments which should induce virtuous habits and moral conduct. That was a religion which was common to them all; and yet, entertaining this faith, they had raised up that phantom—phantom, in words, but most direful in reality—religious hatred among those who should be brethren. There was no difference about the knowledge which ought to be imparted; there was no difference about the mode in which the habits could be fashioned; the only difference was respecting the peculiar dogmata arising from religion. If any one distrusted the peculiarities of a religion, and was doubtful of their effect upon a member of the community, he should ask himself, "Don't I know gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion? Are they not honest? Are they not good fathers, good brothers, good citizens?" Yes, such men were known; then it was clear their religion had not had an evil or mischievous influence on their moral character. They knew Baptists; were they not good Christians, in the real sense of the word—good fathers, good brothers, good citizens? He might run through every form of religion existing in society—the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian, here in England—and were they not all good fathers, good brothers, good citizens, good men, in spite of those peculiar differences which arose in every civilized community, and which would be met with the more frequently the more civilized the country became? Well, then, if that were the case, what did the noble Lord, and what did the right hon. Baronet mean when they said we must teach religion? Did he object to their teaching the expectation of rewards hereafter for good conduct here? Not at all; but what he did object to was, that they should create a standard of their own; that the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre) should point out his mind—his mind!—as the standard for all virtuous and intellectual effort. His mind! To say, "All men who don't agree with me are doomed!" What did he mean by "doomed?" Put an "a" in the place of the "o," and they fathomed the orthodoxy of the hon. Gentleman. He had not that extraordinary estimation of the hon. Gentleman's intellectual capacity, and he did not perceive any of those sublime moral characteristics, which should command the world to accept the hon. Gentleman as the
1304
type of human and Christian excellence. He objected also to the manifestoes made by some persons out of doors. The Wesleyan Methodists, in that remarkable document which had been issued in consequence of the very remarkable transaction with the Government, declared that they were not content error should be taught; that they objected to the teaching of Roman Catholic children; and they finished up with a glorification that they hoped the time was coming when there should be full religious tolerance. Now, what was the meaning of these phrases put together? It was this: religious tolerance in their mouths meant "my religion," and "I hope to see the time when no religion but mine will be taught." It meant that they were of that religion which represented and contained everything that was good and salvatory. He was not of that opinion; and, what was more, he could have no great faith in the intellectual eminence of that body if they had been taken in by the proposition of the noble Lord. But mark—let all the world mark—he mentioned this on purpose, and with the intention that that mask which he had put on on this occasion should be stripped off; they entertained a doubt about the Minutes—they entertained a dread of the Minutes, because they supposed there was to be an extension of the good things of this world, in the shape of a vote of that House, to the Roman Catholics; and they applied to the noble Lord. And, after sundry applications and well-conducted negotiations, they were partially satisfied—that the Roman Catholics were to be excluded. The whole of their satisfaction arose from that source. Their satisfaction was in proportion to their certainty that the Roman Catholics would be excluded from a participation in those favours which would be granted by a vote of that House. He was afraid that the satisfaction must be vastly diminished by the proceedings of the last few days. The noble Lord himself (Lord J. Russell) had got up and said, "I don't promise they shall be for a very long time."—"It is true, that so far as this 100,000 l. is concerned, they may be;" but this was in the potential mood—there was none of the positiveness of the future, or of the imperative—let it be, or it shall be. It might be to the extent of 100,000 l., but the assurance was not extended even so far as the next vote. And the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had thoroughly done away with this proposition. John chalks as high as he can; Tom

1305
chalks a little way more; John chalks a little further; and then Robert chalks highest. Therefore, the satisfaction of those who rested their approval of the Minutes upon the probable exclusion of the Roman Catholics, would be very much diminished by seeing the last chalk. The real meaning of the thing had been exposed; and that House, representing the good feeling and good sense of the country, had destroyed the hallucination. It would be totally impossible under any Administration—he didn't care whether of the noble Lord or of the right hon. Baronet, or, to go to a more wild and wondrous supposition, of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn—to do that which was necessary to satisfy the Wesleyans. He would go one step further. Even if the right hon. Baronet near whom he sat (Sir R. H. Inglis), and for whom, on all occasions, he was glad to express respect—if that hon. Baronet, with all his sturdy and constant and conscientious consistency, were to be Prime Minister to-morrow, he would be so pressed that, like a right hon. Baronet before him, he would have to defy all the warnings of Oxford, and, accepting a compromise, have to seek refuge in a rotten borough. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets might consider his Motion as really carried. The noble Lord's language was, "I will proceed step by step, as the people of England will permit me," Let him say it once for all—for he would never repeat it—he had the greatest possible respect for the noble Lord's character; but on this subject the noble Lord's conscience was elastic. It was like a ball—it followed the pressure from without. At present the pressure from without was great; as that receded, the noble Lord's conscience would extend and expand. The noble Lord said, "I can't include Catholics and Protestants at present. The pressure is very great now, but the steam is getting up. I have a large area before me, and the Catholics before long shall have my cordial embrace. They are within my mind already." The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, hoped the Catholics would be included. Did he mean that was the impression intended to be conveyed in the communications recently made to the Wesleyans? ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] Why, no such thing. The year 1848 was left to them in the darkness of the future; it was cut off from their knowledge. They were left in the belief that all futurity was to be like '47, happy in
1306
their intolerance, and in their belief that the Catholics would be excluded from sharing in the Government money. But was not that House certain of what was coming; and must not the Wesleyans be certain of it too, after what had passed in that House? There would be a large majority in favour of the Government grant of 100,000 l.; they would all go to their constituents, and some of them would return to that House again. When, then, some of them came back, he did not say "some of us," hon. Members would take comfort from the seven years before them, and knowing how, under the railway system, kindly feelings travelled, they would find that, both out of doors and in doors, people would be in favour of receiving all classes into a system of national education. 1848, he would pledge his faith to it, would see the Catholics included in the vote of that House. But if that were certain to happen, what must they think of that class of men who could enter into negotiation with gentlemen whom the House could shadow forth without collars and with white neckerchiefs, and who could persuade them that they had attained the object these latter had in view—in establishing a system of downright Protestant intolerance? That hope must even now be at an end; and of the two alternatives before the Government, that which they had this year adopted of teaching, all the various sects in different schools according to their separate dogmata, would be done away with, and they would arrive at an education which would include all sects. The Wesleyan Methodists complained that the Government were going to apply their funds to teach error, and they were going to raise up a feeling of intolerance on that account. He would say to them that he was not going to take their money to propagate error, but to rescue the people from a savage state of ignorance. He would take their money as a mere matter of policy. He would not put it on a higher ground, until the people had raised their intellect to some higher point; and as the Government raised money for the police, for the justiciary, and for the Army and Navy, so he would take other funds to maintain schools and schoolmasters, with the view of rendering the people secure and the nation happy. The time would come when the people would go before that House in the race, and lead them in the task of informing mankind; when they would cast off the slough of prejudice and bigotry, and in the

1307
exercise of justice, faith, and generosity, would compel them to adopt a good measure of public education. Such a measure would not come by that state of agony and battle by which the Government proposed to give it, when they declared themselves sectarian at the commencement; but by avowing their thorough and conscientious conviction of the claim that every man had to the complete and impartial protection of the State. He was sorry to say that the liberality of the noble Lord was not the liberality which led, but the liberality which followed and was forced. He was only liberal when others were more liberal; he was only right when others were more right; he was wrong when they said nothing. He wished the noble Lord to be the leader; he wished him to point out that his Government now without fusion wished well to all, and would avail themselves of the means at their disposal to advance the happiness of all. Could he doubt as to the vote he should give on this occasion? Not at all. He believed that, as they advanced day by day into that civilization which they all saw before them, that step by step every Government would daily and hourly fall into that track which he had described of perfect tolerance, the total absence of sectarian feeling, an utter carelessness of each particular hatred as manifested by one sect towards another.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid: I regret to have again to trouble the House on this question; and had hoped that the statements I had offered with regard to it would have prevented many observations that have been made to-night, both by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) and the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I did conceive I had shown clearly from an authentic document what was the statement made by the Secretary of the Committee of the Council, in the name of Lord Lansdowne, to the Wesleyan body. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has completely lost sight of the whole of that statement, and has raised up an edifice entirely of his own imagination. He has supposed that the Wesleyans came to us, asking that the Roman Catholics should be always excluded, and that we thought there might come a time when they might be admitted, but still left the Wesleyans under the belief that they would not be so admitted; and, likewise, that the Government, as far as I represent it, has an elastic conscience in these things, and that though, we might
1308
feel great repugnance to admit the Catholics this year, we should have no repugnance in subsequent years, if we found that others had no conscientious objections to it. Now, I can show that I have no conscientious objections to the admission of Roman Catholics to the benefit of an education supported by the State, because, in 1839, I had agreed to put forth, and had laid before Parliament, Minutes, in which, the education of Roman Catholics from their own version of the Scriptures was established. That I could pretend, therefore, after that, to have conscientious objections to the admission of Roman Catholics, is quite impossible. I never pretended then, or at any time since, that I could object to the education of Roman Catholics, or the establishment of Catholic schools, as a matter of conscience. The charge the hon. and learned Gentleman prefers, is all a creature of his imagination. The whole ground on which I ever placed the question was this: I said in 1839 what I have said since, that I saw a very strong feeling in the public contrary to my own opinion on the subject, and I did not like to shake or disturb that public feeling; I thought it more advisable to wait till it became more in favour of the opinion. I hold; and I said I never doubted opinion would so come round, and when it should be in my favour, I was ready to propose the establishment of Roman Catholic schools. With regard to what happened the other day with the Wesleyan and other bodies, and any statement made to them, it is stated in a sentence I read last night from the reply of the Government—
"Further Minutes, when presented, will make a separate provision for Roman Catholic schools, and will in no degree unsettle the basis cm which aid is now granted to other schools. Full opportunity will be given for the consideration and discussion of such Minutes before Parliament is called upon to carry them into execution."
How the hon. and learned Gentleman can say that the Wesleyans were deceived into the belief that there was no intention entertained of establishing Roman Catholic schools, almost passes my comprehension. I cannot conceive how the hon. and learned Gentleman could, with these facts before his eyes, have made several other statements of the same kind, as he has done to-night. The hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone has stated that I refused to see certain Roman Catholic bishops and deputations of Protestant Dissenters. I only remember one Roman Catholic bishop who desired to see me before any Minutes

1309
were framed as to the admission of Roman Catholics to the schools. I said nothing should be done without my seeing that Roman Catholic prelate, and that I was ready to see him before I framed them. That was not refusing to see a Roman Catholic bishop! With regard to Protestant Dissenters, I saw two deputations from Leeds, and other deputations also, all reiterating the same objections. I was happy to converse with them: they included many gentlemen with whom I had acted on various occasions; but, having seen a considerable number of deputations, and as they took up time which was required for other public business I was obliged to attend to, I said I must decline seeing any more. If the hon. Baronet had any particular charges to make against me, he might have informed me what the particular facts were, and then I could have answered him. But the Motion of my hon. Friend (Sir W. Clay) is the immediate question before the House, although upon it a very small part of the debate has turned. I think, if the greater part of the debate had turned upon it, we should not have had so many hon. Gentlemen declaring themselves ready to vote for that Motion. Be it observed, the principle upon which we have gone is that of giving support to different societies and schools in aid of voluntary contributions. We began in the year 1833 by giving aid to the National Society and the British and Foreign Society. Those general provisions lasted a great number of years without alteration; but they shut out a considerable portion of the inhabitants of this country. I believe the right hon. Baronet was quite right when he said they excluded the Wesleyans. I thought they would have been willing to receive grants through the British and Foreign Society; but by the constitution of their body they could not do so, and they were excluded as well as the Roman Catholics and other persuasions. This was the state of things at that time; of late years we have said—and we have never gone any further in any Minutes of the Privy Council—that we would listen to special cases; we would listen to other applications, and those cases should be considered special. But still we must consider that the great mass of applications will come from bodies connected with one of those two societies, and from those which have made large subscriptions of their own. How did the hon. Baronet meet those difficulties? By proposing—
1310
"That it is expedient, that in any plan for promoting the education of the people by pecuniary assistance from the State, provision should be made that, in schools receiving such assistance, the opportunity of participating in all instruction, other than religious, should be afforded to children whose parents may object to the religious doctrines taught in such schools."
Of course, that would put an end to any schools in connexion with the National Society receiving any aid. They would say, it is impossible to assent to a rule contrary to the fundamental principles of the society. But let us look at the British and Foreign schools, the society to which I have for many years belonged, and which I consider the best foundation for bringing together a great number of children of all classes in this country. That society lays down as its first rule that the Bible shall be used in all its schools. My friend Mr. W. Allen, member of the Society of Friends, used to call them the "schools for all," all who admitted the authority of the Bible being capable of entering them; but the demand made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets is, that the parents of children shall be at liberty to declare that they shall not receive any part of the religious instruction, but that they shall receive the secular instruction alone, religious teaching not being imparted to them in any way. I doubt whether the British and Foreign Society could receive, any grant on terms contrary to an old rule of the society. Therefore, with regard to the two main societies to which we propose to give assistance, they will be prevented by the resolution from receiving the aid we offer; and it is obvious that the effect of such a resolution as this will be to defeat the whole intent and grounds on which the grant of 100,000 l. is proposed. Previously an objection was made, before this measure was proposed, that certain schools were established and supported by the societies to which they belonged out of their own means; that those societies did not come to the Privy Council to seek assistance, but building schoolhouses less capacious than they might be if aided by this grant, and with less able schoolmasters, they still went on without the assistance of the State. Now, as the measure which we propose is not one which is intended to be a State model of education, or a general plan of our own, the object which we have in view would be defeated by the Amendment. If this rule were adopted, neither the National School Society nor the British and Foreign School

1311
Society would agree to it, and the efficacy of the measure would be destroyed. In the British and Foreign Schools, where a great number of the children of Dissenters might attend, it is not insisted that the Church catechism shall be taught to those children, as we conceived it more generous and charitable that they should not be taught that catechism. There is, for instance, a portion of that catechism in which the child, or the person to whom it is taught, mentions his godfather and godmother; and it is well known that many classes of Dissenters are of opinion that no godfather or godmother is necessary. I think, with regard to the British and Foreign schools, if the Roman Catholics object to the reading of the Bible in them, it would, to that extent, be an objection; but I do not believe that they would be a general rule or a fundamental rule of objection. I, therefore, hope my Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets will withdraw his Motion; for, if he succeeds in it, he will at once dispose of the distribution of the 100,000 l. as far as rendering assistance to these two societies.
CAPTAIN HARRISsaid, that even if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Clay) were adopted, he did not think that those who had induced him to bring it forward would accept the assistance he proposed to give them; for he believed their dread of the Established Church was such, that they would not send their children to a school in connexion with that Church. He considered that one great benefit resulting from the discussion of this question had been, that it had exposed that system of organization and of bitter hostility and bigotry against the Church which existed among the body of Dissenters bearing the name of "Independents." They did not represent those Nonconformists of the seventeenth century, for whom our sympathies were enlisted as the sturdy champions of liberty; but rather the bitter Puritans, who waged war against the Church and Monarchy: from these he must except the Dissenters of the district which he represented, who, in an interview he had had with them, had expressed their objections fairly and moderately. He would take that opportunity of pressing on the Government the adoption of a plan of apprenticeship for the workhouse boys, under the management of the inspectors appointed by this measure.
MR. P. H. HOWARDmerely rose to speak on a question of fact, to which the
1312
hon. Baronet had alluded. The hon. Baronet had alluded to an interview which had been proposed between the Roman Catholic bishops and the noble Lord. The truth was, the Catholic bishops were anxious to see the noble Lord before the 19th, when he unfolded his plans, and opened the scheme of education as proposed by the Government. He had heard that deputations from other religious bodies had been received by the noble Lord; and the Roman Catholic bishops were anxious, before the 19th, to receive, which they thought they had a right to do, a similar audience. On Thursday or Friday, last week, they wrote to the noble Lord to request an interview with him before Monday, for after that time it would be too late to remedy any evils which might arise. With respect to the reports which prevailed on the subject, he would not then enter into them, or consider whether any classes were to be excluded. It had been stated, however, that this exclusion of the Catholics from the benefit of the grant, had been a question between the Government and the Wesleyans. The Roman Catholic prelates, therefore, had written to the noble Lord for an interview, to which they received the following reply, by which the House would see that the noble Lord declined an interview before the 19th:—
"Lord John Russell presents his compliments to Bishop Griffiths, and will name a day for receiving the Catholic bishops before the introduction of any measure relative to the education of poor Catholics."
Thus, then, the interview was asked before the 19th, when it was stated they were to be excluded; but the noble Lord refused. The note proceeded to say—
"Her Majesty's Ministers have no intention, however, of proposing a Minute of Council on the subject at present."
Consequently the interview was postponed for an indefinite period. He was not going to say anything with respect to the interview with that highly respectable person, Mr. Jabez Bunting. He would not say a word otherwise than of respect of that gentleman; but he maintained that the Catholic hierarchy of England—the hierarchy of that religion which was in power in this country when its liberties were founded—had some claim to the courtesy of an interview with the noble Lord as First Minister of the Crown before the 19th instant, when it was understood the members of the religion they professed

1313
were to be excluded from the benefit of the grant. He thought that he had made out a satisfactory case, and had decidedly shown that an interview was declined when they believed that the interests of those whom they represented would be affected. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Somersetshire in his censure of the liberal observations of the right hon. Member for Tamworth. He thought that the language that right hon. Gentleman used with respect to the state of the education of the poor Catholic population of Manchester, did him the highest honour. He trusted that Her Majesty's Ministers would not disdain to be guided by these sentiments. He was quite sure, if they did not do so, they would not legislate for the poor man in that confiding spirit by which they would best consult the interests of the country. With respect to the Amendment before the House on the subject of this measure, he should vote with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, as he thought that all should, in as nearly equal proportion as possible, share in such a grant as that now proposed. There should be impartial justice, and for the sake of the constituency which he represented, as well as for that of the community at large, he wished justice should be done to the minority, instead of nearly all being conceded to the majority. By doing this, he believed the best interests of the country would be promoted. He therefore gave the Amendment his cordial support.
MR. T. D. ACLAND, in explanation, denied that he was open to the charge brought against him by the hon. Member. If the Minutes of Council had been altered to admit the Wesleyans, the Catholics should not be excluded by it.
The House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question—Ayes 210; Noes 74; Majority 136.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Beckett, W.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bell, M.

Acland, T. D.

Bell, J.

Adderley, C. B.

Bellew, R. M.

Anson, hon. Col.

Bennet, P.

Antrobus, E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Bailey, J. jun.

Blackburne, J. I.

Baillie, Col.

Blackstone, W. S.

Barclay, D.

Borthwick, P.

Barkly, H.

Botfield, B.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Broadley, H.

Baring, T.

Buck, L. W.

1314

Buller, C.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Buller, E.

Hill, Lord E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Hope, Sir J.

Cavendish, hn. C. C.

Hope, A.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hope, G. W.

Cayley, E. S.

Hotham, Lord

Chelsea, Visct.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Christie, W. D.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Christopher, R. A.

Hudson, G.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hurst, R. H.

Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G.

Ingestre, Visct.

Clive, Visct.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Colville, C. R.

James, W.

Coote, Sir C. H.

James, Sir W. C.

Copeland, Ald.

Jervis, Sir J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Courtenay, Lord

Jones, Capt.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Craig, W. G.

Lambton, H.

Cripps, W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Layard, Maj.

Davies, D. A. S.

Legh, G. C.

Denison, W. J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Denison, J. E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Denison, E. B.

Lindsay, Col.

Dickinson, F. H.

Loch, J.

Dodd, G.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

M'Neill, D.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Mahon, Visct.

Dundas, Adm.

Mainwaring, T.

Dundas, Sir D.

Maitland, T.

Du Pre, C. G.

Manners, Lord J.

East, Sir J. B.

March, Earl of

Ebrington, Visct.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Egerton, Sir P.

Meynell, Capt.

Emlyn, Visct.

Miles, P. W. S.

Entwisle, W.

Miles, W.

Fielden, J.

Monahan, J. H.

Ferguson, Sir H. A.

Morgan, O.

Filmer, Sir E.

Morpeth, Visct.

Finch, G.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Floyer, J.

Mundy, E. M.

Forbes, W.

Mure, Colonel

Fox, S. L.

Newdegate, C. N.

Frewen, C. A.

Newport, Visct.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Newry, Visct.

Gill, T.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Norreys, Lord

Gordon, hon. Adm.

Northland, Visct.

Gore, M.

O'Brien, A. S.

Gore, hon. R.

O'Conor Don

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Granny, Marq. of

Ord, W.

Greene, T.

Ossulston, Lord

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Oswald, A.

Grimsditch, T.

Owen, Sir J.

Guest, Sir J.

Packe, C. W.

Hale, R. B.

Pakington, Sir J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Palmerston, Visct.

Halsey, T. P.

Parker, J.

Hamilton, W. J.

Patten, J. W.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Philips, Sir R. B. P.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Harcourt, G. G.

Plumridge, Capt.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Polhill, F.

Hawes, B.

Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A. C.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Powlett, Lord W.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Protheroe, E. D.

Heneage, E.

Pusey, P.

Henley, J. W.

Rashleigh, W.

1315

Repton, G. W. J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Rich, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Richards, R.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Romilly, J.

Tollemache, J.

Round, G. G.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Round, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Rumbold, C. E.

Vane, Lord H.

Russell, Lord J.

Verner, Sir W.

Russell, Lord C. J. F.

Villiers, Visct.

Russell, C.

Vivian, J. H.

Rutherfurd, A.

Waddington, H. S.

Scott, hon. F.

Ward, H. G.

Seymer, H. K.

Wilshere, W.

Sheridan, R. B.

Wodehouse, E.

Smith, J. A.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir G.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Wood, Col. T.

Stanton, W. H.

Worcester, Marq. of

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Stuart, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Stuart, H.

Tufnell, H.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hindley, C.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Hollond, R.

Baine, W.

Howard, P. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Hume, J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Langston, J. H.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

M'Carthy, A.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bowring, Dr.

Marsland, H.

Bright, J.

Matheson, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Brotherton, J.

Moffatt, G.

Brown, W.

Morris, D.

Brown, R. D.

Muntz, G. F.

Callaghan, D.

Napier, Sir C.

Chapman, B.

O'Connell, M. J.

Collett, J.

Osborne, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Pattison, J.

Currie, R.

Pechell, Capt.

Dashwood, G. H.

Perfect, R.

Dennistoun, J.

Pulsford, R.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Roebuck, J. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Scrope, G. P.

Duncan, G.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Duncombe, T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Dundas, F.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ellis, W.

Thornely, T.

Escott, B.

Trelawny, J. S.

Evans, W.

Villiers, hon. C.

Ewart, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Wakley, T.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G.

Walker, R.

Gisborne, T.

Warburton, H.

Granger, T. C.

Wawn, J. T.

Hall, Sir B.

Williams, W.

Hastie, A.

Yorke, H. R.

Hay, Sir A. L.

TELLERS.

Heathcoat, J.

Clay, Sir W.

Heron, Sir R.

Duncan, Visct.

House in Committee, and a sum of 100,000 l. was voted for the purposes of Education, under the direction of the Committee of Privy Council.
The House resumed. Resolution to be reported.
House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. 2a Customs Duties; Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment; Vexatious Actions, Protection against; Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses.
3a and passed:—Fever (Ireland).
Received the Royal Assent. — Exchequer Bills; Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Indemnity; Markets and Fairs Clauses; Gas Works Clauses; Commissioners Clauses; Waterworks Clauses; Troops during Elections; General Register House (Edinburgh).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Redesdale, from Petworth, for Repeal of the Poor Removal Act, and for Inquiry whether it may not be advisable to adopt a National Assessment for the Relief of the Poor.—From Guardians of the Epping Union, and Magistrates of Sussex, or the Adoption of a Measure, making the Landlords of Tenements, where the Rents are under Six Pounds, liable to the Poor's Rates.—From Dissenters of Portsmouth, and Loddiswell, against the Government Plan of Education.—From Plymouth, for the Enactment of Sanitary Regulations.—By the Bishop of Durham, from Holsingham, in favour of the Government Plan of Education.—From Dursley, and other places, for the Repeal of the Poor Removal Act.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Maers-
1240
car, and other places, for Alteration of Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatic Acts.—From Dublin, and several other places, against the Customs Duties Bill.—From Scotch Distillers, for Alteration of the present Bonding System.

THE EXECUTION OF CATHERINE FOSTER.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he wished to refer to a statement made by the Marquess of Westmeath on Monday last, who, on that occasion, stated that he had been led, and not unnaturally so, by an account which he had read in the newspapers, to believe that a very great impropriety and want of care had occurred with respect to the mode of inflicting the execution of capital punishment on an unhappy convict at Bury St. Edmund's on Saturday last. On that occasion an unfortunate woman was executed for the murder of her husband, she having previously confessed her guilt. The noble Marquess stated that it had been reported that the punishment was carried into effect in a manner which, if true, must be most wounding to their Lordships' feelings, and would naturally be, as the noble Marquess stated that it was most revolting to the feelings of those who witnessed the execution. In consequence of this statement, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had considered it to be his duty to make inquiry into the circumstances; and he was happy to inform the noble Marquess and their Lordships, that so far from being able to confirm the statement of the noble Marquess, on the contrary, he had the authority of several most respectable persons, among whom were a clergyman and two magistrates of Bury St. Edmund's, for stating that no occurrence of the description alluded to by the noble Marquess did take place; but that the execution was conducted with the greatest propriety and solemnity, and that the unfortunate person did not undergo a greater degree of suffering than what necessarily belonged to the infliction of the punishment to which she had been sentenced. He had letters from those who were present on the occasion, stating that every proper attention was paid to the unhappy convict—that she expressed her gratitude for the kindness that had been shown towardsher—and that nothing could exceed the awe and solemn effect which the execution produced on those who had assembled to witness it. It was quite true, some person had made application for admission to the gaol on the morning of the execution, but was refused; and that circumstance

1241
might perhaps have given rise to that sort of statement which the noble Marquess had seen in the newspapers, but which statement was really contrary to the fact. The noble Marquess, he was sure, would agree with him that everything was not true that appeared in the newspapers.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHsaid, he was happy to hear the explanation of the noble Marquess. The subject was well worthy of being noticed. In the north of England, not long back, a similar case had occurred.

CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL—PETITION.
LORD STANLEYsaid, some petitions had been placed in his hands from different parts of the country, in opposition to the measure about to be submitted to their Lordships' consideration by the noble Earl. The first of these petitions which he would present, proceeded from the Lord Mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the city of Dublin, under their corporate seal; and it complained of the Bill as being unequal and unjust with regard to Ireland. He had another petition to present, the contents of which he would beg to state more in detail, as it would enable him, at a future period of the debate, to refrain from many remarks with which he otherwise would be under the necessity of troubling their Lordships. The petition which he held in his hand proceeded from the whole of the distillers resident in the neighbourhood of this metropolis. Their Lordships, or at least such of their Lordships as were not conversant with the subject, would be surprised to hear that the whole number of these petitioners did not exceed eight, and that in all England there were only three more. A few persons, it would thus appear, had a monopoly of the trade in their hands. This monopoly was, no doubt, partly owing to the advantages possessed by great capital over small capital in almost any branch, of industry; but still more to the restrictions required by Parliament for the purpose of facilitating the collection of the Excise duties. Although these petitioners, who, he should state, were unanimous in their application to their Lordships, were only eight in number, the interest involved in their concerns might be measured by this fact, that the Excise duties paid on the articles produced by these eight gentlemen amounted to no less than 3,500,000 l. per annum, the whole Excise duties on spirits in the United
1242
Kingdom being about 6,000,000 sterling. The whole trade of distilling involved a payment of 6,000,000 a year to the Excise, and involved moreover the application to that particular purpose of no less than 1,300,000 quarters of grain in the course of the year. Therefore, although the number of the petitioners was small, the interest which they represented was very great, and any legislation on their Lordships' part ought to be proportionately careful and cautious. The noble Lord then proceeded to read from the petition the restrictions to which the petitioners were subjected in consequence of the Excise laws, and which they stated prevented them from adopting any improvement in the manufacture of spirits. He stated, that it might be convenient if he took that opportunity of observing to their Lordships, that there was a difference between the trade of distilling in this country and in Ireland and Scotland. In Ireland distillation was carried on from raw corn principally, but a considerable portion of malt was also used. In Scotland, distillation was wholly from malt, while in England it was almost entirely from raw grain; and therefore English spirits were known by the name of "raw spirits." In order to bring the article into the market in this country, it was necessary for it to go through the further process of rectifying, and for the safety of the revenue, that process of rectifying was not permitted to be carried on in the same premises, or within a quarter of a mile of the locality where the raw spirit was made; so compelled to occupy three localities; he could not brew at the distillery, and when the spirits were distilled, they must be carried a quarter of a mile off to be rectified, before they could be made fit for consumption. These restrictions threw a great burden upon distillers, and required the investment of a large amount of capital. The petitioners went on to state, that in the last Session of Parliament Her Majesty's present Government thought fit to reduce the protecting duty in favour of the distillers of this country, from 1s. 6d. to 1s. a gallon. That alteration, he might remark, took place at a period when not much attention was paid to the subject; and the petitioners now complained that a reasonable time was not allowed to try the effect of the reduction which was then effected. They complained that a further reduction

1243
to 9d. was now proposed; and though their Lordships might think that 3d. was not a very important amount, they should bear in mind that the difference of protection between 6d. and 3d. amounted to no less than 15 or 20 per cent on the whole value of the article, if it were not subject to taxation. The petitioners asked their Lordships to weigh well the consequences of the change about to be made, and prayed them to avert from the petitioners the ruin which they expected should fall upon them from the operation of the Customs Duties Act. They concluded by praying to be heard before a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. The noble Lord presented petitions from Islay, Inverness, Ross, Sutherland, Dumbarton, and Stirlingshire, against the measure.

THE CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.
The EARL of CLARENDON: I rise to move the Second Reading of the Customs Bill, and I trust it will not be necessary for me to trespass at any length upon the time of the House, for I believe that no opposition to the principle of the Bill exists, or is intended. No question of free trade is involved in this measure—it threatens no dependence upon foreign supplies—it admits no foreign competition with native industry—the question lies simply between two classes of our fellow-countrymen—the home and the colonial producers of spirits, each claiming that which they have an undoubted right to claim, and are entitled to expect, from the justice of Parliament, viz., to be placed on a footing of perfect equality; and I am sure that the Government, by whom this measure is introduced, have had no other object in view. The solution of this question has presented some difficulties, and has required much care; for it involved considerations as to the various processes of distillation, and the different materials used in different parts of the kingdom: these, together with the difficulty of reducing to their money value the restrictions imposed by the Excise, and of reconciling the statements, the manifestly exaggerated statements put forward by the distillers of the three kingdoms, with the counter-statements made by the West Indians, certainly have tended to make the subject more complicated than your Lordships will, perhaps, consider it to be in reality, if I have the good fortune to render it intelligible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having
1244
promised that he would be prepared to bring the diminution of the rum duties under the consideration of Parliament at an early period of this Session, devoted, himself last autumn to the examination of the question; and having called upon the different parties for written statements of their views—having personally conferred with various deputations—and having consulted the practical and most experienced officers of the Excise—my right hon. Friend felt no doubt, for reasons which I will presently explain, that a differential duty of 6d. would fully satisfy the justice of the case, and cover such additional charges as the home producers of spirit were compelled to incur, and from which the colonial producers were exempt. Finding, however, that there still existed alarm among even the moderate—those who really desired nothing more than competition upon fair and equal terms—my right hon. Friend consented, with a view of securing, as I believe he did secure, their concurrence, to add 50 per cent to the protection which he believed to be sufficient, as did also the Excise officers, who certainly cannot ever be accused of running any unnecessary risk with the revenue. My right hon. Friend, by this, exposed himself to a charge of some inconsistency, and it gave no small dissatisfaction to the West Indians; but the House of Commons, after a full discussion, sanctioned the measure by a majority of 117, notwithstanding all the agitation upon the subject, and the canvassing which had for a long time been carried on with the activity which distinguishes our fellow-countrymen north of the Tweed, in whatever they undertake; only sixty-eight Members of the House of Commons were found to doubt the accuracy of my right hon. Friend's calculations, and to vote for further inquiry. And feeling convinced, as I do, that this protection of 9d. is ample—that it is not only a just but a liberal arrangement—and that it does satisfy those who are prepared for fair competition, and are not contending for monopoly—I regret that it should fail to satisfy noble Lords opposite, and that they wish for further inquiry, in the expectation, of course, of increasing the differential duty upon the produce of our colonics. Your Lordships are aware that the duty on spirits into England is 7s. 10 d., into Scotland 3s. 8d., and into Ireland 2s. 8d. per gallon; and the object of this Bill is to place the same differential duty

1245
on rum introduced into the three countries over and above the duty paid on spirits in those countries respectively: that differential duty was last year reduced in England from 1s. 6d. to 1s. This is considered, upon inquiry, to be more than necessary to cover the disadvantages under which the English distiller labours. It is therefore proposed to reduce it to 9d., and to make it applicable to Scotland and Ireland; and the duties on rum would then be 8s. 7d., for England, 4s. 5d. for Scotland, and 3s. 5d. for Ireland; and from such rates I feel perfectly convinced that the Scotch and Irish distillers have nothing whatever to apprehend—that their fears, which however seem common to all classes whenever any change of duties affecting their interests are proposed, are purely chimerical; for not only do the West Indians deny the possibility of competing with the homemade spirit at these duties, but the taste for rum seems entirely to have passed away, at least if consumption is to be any criterion of taste—for since 1800, notwithstanding the great increase of population, the consumption of rum has decreased. Now I think from this that a change of taste is as evident as it is natural, as for my own part I cannot conceive there being any doubt as to which of the two is preferable; and nothing, I should think, but great inferiority in the price of rum could ever bring it into real consumption with whisky. Now, I will state upon what grounds the differential duty on spirits distilled in England has been fixed; for upon that, as I shall hope to show your Lordships, the whole question really turns. The House will, I am sure, admit that the rate of duty on the importation of an article which comes into competition with an article of a similar description, the produce and manufacture of this country, is to be determined first by the direct duty levied on that article; secondly, by the amount of duty chargeable upon any of the materials necessarily used in the manufacture; and thirdly, by any additional expenses unavoidably incurred by the manufacturer in consequence of fiscal regulations which he is compelled to observe, to whatever extent they may fairly enhance the cost of production. Now, as I said before, the differential duty was last year reduced from 1s. 6d. to 1s., and without any complaint on the part of the English distillers; but they have since urged a claim for protection to the extent of 1s. 4½d. I may observe, too, on the other hand, that the
1246
West Indians deny their claim to more than a protection of 2d., and affirm rum cannot compete fairly with the home-made spirit at a higher rate than 2d. The distillers estimate their burdens for which they claim protection as follows. They commence with 1d. per gallon for corn duty. Well, the duty on corn is now suspended; and within little more than twelve months after it is reimposed it will be altogether abolished, and no allowance can consequently be made for that. The next item is 1½d. for malt. The duty, in fact, upon the 1–11th quantity of malt used, is really 1¼d.; but in that the Excise agree as a just claim. They claim, then, 1d. for increased plant, consequent upon the regulations established by the Excise in 1825, and the additional amount of capital necessary to effect a separation of their premises: this the Excise also admit to be just. They then claim 4d. for duty on decreases, and interest of money advanced; but upon the question of decreases there can be no doubt, for they are ascertained, and by official documents they can be shown to be, as nearly as possible, 1½d.—that amount representing the actual decreases ascertained in the stocks of the principal English distillers; and the spirit, when made, passes immediately from the hands of the distiller, who only works according to the demands from the rectifier, who pays for it as soon as the distiller in fact is called upon to pay the duty; and the Scotch and Irish distillers warehouse their spirit. The next claim is for 6d., in order to cover the extra expense of rectifying, arising from legal restrictions; but this includes waste in rectifying, and in stock, and the interest on duty advanced till the rectifier can find a market, amounting in the aggregate to 2¼d. I must observe, that the process of rectifying is not necessary: it need not be resorted to; for spirit in the state in which it is sent to the rectifier, is consumed in Ireland, or, at all events, with a small addition of malt; but it is rectified to meet the taste of the English consumer, for which more than an equivalent price is obtained. No compensation for that can be claimed; and this waste and loss complained of are not the results of fiscal interference: they would take place under any circumstances; and as the distiller, if allowed to rectify and compound on his own premises—(which he is not on account of the frauds to which the revenue would be exposed, as the strength of spirit cannot be ascertained after admixture with saccharine substances)

1247
—for this separate establishment compensation is due; but if he were allowed to rectify and compound on his own premises, he would have to provide additional buildings for storing spirits, and to enlarge his plant: 1d. has been deducted for this upon the same ground that he claimed 1d. for having had to enlarge his plant, making together 3¼d., and leaving 2¾d. for such extra expenses as may be incurred for the separate process. This brings the whole amount to 5¾d., and upon that ground the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed originally a differential duty of 6d., leaving out of account the claim of 3d., made by the distillers for Excise restrictions; 1st. because they themselves candidly admitted the difficulty of estimating them in money value, and because any argument they brought forward in favour of 3d. was just as applicable to 2d. or 4d.; and, next, because it was thought that a fair equivalent for any such expenses were the freight paid for rum—the insurance—the heavy expenses of landing and warehousing—and the leakage on the passage, which is estimated at 15 per cent, together with the loss on the casks. Nevertheless, taking the amount of loss for Excise restriction at the fanciful sum stated by the distillers, viz., at 3d. (and this 3d. a gallon would amount to about 10,000 l. a year in the London distilleries, which must be an exaggerated estimate of Excise restrictions), and adding it to 5¾d., it makes 8¾d., and the protecting duty given to them is 9d. Now, if any proof were wanting that this is sufficient, and more than sufficient, it will be found in the fact that twenty years ago the protection was under 11 d.; from 1814 to 1826 there was no nominal distinction of duty at all, but the charge was imposed on rum at proof, and on British spirits at 7 above proof; making a difference in favour of British spirits of something less than 11 d. At that time the corn law of 1815 was in operation, which pressed very severely upon the consumer of corn. The West Indian planters at that time, too, were enabled to employ slave labour, and to make rum much cheaper than they can now, when they have a difficulty in obtaining labour, and when, as they are daily improving the manufacture of sugar, they will have less rum to send here. Well, and what was the fact? That at this differential duty of less than 11 d., no increased quantity of rum was introduced, the quantities being as nearly as possible the same, although
1248
at the same time the consumption of British spirits largely increased. In consequence of the change made in the Excise regulations in 1825, a differential duty of 1s. 6d. was granted; but this being manifestly beyond what was just or necessary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goulburn, in 1830, proposed to reduce it to 1s. and was only prevented from doing so by the change of Government. But the case of the distillers had been fully heard, and according to their own calculations 9½d. was the burden imposed upon them by the existing corn laws, and that consequently, if the corn law had at that moment been repealed, they would have been satisfied with 8½d. The Irish distillers at the same time claimed 1s. for the injury done by the corn law, and 6d. for Excise restrictions, although the same corn law and the same Excise laws applied to both countries alike. It is true, they make no such claim now with respect to the corn law; but their statement was either true or false in 1830: if true, what cause of complaint is there against the proposed duty of 9d.? if false, what reliance can be placed upon the claims they have now put forward? I think that I have shown, to the satisfaction of the House, that the English distiller, so far from having any ground for complaint, must in justice admit, and I believe he does, that his interests have been carefully and liberally protected. I now come to the Scotch and Irish distillers, who claim a larger amount of protection on account of the larger quantity of malt used by them in the manufacture of spirits, especially the Scotch, whose spirit is for the greater part made wholly from malt. I will first observe, that in Scotland a drawback of the whole duty, 1s. 2d. on malt, was formerly granted; and it is important to bear in mind that it was not for the purpose of promoting or favouring this particular description of spirit, but solely in order to enable the legal distiller to compete successfully with the illicit distillation which then prevailed to an enormous extent. The measure was completely successful for its object; and some years ago, in 1832, on the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, the allowance was reduced, and the drawback was fixed and still remains at 8d.; but, perhaps, if the whole subject be fully investigated, it will be found that this drawback may, with safety to the revenue, which is the only point to be considered, be further reduced, if not altogether done

1249
away with, as it has been in Ireland. The Irish distiller, on the other hand, works generally from a mixture of raw grain and malt in variable proportions; but he receives no drawback on account of such purely malt spirit made in Ireland; in fact, it was discontinued at the suggestion of the Irish distillers themselves. The Irish distiller, however, says, as he uses more malt than the English, the allowance of 1½d. is not sufficient for him, and he claims 2½d.; but then he does not rectify or compound: he has no separate premises to provide for, as the English distiller has; and he will find ample compensation for the 1d. which he claims, in the 2¾d. which is allowed to the English distiller, and which forms an item in the 9d. differential duty. But neither the Scotch nor the Irish can, consistently with the principle which must be assumed as governing a differential rate of duty, viz., the amount charged upon any article necessarily used in the manufacture, claim any such compensation: if the home spirit could only be made from malt, it is obvious that the whole duty paid on malt by the distiller must be charged in the shape of a differential duty upon the colonial spirit which comes into competition with it. They cannot claim any protection founded upon the use of taxed malt, which, in consulting the taste of their consumers, they may think it for their interest to employ—they are not compelled to use it; but they do use it, because it improves the quality and increases the price of the spirit. Malt spirit suits the taste of Scotland—mixed or raw grain spirit, that of Ireland—and a compounded spirit is preferred in England; and the English distiller might just as well claim an allowance in respect of the duty on any foreign ingredients, such as fruits, sugar, spices, and essential oils, which he may use in imparting flavour or additional strength to the compounds known as British gin, cream of the valley, old tom, or the various other names by which the rectifiers distinguish their respective spirits, In all distillation a certain quantity of malt is indispensable, not for the purpose of giving flavour or strength, but in order to facilitate the process, and to what is called saccharize the materials. This indispensable quantity is 1–11th, the proportions being of malt, 2 — oats, 2 — barley, 18; and for that an allowance is made, because it is indispensable; and the same principle will be found to prevail generally in drawbacks,
1250
for no allowance is made on exportation in respect of the constituent parts of any article, however highly they may have been charged on importation by the Customs, or by the Excise, as articles subject to internal taxation. Take, for instance, spirits of wine exported, in combination with other ingredients: no drawback is allowed there; and the exceptions prove the rule, for a drawback is allowed upon beer exported, that is, upon the malt used in beer, because the use of grain malted, or unmalted, is not optional. The law compels the brewer to use malted corn, and therefore grants him an allowance, just as it does to the distiller upon the malt which he necessarily consumes in his business; but upon hops which are heavily taxed, but which are not indispensable in brewing, and the use of which the law does not prescribe, no drawback is allowed. Upon the same principle, a drawback is allowed on the exportation of paper and soap, for which returns have been moved, to the amount of the duty charged on them when manufactured: because the duty is imposed on them by law, they cannot be made without it; there is no option about paying the duty, as there is with respect to malt. For the same reason a drawback was allowed on printed calicoes, glass, leather and vinegar, when the manufacturers of these articles were compelled to pay Excise duty. The analogy of these cases confirms the correctness of the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as by the Board of Excise, in fixing the duty on rum. In cases of this kind, some broad general rule is obviously necessary to avoid the difficulty and (as in the end it would turn out) the injustice of attempting to favour the different views of opposing parties, because such attempts to adjust inequalities of condition would only multiply the claims on each side, as well as the difficulty of adjusting them. Allow the claim of the Scotch distiller for the malt with which he produces a complete spirit fit for use, and suited to the taste of his consumers; and I don't see upon what ground the claim of the English distiller could be rejected for protection on account of his waste in rectifying, and of those articles he uses in compounding, and without which he would find no customers; while in Ireland, if you attempt an adjustment founded on the quantity of malt used at discretion, no uniform rate of duty could equitably be levied, because malt is there used in variable proportions. But you must either impose a uniform rate of duty

1251
on rum far higher than would be just towards the consumers of that spirit in England, or you must then have three different rates of duty on colonial spirits, which would not only be contrary to our practice, and unjust to our colonies but the Scotch and Irish distillers would speedily find the disadvantage of such a system, as the English distillers would unquestionably have as good a right to be protected from the competition of those countries as they claim against the colonial spirits; and upon this—upon the importation of spirits from Scotland and Ireland—the whole matter rests. If those spirits compete with spirits made in England, it is clear that they must be on an equal footing, and that if the allowance of 9d. differential duty on rum fairly protects English spirits, that is, places rum on a footing of equality with it, why, it follows that Scotch and Irish spirits will in future, as heretofore, compete with English spirits, and consequently with rum also. The quantity of spirits produced in England is 5,624,000 gallons; whilst of spirits imported from Scotland into England there were last year 2,136,000 gallons, and from Ireland 1,418,000 gallons, together more than 3,500,000, equal to the 3–5ths of the whole quantity manufactured in England. Is not this a proof that the spirits of Scotland and Ireland compete on equal terms with those of England? and is not this a trade more important than any connected with rum? and is it wise to run any risk of disturbing it by questions of protection with reference to the component parts of spirit in the three countries? One-third of the spirits distilled in Scotland conies to this country, and one-twelfth goes to Ireland, which, if ingredients are to be considered, would have a fair right to be protected against such importations; but in fact, if the duty paid on malt could be regarded as giving a right to special and exclusive protection against the competition of the colonial spirit, I can't see why it would not constitute an equally strong ground for protection against the competition of the home-made grain spirit which is manufactured in Scotland and Ireland, and consumed there as an unrectified spirit. No such demand has, however, been dreamt of; nor can any with justice be claimed against the competition of the colonial spirit, beyond that which can be shown to be an extra and unavoidable expense in the manufacture of the home over the colonial spirit. The malt spirit being
1252
the best spirit produced, bears a relative price in the market more than equivalent to the malt duty. The price of pure malt spirit is 1s. 10 d., the malt duty is 1s. 4d., showing a clear gain of 6d. a gallon over and above the cost entailed by the use of malt, just as gin and compounds command a price more than equivalent to the ingredients used in compounding them; and malt spirit and grain spirit and compounds are severally consumed by parties who like to use the better and dearest, or the cheaper and inferior spirit. There is no principle that can with justice be adopted, except that of fixing the extra duty on rum with reference to the extra charges ascertained to press on grain spirit, leaving the competition between rum and homemade spirit, other than grain spirit, upon the same footing as the competition between, such home-made spirit, other than grain spirit, and grain spirit, now is. But, after all, the whole contest is about a shadow, a chimera; and there can, I am convinced, he no error more gross than to suppose that any large quantity of rum will ever he introduced into this country: the national taste is against it. This was proved, as I said before, in 1826; when the duty was lowered, a larger quantity was imported, in expectation of a demand which was found not to exist; and the importation decreased, while the production of British spirits largely increased. The total quantity of spirits consumed in Great Britain and Ireland is 26,000,000, while that of rum is about 2,500,000, being a difference of 23,500,000 in favour of the home-made article—nearly nine to one; and there is another material fact which must not be left out of consideration, which is, that not only the attention and industry of the colonies, but a vast amount of British capital and enterprise are now directed to improvement and economy in the manufacture of sugar; and every improvement that is effected leads to a diminished production of rum. The manufacture of sugar is the most valuable use to which the cane can be turned; and the more perfect the manufacture, the less will be the quantity of rum and molasses produced. Why, recently a most important experiment has been made which promises to be successful, and to change the whole process of manufacture in the West Indies, and leave hardly a particle of the substance from which rum and molasses are now produced. Upon these grounds, then, I do trust your Lordships will not

1253
see cause to sanction such a departure from your usual course as to consent to the Motion of the noble Duke that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. There are no facts to be ascertained which are not already in the possession of those who are interested in this subject; and nothing in which an inquiry before a Committee would assist your judgment, except, perhaps, the claims of the West Indians to a less amount of duty than that which this Bill imposes. There is only one item in the list of claims made by the distillers which is doubtful, viz., the money value of Excise restrictions. But the distillers, without supporting their estimate by either facts or arguments that would not equally apply to any other sum, have fixed that loss at 3d.; and my right hon. Friend, not being able to disprove it, any more than they were able to prove it, has allowed it. I trust that your Lordships may see fit to pursue a course similar to that pursued by the House of Commons upon a Motion of the same nature; and that you will not consent to delay or to alter a measure that the Government has brought forward, with a sincere conviction that it does equal justice and affords equal protection to the different interests concerned. I have only now to thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to these details, upon a subject necessarily dry and uninteresting, and which I fear I may not have rendered as clear as I could have wished.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had declared that it was not intended by that Bill to carry out any abstract principle of free trade, but that it was to be regarded as merely a measure of justice to the West Indian colonies. For his own part, he was not desirous of upholding any protection to the British distiller at the expense, or to the sacrifice of the colonial interest, more than justice required. The whole question involved was as to the figure which should be charged for the differential duty; and this was the object of his noble Friend in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject. He would suggest that the Bill be at once read a second time, and the House at once proceed to the discussion of the proposition of his noble Friend (the Duke of Montrose).
The EARL of CLARENDONhad no objection to the arrangement.
Bill read 2a.
On the Motion that it be committed to a
1254
Committee of the whole House on Monday next,
The DUKE of MONTROSErose to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Without resorting to such a course, he was sure that they could not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to the amount of differential duty which should be charged. He referred to the Act of the Session before last, relative to the importation into this country of spirits made in the Channel Islands, which laid down the principle that a Customs duty ought to be imposed sufficient to counterbalance the loss to the distillers by Excise regulations, and enacted as that duty the sum of 1s. 2d. The noble Earl stated, that they should not take into their calculation on this question of the differential duty, the amount of malt duty paid by the British distiller; but he was satisfied, if a Committee were granted, that he should be able to show that this was a most important clement, which ought never to have been lost sight of in forming an estimate. The distillers also said, that such was the uncertainty of the course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there was no security as to any further proceedings, or that he might not come down next year with another proposition for change; they asked also for an investigation into the restrictions which had been placed upon them, not only by duties, but in the shape of Excise regulations. Mr. Huskisson stated, that, independently of the charge of the malt duty, the loss occasioned by the Excise regulations, in the mode of levying it, to the maltster, was equivalent to not less than 50 per cent; to the distiller, however, the loss was much greater, in consequence of the Excise interfering with the process of manufacture in every stage. The loss to the distiller in consequence of the Excise regulations regarding the use of yeast, was equivalent to an additional charge on him of 1d. a gallon. Again, the amount of spirits charged with the duty, was more than the amount produced by the distiller. The Government estimated the amount of duty by three different modes, and were at liberty to choose whichever gave the most amount of duty; so that it often happened that considerable loss was sustained by the distiller; as, although he paid duty on 100 gallons, he did not get more than 95 gallons of spirit. An allowance was also made for leakage or waste in foreign spirits as respected the duty; but nothing of the kind was allowed for British spirits.

1255
Such allowance on rum was calculated to be at least 3 per cent; while on brandy it often amounted to as much as 8 per cent. This the British distillers calculated as equal to a duty of 2d. per gallon on spirits produced by them. The Irish distillers were allowed to bond spirits, and they were prepared to prove that while in bond there was a loss on their spirits equal on the average to 10 per cent. The noble Earl said that there were no Excise returns to show anything of the kind; but it should be remembered that the Excise made no returns respecting the quantity of home spirits in bond, as the revenue was not affected. All that he required on the part of the English, Scotch, and Irish distiller, was a fair inquiry into the whole question. They stated that the Government had been mistaken; they therefore asked for inquiry. Was it not monstrous, that when a body of men stated the Government was mistaken, and offered to prove their case, the Government should say it would not hear them—that it would decide on its own responsibility? Government allowed there was a primâ facie case of justice on the side of the distillers, and yet it would not hear them. Another hardship the Scotch distillers laboured under, was connected with the importation of their spirit into England. The duty on spirit was less in Scotland than in this country; the distiller was only allowed by law to import it into England by sea; and before he took it out of bond for importation, he was compelled to pay the difference between the English and Scotch duty. If a cask should afterwards be staved, the distiller lost both his spirit and the duty he had paid on it. Now, the duty on colonial rum was only paid on its being taken out of bond for consumption. It should be remembered, too, that by the Excise regulations, the distillers were obliged to finish one process before they began another; they were not allowed to carry on two at once. Thus they were compelled to extinguish their furnaces, causing a great loss of fuel. Then the Excise officers were required constantly to visit the premises. It was quite impossible to do this without admitting the cold air; this checked the fermentation, and was extremely injurious to the process. The distillers, therefore, stated as a fact, that these Excise regulations prevented them from drawing as much saccharine matter and spirits from the grain as they would otherwise. The loss from this cause was not less than a penny a gal-
1256
lon; and it was to estimate these various losses, which the Government denied, that the distillers asked for a Committee. The noble Earl said, he did not believe there were hardships on the Scotch distillers, since they were able to send their spirits into competition with those of English distillers. But the increase in the quantity of excised spirits in Scotland arose from the reduction of the duty from 6s. 2d. per gallon to 3s. 8d. Before that reduction, illicit distillation prevailed, and, from the nature of the country, it was impossible to prevent it; but under the lower duty, the illicit trade was destroyed, and the spirit made was brought to charge. That was the secret cause of the great increase in the quantity distilled in Scotland; but the returns of duty charged since, the increase of the malt duty, showed that while raw spirits had greatly increased, those from malt had not, which was a complete proof that the malt duty did affect the trade in a very material degree. The distillers were also liable to pay an amount of malt duty proportionate to the quantity of spirit drawn from the malt, over and above the quantity allowed by law. They were supposed by the Government to draw sixteen gallons of spirit from a quarter of malt; but they often drew twenty gallons. By the Excise regulations, they were required to pay the malt duty as well as the spirit duty upon the difference, raising the duty from 8d. to 10 d. and 11 d. per gallon. This was not merely a question as to competition with rum, but the Bill allowed the importation of all colonial spirits; and the distillers would be exposed to much unequal competition in Canada, where the distillers were not subjected to a malt tax or Excise regulations. Was that fair justice? There could only be one answer to the question. The Excise regulations interfered so much with the processes of the distillers, that they were prevented from using improved modes. They were not allowed to try experiments; and they justly complained of being compelled always to proceed upon the old jogtrot plan. They said, if they were not fettered by the Excise regulations, they could draw a much greater quantity of spirit from the malt, and thus place themselves on an equality with the foreign producer. He had now gone through the whole case; that of Ireland was very similar; but he should leave it in the hands of the noble Earl. It was quite impossible to come to a satisfactory conclusion on all

1257
these points without going into a Committee, where they might be thoroughly investigated. Without that inquiry, the settlement could not be a permanent one. He therefore moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNwas of opinion that an inquiry ought to be gone into—not such an inquiry as could be made by speeches from certain noble Lords who might understand the question, and noble Lords who knew nothing about it, but such an inquiry as would bring out the truth, and cause justice to be fairly done to all parties. When therefore a remonstrance had been made by the distillers, it would be dealing rather harshly not to allow that body an opportunity of stating their case. It was due as much to the colonist as to the distiller that such an investigation should take place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had meditated an extreme injustice in the first instance to the home distiller, or else he now meditated a similar injustice to the colonics; for he at first intended to make only a difference of 6d. in the duty, but, as he said, in order to facilitate the passing of the Bill in that House, he would put on an additional duty of threepence on rum. The noble Duke who had proposed the Amendment had gone so fully into details, that he would not attempt to follow him through his arguments, but would content himself by alluding very shortly to the probable operation of the measure, as far as the Scotch distillers were concerned. The laws regulating the operation of the distillers were so minute in their details, and so new in language, that it was impossible for their Lordships to ascertain the correctness of the calculations made by the distillers. The case of the malt distillers was one of simpler nature; and so impressed was he with the justness of the case which they had made out, that if he stood alone he would urge upon their Lordships the necessity of rejecting the measure. The facts as regarded Scotland were very few and very simple. The proposed duty was 4s. and 5s. on rum, the duty on whisky was 3s. 8d., and the duty on the quantity of malt requisite for a gallon 8d., making altogether 4s. 4d., thus leaving only one penny to meet the losses sustained by Excise restrictions. In dealing with the question as regarded that country, it should be borne in mind that it was less a financial than a social question that had to be solved. There were 250 works—distillery works—in Scotland, in
1258
which a capital of more than half a million was embarked, which employed thousands of persons, and distributed more than a hundred thousand pounds in payment of wages. If a false step was now taken, the risk would be run of driving that branch of industry to foreign countries, and throwing thousands of persons out of employment, and hundreds of acres out of cultivation. The noble Earl then read letters from distillers, one of whom paid 600 l. a week in wages, and another of whom had reared 4,000 l. worth of pigs from the refuse of his distillery, to show what would be the probable amount of injury to the country if that branch of its industry were destroyed. It would also have the effect of adding an incalculable number of paupers to rates already overburdened with the maintenance of the poor. Was the present, he would ask their Lordships, a time to injure the Scottish landowner, and more especially the Highland proprietor, when they were so nobly straining every nerve to support their famishing people; and their people as nobly enduring the fearful privation to which they were exposed? The noble Earl then read a letter, relating the shipwreck of a vessel laden with, meal on the part of the Highland coast where the distress was greatest; and stating that the poor people had exerted themselves to the utmost to save the vessel and cargo, while not a single pound of the meal had been lost. If it were really true that by the passing of this measure the incentive to crime would be diminished—if the crime of intoxication were likely to be abated—then, he would say, it would be cheaply purchased; but, in his opinion, such would not be the tendency. The quantity of spirits consumed would not be diminished, for the loss of whisky would be supplied by the same quantity of rum. The only difference, therefore, would be in the quality of the spirit. But then came another and a very serious consideration. The people of Scotland were so strongly attached to their whisky that they would not be satisfied with the foreign spirit; and the consequence would be, that illicit distillation would be extensively resorted to. The measure would thus have the twofold evil effect of injuring the revenue, and lowering the morals of the people of that country. The distillers did not base their claims on protection, or ask for differential duties, without good and sufficient cause. They could not enter upon a more profitable mode of manufacture than they employed at pre-

1259
sent, as the law and the Excise obliged them to distil in one manner. They were thus precluded from the benefits of improvement in the process—an advantage which was not denied to the colonial producer. If British and colonial spirits were placed upon the same level, the distillers at home ought to be liberated from all those restrictions which so peculiarly oppressed their trade; otherwise it would be a rank injustice to them. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would pause before they passed the Bill before them; and that they would agree without opposition to the noble Duke's proposal.
LORD CAMPBELLbore testimony to the extreme ability with which the noble Duke opposite had brought forward the distillers' case, and proved himself master of all its complicated details. At the same time, it appeared to him that the noble Duke had not succeeded in shading the arguments contained in the statement of his noble Friend who moved the second reading of the Bill. In the course of his (Lord Campbell's) whole Parliamentary experience, he had never heard a more able speech in either House of Parliament than that in which his noble Friend had proposed the second reading of the Bill. Without any exaggeration, or any deviation from the main question for discussion, his noble Friend had laid before their Lordships plainly, and with characteristic distinctness, the facts of the case—the facts which had weighed with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the facts which had weighed with the Government—and the facts which had weighed with the other House of Parliament. The noble Duke had not attempted to contradict any of the calculations which the noble Earl had made; and it was only on the vague question as to the loss which the distiller would sustain from Excise restrictions that the noble Duke tried to argue the case. That alone made a strong primâ facie case in favour of the Bill. The Government had no possible object but to do what was fair and just between the colonial producers and the interests at home. The question was not one of a party character, neither did it contain a single consideration connected with politics. Great anxiety had been felt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to calmly consider the object he had in view, with a desire to deal equitably between both interests. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who had presented a petition against the Bill, had
1260
charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with vacillating as to the course which he intended to adopt with reference to this subject; but he begged to assure their Lordships, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the close of the last Session of Parliament, proposed a shilling duty, it was intended to be, and was stated to be, a temporary measure only; and his reason for postponing a conclusive measure, arose from the circumstance of his desire to investigate the matter in all its bearings, in order to do ample justice to both parties. The right hon. Gentleman did consider it; and, after laborious calculations, came to the conclusion that a differential duty of sixpence would give ample compensation to the British distiller for the disadvantages under which he was placed; but, on further consideration, he raised the duty to 9d. In the other House of Parliament, where the interests of the distillers were well and efficiently represented, upon a division, a majority of seventy-five declared in favour of the reduction of differential duty. Upon due consideration, he hoped their Lordships would arrive at the conclusion that ample justice had been done to both interests. As far as English distillers were concerned, he thought the noble Duke, and the noble Lord who had followed him, had not in the slightest degree succeeded in detecting any error in the calculations of his noble Friend. As far as the English distillers were concerned, he thought his noble Friend had shown that 9d. was an ample protection. He did not consider that the reduction of duty would increase illicit distillation; the only question was whether it would give an undue tendency to the consumption of rum instead of whisky, and he did not think it would. He would be the last man to oppose anything advantageous to his countrymen, with respect to whom he cordially concurred in the well-merited eulogium of the noble Earl who had just addressed the House; but he had no apprehension that the measure would cause the consumption of rum in preference to whisky. The malt distillers of Scotland were at present able to compete with the English distillers in their own market; for it was a fact, that 2,000,000 of gallons of whisky were imported into England from Scotland annually. The superior quality of the Scoth whisky, and he would instance the case of Islay whisky, would always serve to maintain its consumption. That peculiar description of spirit had main-

1261
tained, did maintain, and would maintain its reputation wherever it appeared, and wherever there were persons capable of appreciating it. He felt it to be his duty to oppose the Amendment of the noble Duke, as he thought it was idle to suppose any good could be effected by examining distillers and persons engaged in the manufacture of spirits, who only knew the subject with a view to their own advantage; and, although the petitioners, as was stated by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), were unanimous, as all petitioners were, and sure to be, against any fiscal regulation which they thought might be injurious to them, or deprive them of any undue advantage—notwithstanding, as he said, that unanimity on the part of the petitioners, he should oppose the Amendment of the noble Duke.
The DUKE of RICHMONDobserved, that the arguments advanced by the noble Lord at the opposite side, showed the absolute necessity of referring the subject to a Select Committee. He found the noble and learned Lord who had last addressed them, declaring that sixpence was a sufficient protection, and that the manufacture of the Scotch spirit was so superior that no competition was to be dreaded from the foreign producer. He (the Duke of Richmond), did not, however, think the noble and learned Lord knew much about the manufacture of whisky. It appeared he knew much better how to drink it than to make it. It was quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a public pledge last Session, that he would bring forward a measure to reduce the duty on foreign spirits. He could not deny that such a pledge was given; but his noble and learned Friend opposite had said that, after much deliberation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made up his mind as to the precise amount of duty; and yet, a fortnight after the meeting of Parliament, they found the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving up a part of his proposition, and giving greater protection to the distillers of Scotland. This showed that the much-vaunted "mature deliberation and careful consideration" of the right hon. Gentleman went for nothing, and proved that, if he had consulted the proper sources of information, and not consulted the gentlemen of the Board of Trade, whose business it was to alter and put different constructions upon things, his conclusions might have been of another kind. The right hon. Gentleman had availed himself of in-
1262
formation supplied to the Board of Trade, and from returns similar to those of which they had such pretty specimens laid upon the Table of their House. But when he saw the statement of the distillers, he altered his intention, and gave them a protection of 3d. more. The noble Lord opposite, however, considered that too much had been given the distillers, and that the protection ought to have been 6d. instead of 9d. That was his (the Duke of Richmond's) ground for asking for a Committee to inquire into the allegations made by the distillers. He did not stand there to see justice done to one interest to the exclusion of another. He was the advocate of the Irish, the English, and the Scotch distillers, and on their behalf he called for a Committee. But it was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "You need not be afraid of injury, because very little foreign spirit will be brought into this country." Why, then, inflame and alarm the minds of men who had embarked a large amount of capital, and had built expensive premises for the prosecution of their business, if the result of this measure would not cause large importations of the foreign produce? His noble Friend who spoke second in the debate had said he could not understand how it would promote illicit distillation; yet his noble Friend (the Earl of Eglintoun) had said that if the distillers were ruined the people were so fond of whisky that they would procure the illicit spirit in preference to the foreign. He agreed with that argument, for no one who knew the people, and had spent much time in Scotland, did not also know the de-moralising effects of the illicit distillation of whisky in that country. It turned the labourers from their natural and useful occupation into distillers, and led them into danger and degradation. How was that difficulty to be got rid of? They had on their Statute-book one of the most unjust and impolitic Acts that ever obtained the sanction of Parliament. They had the malt tax, which would constantly come against them, and until they got rid of it they could not bring forward any measures of this kind without finding the greatest difficulties interposed. He hoped the day was not far distant when that Act would be repealed; and he trusted that the people of England, now that they had been promised cheap bread, would take care that they also got cheap beer. He could not sit down without expressing his hearty concurrence in the line of conduct adopted

1263
by his noble Friends, who had opposed the measure with so much ability. He regretted that Parliament appeared to proceed on the worst possible principle that Parliament could be guided by. They professed themselves willing to hear the appeals of the people; but petitions might be presented to their House, and they would not attend to them, neither would they grant any inquiry into their grievances. He could not expect that in that Council Chamber they would change those Acts which had reflected so much disgrace on the House of Lords last Session; but he did expect they would at least grant an opportunity for inquiry. Last year they refused to hear the silk-weavers, and now they refused to hear the distillers. If they continued to pursue this ill-judged policy, soon would the independence of their character as a legislative assembly be lost, and soon would their decisions be regulated only by the will of the Minister and by the acts of his followers.
LORD STANLEYhad really expected, after the able and conclusive arguments which had been adduced by the noble Lord behind him, by the noble Duke who had just sat down, and by the other noble Lords who had opposed this measure, that some farther notice would have been taken by the noble Lords who represented the Government in that House beyond the speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite. It appeared to him that the question of "free trade" did not enter into that discussion; but he would tell them what did. It was a question of justice between two classes whose interests might be materially and deeply affected by changes which appeared to them to involve a small sum, and to be matter of insignificance, but which, reckoned by the large scale to which they were applied, might have the effect of altering the whole course of trade, and transferring a great and important consideration from one party to another, and that under regulations professing to place them both on a footing of fair and just equality. As his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had already stated, the Government had originally declared, that after a careful examination of the question—after testing the facts and making calculations—they thought a differential duty of 6d. a duty which was fair and reasonable and equitable between the parties. Well, if they thought that, they ought to have adhered to it. They were not there to dispense favours. If it had
1264
been a favour for which the distillers had been applying, and if it would have been conferred without injury to others, no man could have complained of it. But Her Majesty's Ministers were not in the position of being entitled to confer a favour on one class at the expense of another, or at the expense of that justice which they were bound to consult. It was true the sum in question was but 3d. per gallon; but that 3d. a gallon had been applied to an article the intrinsic value of which was 2s. They treated it as if it was a matter of indifference whether it should be 3d. a gallon more, or 3d. a gallon less. But he would ask the Government, was it a matter of indifference to impose 15 per cent more or less? He (Lord Stanley) would be the last person to refuse to call upon their Lordships to make a sacrifice for the purpose of doing justice to the West India interest. It had been his fortune to be connected with a question in which, for the sake of the West India interest, he did call upon Parliament to make a sacrifice; and it was his happiness and pride that he had been in any degree instrumental in inducing the people of England, for the purpose of doing an act of justice, to make one of the largest pecuniary sacrifices ever made in favour of the West India interest. With these feelings, he did not think he could be charged with wishing to place the interests of any other class in unjust competition with the interests of the West Indian proprietors. But not only the West Indian proprietors, but the proprietors of Cuba, Havannah, and the Brazils, ought not to require greater advantages in free trade than those which were conferred upon our own fellow-countrymen. They were not about to place them upon terms of equality, but upon terms of inequality. They asked, therefore, for an opportunity of proving this allegation: they said, "Dispute our different statements, if you please; prove the error of our calculations, and we will submit to your decision without a murmur and without hesitation; but at least do not refuse to hear us." They offered to be examined—prove that their allegations were unfounded, and then they would submit without a murmur. But he would venture to say that if they would but grant an inquiry, they would have the sanction of the House to the principle which would place both the British producer and the colonist on the same footing. These were questions which wholly turned on correct calculations of a penny here, a halfpenny there,

1265
and twopence in another place; which sums, though apparently trivial, made a wide difference to the parties concerned, notwithstanding the free and easy way in which the noble Earl opposite went from sixpence to threepence. That, in fact, was the whole question. It was not what the noble Earl would allow of the claim, but whether that claim was justly threepence, or a penny, or only a halfpenny. To say that he considered they were entitled to this sum or the other, was but begging the question; which really was whether the calculation of the Government or that of the distillers, was the most equitable. He thought the clear and able speech made by his noble Friend behind him—a speech most clear and interesting on a subject by no means interesting in itself, but rendered so by the admirable clearness with which he brought before the House a series of complicated calculations — was perfectly conclusive. He would not weaken the force and effect of that speech by going through those calculations in detail; but there were one or two points in the argument of the noble Earl opposite which he must notice. The first was the extraordinary manner in which he treated questions that related to such small sums as a penny. Did the noble Lord not know that small matters in detail become large ones in the aggregate? He would mention a case. The distillers were compelled, every new fermentation, to use a new portion of yeast; but, after one fermentation, its power was not wholly exhausted, and it would be a gain to use it in successive operations in successive vats. But no, said their laws, you shall not do it, because there would be some risk of fraud in the amount of spirit produced. Therefore, the yeast was all thrown away, though it might not be exhausted; and the consequence of their laws was that fresh yeast had to be purchased for each separate operation. This was clearly and manifestly an expenditure solely caused by their laws. His noble Friend pointed out most clearly the operation of the drawback, respecting which the noble Earl opposite said he would allow but a halfpenny, although the claim of the distillers was threepence halfpenny. But they asked their Lordships not to allow that claim, but that the distillers might come before them, and prove if they could their right to the amount they claimed; to give in detail every item of that demand. He would state another case of extreme hardship which arose out of these restrictive laws.
1266
The wort was not allowed to be transferred from one vat to another except in the presence of an Excise officer; they could not even have two vats open at the same time. To say nothing of the loss by delayed fermentation in consequence of this law, what was the result if one of these vats should burst? Though it might so happen that by drawing a plug the whole of the liquor might be saved, by being run off into another vessel, the brewer would be liable to heavy penalties if he were to do so, unless in the presence of an exciseman; and the whole of the liquor must run to waste, though it might have been saved. The value of the wort in some of the vats in the large breweries, on which duty was paid, was 1,500 l.; and because they were not allowed to draw a plug, liquor to the value of 1,500 l., on which the duty was actually paid, must, under such circumstances, run to waste. What was worse, of that 1,500 l., 1,200 l. was duty; and of that duty the brewer would not be able to make one shilling. That would, he supposed, be a mere trifle to the noble Lord on the other side of the House. But let the distillers prove the amount of loss to which they were subject by those regulations. He would not now go into the details respecting the Excise; but if their Lordships would turn to the Seventh Report of the Commission which sat in 1834, of which Sir Henry Parnell was chairman, they would find seven folio pages full of these restrictions, which pressed with such heaviness upon brewing and distilling. It was indeed difficult to believe how any set of men could have so long submitted to them; but they did not complain. They said it might be necessary to impose these restrictions to prevent any loss in the amount of duty; but when the Government proposed to place them on the same footing with persons whose manufacture was free from these restrictions, they did ask them to give them a countervailing duty. What they now asked for was a Committee in order that they might see justice done to all parties. Another point to which the noble Earl had not alluded at all was, that the distillers in the East and West Indies had not only freedom from these extraordinary expenses, but they were at liberty to use that which was to them the cheapest material. Here, then, was a duty on molasses; take off that, and let the distillers enter into a fair competition. But no; distillation from molasses would risk a chance of fraud upon the revenue; and the British distiller,

1267
therefore, was not allowed to use the cheapest materials. To prevent that fraud, the British distiller was prevented from using molasses, from which in Jamaica and the East Indies the rum was made, and they made him no allowance whatever, and imposed no countervailing duty. This was a dry subject, and well nigh exhausted. It laid, however, in a narrow compass Their Lordships were not asked to decide whether it would be an act of injustice, or whether the claim of the distillers was unjust; but he asked them, before they affirmed that the Government should give a certain amount of differential duty—not even that which the Government itself believed to be equitable—viz., a reduction of fifty per cent on what they imposed last year—which was a reduction of 100 per cent on that which, in 1825, after the most careful consideration and revision of the Excise and Revenue Laws, was imposed, and which had remained since that time in force without any complaint being made—but they were asked not to set aside the result of all that inquiry and experience without an examination of the parties most affected by the proposed alteration. This was the full extent, and no more, of the Motion of the noble Duke. He trusted Her Majesty's Ministers would take an opportunity of explaining more freely and in what mode they had made the calculations from which they had arrived at their decision; and, on the other hand, that those who would be injured by this measure might be allowed, if they could do so, to substantiate their grounds of complaint. To adopt any other course would be an act of injustice which he could not believe their Lordships would sanction; and he would, therefore, most cordially vote for the Motion of the noble Duke.
EARL GREYsaid, that the observations made from the other side of the House had entirely failed to shake the reasonings of his noble Friend who had introduced the measure. Upon that statement of the case, indeed, Her Majesty's Ministers were willing to leave the question for the decision of their Lordships; and he felt confident that, with all the additions which the acuteness of the noble Lord who had just addressed the House could suggest to the adverse argument, such of their Lordships as had heard the whole debate would not be disposed to deny that the opening statement still remained untouched. The principal motive he had for now addressing their Lordships, was merely that he de-
1268
sired to meet that sort of taunt which had been thrown out against Her Majesty's Government from the other side of the House, and to show that concern which would naturally be felt by one holding the office he had the honour to hold, on a question so materially affecting colonial interests. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had adverted to the change which had taken place in the course announced by Her Majesty's Government; a differential duty of 6d. having been proposed on rum, and before the subject came to be decided, in the other House of Parliament a duty of 9d., as was thought right under the circumstances, having been substituted. There was really no need for concealment in such a matter; and he (Earl Grey) had no hesitation in saying still, that 6d. would be a fairer amount of duty. But in matters of taxation, it was the duty of the Government to defer to the sense of the other House of Parliament; and it did appear to Her Majesty's Ministers that the proposition in favour of a duty of 6d. was a proposition which they would not succeed in carrying; therefore, and therefore only, had they substituted a duty of 9d. It was said that justice to the colonists required their Lordships to submit the whole subject to a Select Committee. Those, however, who were directly interested in the colonies did not desire to have the question referred to a Select Committee. What they did desire was, that the Bill as it now stood should pass with the least possible delay. What would be the result if the Motion for a Select Committee were carried? The Motion, indeed, was proposed with no other view and object than to get rid of the matter altogether. It was further argued that their Lordships should agree to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of having the statements made by parties on opposite sides of the question properly scrutinized. But there were no new facts to be brought forward; all the facts of the case had already been given in the fullest detail. The irregularity with which the proceedings in Committees were conducted was known to their Lordships; he had heard of some remarkable instances of such irregularity, and that at no very distant date. Was it to be supposed that, if the decision of a Committee were to be carried by a majority of three over two, that decision would, irrespective of the reasons on which it was founded, govern the judgment of their Lordships and of the other House of Parliament? Their Lordships

1269
must still weigh the reasons; they must again debate the question on the Committee's report. With regard to the claims of the distillers, which had been stated with so much ability by his noble Friend opposite, he would refer again to a point alluded to by the noble Earl who had introduced the measure. In 1830, the whole body of distillers submitted a memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, drawn up with great ability, and the whole amount they then laid claim to was a differential duty of 1s. 6d.; and on their own statement it appeared that 9½d. of that was made up of the increased price of corn consequent upon the corn laws. Now the corn laws were at an end; and as, leaving that out of the question, 8½d. was considered so lately as 1830; since when, there had been no alteration in the duties on malt, or in any way which could make their case worse, the 9d. now proposed was ½d. more than they then demanded. He should, however, perhaps be told that that only related to English distillers, and that it did not touch the Irish and Scotch. In order to meet this, it would be necessary to look at the comparative position of the parties; and if they found that the present condition of the Scotch and Irish was as good as that of the English distillers, there was an end of the arguments. That equality was the fact; the Scotch and Irish distillers could meet with advantage their English rivals in the English market, as had been most satisfactorily proved by the noble Lord (Lord Campbell). Of the whole quantity of spirits consumed in this country, the proportion distilled in Scotland and Ireland, as compared with England, was as 5 to 4. That surely decided the argument in favour of the Government measure. The Bill passed last year respecting sugar created great alarm in the British colonics; but he was happy to say that the prospect of such measures being passed, as that allowing the use of sugar in breweries and distilleries, the one now before the House, together with the more favourable prospect of good crops, had greatly tended to mitigate that alarm. By the last advices he had received, he found that more cheerful anticipations were entertained; and that they were looking forward, by means of increased exertions and the operations of the measures he had alluded to, to meet the competition to which they were subjected by the Bill of last year. But he (Earl Grey) did say that, having exposed them to that competition,
1270
it would be an act not very easy to justify if their Lordships, by rejecting this Bill, dashed the cup of hope from the lips of the colonists, and disappointed their highly raised expectations, and taught them that the principle of competition was adopted to their prejudice; but not when it tended to their advantage. If their Lordships passed the Bill, he (Earl Grey) should be more sanguine every day of the happy effects as to the improvement of the colonies of that measure of last year; but he could perceive no course so calculated to shake the confidence of the colonists in British legislation; he could perceive no course so calculated to injure trade as that of rejecting a Bill sent up from the other House by such an overwhelming majority of men of all political opinions and of all parties. He trusted the House would not take so fatal a course, but pass the Bill without any delay.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that as he had been intrusted with petitions from Ireland on the subject of this Bill, he felt that he should not do his duty if he did not say a few words on the present occasion. He believed that in the history of the three kingdoms no instance could be found of any class which had been subjected to such frequent alterations of the law, and to such practical injustice by the Legislature, as the distillers. He had been justified in his opposition to the course taken by the late Government with respect to distilleries by the fact, that they had in a subsequent Session been compelled to retrace their steps and repeal the law which they had themselves passed. It was in the same spirit at the present moment that he addressed their Lordships on the part of a great commercial interest, not merely connected with the country to which he belonged, but with the whole United Kingdom, who, though differing on some points among themselves, were united in preferring a prayer to their Lordships to grant the moderate and rational request that they would institute an inquiry before they proceeded to legislate. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) had dealt with the Amendment as if it were a proposition to reject the Bill. [Cheers.] It appeared by those cheers that noble Lords so regarded it; but if such was the object of the proposition, he for one should hesitate much before he joined in rejecting this measure. But that really was not the nature of the Amendment. Was there any contest about the principle of the Bill? None. If there

1271
were, then that would be a question for the House itself to determine, and not one that should be referred to a Select Committee. The principle was admitted on both sides—namely, the adoption of a measure which should be productive of an equality of trade as between the colonial and the home producers of spirits. How was that equality of trade to be produced? It was by imposing upon the colonial article introduced into this country a discriminating duty which should be equal to the amount of charge to which the home article was subjected. Now this, he contended, was entirely a matter of inquiry; and he might appeal to the present debate as a proof of the necessity of it. There had been statements made with great ability on both sides; were their Lordships prepared upon those statements, on one side or the other, to come to a decision with respect to which of the two parties of asserters were, in the right or in the wrong? On the one hand he was told that this was a matter perfectly immaterial to the colonial interests, because the taste of the people of England was averse to rum; on the other land his noble Friend opposite, naturally feeling for the interests of the party with which he was connected, said that it was a question in which the colonial interests were deeply involved, and that the colonies could not be prosperous except by an alteration in the duty on rum. When doctors differed, it was not for him to resolve their differences; but it strongly proved that it was a case fit for inquiry. One word for Ireland. There were few branches of commercial interest connected with that country; but a small amount of capital was embarked in manufacturing industry there. That was one of the evils to which Ireland was subjected. But, among the few occupations which diverted the people from the cultivation of the land, in order to apply themselves to commercial pursuits, the distilleries of the country furnished the most productive means of employment. He, therefore, was not willing, without inquiry, to adopt a measure which might in its results seriously and injuriously affect that interest. On these grounds he should support the Amendment proposed by his noble Friend.
The House divided:—Content 57; Non-content 48: Majority for the Motion 9.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.