Sitting of 26 April 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Drainage of Lands (Scotland); Police Clauses; Passengers Act Amendment; Cemeteries Clause.
2° Landed Property Improvement {Ireland); Transference of Lands (Scotland); Heritable Securities for Debt (Scotland); Burgage Tenure (Scotland.)
Reported.—Registering Births, &c. (Scotland); Marriage (Scotland); Service of Heirs (Scotland.)
3° and passed:—Lunatic Asylums.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Barnard, from Greenwich, for Alteration of the Law respecting the Registration of Voters.—By Lord E. Hill, from Clergy of the
1364
Diocese of Dromore, for Improvement of Glebe Lands (Ireland.)—By Mr. Hume, from Derbyshire, for Discontinuance of the Regium Donum.—By Mr. Hutt, from Stella, in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—From Bath, for Inquiry respecting the Rajah of Sattara.—By several hon. Members, from Bradford and other places, for Repeal of the Anatomy Act.—By Mr. O. Duncombe, from Romaldkirk (Yorkshire), for Alteration of the Commons Inclosure Act.—By several hon. Members, from a great many places, against the proposed Plan of Education.—By several hon. Members, from numerous places, in favour of the proposed Plan of Education.—By Viscount Palmerston, from Factory Workers of Tyldesley, for the Ten Hours Factories Bill.—By Mr. Divett, from Heavitree, against the Health of Towns Bill.—By Lord E. Bruce and other hon. Members, from several places, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By Mr. Bateson, from Coleraine, and Mr. S. Crawford, from Donagh, for Alteration of the Law of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland.)—By Lord G. Bentinck, from Arthur Richardson Slack, of Springfort, near Balliconnell, for Alteration of the Law respecting Leasehold Property.—By Sir H. Douglas, from Liverpool, and Mr. Hudson, from Shipowners of the Tyne, against Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Sir De L. Evans, from James Donovan, Pensioner, for Inquiry.—By M. Colvile, from Guardians of the Poor of the Ashbourn Union, for an Efficient Poor Law (Ireland.)—By Mr. Christopher, from Poor Law Officers, for a Superannuation Fund.—By Colonel Rawdon, from Guardians of the Poor of the Castleblaney Union, in favour of the Poor Rates (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. S. Crawford and Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from several places, against the Introduction of a certain Clause into the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Hume, from Ballinacurra and Midleton, in favour of the Ports, Harbours, &c. (1846) Bill.—By Lord G. Bentinck and Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from several places, in favour of the Railways (Ireland) Bill.—By several hon. Members, from a great many places, against the Registering of Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill, and the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. J. Fielden, from Manchester, and Captain Rushout, from Guardians of the Poor of the Winchcombe Union, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement.—By Mr. Wakley, from Mary Younge, of Fincham (Norfolk), complaining of the Rev. John Howman,—By Mr. R. Hodgson, from the Rev. John Howman, of Bexwell, refuting the Charges made against, him by Mary Younge.

REGISTERING BIRTHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) BILLS.
SIR A. L. HAYasked the Lord Advocate whether it was his intention to proceed at once with the Registering Births Bill and the Marriage Bill for Scotland? Whether he proposed to alter or to expunge the 12th Clause of the former measure? And if he so proposed to alter such clause, what the nature of that alteration, was to be?
The LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that it was not his intention to insist on the retention of the 12th Clause. He, however, thought, that the grounds of the objections urged against it were misrepresented. He doubted much whether the interest of the schoolmasters was understood by the opposition that was now raised to this clause. With respect to the Marriage Bill, he had to state in a single word that it was his intention to proceed with that Bill as it stood upon the Paper. He thought that the amendment in the law, in respect to the marriages that shall hereafter be contract-

1365
ed in Scotland, should be effected in this way—in the first place, by the solemnization of the clergyman; or, in the second place, by registration. Objections had been stated to the measure in different quarters; he should, therefore, propose to introduce Amendments into the measure, which he otherwise should hardly have ventured upon. He proposed to introduce certain provisions in reference to the residences of the parties, and in reference to the notices to be given of registration. He hoped that his noble Friend near him would consent to permit this Bill to go into Commitee pro formâ before the other business of the evening was proceeded with, in order that the House might receive those Amendments referred to. If this proposition were acceded, to, the Bills could be sent down to Scotland in time for those meetings that were to take place on the subject in the different counties in the course of the week.
MR. HUMEexpressed a hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would also introduce some alterations into the Registration Bill.
SIR R. H. INGLISIn answer to a question from SIR R. H. INGLIS,
The LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that his object was, by the proposition he had made, to give the different counties of Scotland an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the subject before they proceeded with the further stages of the measure.
SIR G. CLERKthought there could be no objection to the course proposed.

EMIGRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES.
LORD G. BENTINCKwished to ask a question of his noble Friend regarding emigrants to the United States. He had, on a former occasion, brought this subject under the noble Lord's attention; but it appeared that there was not then any information received upon the subject. He understood the Bills to which he had before referred, as being under the consideration of the Legislatures in New York and Massachusetts, had since become law. The effect of them was this, that every shipowner taking out Irish emigrants to New York was obliged to enter into his bond in the amount of 100 dollars, that such emigrants should not become chargeable to the State of New York within a period of five years; whilst to Massachusetts the shipowners would be obliged to give their bond in 1,000 dollars, that no emigrant should become a pauper of that State
1366
within a period of ten years. He understood that the effect of this law would be to drive all these paupers into the Canadas. He begged to ask his noble Friend to give the House such information as he had received on this subject, and to state whether any provision had been made for the reception of the Irish emigrants in the North American colonies, so that they might not be exposed to great distress?
LORD J. RUSSELLhad not heard of the passing of the Bills to which the noble Lord had referred. But he knew that such Bills were under the consideration of the New York and Massachusetts Governments; and the effect of them "would be to require security from shipowners having vessels freighted for either New York or Boston, that any pauper passengers would not be left destitute and chargeable to the Government. He had applied on the subject to the American Minister here; and the Minister told him that he did not think that emigrants going to New York or Boston would be refused the freedom of remaining there, or the protection of the laws of the country in the same manner as heretofore. But the law was stringent in regard to shipowners and masters of ships. The effect would be, that shipowners would not send ships to the United States with emigrants; and emigrants would be deterred from going, and would go instead to Canada. The Government had given a larger addition to the grant for emigrants than any former year, both for the purpose of taking care of the settlers, and of forwarding them into the interior of the country. It appeared to him to be a matter of serious consideration whether there would, on this account, be a greater tide of emigration to Canada, and whether it would be necessary to propose any further steps in respect to the matter.

SUPPLY—GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION—REPORT.
LORD J. RUSSELL: In moving the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report of the Committee of Supply, I wish, in the first place, to explain a matter personal to myself, upon which a statement has been made by an hon. Friend of mine in this House on a former night. The hon. Member for Carlisle said, that on the 14th or 15th of this month an application was made to me on the part of the Catholic bishops, who were anxious to see me before the 19th instant, in order to make some statement, but that I declined to grant an interview before the 19th.

1367
As I should be very sorry to be supposed to be guilty of any want of courtesy towards the Roman Catholic bishops, I will state exactly what occurred as to this matter. On Saturday, the 17th, after the meeting of the Cabinet Council, and when I was about to pass the Sunday a few miles out of town, and carry with me a large bundle of pamphlets on education, I received this letter:—
"Bishop Griffiths presents his respectful compliments to Lord John Russell, and requests the honour of an interview of three Catholic bishops as a deputation of the Catholic bishops residing in England now assembled in London, on the subject of the education of the children of poor Catholics. Bishop Griffiths requests this interview before the introduction of any measure on the subject.
"Golden Square, April 17th, 1847."
I certainly understood the letter to allude to the subject of the education of the children of poor Catholics, and having to meet my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer early on Monday with respect to a subject connected with the finances of the country, and having to state on Monday afternoon the measure of education proposed, I did not think it absolutely necessary that I should see the Roman Catholic bishops upon the subject, either on the Sunday or on Monday morning; and, indeed, it is quite obvious that if I had done so I could not have assembled the Committee of Privy Council to make different arrangements as to the measure to be brought forward; therefore, I wrote, as the hon. Member for Carlisle says—
"Lord John Russell presents his compliments to Bishop Griffiths, and will name a day, to receive the deputation of the Catholic bishops, before the introduction of any measure."
I conceived that I was giving an answer to this letter of Bishop Griffiths, which I received on the evening of the 17th; that if it was intended that any measure with regard to the education of the poor Catholics should be considered, that they should state their views upon the subject before any such measure should be introduced. I intended, and do still intend, to see either Bishop Griffiths or any other Catholic bishop who may wish to see me on the subject. Having stated thus much with regard to a matter entirely personal, I beg leave only to say, in moving the Order of the Day, that I hope I have made it fully understood that there is no intention whatever of excluding the Catholics from the benefit of the grant for the purposes of education; but, at the same time, we think it necessary to have fresh Minutes upon the sub-
1368
ject, and to consider the subject very carefully; and I will mention one reason among many other reasons. We have declared that we do not think it right that any clergyman of the Church of England, either in priest's orders or deacon's orders, should, in the capacity of a schoolmaster, receive any part of this grant; that it would be maintaining a part of the Ecclesiastical Establishment under the name of a grant for education. If we do so, it is obvious we must take care that in any grant with regard, to Catholics, no person in holy orders, either as secular or regular clergy of the Church of Rome, should be paid as schoolmasters under that grant. It would obviously not be right to do for the Roman Catholics that which you refuse to do for the Church of England; but I understand there are cases of Roman Catholics—Christian Brethren—who are not in holy orders, and who very much undertake the business of education, and are extremely useful in the schools of poor Catholics. That is a matter which will require a good deal of consideration, and any Minutes on this subject must be framed with care. Whether we shall be able to frame the Minutes in a very short time, or whether it may not be necessary to have some inspection and some report as to the Catholic schools before we do so, I cannot at the present time state. I only beg to assure the House, that, as far as we are concerned, we have no intention whatever of excluding Roman Catholics; and I think the grants for education ought to be made as useful as possible for all classes.
SIR G. CLERKobserved, that some misapprehension had arisen in some parts of Scotland, as to how far the parochial schools there would derive any benefit from this system. He wished to know, therefore, first, whether parochial schoolmasters, properly qualified, would be entitled to receive pupil-teachers, and whether the parochial schoolmasters would derive any gratuity from the instruction; secondly, whether, as the salary provided by law for parochial schoolmasters in Scotland was extremely small, those persons being also duly qualified, would be entitled to receive an addition to the salary they at present received; and, thirdly, whether parochial schoolmasters, after length of service, would be entitled to retiring pensions?
LORD J. RUSSELL: This is a ques-which has not been submitted to the Committee of Privy Council; and, therefore, any answer I make will only convey my own impression. It is the intention of the

1369
grant that aid should be given in support of voluntary societies and contributions; therefore I conceive that schoolmasters who have stipends by law will not be entitled to derive aid from this grant. If it is proper to increase the stipends of Scotch schoolmasters, and give retiring allowances, it ought to be done by another grant.
Report brought up.
On the Question, that the Resolution of the Committee be read a Second Time,
SIR W. MOLESWORTHsaid: The noble Lord forgot to read the concluding passage of his letter to Bishop Griffiths:—
"Her Majesty's Ministers, however, have no intention of promulgating new Minutes of Council upon the subject at present."
Before I introduce the Amendment of which I have given notice, I may state that I have received a petition from Manchester emanating from a public meeting of Catholics held in that town. The petitioners state that they have heard with the strongest feelings of regret, that, in order to exclude the Roman Catholics of this kingdom from a participation in the Government grant, a religious test has been introduced which they cannot accede to; and the petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that they may be admitted without such test to a just share in the grant. With the permission of the House I will now read the resolution of which I have given notice, and will state my reasons for so doing. I trust no objection will be taken to the occasion which I have selected for this resolution. It must be borne in mind that the measure of the Government has not been introduced in the shape of a Bill; therefore, I have no other means of attempting to amend what appears to me to be a defect in the measure. I expect, therefore, that the Government will consent fairly to meet my resolution as if it were an amendment to a clause in a Bill for aiding education. In moving such an Amendment I am actuated by no feeling of hostility or dislike to the Government measure; for, from the commencement of the agitation upon this question, I have felt it my duty to take a decided part in favour of that measure; and it is well known that for persons who represent large and popular town constituencies, the real battle has been without, and not within, the walls of this House. It has happened to me, as to other hon. Members, to have been called upon by some of my influential constituents to oppose any interference of
1370
the State in the education of the people, and especially to oppose the Government measure for that purpose. My answer always has been a direct and unqualified negative. I said that I had been and always should be favourable to a system of national education; that I should support the measure of the Government, not as a comprehensive measure of national education, but as another step in a right direction. The first step had been to assist in building schools; the second, to acquire some inspection over those schools; the present step was to raise the qualifications and position of schoolmasters—and good schools, good schoolmasters, and good inspectors, were among the elements of a good system of education. I did not deny that objections might be raised to some of the details of the measure; but I considered that on the whole the measure was a fair one; that it showed no preference for any sect; that if the Church of England, or any other sect, should obtain a larger proportionate share of public money, it would be in consequence of their voluntary exertions, and their greater zeal in the cause of the education of the people. I said this in the full belief that all sects of Christians would be equally entitled to participate in the proposed grant of public money. It was with great grief, therefore, that I found that I had both deceived myself and deceived others. Now, the object of my resolution is to make the Government measure what most persons believed it to be, and to enable Roman Catholics to participate in any Parliamentary grant for the purposes of education. This proposition seems to me so evidently a fair one, that I am almost at a loss to conceive what objections can be raised to it. It may, however, be said that Roman Catholics do not require grants for purposes of education; and it has been said that they have made no applications for such grants. A very few persons in this House—more in proportion out of the House—will declare that Roman Catholics, as such, should be excluded from all Parliamentary grants for education. But the objections which I expect will be chiefly urged will be, that this is not the proper time nor the proper form for such a Motion as that I am now submitting to the House. I will consider each of the objections separately. First, it maybe said that Roman Catholics do not require assistance. On the contrary, I am inclined to think that no portion of our labouring population so much requires assistance. Let the House only

1371
consider the condition of the Roman Catholic population in our large commercial and manufacturing towns, and how destitute they must be of the means of educating their children. Take, for instance, Manchester. I will quote the highest authority, in the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth:—
"I take the population of Manchester (said the right hon. Baronet.) I believe there is a district in Manchester called 'the Irish town,' so great is the number of the Irish population there. I am told that it contains no less than 60,000 or 70,000 Irish inhabitants. What passes in Manchester with respect to them? They go there distinguished generally by their industry. They afford to the wealthy manufacturers of Manchester the advantages of their labour and their numbers; yet they have no natural protectors. There are no wealthy Roman Catholics immediately connected with Manchester who have a regard for their spiritual welfare, and there is no one with means ample enough to superintend their education. How, then, is the education of these 60,000 or 70,000 of the poorest classes to be provided for? They have their priests, no doubt, to attend to them; but I apprehend the means of the priests to provide a perfect system of education are extremely limited. Is it for the advantage of the State that these 60,000 or 70,000 persons should be brought up in ignorance or vice? I confess I cannot conceive a more urgent case, not so far merely as the intellectual advantage of the Roman Catholic is concerned; but if there be any truth in our principles, that the true remedy against barbarism, against crime, and against degradation of character is instruction—and upon that principle we appear to be all agreed, and all disposed to support this vote—if, I say, there be any truth in this principle, is it not for the advantage of the Protestant community that these Roman Catholic children should not be immersed in ignorance? So far as their position is concerned, I can conceive no stronger claim upon a provident and parental Government than to pay some attention to their situation."
It has been asserted, and some stress has been laid upon the assertion, that no distinct application has been made to the Committee of Council on Education on behalf of the Catholics. If no application has been made, it would have been no matter for wonder; because up to the period of the Minutes of last year the rule was, that grants should only be made to schools connected with the National and British and Foreign School Societies, except under very special circumstances. But it so happened that applications were made, under circumstances which were considered to be very special; namely, the extreme poverty of the applicants, combined with their willingness to contribute their pence and halfpence for purposes of education. These applications were first made on the 15th of June, 1846, by Mr. Langdale,
1372
acting under the sanction of the Catholic vicars-apostolic of England and Wales, to the right hon. Baronet opposite. The right hon. Baronet left office so soon after this application, that he had not time to take it into his consideration. Mr. Langdale renewed his application to the noble Lord the Member for London. The noble Lord replied on the 20th of August last, that he would refer the subject to the Committee of Council. Mr. Langdale then wrote to the Lord President of the Council, and the Lord President promised to give the subject his mature consideration. On the 23rd of January, Mr. Langdale applied again to the Lord President for the result of his consideration. He stated, schools were in course of erection; the districts in which they were being erected were excessively poor, and therefore had every claim for assistance. On the 8th of February, Mr. Shuttleworth answered—
"That he was directed by his Lordship to say, that he will bring under the consideration of the Committee of Council on Education any application (accompanied with all requisite particulars) which may be made for assistance towards the erection of Roman Catholic as well as other schools. Their Lordships may thus be enabled, upon a careful examination of the constitution of the school, to determine whether under their present Minutes they can grant assistance."
Mr. Langdale immediately applied for a Parliamentary grant towards the erection of Roman Catholic schools in the town of Blackburn. The noble Lord the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire has therefore been misinformed, when he said that Catholic applications had never assumed a distinct form. The answer of Mr. Shuttleworth, dated February 18, requires further information with regard to the proposed schools, the system of religious instruction to be pursued, and the admission of children of Protestant parents. This letter was considered of so much importance, that it was referred to the assembly of Catholic bishops which took place in the beginning of this month. Their answer to it expressed their readiness to admit Protestant children on the fairest terms; and the whole tenor of their letter shows their willingness to accept the assistance of the Government, and their belief that they were going to receive that assistance. This answer was transmitted by Mr. Langdale to Mr. Shuttleworth on the 14th instant; but on the 16th, Mr. Shuttleworth brings the negotiation suddenly to a close, by referring to that portion of the Minutes of the Committee of Council of December 3,

1373
1839, which requires in all schools receiving assistance that "a portion of Scriptures should be daily read;" and this, according to Mr. Shuttleworth's version, means "the entire Bible in the authorized version," and therefore excludes all Roman Catholics from a participation in any Parliamentary grant. The next day the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, in replying to an application for an interview on the part of some of the Roman Catholic bishops, stated that Her Majesty's Ministers had no immediate intention of promulgating Minutes of the Privy Council on the subject of the education of the children of poor Catholics. This unexpected result has certainly produced considerable, and I must say not unjust, discontent in the minds of many of the Roman Catholics. At a meeting a few days ago, at which eight Catholic bishops and some of the most influential Catholics in England were present, with Lord Shrewsbury in the chair, a resolution most condemnatory of the conduct of the Government was passed. I have once read that resolution to the House. It speaks in such harsh terms of the Government, that I had rather not read it again. I will only say that the belief prevails among many persons that the interests of the Catholics have been sacrificed to please the Wesleyans. After the declarations of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport—after the assurances of the noble Lord the Member for London, I will consider that belief to be without foundation; but I must say that great errors of judgment have been committed—that a grievous injustice is being done to the Roman Catholics—and that they are grossly insulted by this exclusion. I have now shown that the Roman Catholics of this country stand in the greatest need of assistance from the State for the education of their children—that they have earnestly solicited it, and are willing to receive it on any fair terms. But, Sir, in my opinion, it matters not whether they do or no not require it, whether they have or have not applied for it. The real question is one of principle. The question is, are there any grounds which would justify the State in drawing a distinction between Catholics and other sects of Christians? Every hon. Gentleman who has spoken in the course of these debates, with one solitary exception, has held that such grounds do not exist. I am afraid, however, there are others besides him in
1374
this House, and more out of doors, who would refuse Parliamentary aid for the education of Catholics. I cannot understand the feelings of these Gentlemen. I can understand the feelings of the slaveowner of the southern States of America, who denies education to his slave, and subjects to frightful punishments those who attempt to instruct them; for his life and his property are at stake, and depend upon the ignorance of the human brutes that surround him. I can understand the feelings of the earnest bigot, who believes that all who depart from his religious faith are certain of eternal damnation, and thence logically infers that there is no amount of human suffering and misery which may not be justly inflicted on the mere chance of saving one soul from an eternity of hell. I can enter into the feelings of our great forefathers, who beheld in the contest between Protestants and Papists a mighty effort to shake off the trammels of authority, to establish the right of free inquiry, and to lay the foundations of civil and religious liberty. They hated Papists as the enemies of the human race, and slew them as such. I can understand a wise ruler and statesman like Cromwell deliberately entertaining the project of destroying the Catholic population of Ireland. And if I had lived in those times, without doubt I should have been as bigoted as my forefathers, as imbued with the same fierce hatred and cruel intolerance of Papitss. But I cannot understand those feelings at the present day, when Catholicism and Protestantism have ceased to be the respective symbols of despotism and liberty—when one of the most enlightened potentates on the face of the earth sits in the chair of St. Peter—I cannot understand, when the State has bestowed the elective franchise upon Catholics—when it has permitted them to sit as legislators in both Houses of Parliament—allowed them to fill some of the most important offices of Government—in short, admitted them to all the highest rights and privileges of citizenship—I cannot understand upon what grounds it can deny them minor rights and privileges, and exclude them from a share of the funds devoted to national education. It is acknowledged on all hands that ignorance is the prolific parent of vice and crime—education the only remedy. But does vice, does crime, cease to be noxious to the State when it is the vice and the crime of Catholics? Do you fear the influence of the Catholic priest? Education

1375
is the best antidote to priestcraft of every kind. What then do we dread? I know not. I repeat, therefore, that the Roman Catholics of this country do require the assistance of the State—that they have earnestly sought for it, would thankfully accept it, and ought to have it. I doubt whether any hon. Gentleman will controvert this position. What objections, then, will be raised to my resolution? I suppose the usual ones, that this is not the proper form for such a Motion; that this is not the proper occasion for bringing it under the consideration of the House. It is my opinion the fittest opportunity—for we are about to commence a new system. That system is described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh in the following terms—"There cannot be a system of more impartiality in principle, and it is also one of perfect impartiality in practice." In his peroration he appeals to future ages, "which, while enjoying all the blessings of a just and efficient system of State education, will look back with astonishment to the opposition which the introduction of that system encountered; and will be still more astonished that such resistance was offered in the name of civil and religious freedom." I think future ages would be most of all astonished, if after reading the unrivalled speech of that right hon. Gentleman, they could be persuaded that under this perfectly impartial system 800,000 individuals of the most ancient, renowned, and numerous sect of Christians were excluded; but nothing will persuade them of the fact, for the rest of the debate will perish, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman contains no allusion to the Roman Catholics. Can there be a stronger argument against their exclusion? The ablest rhetorician in the House dare not allude to it. My resolution, if carried, will make his measure an impartial one, which it is not. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London was of a very different opinion from that of his right hon. Colleague. With him it is not the introduction of a system which will deserve the gratitude of ages; it is merely the repetition of a grant, the principle of which has been annually conceded without opposition since 1839. Now, I am quite of a contrary opinion. I agree entirely with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that there is a great alteration in the principle of the grant. The first Parliamentary grant for education was in 1833. It was not a general grant for the
1376
building of schools, but a special grant to the National, and British and Foreign School Societies, to assist them in building schools. It was like many grants in the miscellaneous estimates, in which money is given to institutions of a useful public character, the benefits of which are confined to a limited portion of the community. In 1339 the rule of confining the grant to schools connected with the National, and British and Foreign School Societies, was not changed; but it was provided that in special cases it might be departed from. Now, however, the rule is entirely changed—the grant is to all sects of Christians, with the single exception of the Catholics. The Catholics had no especial right to complain, so long as other sects besides themselves—the Wesleyans for example—were excluded, and as long as they were not absolutely and directly excluded on account of their faith, but only indirectly by not being connected with the two societies. They might say, and justly say, that it was bad policy on the part of the State to confine its assistance to the two societies; but they could not complain of special injury, special injustice, and, I will add, special insult to themselves. Now, the object of my Motion is to atone for that insult, and to do justice to them. With regard to the terms of my Motion, I have endeavoured to shape it so as to interfere in the least possible degree with the functions of the Committee of Council. What is it that excludes Roman Catholics from participating in the Parliamentary grants for education? They are not excluded by the Minutes of last year. I still contend they are not necessarily excluded by the words of the Minutes of December 3, 1839, that "the daily reading of a portion of the Scriptures" should form part of the instruction in all schools receiving grants of public money. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport acknowledged that there were doubts upon the subject. But Roman Catholics are now excluded by the special interpretation that has been put upon these words by Mr. Kay Suttleworth, in his communications with the Secretaries of the Wesleyan Conference on the 7th inst. In that communication Mr. Shuttle worth states that the words a "portion of the Scriptures," means "the entire Bible in the authorized version," in all cases except of schools connected with the British and Foreign School Society, where they mean "extracts" from the Bible. I do think this scholastic subtlety is unworthy of us.

1377
If we will not contribute to the education of the Roman Catholics, let us say so at once like men, and not narrow it to a question of the comparative accuracy of two translations of the Scriptures. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester has justly observed that "this was the most unfortunate ground on which the exclusion of Roman Catholics could be voted." Now, the object of my resolution is simply to cancel the doubtful interpretation which has been put upon the Minutes of the Committee of December 3, 1839, and to restore the Catholics to the position which their bishops and the majority of persons supposed they held on the 14th inst., with regard to Parliamentary grants. It may be said that the Committee of Council can frame a Minute for this purpose without the assistance of Parliament, and therefore there is no use for my resolution. Put I beg the House to remember that the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport, both expressly demanded that the sanction of the House should be given to them to enable them, as Members of the Privy Council, to alter the rule which excluded Roman Catholics. The noble Lord offered an explanation of the position in which he stood with respect to the Roman Catholics; he stated that when he became a Member of the Committee of Council, he found certain rules established; that those rules with regard to Catholics were of such importance, that the Committee would not be warranted in changing them without giving notice to Parliament; and he concluded by saying that—
"He must, in justice to himself, and in candour to others, declare that of no Committee which refused on principle to admit Roman Catholic applications, because they were Roman Catholics., could he continue to be a Member."
I know that the noble Lord is a straightforward and honourable gentleman, and that his words are not empty vaunts. I believe that he is sincerely anxious to do justice to the Catholics. I have given the notice he required; my resolution carried, he will be able to accomplish his wishes. I therefore count upon his vote. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport admitted that the Roman Catholics had just ground of complaint—that an injustice had been done to them—that it ought to be removed, but that it would be objectionable to remove it without the sanction of Parliament; and he said—
1378
"If the House should affirm the proposition that Roman Catholics ought to participate in those grants, no one would rejoice more sincerely than he should to see the difficulty removed—no one would more cordially co-operate in the endeavour to frame a Minute that should bring Roman Catholics within the rule."
I call upon the House, therefore, to affirm my resolution, that Roman Catholics ought to participate in those grants, in order that the right hon. Baronet may rejoice—in order that his difficulty may be removed—and that he may frame a Minute which shall bring Roman Catholics within the rule. It may be urged as an objection to my resolution, that after the declaration of Her Majesty's Ministers in this House, I ought to have been satisfied, and left the question to them. If the noble Lord had distinctly declared that he would, as soon as possible, and in this Session of Parliament, bring this subject before the House, though I cannot conceive a more suitable opportunity than the present one, yet I would at once have withdrawn my Motion. But what was the declaration of the noble Lord? That we must wait till next year. The noble Lord said, that it was very possible that they might be able to frame Minutes by which, when the House was next asked to grant aid to those schools, the Roman Catholics might be included with others. Why this delay? If this exclusion be an act of injustice and hardship to Catholics, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport terms it, why any further delay in rescinding it? But the noble Lord says, much care and consideration are required to frame the Minutes. Be it so. My resolution docs not prevent him exercising every care and consideration in his power. It binds him to nothing specifically; it only gives him the Parliamentary sanction which his Colleagues declared to be absolutely requisite before they could undertake to frame the Minutes required. There is some discrepancy between the views of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport, on the one hand, and the noble Lord the Member for the city of London on the other hand. The two first declared that they could not frame the Minutes required without the previous sanction of Parliament; in consequence of those declarations I immediately gave notice of my Resolution; and the answer of the noble Lord was, that the Minutes should first be framed, and that the question would come before us with next year's

1379
Vote on Supply. The question would be, therefore, postponed to the next year. I agree entirely on this subject with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester. I understood the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Tamworth, to say that there ought to be an early consideration of the claims of the Catholics, and that there ought to be no misunderstanding upon the subject, especially if a general election was at hand. To prevent any misunderstanding upon the subject, the right hon. Baronet will, without doubt, vote for my Resolution. I lay claim to the vote of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester. The right hon. Baronet has stated my opinions on the subject far more forcibly than I can. He asked the House on Thursday last whether
—"it was just to the Roman Catholics to postpone to some further period the decision of this momentous question."
He said—
"He could see some expediency in proposing to postpone it, but he could see no justice whatever;"—
and the right hon. Baronet stated the position of the Roman Catholics to be this:—
"They were told, that at the present moment they were not to partake of the grant, but that at some future period, which was not defined, their sole isolated case—a case, he must say, invidiously isolated—was to be brought under consideration of this House. When was the right time? The time to do justice was now, and he never could think that it was wise to postpone any concession which justice, equity, and the spirit of toleration and freedom irresistibly demanded."
It is said that it is inexpedient at present to raise this question. Why, I ask, inexpedient? Because, it is said, there is a feeling out of doors against Roman Catholics, and a general election is at hand. I think that feeling is overrated. But suppose that antipathy to Catholics does prevail out of doors. Do we share in that feeling? I believe not. Are we bound to yield to it? What are our duties as Members of this House? Are we representatives or delegates? Are we bound to exercise our own independent judgment on every subject, or simply to register the edicts of the electoral body? Are we bound to act for the benefit of all, or merely to consult the prejudices, each of his own constituents? What, I ask, are our duties? Sir, the 650 Gentlemen, who are Members of this House, constitute a body of men whose superior or equal, as a body, I believe, cannot be found in this
1380
country or in the world. As a body, I believe, we are in advance of public opinion. From us the people chiefly acquire their political knowledge. We are their chosen leaders, ought to be their instructors and teachers. Solemn and sacred duties, therefore, devolve upon us, and no duty more important than that of reproving the prejudices and correcting the errors of the people. I consider that a seat in this assembly is the highest dignity and honour that can be bestowed upon an English gentleman, when it is obtained by an honest expression of sincere convictions, and by a conscientious performance of duties. On the other hand, if it be obtained by paltry truckling to vile prejudices, it is a disgrace and a reproach to the man. It is true that we are on the eve of a general election. Let us not go before the people as craven cowards shrinking from a great question. Let us tell them our honest convictions; show them that we are in earnest by our votes, boldly meet them on the hustings; call upon them to ratify our conduct; and they will do so in the teeth of their prejudices. I thank the House for its indulgence. I will now conclude with the Resolution of which I have given notice. The hon. Baronet moved—
"That any Minutes of the Committee of Privy Council on Education, or other regulations which exclude Roman Catholics from participating in any grant of public money for purposes of Education, by requiring in all schools which receive such grants of public money the use of the authorized version of the Scriptures, are inexpedient, and ought to be rescinded."
SIR G. GREY: Sir, I am not one of those who are at all disposed to blame the hon. Baronet for bringing this subject under the consideration of the House; and I do not rise now for the purpose of replying to the arguments by which he has enforced the justice of allowing the Roman Catholics to participate in the advantages of the Parliamentary grant. I will not repeat what I have already stated on this subject, because the hon. Gentleman has quoted some passages in my speech the other evening with approbation, for which I thank him. With this remark I beg to state, that I have not one syllable to retract from what I then said; and after the declaration made by my noble Friend to-night, I should have hoped the hon. Gentleman would have been content to leave this matter where it was. It has been already stated, that the Government stand pledged to take the subject into their early consideration, and that they will devote their attention to it, with

1381
the view of carrying out what appears to be the prevailing opinion of the House and of the country. I do not think the hon. Member has adopted the most satisfactory mode of carrying out his views; nor am I sure that, as he conceives, the only point to be considered by the Committee of Privy Council is whether, by the Minutes of 1839, the authorized version alone is to be used in the schools. If they should decide that the Holy Scriptures mean the Douay version, I do not think that would remove all the difficulties which will come under the consideration of the Privy Council when they frame the Minutes admitting the Roman Catholics. The House will see that we are not only desirous, but that we are pledged, to the early consideration of the question of the participation by the Roman Catholics in the assistance of the State; and when we propose the Minute, and the House is called upon to vote the money, that will be the time for the House to decide this question, and to determine what shall be the grant of money for this object. The hon. Baronet has said, that if we will pledge ourselves to submit the Minutes respecting the aid to be given to Catholic schools this Session, he will not press his Motion. Sir, I can give him no definite assurance on this subject. I do not wish the House to suppose it possible that no Minute will be prepared, and that no Vote will be proposed this Session. But, in abstaining from any promise on that subject, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no wish, as he supposes, to take advantage of the coming election. So far from this, I believe it would be better if we had a Minute ready now to lay it upon the Table, and to defend it on the hustings, rather than to go to an election in which we should be accused of not having had the courage to go on. As the Committee of the Privy Council have not met since the question has come before the House, I will not deceive the House by any implied pledge as to the decision they may come to. We wish to enter upon the consideration of the subject unfettered and unpledged, except by the pledge I have given to the House, that the subject shall have the best and the early attention of the Government.
LORD H. VANEagreed in thinking that the better course would have been for the Government, as regarded the question of elections, to have stated precisely what their intentions were with respect to the Roman Catholics; and he believed the ma-
1382
jority of the House were of that opinion. He regretted that, at the introduction of this system, the Government had not stated their intentions more distinctly, although, he admitted, they had many difficulties to contend with. He felt that, after the discussion which had taken place, and when so many Members on both sides of the House had declared themselves upon the subject, no time should be lost; but the Minute ought to be framed at an early period, with a view to carry the object of the Government into effect. The declarations of the Government were such, that he was sure there would be no great postponement of the plan; and he thought those declarations must have given satisfaction, to the Roman Catholic Members who heard them; for they must have felt satisfied that, although the Roman Catholics were now excluded, there was an intention of including them at a very early period. He would recommend the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Motion.
SIR R. H. INGLISobserved, that the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) had anticipated two classes of objections to his Motion: one having reference to its form, and the other to the time at which it was brought forward; but he seemed to think that there were no other grounds on which his proposition could be opposed. He, however, opposed the hon. Baronet's Motion on far higher and more sacred grounds than those to which the hon. Baronet had referred; and his objection applied to the proposition, whether introduced by the hon. Baronet, by the noble Lord the present Premier, or by the right hon. Baronet the late Prime Minister of this country. Under any circumstances, at any time, and introduced by any men, the proposal now brought forward by the hon. Baronet would meet his (Sir R. Inglis's) determined opposition. He knew it was said that the effect of that proposal would merely be to give a small salary to a few Roman Catholic schoolmasters; but he saw distinctly—and he believed the country saw too—that this was the first step towards the payment of the Roman Catholic priests in England for teaching in the pulpit those doctrines which children would be taught in Roman Catholic schools. He could see that the two great leaders in that House were united in this cause; and it became the House to bear fully in mind what was the deliberate and expressed intention of those to whom the confidence of the country was, and had been, so largely conceded.

1383
In the first instance, the education of the people of this country was confided to the Church; next, the State had extended its aid to those who used the authorized version of the Scriptures; and now—irrespectively even of that safeguard—the State was required to extend its support to all who called themselves Christians. But there the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) stopped short; and his (Sir R. Inglis's) hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract must not indulge the hope of securing the support of the late Prime Minister to any plan for educating Jews, Turks, infidels, or heretics. The right hon. Baronet stopped at the word Christians; but said, with reference to Roman Catholics, that he would not be a party to any course which might place the noble Lord, his successor in office, in any difficulty upon that question. He would venture to tell his right hon. Friend, that he believed, not even all the protection and support which he (Sir R. Peel) could give to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, would enable that noble Lord to carry into operation a system so repugnant to the genius of the constitution of England. The great mass of the people, were at this moment distinctly hostile to any further concession to the Roman Catholics; and they would not be misled by the kind of threat which had been repeatedly urged in that House, that the numbers of the Roman Catholics imposed upon the State an obligation to comply with their requests. The hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House, indulging in that species of exaggeration—though, doubtless, unintentionally—to which they had been accustomed to listen from the advocates of Roman Catholics, had talked of the 1,500,000 Roman Catholics who dwelt in this portion of Her Majesty's dominions. They had before heard of the 8,000,000 of Roman Catholics in Ireland; but gross as that exaggeration was, it was not quite so gross as the exaggeration of the hon. Member for Southwark. He would put the hon. Baronet's statement to a test which had frequently been used, in order to ascertain the numbers of any particular creed; he would test it by the number of marriages of Roman Catholics in proportion to the whole population. Now, according to that test, the number of Roman Catholics in this country was less than 300,000. Some allowance must, of course, be made, in applying this test to Roman Catholics, for those members of the body who entered
1384
into religious orders, and were thereby debarred from marriage. The ordinary proportion of marriages to the whole population in this age and country is now taken as one in 129; it had been one in 130. The Registrar-General's report gave no more than 2,280 marriages solemnized in places of Roman Catholic worship in 1844. But though there might be some ground for supposing that the number of marriages among Roman Catholics, from the cause which he had just mentioned, might be less in proportion to their numbers than those amongst Baptists and Independents, it must not be forgotten that marriage, being regarded as a sacrament by the Romish Church, there was a strong inducement for the solemnization of all marriages between members of that Church, or between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant, in Roman Catholic places of worship. If, then, they found that no more than 2,280 Roman Catholics married in a given year, taking the ascertained average in other portions of the population of one marriage to each 129 persons, the number of Roman Catholics in England and Wales would not exceed 300,000. It was quite clear, from the statements which had been made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and by the First Lord of the Treasury in the present Administration, and from the opinions which had been expressed by the right hon. Gentlemen who filled those offices in the late Administratration, that if their combined forces could carry such a proposition as that now made by the hon. Member for Southwark, it would be adopted; but, so far as the feelings of the people of England were concerned, he believed it would be found to be arrayed most strongly against legalizing, endowing, and supporting the education of Roman Catholics at the expense of the State: first, because they felt that the measure was wrong in itself; and, secondly, because they knew that the endowment of the priesthood would follow the adoption of such a measure. He (Sir R. Inglis) could conceive no argument in favour of the one, which did not equally apply in favour of the other. He had asked the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) when he was in office, whether he would pledge himself not to sanction any measure for the payment of the Roman Catholic priesthood at a future period? But his right hon. Friend refused to give such a pledge; and he, therefore, could not but conceive that, so far as that right hon.

1385
Baronet was concerned, the country would have no security, if he returned to power to-morrow, against the payment of the priesthood of the Church of Rome in Ireland. He (Sir R. Inglis) must say, that he had heard with surprise the declarations made by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) within the last few days, and which were especially unexpected by those who had been in frequent communication with the noble Lord on this subject for some time past. He was ready to concede, however, that the noble Lord had not broken any pledge, because the noble Lord did not even now propose to appropriate any portion of the present vote to the support of any system of education in which the authorized version of the Scriptures was not used. The noble Lord had, however, intimated too plainly his wish, his intention, and almost his expectation, of carrying a measure which would extend very materially the principle upon which the vote of last Friday was based. He felt it his duty to resist any concessions of this kind at the outset, because, when the first step had been taken towards such concessions, it was very difficult to recede, and almost impossible not to advance.
SIR R. PEEL: Whenever my hon. Friend who has just sat down expresses an opinion in this House, however emphatic may be the declaration of that opinion, I feel so much respect for his integrity and character that I always believe he is expressing the opinion which he sincerely and conscientiously entertains; and I cannot but think that my hon. Friend would show more of true toleration if he would extend to others that principle which others are willing to apply to him, and give them also credit for having no other object in view, in expressing opinions which may differ from his own, than to promote the public interest, and to do justice between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. My hon. Friend imputes to me that it was my object, in delivering the opinions I expressed on Friday night, to outbid the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and to attempt to conciliate the Roman Catholics in order to obtain their support. Sir, I assure my hon. Friend that he does me gross injustice—that I have no object whatever of a political kind in outbidding the noble Lord. If I had any political or personal object in view, I greatly doubt whether I should promote it by the expression of my opinion, that when you are revising and reconstituting a
1386
system of public education, you should not exclude the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty from a participation in its advantages. My hon. Friend must remember the course I took with regard to the Maynooth grant, and the opinions I then expressed, at some risk of the loss of popular favour and of office; and he must have seen that there is between him and me a total difference of opinion as to the principle of giving aid to the Roman Catholics for purposes of instruction. I do not believe that we are compromising our own faith by giving that aid. If I wanted a proof that my hon. Friend ought to have done me the justice which I am willing to do him, I find that proof in his own speech; for, after limiting through the statistical returns of the Registrar General, he finds that the Roman Catholic population of this country has been grossly overrated, and that, inferring the number of Roman Catholics from the number of marriages, they ought not in England to exceed 300,000. Well: be it so. My hon. Friend's estimate shall be assumed to be correct. There are not more than 300,000 Roman Catholics in England. What political object could I have, then, in recommending that justice should be done to a small section of the population? I do not find that measures intended to improve the position of the Roman Catholics are exceedingly popular in this House; for I recollect that a measure in their favour which had been recently carried by a majority of three, on being exposed to a further ordeal, was lost by a majority of 39. So far, therefore, as this act of the House is an indication of the opinion of the country, my hon. Friend cannot justly charge me with having attempted to promote any political objects by the course I have taken with regard to the Roman Catholics. As to gaining the support of the Liberal body—so far as the Dissenting body is connected with the Liberal body—I doubt whether an expression of opinion in favour of the Roman Catholics is likely to conciliate the support of that portion of the community. But, in truth, I have no political object in view. I believe it to be just and politic to take the course I have recommended. I recollect well what fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre), the other night. I and others who support the Government measure were charged by that hon. Gentleman—not with rashness, not with impolicy, but with absolute infidelity. This is not the place to

1387
make professions of faith; and nothing that can fall from that hon. Gentleman (such is the respect I entertain for him) shall induce me to say one harsh word in reply. But as to the accusation of infidelity, I say at once that I cannot believe—and I say it with all reverence—that that God who is the "Author of peace and the lover of concord"—who gave us his "commandment that we should believe in the name of Jesus Christ, and love one another"—I cannot think, that that Almighty Being will consider that we are fulfilling such a commandment when we hate one another, and allow thousands and tens of thousands of children to pass through life, and to be launched into eternity, without having ever heard of the name of Jesus Christ. It would be much better for us to make allowances for the imperfections of human nature, and to give to each other the benefit of a presumption that we are influenced by honest motives, rather than to combat a difference of opinion with a charge of infidelity.
Far from desiring to embarrass the noble Lord, or to take any course which would diminish the chances of success for that measure which he has proposed, I fully estimate all the difficulties by which he is surrounded in bringing forward a measure even of this limited extent. My experience of office is too recent not to make me perfectly aware that the position of a Minister and of a Government is widely different from that of private individuals. We, as individuals, can state what are the measures and what are the principles which we think ought to be adopted; but a Minister, anxious for the success of a particular measure, and fearing the obstacles which it may meet with—looking to the attainment of a practical result, and being responsible for that practical result—has sometimes to attend to other considerations than those by which private individuals or members of the Opposition may be guided. He may have to content himself with a measure falling more short of absolute good than his own feelings would dictate, or than he might himself, if he were in a different situation, and not charged with the success of a practical measure, have aimed to carry out. I am surprised that the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) should claim my vote on this occasion. I took the earliest opportunity of stating distinctly my sentiments on the general question; but I stated at the same time that I could not concur in any vote
1388
which would at all embarrass the further proceeding with this measure. I stated distinctly that I would not be a party to any compulsion on the Government, unless the Government should show an unwillingness to adopt such a course as would be in accordance with the views I expressed. I do hope that the hon. Baronet will not press his Amendment on the House. I do not say this for the purpose of relieving myself from any difficulty; for I feel no difficulty whatever on the point, because, after the avowal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, not on the compulsion of this Motion, but voluntarily, two or three nights ago, and after the statement made to-night by the noble Lord, that the Government concedes the principle that the Roman Catholics ought not to be excluded, and that the Ministers pledge themselves to bring forward a Minute maturely considered for the purpose of including them in the scheme of education, they, the Ministers, have done nothing which should so disentitle them to the confidence of the House that they should not be allowed a full opportunity of considering this subject. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says, and I think very properly, that he cannot pledge himself to introduce this Minute at any particular time; but he has given the House a full assurance with respect to the principle contended for. I can easily believe that certain communications may be necessary for the purpose of making the measure complete; and that a measure would be much more likely to be satisfactory to that body for whose good it is intended, if there were an opportunity afforded for confidential communication with them, rather than that the Government should be compelled by a hostile vote of this House to introduce an immature and imperfect plan. I believe that it is the intention of the Government to do that which is just; and, having that conviction, I cannot concur in a vote which would imply distrust. I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend that I have no desire to outbid the noble Lord opposite, or to try and gain popular favour at his expense. I disclaim any such motive. So far from wishing to embarrass the noble Lord on this question, I have seen too much of the difficulties with which he is surrounded, not to be content with the prospect of ultimate success, and to accept with satisfaction the measure before the House.
MR. V. SMITHhoped that the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had convinced Her Majesty's Ministers that their design of giving education to Roman Catholics, would be, by the body the hon. Baronet represented, fiercely opposed. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) would, by persevering with his Amendment, impose on the Government the necessity of immediate action on this question. He did not see that the Government required much time to mature their views on the subject, for it was one which had been long under their consideration. They had the example of the education system in Ireland, which was not now objected to, he believed, by the Protestant clergy and others in Ireland, and this would make an excellent foundation for any system in this country. Let not the Government mistake him by imagining that be doubted one word of their professions; but no one would deny that if the Government did not give a pledge to introduce some measure before the miscellaneous estimates were out of the House, there would be no vote for the education of Roman Catholics this Session.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLthought that the thanks of the Roman Catholics of this country were due to the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) for the able manner and generous spirit in which he had brought the question before the House. Whether or not the hon. Baronet would feel himself justified in going to a division, he had unquestionably done the cause much good. However, the assurance given by the right hon. the Home Secretary, in addition to what they had heard before connected with this question, was extremely valuable. He could not but express regret that the Government made the education of the Roman Catholics an exception to their general policy; and he said this not so much in the spirit of complaint as of compassion; for whatever injury the Government had thereby done to the Roman Catholics, they had done more to themselves, and had aggravated rather than diminished any difficulties connected with the question that might have existed in this country. He must say, that the Roman Catholic bishops in this country had not been fairly treated in having had put to them certain queries which appeared in one of Mr. K. Shuttle-worth's letters. It was not his intention to discuss some of the topics adverted to by the hon. Member for the University of
1390
Oxford. They were not fit for discussion in that House; and let the opinions of the Roman Catholics be right or wrong, the question was whether, finding a large body of them in this country, the Legislature were not bound to aid in giving them education, as far as possible, on the same principle as that on which they afforded aid in education to the various Protestant sects dissenting from the Established Church. He had heard from the other side of the water many expressions of gratitude towards the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) for his speech of the other night. It might be true that the right hon. Baronet, like another right hon. Baronet, entertained other views some years ago; but the country did not care much what a man thought some eight or ten years ago. The country thought more of what a man was inclined to do now, than what he thought eight or ten years back. The two right hon. Baronets to whom he alluded might have changed their opinions on this subject, as most men had on some subjects; but the observations they had recently made had given a great impetus to the cause of freedom of conscience. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was free from the shackles of office; and, what was more fortunate for his reputation and for the country, he was also free from the shackles of party. When an individual obtained the applauses of good men, it was of little consequence to him to be accused of hunting after popularity. The right hon. Baronet had done much to enlighten public opinion on this subject; and when the objects he had in view should be carried out, he would have entitled himself to the gratitude of the Roman Catholic body. If the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) should divide the House, he should certainly vote with him.
MR. LAWsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark negatived in terms the principle on which the measure of the Government had proceeded, and on which it had obtained, not only the concurrence of this House, but in a great measure the concurrence of the country—namely, that the education should be founded upon the authorized version of the Scriptures. To that proposition the Government had secured the ready assent of a vast majority of this House. He was satisfied that the very circumstance of the authorized version of the Scriptures being the foundation of the religious education of the people, was that which had conciliated not

1391
only the opinions of the Church of England, but of all the Protestants of the country, with some rare exceptions. And he had felt it to be his duty to give his humble support to the Government, because the noble Lord at its head had done his duty alike to all parties—to the country and to that House. With regard to ulterior measures, he conceived that the difficulties which Government had already experienced in bringing forward the present measure, would be greatly increased when they came to the consideration of any proposition which was intended to embrace the Roman Catholics. The difficulty consisted not merely in maturing such a scheme as would be the most calculated to disarm opposition, but in maturing such a scheme as Roman Catholic Gentlemen would accept. The question, whether or not it was intended to exclude or permit the use of the Douay version of the Bible, was but one difficulty out of many which the noble Lord would have to encounter. For himself he could not offer to the noble Lord the expectation that he was likely to frame a measure in which he should conscientiously concur; but this he was sure, that if any man was more capable than another of devising a measure which would be acceptable, it was the noble Lord. But in saying this, he must reserve to himself the right of fully considering such a measure upon its merits, in order to be satisfied that it could be safely adopted on constitutional grounds, and at the same time be acceptable to the Roman Catholics. As far as the noble Lord had proceeded, he begged to tender him his thanks for the manner in which he had conducted the present measure, and to congratulate him on its success. Beyond this point, however, he must pause. Every future step he should take with extreme caution. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by stating that he should give his entire opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Southwark.
MR. LIDDELLheld it as a broad and distinct fact that when once they had agreed to give State support to the education of all classes of the people, without reference to religious opinions, they could not, with any degree of justice—provided they made out a case of destitution or necessity, which he had little doubt, from the information he had derived, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to show—refuse to extend to the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty the same aid that they
1392
gave to Protestants. On that broad principle he was content to take his stand with the Government in opposition to the feeling expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University. But the present Motion called upon the House to rescind the resolution which had obtained the support of a large majority of its Members; and he could not concur in doing that. With regard to the general question of the extension of aid to Roman Catholics, he was perfectly satisfied with the assurances given by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey). The Ministers were no novices in the school of liberal opinions; and the whole public conduct of the noble Lord, from the time when he accomplished the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, gave a pledge for the sincerity of his desire to bring this question to a successful issue. The hon. Member (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) took a wrong view of the conduct of the Government towards the Roman Catholic bishops: the noble Lord was anxious to meet the difficulties of the subject; and how could he do so but by means of inquiries? For himself, he was content to wait till it might—he would not say, suit the convenience, but the information of the noble Lord, to frame a new Minute: judging from the past, he had no fear that that Minute would have his opposition; and in the mean time he hoped that no such Motion as the present would be pressed.
MR. MORE O'FERRALLheld that no portion of the community was so deeply interested in the education and enlightenment of the great body of the population as the Catholics; for none had more suffered from the evils of ignorance. To this might be traced the delay until 1829 of the question which was then settled; and every one who reflected upon the events which had since occurred, must deplore the consequences which had resulted from that delay. He regretted that he had not been able to be present to give his vote in favour of the general education of the people of this country, though he confessed he felt the apparent exclusion of the Catholic body. The hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) seemed to desire to exclude Catholics from the benefits of education; but surely, if the hon. Baronet were consistent with his own principles, he must believe that it was desirable that the Catholic should learn to read. If Catholics were educated in a Catholic school, they would learn to read, and to write, and to reason; and surely the hon.

1393
Baronet's view must be, that the more enlightened they were, the more certain they were to become Protestants. Could the hon. Baronet believe that driving boys, not into school, but into the streets, to learn (as at present) thieving and every vice, was the road to Protestantism? With regard to the immediate question, the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) had elicited from the Government a repetition and a more full explanation of their views—an explanation which to him (Mr. O'Ferrall) was perfectly satisfactory. He had had the honour of knowing all the Members of that Government for many years, and he could not possibly doubt the statements they had made. He was just as satisfied that a Minute of Council, in a shape to be satisfactory to the Catholic body would be laid on the Table, as if that Minute were there already. Concurring, then, in the proposition before the House, he felt that if he affirmed it by his vote, he should be in effect stating distinctly that he did not believe the professions the Government had made; and to that conclusion he could not say that he came, hon. Members had been called upon by a preceding speaker to act upon their conviction of what was best for the community they represented, and not heed misrepresentation out of doors; and he was prepared to adopt that advice. If he should have to divide along with the Ministers, he had very little doubt that his conduct would be grossly misrepresented; but he believed, if he were to take the contrary course, he should not serve the community to which he belonged, but should place them and the Government in perhaps greater difficulties than at present. It was to him a matter of indifference whether there was to be a division; if there were, he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth), and record his conviction of the integrity and sincerity of Her Majesty's Ministers.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that he did not know whether his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford would approve of the conduct of our Indian Government, in giving funds for the education of the Mahommedan population; but he should have thought that if there were any class whom he ought to wish to educate more than another, it would be the Roman Catholic body, who had fallen into what he believed to be such grievous error. For himself, he (Mr. Milnes) was willing to do all he could to
1394
raise-the minds of all Her Majesty's subjects; and as to the matter immediately before the House, he thought that Her Majesty's Government were placed in a disadvantageous position. He doubted not, that, at some time or other, the good sense of the people would prevail against religious bigotry. He thought it impossible long to have any system of national education excluding so large and respectable a portion of the people as the Roman Catholics; but it would have been, in his judgment, much better not to allow the Roman Catholics to be dissociated from the rest of the Dissenters. Hitherto, so far as he was aware, no Act taking notice of these religious dissensions, had ever drawn any other distinction than that of the Church on one side, and of the Christian body dissenting from the Church on the other. By making the Roman Catholic education the subject of a separate Minute, the Government had already increased the difficulty of the subject; because, to many persons, it would appear as if they were favouring and encouraging, to some extent, the Roman Catholic religion; and every day's delay would further increase that difficulty. He would strongly recommend the Government to adopt the advice of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, and at once issue a Minute, distinctly placing before the people of England the principle, that by assisting in the education of the Roman Catholic poor, they in no manner recognised the peculiar doctrines of that Church. The question of the authorized version was quite a new difficulty; for he could not conceive that any of the Dissenters who complained that the Roman Catholics purposely kept the people in ignorance of the Holy Scriptures, would, object to the use of any version in preference to none. There was, however, a great mistake prevalent on that subject; he did not believe that the Roman Catholic religion at all necessarily prevented the circulation of the Scriptures. He had supported the present measure of the Government; but he could not help saying that all the difficulties came from touching the religious part of education. He trusted that they should advance much further yet; and although he knew that merely secular education was in great disrepute, he confessed that he had never been able to see why the contribution of the Government should not be given to the secular part of education, the Government inspectors seeing that the children were religiously educated in the

1395
doctrines of their own community. The inspection, as at present proposed, was certainly inconsistent with that religious independence which no man more highly prized than himself; and he hogged Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind that their difficulties would always increase just in proportion as they approached the religious part of the subject. He had given to Her Majesty's Government a hearty support, feeling the difficulties they had to encounter; and he could not consent to the Motion before the House, although he entertained objections to the present scheme. The Motion of his hon. Friend went so far as to render nugatory all their former votes, because the only Minute affecting the Roman Catholics was the one requiring the authorized version to be used; and for that a large majority had already voted. Let him, in conclusion, congratulate the House on that large majority, of all classes of political opinions, met together to protest against the strange misrepresentations which had gone abroad on the subject, and to do honour to the noble Lord, who had with so much temper and judgment conducted the measure, and had proved that he sincerely intended to confer upon England the greatest boon which a statesman could bestow — a really sound system of national education.
MR. FORBESsaid, that his only reason for voting in support of the Government scheme was, that it required the use of the authorized version; and he knew that the great body of the people would view with great alarm the proceedings of that night. He had, therefore, felt it due to those who entertained such views, and with whom he should always be proud to act, to state, that any system of education which did not embrace the teaching of the authorized version of the Scriptures, would meet from him a most determined opposition.
MR. AGLIONBYhoped that the hon. Member for Southwark would withdraw his Amendment. It was one which in itself he did not approve of. He believed that its main object would be accomplished in the course of time; and as the Government had declared that the matter was under consideration, he thought that was no ground for supposing that State education would not be extended to the Catholics before long. The hon. Baronet, then, would gain nothing by pressing his Amendment. But if was an Amendment which, after all, did not go far enough. Was there no other class than Roman Catholics
1396
excluded? Were not the members of the Jewish persuasion excluded as positively and as rigorously as were the Roman Catholics? Why were they so excluded? He would have secular education for all who chose to avail themselves of it; and religious instruction afforded, either separately, in a different part of the school, or under the superintendence of the teachers appointed by each religious persuasion. He should strongly advise the hon. Baronet to leave the present question in the hands of the Government, in the hope that a practical and not an abstract system of secular education, would, at some future day, be brought forward, and obtain the sanction of Parliament. The hon. Member for Pontefract congratulated the Government on the large majorities with which they had carried this measure; and the hon. Gentleman had a right to do so, for he was himself in the majority. But though he had voted in the minority, still he could not withhold his congratulation from the Government for having taken a step in the right direction. He believed if they had proposed a much more general measure than they had done, that the country would have gone with them. But there was a subject even of greater congratulation than the large majorities by which, this measure was carried—the tone and temper even of those hon. Members who had spoken in opposition to the plan. There was a total absence amongst the Members of that House of that bigotry and intolerance that had been developed out of doors. They were likely very shortly to meet their constituents on the hustings; and he, for one, should tell the constituency which he represented, that he should vote in favour of any measure for the extension of secular education to all classes, leaving the religious teaching to be performed by the sect to which each child belonged. If the hon. Baronet should divide, he must vote with him; but he hoped the hon. Baronet would take the advice of more experienced Members, and withdraw his Amendment.
MR. NEWDEGATEwas determined, that, so far as he was concerned, there should be no misunderstanding as to the position he occupied in reference to the question of educating the people. He rejoiced at the support which the noble Lord had received; he honoured him for the manner in which he had brought forward his proposition; but still more did he honour him for having disdained to take

1397
any unfair advantage of those who were inclined to support him, by concealing his views on the subject of the claims of the Roman Catholics to participate in the advantages of the grant. Still, he (Mr. Newdegate) wished it to be distinctly understood, that he stood uncompromised as to anything but to the vote he had given on the Minutes of Council as proposed by the noble Lord. He claimed for himself the most perfect liberty of action on all other points. He abandoned not one whit of those opinions which he ever held; but he would give no man the opportunity of saying, that he was so bigoted, so intolerant, so incapable of comprehending the spirit and doctrines of that religion which he himself professed, as to preclude himself from the consideration of any measure that might be proposed for the instruction and advantage of the Roman Catholics. He believed that those persons belonged to a Church that claimed by far too much; and his objection lay to being a party to the granting of means by which the doctrines of that Church were to be extended. On this question, however, he would repeat, that whilst he held the same opinions, entertained the same fears, as to the consequences of encouraging the dominant spirit and extending the power of the Church of Rome, which he had expressed on a late occasion, he could state his perfect willingness to consider the subject of a grant for educating the children of the Roman Catholics, should it be proposed by the noble Lord. But he should consider any such proposal under the same feelings, and with the same opinions, and with the same fears, which he had ever entertained on the subject of the extension of that Church in this country; and he saw nothing in the circumstances of the present time which rendered it more easy than heretofore to accede to the wish of the Government, or consent to a measure the effect of which might be to extend the power and influence of the Church of Rome.
MR. M. BELLEWsaid, that, as a Roman Catholic Member of that House, he wished to say a few words. He admitted that in no country was there greater destitution than in this; and he was, therefore, in favour of rendering assistance to all the people; but, though he felt an obligation to the hon. Baronet for bringing forward the Amendment, he would not be justified, after the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, and the promise they had made, in voting against them.
SIR W. JAMESregretted that the noble Lord, who had been so great an advocate of civil and religious liberty, should have been backward upon the present occasion; and he thought the Government wrong in accepting the support of the Opposition on the grounds on which it was offered, when they at the same time made a strong declaration of their intention to act contrary to those grounds, He wished, indeed, that the principles of the Government had been carried further; for nothing was more clear than the mischief of making the scholars theologians. He admitted, however, that the Government had difficulties to contend with in the peculiar tenets of the Roman Catholics and of the monastic orders; and it would, in his opinion, have been better if they had postponed the consideration of this part of the measure for another year; but, as he had given them his support, and as the present Motion would cast a stigma on them, he would not, after the promise they had made, vote with the hon. Baronet on the present Amendment.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, in reference to the proposed Amendment, that he hoped they would have an opportunity during the present Session of discussing the question; and his only object in rising was, in case the Amendment should be pressed to a division, to prevent the vote he should be compelled to give from being misinterpreted, if he voted against the hon. Baronet that night, it was not because he supposed that the Roman Catholics ought not to be included with other Nonconformists in any plan of education; for he was distinctly of opinion, that if the system of education which had existed during the last few years was to be disturbed, as, owing to the growing wants of our population, it must be, and as the whole House concurred in the propriety of extending education beyond the wants met by the compromise of 1839, it would be right when that compromise was disturbed to extend to all classes of nonconforming Christians a participation in the grant; and he thought the noble Lord would find the difficulties of the case greatly aggravated by the delay. He did not indeed agree that it would have been possible to introduce a system of secular education, as had been proposed by Dr. Hook, than whom no one had a greater claim to approbation for his exertions, for the bold stand he had made for the Church, and for his successful preaching of the gospel of truth

1399
to hundreds and thousands; and he could not think that such a plan would succeed. Even the reference to Ireland supplied no proof of the efficacy of such a system in this country. In Ireland extracts from the Scriptures were read, even where clergy of the different denominations did not take part in the schools; and there was this peculiarity in Ireland, that it was not subdivided into the same number of denominations as in this country. Ireland, speaking numerically, was Roman Catholic; and, therefore, the attention of any statesman must be given to the Catholics as the majority; but the minority, differing as they did in general opinions, were all, whether of the Established Church or Presbyterians, recognised in some degree by the State. They might make the schools here the medium of polemical discussions; but he thought the noble Lord had taken the wise and proper course. The Church of England owed him thanks for the position in which she was placed, though she would not be bettered by it; but, in consequence of her own zeal during the last few years, she had greatly bettered her own position; and he thought that the noble Lord must be gratified with his own plan, and the reception it had met with. He only hoped, that when they came to deal with the question as it affected the Roman Catholics, hon. Members would not revert to party feelings, and that those who acted in a spirit of toleration towards the Roman Catholics would not be considered as unfaithful members of their own Church, but that they would agree to extend to all sects all the light which, if they believed in the truth of their own principles, would be the best means of propagating what they thought to be truth.
MR. ROEBUCKasked whether the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman was correct, and that during the present Session they would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions as to the participation of the Roman Catholics; and that, after voting this 100,000 l., there would be a special vote for the Roman Catholics, or that the 100,000 l. would be considered a general fund, applicable to the Roman Catholics as well as to all other Dissenters? If that was the opinion of the noble Lord, he would save all further discussion; but if it were not, the whole difficulty would remain. The noble Lord "died and made no sign," so that he might assume this was not his intention. When the plan was first brought forward, it was supposed that
1400
the Roman Catholics were excluded; the noble Lord then declared that he had been misunderstood; and now all he asked the noble Lord to do was, to get up and save them the trouble of a division. Would the noble Lord come forward and declare that the Roman Catholics should be considered as included in the vote of 1,000,000 l., or that he would bring forward another vote? If the noble Lord would do either of these things, he was sure that the hon. Baronet would not divide; and, at the same time, he assured the noble Lord, that, in such an event, the noble Lord should not hear his voice for the next week. There were also other members connected with the Administration, of whom he wished to ask another question. There was one right hon. Gentleman the Master of the Mint (Mr. Sheil) who had long been an ornament of that House, and who was a Roman Catholic—how was it that his voice was silent, and that from him had not been heard an eloquent defence of Roman Catholic rights? There was another hon. Gentleman, a Roman Catholic, and connected with the Government, who possessed great ability, and had acquired a great name for his exertions in education—how came it that that hon. Gentleman's voice was silent, whilst the discussion was left to those who were enjoying nothing, gaining nothing, and hoping for nothing, when they who, from their position, and from the favour they had received, ought to be foremost, were without voice? He could not suppose that the business of office or personal considerations could have tied that eloquent tongue; but there must be some great reason that bound down that mighty giant, and made him upon this occasion as silent and useless as a baby, leaving this vital question to be fought by those whom an hon. Gentleman, who had spoken that evening, had called the enemies of his faith. Enemy of his faith! He was not an enemy of any man's faith; but if his own faith were neglected by the Government, he would not be a silent spectator of their proceedings. He knew why the noble Lord had acted as he had done—he fancied that the people out of doors were against him. But the noble Lord did not promise them that he would bring forward any vote, as the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had supposed. All he stated was, that he and his hon. Friends hoped that the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark would withdraw his proposition, and leave it to the Government to decide upon it as they

1401
thought proper. He (Mr. Roebuck) was obliged to look back and ask how the money hitherto voted had been spent? Had it not been spent so as to excite jealousy amongst the Dissenting portion of the population? The National schools had been invariably paid. Two societies had been selected—the National, and the British and Foreign School Societies; and the Minutes of Council provided that no other schools should receive the money granted by the public. The consequence was, that where only one school of the British and Foreign Society had been paid, twenty calling themselves in connexion with the National School Society had received money. If he looked to the report of 1841 and 1842 of the Committee of Council on Education, he found that there was a constant teaching against the Roman Catholics, and against all doctrines of the Dissenters, and the consequence was that hitherto they had been only sectarian teachers. Mr. Allen, in his report of the training schools—and to this he (Mr. Roebuck) invited the attention of the Government—said that hitherto all the children had attended the parish church on Sundays; but that if a case should arise of one of them wishing to attend a different place of worship, and he made a special application for that purpose, permission would be given to him; but that it would be also intimated to him that he had better not join that institution, as the harmony of the household could not be preserved if a spirit of controversy were to arise. The great body of the people would believe that they were about to create sectarian education, and that the people, if they could not conform to their views, had better stay away from their schools. They would think that it was intended to exclude the great body of the Dissenting population. That was a proposition against which he would ever raise, his voice: it was one to which he could not calmly listen; but that was the proposition on the Table of the House. The noble Lord and his Friends had been extremely profuse in vague promises, but they brought forward nothing definite. Now, he would ask the noble Lord what was the position in which he stood as regarded Ireland? They had voted 8,000,000 l. for the charitable relief of the Irish people, by which they hoped to conciliate a large proportion of the population, being Catholics; but now when they were called upon to aid their personal and temporal interests—when they were called upon to give them
1402
that education which was so essential to their happiness here and hereafter, this paltry sum of 100,000 l. was made the battle-field of ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry, and an insult to the Irish people; and they refused to let the Catholics participate in the advantage of that grant, which they nevertheless admitted to be the right of every human being in this country who was a subject of the Government, no matter what his creed might be. But it so happened that of all people in this country who required education, the first were the Catholics in the commercial districts; and he asked that House, did they vote this money for the peace and security of the realm—for the purpose of elevating the character of the people? What in God's name were they to vote this money for, but for the purpose of winning the people from that dark ignorance which hitherto had unfortunately been their miserable and wretched lot? And who were they who were most ignorant, and who most required the fostering hand of education? The poor unfortunate Irish of the manufacturing districts. But he objected to the whole principle of the Government scheme. They said, "We will give you money if you will give us money." And they said that to just those parts of the country where the people were the most ignorant, and most unable to co-operate with them, and where they ought to distribute the money granted for education. [Cheers.] Now what were those idle cheers? [Laughter.] The noble Lord smiled triumphantly. He knew the majority the noble Lord had got; no matter how conclusive the arguments or statements against him might be, that majority was the noble Lord's answer to all. But the time might come when by chance that, cry of "No Popery" might be converted into another description of imputations. It might be said that there was in office a body of men who by extraordinary circumstances, from no peculiar virtues, considerations, or views of their own, but by a fantastic freak of fortune, had been placed on the Treasury bench, without anything to rest upon but the extravagant dissensions of their most unwise opponents; it might be said that such things were within the range of history; and that those men, playing the game of "in" against those who were "out," and wishing to retain their pleasant places and the soft pillows of office, had thought to show their active ingenuity and intellectual power by fashioning measures which should keep them in

1403
power without the slightest regard or consideration for the public weal. It might be that imputations of that kind might be brought against the Government, who were so willing to hazard the proposition now on the Table. He was entitled to suppose that there was something beyond what they could understand. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth said that this ought to be done; that he agreed with the hon. Baronet; that the proposition met with his ardent co-operation; but that he had faith in the noble Lord, and would not oppose him. Another hon. Gentleman said, "We are all of your opinion, but do not press it to a division; it would be very uncomfortable." What were they to understand by that? His answer was, that he wanted a statement from the noble Lord, to tell them what he had not yet told them, when he was going to bring forward that proposition of which he had so often shadowed forth the expectation. By his present proposition the noble Lord had again stirred up dissension, and blown afresh the flame of fanaticism, to which unfortunately the party politics of this country too often had a tendency, instead of bringing forward that general proposition which would have united all sects, based upon the principle of thorough and fair toleration to all, and by which he believed the noble Lord would not have lost one supporter. It was totally impossible to maintain the narrow bigotry originally laid down by that scheme of education which had been destroyed by the debates of the last few days; and the very fact of the right hon. Member for Tamworth being there that night, and his declaration of toleration and full freedom to all sects, must be a cheering consideration to all those who had fought the battle of complete national education, for that alone could ultimately be satisfactory; and he had no fear that that full declaration of liberal opinions would forfeit the support of the realty honest people of this country.
LORD J. RUSSELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down says, that I have begun my explanation to this House, but that I have not concluded it. In that last sentence I think he will not prove a true prophet. The hon. Baronet the Member for Southwarh, brought forward, in a very fair and temperate speech, the Motion of which he had given notice, and adduced the reasons which appeared to him to support it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home De-
1404
partment, stated over again what he had stated to this House on a former occasion, and laid the ground for the House not agreeing to the Motion of the hon. Baronet. That explanation was satisfactory to many hon. Members of this House. It induced many hon. Members to say, that they were willing to leave this matter in the hands of the Government; that, agreeing with the hon. Baronet, who brought forward the Amendment, in the general opinion he has expressed, giving him every credit for the motives which have induced him to bring this Motion forward, they were well satisfied with the explanation given by my right hon. Friend who sits near me; that they believed that the promise of the Government will be fulfilled—that the declaration of the Government will be followed up—and, that if the right hon. Baronet presses this question to a division, however much they agreed with the hon. Member in general opinion, they must vote against him. Of that opinion is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth; of that opinion is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire, who has spoken this evening: of that opinion is my hon. Friend the Member for Kildare, himself a Roman Catholic, and strongly attached—as the House well knows—and conscientiously attached, to those principles; of that opinion is the hon. Member for Lowth; and another hon. Gentleman, to whom I need not more particularly allude, has expressed the same confidence, and come to the same result. I am satisfied with the confidence expressed by those Gentlemen; I am satisfied with the distrust expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath; and I do not conceive that it is necessary to enter into any further explanation. I have done so on a former occasion. He has made statements which. I have shown by printed papers to be erroneous; and, so far from removing misconception, I only find that I brought on myself repetitions of the former statements. For those reasons, therefore, I shall not enter into any further explanation upon this question. I do trust that the House agree generally with those hon. Members to whom the Government must feel obliged, differing as many of them do, and have done, from the general politics of those with whom I am connected, for the confidence they have exhibited in the fulfilment of our declarations. The hon. and learned Gentleman, alluding to other subjects, with that incapacity to find a good

1405
motive for any action he so frequently betrays in this House, tells us that we gave 8,000,000 l. to conciliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland. It never entered into my imagination before, or into the imagination of any of the Members of Her Majesty's Government, that in advancing the money of the Exchequer in order to save from starving an unfortunate people whom a great calamity had struck down, acting as the hon. and learned Gentleman thought against the true principles of political economy—we never thought that in so doing we were conciliating any particular class of the people. We asked this House to do what we thought Parliament ought to do to a distressed portion of the people, whether belonging to the Church of England, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, or to the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. But the hon. and learned Gentleman says, our system is altogether wrong; that it is the poorer population—the exceedingly poor population, not having the means of voting subscriptions—that should be peculiarly assisted by grants; that it is a great omission on our part not to have made that proposal; and then he said, I looked with a triumphant smile because I knew I could meet such a proposition by a majority. Why, Sir, the reason of my smile was this—that some seven or eight years ago, the Committee of Privy Council took this particular subject into their deliberation; and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth will recollect, they then said, where there were poor and populous parishes it would be very hard to insist on a large amount of subscription; but the rule should be, that according to the poverty of the district grants should be made. The reason, therefore, of my smile was totally different from that which the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. But he says there may, by some accident, be some Ministry in power, who having no merits of their own had arrived at power by the dissensions of their opponents, and that they may mismanage and misgovern the country. Sir, that may very well happen; other things may well happen. It may happen that a city in the west of England may choose for its representative in this House a Gentleman who, without ever producing any wise measure of his own, may think it enough to carp and cavil at every other measure that may be produced; a Gentleman who, although he would attract little attention if he merely gave out his own theories, which
1406
are generally totally inapplicable to the country to which he belongs, and altogether at variance with the opinions of those he addresses; yet does attract a considerable degree of attention, because it is known that one party and the other, and every party, by turns, in this House, will come in for a great deal of very sharp abuse expressed in very epigrammatic language; it may happen that a city in the west may have the caprice to send such a Member to this House; and such a Member, we may expect, if he is speaking of a right hon. Gentleman who has been at the head of the Government of this country, will imagine no better motive for him when he declares that he wishes poor Roman Catholics to be educated, than that he is endeavouring to outbid those who are at present the occupants of the Treasury bench; and if, speaking of those in power, and of the relief they have been enabled to afford to the people of Ireland, will imagine no better reason for this, than that they were endeavouring to conciliate a particular class of Her Majesty's subjects. In short, there will be one characteristic about all his conduct—that he never will be able to conceive that there is any wisdom in the plans, or any generosity in the motives, of other Members of this House, whether they happen to be in the Government or out of the Government—whether they belong to one party or another. I should say that such a Member would take a very false estimate both of parties and of individuals. I should say, reverting to the subject which is now before the House, that, although it is to be regretted that we, most unfortunately as I must say, have given rise to a clash of religious opinions; although there have been out of door, and in various publications, warm opinions expressed by Protestant Dissenters, which we had no reason to expect—for they were at variance with the opinions expressed by Mr. Baines and other Dissenters who had been Members of this House—I say, although we have had that misfortune, yet, during nearly a week of debate, there have been among nearly all the Members of this House a singular forgetfulness of all party ties, of all individual and party interests; a very general wish to benefit the people of this country; a wish common to all, to see the people of this country raised by education to a higher moral rank; a wish—greatly to the honour of many Members who had been for years opposed to the present Government—willingly to lend their co-operation and to do

1407
their utmost to carry into effect the plans which Ministers have brought forward; while Members who were supporters of the Government, on the other hand, anxious to support them, but thinking there were some great defects in their plans, preferred, as they were right in doing, what they conceived to be for the benefit of the country at large, to any party attachment. Sir, any person watching fairly, watching candidly, the course of debate in this House, could not but feel the highest respect for an assembly which had so debated a very great question so intimately connected with the welfare of the people. That, I must confess, is my predominant feeling. I thank the Members of this House—the great majority of this House, for the confidence they have shown in the declarations of the Government; but, above all, I exult in the proof which the speeches in this House have given, that the Members of it have really at heart the improvement of their fellow-citizens; and that without distinction where the assistance for education is most needed, they will give the most.
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, he was not surprised that the noble Lord wished to divert the attention of the House from the real question before them. The real question which they had to consider was, whether or not Minutes for including the Roman Catholics were to be adopted in the course of the present year—was anything to be done for them in the course of the present Session of Parliament? The Government were not prepared to deny that the education of the Roman Catholics ought to be promoted at the expense of the State: then why did they oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark? He would repeat the question which he had previously put, were they prepared to introduce a plan for the education of the Roman Catholics? He wanted even to know why the noble Lord would not state when he intended to make such a proposition. They all must remember that the noble Lord declined to state when he should do it. Yet he did not altogether despair of learning when that intention was to be realized. It was curious to see, day by day, how much might be squeezed out of the noble Lord. Attempts had been made to invalidate the statements which he had submitted the other evening; but he could confidently appeal to the House that evening, if every one of his statements had not turned out to be substantially cor-
1408
rect. Very recently he had heard that the Government had opened a negotiation with the heads of the Church, and that the purpose, and, in fact, the result, of that negotiation was the exclusion of the Roman Catholics. Mr. Hughes had written a circular letter to the clergy of the different parishes throughout England, asking them to get up petitions in favour of the Ministerial plan, which had never yet been explained. He wished to know who had given authority to Mr. Hughes to make the statement contained in his letter, that the authorized version would be used in schools requiring Government aid? If Gentlemen on that side of the House were in favour of the principle laid down in the resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark, where was the harm of saying they would adopt it, and give effect to it at once? If, indeed, they had a promise given that a supplementary vote for Roman Catholic education would be brought forward, he thought the hon. Baronet should at once withdraw his Motion. But this was not in conformity with what they had heard from the noble Lord, or from the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), who had been leading the Government for some time on this subject. That hon. Baronet had told them distinctly that when it was proposed to extend the scheme to the Roman Catholics, he should firmly oppose it, because it would be for the propagation of error, as he had opposed the grant for the endowment of Maynooth upon the same ground. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), in the course of the tirade he delivered on a matter which no man doubted—the advantages of education—had found fault with him because he had not expressed his opinions with respect to the duty of the State in educating the people. He had not thought it necessary, in the speech he delivered on a previous night, to do so; all he had to do was to lay some ground for inquiry, and that he had done. He thought it the duty of a Government to promote the education of the people; but, with due regard to the circumstances of a country, he did not believe this scheme would accomplish the objects they had in view. To any system of national education they must have the cordial co-operation of all classes and sects; and any assistance that was given, ought to be received in a grateful, as well as offered in a liberal spirit. That, he thought, would not be the case in this country as

1409
regarded the system now proposed, for the population was torn by dissensions and sectarian enmities upon the question. The Dissenters said they would not accept Government aid, and consequently the Church would have the whole of it. The rural districts, in which at this moment the greatest ignorance prevailed, would be deprived of all benefit from this grant, in consequence of the regulations by which it was to be accompanied. Those districts which required it the least, would have the most; and those which required it most, would have least. Some few years hence they would have sixty or seventy inspectors, with salaries of 850 l. a year each, the greater portion of them to be clergymen of the Established Church. To please the Wesleyans they had said that the school-masters should not be clergymen, though he was at a loss to understand why, in Church of England schools, clergymen might not be schoolmasters; nor could he understand why, in Roman Catholic schools, priests of the Roman Catholic Church might not be schoolmasters. He maintained that the large majority which had given the Government a triumph on this question, had been obtained in the most ignoble manner; but now the whole subject had been exposed and blown upon. If the Roman Catholics did obtain a participation in this grant, they would be indebted for it to the expression of opinions entertained by the two right hon. Baronets opposite (Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham). Surely it would have been far better if Government had in the first instance consulted the feelings and wishes of the Roman Catholics themselves, instead of having come to a pettifogging compromise, by resorting to the Centenary Hall in Bishopsgate-street. If, without inquiring whether the recipients of their bounty were Dissenters or Voluntaries, they had conferred upon the adherents of all religious creeds assistance from the funds to which all contributed, he said Ministers would have carried such a proposition by a majority as large as that by which they had defeated his unfortunate Motion of the other day. As it was, they had carried their plan by pitiful compromises; they had gained a triumph by truckling to those who despised them; they had gained it over those whom, when out of power, they professed to sympathize with; but whom now, in the plenitude of their power, they had most cowardly abandoned.
MR. BROTHERTONhoped the hon.
1410
Baronet would not press his Motion, but leave the question with the Government.
SIR W. MOLESWORTHsaid, he wished to obtain a practical result, not the mere enunciation of a principle. He had never feared to go into a minority when the assertion of a principle was necessary; but when a practical point was the object, it was his duty to see whether he should be supported or not by a majority of that House. Many Members had originally supported the measure of Government, believing that under it Catholics would be included in the benefit of the grant of public money for education. When they found that the contrary was to be the case, they were excessively grieved. He had then given notice of a resolution which he thought would accomplish the object of including the Catholics. The answer of the noble Lord to the question put to him with respect to the intentions of the Government towards the Catholics was not satisfactory, because the noble Lord stated that they would postpone all consideration of the subject till next year. In consequence, he determined to persevere in his Motion. To-night he understood the right hon. Member for Devonport to say that he would endeavour to frame a Minute for the purpose of permitting Catholics to share in the grant of money for education; and he believed he did not misrepresent the right hon. Baronet if he said he understood him to intimate his intention to frame it as soon as he possibly could. In consequence of that intimation, hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, agreeing that Catholics ought to participate in the grants for education, had called on him to withdraw his Motion—amongst others, the right hon. Member for Tamworth. There was no person in that House for whose practical judgment and authority on all questions he had greater respect than for that of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman considered that the Government was pledged at the earliest period to frame a Minute for the purpose to which he had alluded; but the right hon. Gentleman stated that there were considerations and deliberations requisite for this purpose, and therefore advised him not to persevere in his present resolution. The question, therefore, was, was he to put faith in the declarations of Government or not? He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bath, in whose sentiments he very frequently agreed; but he owned he could not concur in his hon. Friend's opin-

1411
ion of humanity as exhibited in that assembly. He could not agree with his hon. Friend in treating the Gentlemen on the Ministerial bench as persons on whose words no reliance could be placed. He felt himself, on the contrary, justified in trusting to those declarations—in trusting that Ministers would, as soon as they could, considering the difficulties of the question, frame Minutes, so as to enable the Catholics to participate in the grants of public money for purposes of education. Understanding that he had received this assurance, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his resolution.
MR. BRIGHTwished, before the Motion was withdrawn, to correct a mis-statement made, unintentionally he was quite sure, by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London on the last occasion when this question was debated. The noble Lord said, that "amongst those who had voted against the proposition for the endowment of Maynooth, he found the name of the hon. Member for Durham, who doubtless would have objected to give the money of the State for the propagation of religious error." From that it appeared to be understood that he had opposed the Maynooth grant because it was a grant to the Roman Catholics, and would oppose any similar grants on the ground that it was for the propagation of religious error. If the noble Lord had read his speech, he would have seen that he (Mr. Bright) stated on the Maynooth question, that "for himself he should oppose the measure in every stage, and simply on the ground that he believed the principle of all endowments to be unjust and injurious to the country." If there were any subject on which he had stated a clear and decided opinion in that House, it was that of the public endowment of religion; he should not oppose the endowment of a Roman Catholic chapel any more than that of a church belonging to the Establishment. He was exceedingly sorry that the noble Lord should have hesitated in including the Roman Catholics in the benefit of the grant, believing, as the noble Lord did, that a public endowment would be for the general good. He would say nothing to the hon. Baronet to induce him not to withdraw his Motion; he thought all the effect which would be produced by a division, would be come to without a division. He trusted that whatever Government might be in power, and however they might be badgered by one sect to show them exclusive favour, they
1412
would maintain the high ground that, in the outlay and dispensation of public money, all men should be equal so far as their religious opinions were concerned; for if they were deprived of that equality, he knew not why they should not go back to religious persecution inflicted by men of one religious creed on those of another.
MR. J. COLLETT, as representing a Roman Catholic constituency, objected to the withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDwished to understand in what position this question was now, and whether the Government would this Session propose a vote for the education of the Roman Catholics. If that should be the case, he was willing to consent that the Motion should be withdrawn; but, if not, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not conset to withdraw his Motion.
MR. HUMEsaid, as the Government had given the pledge they had, it was unnecessary to divide.
The House, however, divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 203: Noes 22: Majority 181.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Acland, T. D.

Chandos, Marq. of

Adderley, C. B.

Christie, W. D.

Ainsworth, P.

Christopher, R. A.

Allix, J. P.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Antrobus, E.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Arkwright, G.

Codrington, Sir W.

Bailey, J., jun.

Colville, C. R.

Baillie, Col.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Baine, W.

Craig, W. G.

Bankes, G.

Cripps, W.

Bannerman, A.

Curteis, H. B.

Barkly, H.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Baring, rt. hon F. T.

Davies, D. A. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Deedes, W.

Bell, M.

Denison, J. E.

Bell, J.

Denison, E. B.

Bellew, R. M.

Dick, Q.

Benbow, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Duncan, G.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Beresford, Major

Dundas, Sir D.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

East, Sir J. B.

Bernal, R.

Ebrington, Visct.

Blackburne, J. I.

Egerton, Sir P.

Blakemore, R.

Ewart, W.

Borthwick, P.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bowring, Dr.

Finch, G.

Broadley, H.

Floyer, J.

Broadwood, H.

Forbes, W.

Brotherton, J.

Forster, M.

Buck, L. W.

Fox, S. L.

Buckley, E.

French, F.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Fuller, A. E.

Cardwell, E.

Gardner, J. D.

1413

Gladstone, Capt.

Morgan, O.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Morpeth, Visct.

Gore, M.

Morris, D.

Goring, C.

Morison, Gen.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Newdegate, C. N.

Greene, T.

Newport, Visct.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Newry, Visct.

Grimsditch, T.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Hale, R. B.

O'Conor Don

Halsey, T. P.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Pakington, Sir J.

Harcourt, G. G.

Palmer, R.

Hardy, J.

Parker, J.

Hastie, A.

Patten, J. W.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Hawes, B.

Peel, J.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Perfect, R.

Hayter, W. G.

Pinney, W.

Heathcote, G. J.

Protheroe, E. D.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Pusey, P.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Rashleigh, W.

Henley, J. W.

Repton, G. W. J.

Heron, Sir R.

Rice, E. R.

Hindley, C.

Rich, H.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Romilly, J.

Hodgson, F.

Round, C. G.

Hope, Sir J.

Round, J.

Hope, A.

Russell, Lord J.

Hope, G. W.

Russell, Lord C. J. F.

Hornby, J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Hoskins, K.

Scott, hon. F.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Scrope, G. P.

Howard, P. H.

Seymer, H. K.

Howard, hon. H.

Sheridan, R. B.

Hudson, G.

Shirley, E. J.

Hume, J.

Smith, A.

Hussey, T.

Smith, J. A.

Ingestre, Visct.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Irton, S.

Spry, Sir S. T.

James, W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

James, Sir W. C. H.

Stanton, W. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Stewart, J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Jones, Capt.

Stuart, H.

Kemble, H.

Stuart, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Lambton, H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Law, hon. C. E.

Tancred, H. W.

Lawson, A.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Layard, Major

Thompson, Ald.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Tollemache, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Trotter, J.

Lindsay, Col.

Vane, Lord H.

Lockhart, A. E.

Verner, Sir W.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Vivian, J. E.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Vyse, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Walsh, Sir. J. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Ward, H. G.

M'Neill, D.

Watson, W. H.

Maitland, T.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Mangles, R. D.

Williams, W.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Wodehouse, E.

Marjoribanks, S.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Martin, C. W.

TELLERS.

Masterman, J.

Tufnell, H.

Milnes, R. M.

Hill, Lord Marcus

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bright, J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Callaghan, D.

Collett, J.

1414

Crawford, W. S.

Muntz, G. F.

Dennistoun, J.

O'Brien, C.

Duncan, Visct.

O'Brien, T.

Escott, B.

O'Connell, M. J.

Evans, Sir De L.

Philips, M.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Roebuck, J. A.

Macnamara, Maj.

Thornely, T.

M'Carthy, A.

TELLERS.

Marsland, H.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Duncombe, T.

Resolution read a second time.
On the question that the House do agree with the Committee in the said resolution,
MR. EWARTrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice—
"That, in districts where there is only one school receiving State support, children whose parents object to the kind of religious instruction administered there, may be admitted to the school without being subject to such religious instruction."
In various districts there would only be one school supported by the State. Would they exclude from that school the small minority of poor persons whose religious opinions differed from those of the majority? Would it be equitable to exclude that minority? He asked the House for a specific remedy for a specific evil, and he did not believe a great portion of the Church would resist his Motion. The hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) in a liberal speech the other night, expressed his wish, that in his and other rural parishes the children of Dissenters would not be excluded from the National school. It would, indeed, be a pity if they were shut out from secular education in the State school, because of their religious opinions. He would not detain the House at any great length, being content to rest his case on its intrinsic justice. He would only remark, that if the Church saw her real interest, she would not oppose a Motion such as this, which was only a slight extension of the principle conceded by the Privy Council. The second part of the Motion, having reference to the Government appointments intended to be given to the unsuccessful school candidates, he opposed, because the effect of the Government plan would be to induce lads who could never make good schoolmasters to take up the profession. It would be better to throw open these appointments to public competition.
MR. AGLIONBYseconded the Motion, which was the smallest and the most practicable of any that had yet been made to the House. It did not apply to any particular sect, but might apply to the Catho-

1415
lics and the Dissenters as well as to the Church. If there were a few rich people in a parish who raised the funds necessary to entitle them to Government assistance, was it not reasonable that the State should impose some terms on them? He would rather not have divided against the Government on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark, but he was compelled to give a candid opinion on the proposition before the House.
SIR G. GREYsaid, it appeared to him that the principle of the Amendment now before the House, was precisely the same as that proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay), though he would admit that it was less objectionable in its application. The hon. Member for Dumfries had spoken of the schools participating in the grant as State schools. They were certainly schools receiving State support, but they were not State schools. If it were proposed to found State schools throughout the country, then he should think the principle a perfectly sound one to dictate terms such as the hon. Member intended. But it must be remembered that these schools were voluntary schools, supported by voluntary contributions, and depending upon the voluntary exertions of their friends. They were not under State management or control; and the aid was given on certain conditions which the managers of those schools could accept. Instead of attaining the object which the hon. Member desired, the success of the Amendment would, in all probability, involve the rejection of the Government grant altogether. The managers of the two societies would reject the terms proposed by the Government as wholly inconsistent with the objects of those societies. At the same time, it was his own wish that there should be a greater absence of the exclusive system of religious teaching, and an extension of the practice of admitting children of different religious denominations, without insisting on their receiving particular religious instruction. Being of opinion, however, that that object would be better attained by leaving the matter to the good feeling of the managers of the schools, he should feel compelled to oppose the Amendment.
MR. VERNON SMITHconsidered the grievance proposed to be remedied by the Amendment a practical one, and the chief grievance he had discovered in the Government Minutes. That, too, was the opinion of Dr. Kay Shuttleworth in his
1416
pamphlet. The Dissenters would be worse off under the new Minutes than they were before in places where only one school existed.
MR. FINCHhoped that, in parishes where there was only one school, and that belonging to the National Society, the children of Dissenters would not have the catechism forced upon them.
MR. ADDERLEYstated, that a petition had been forwarded to him in opposition to the Government scheme, alleging that full provision was already made for the education of the people; and he found that many of the petitioners were unable to write, and had affixed their marks to the petition. He thought, under the circumstances, the plan proposed by Her Majesty's Government was the best that could be adopted. He did not concur, however, in the position which had been strongly maintained by many hon. Members in the course of the debate, that it was incumbent on the State to undertake the education of the poor; for he considered that it was the duty of those by whom the poor were employed to provide for the education of those who were dependent upon them. He did not think that, in this country, a system of secular education, independent of religious instruction, could be successful. It might, indeed, be possible to divide the subjects of secular and religious instruction; and that principle, as they had to-night heard, had been most effectually carried out by Mr. Lee, master of King Edward's school at Birmingham. It was impossible, however, for any pupil to be under the care of such a man as Mr. Lee without being fully impressed with the importance of religious truth. He could not support the Amendment.
MR. HUMEsupported the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries. He thought that secular education might be given, preparatory to religious instruction, and that from such a system advantage would be derived by both Churchmen and Dissenters. Mr. Kay Shuttleworth had, he believed, strongly recommended that the conductors of Church schools should throw them open to all persons, irrespective of religious opinions, without requiring the children to learn the Church of England catechism. He (Mr. Hume) believed that such a measure would be attended with great benefit to all classes of the community; for, in his opinion, the duties of the schoolmaster and of the clergyman were entirely distinct. The Government was

1417
placed in a situation of most unprecedented difficulty. They had to deal with persons of extreme religious opinions on each side, neither of whom would yield a jot of their strong opinion to procure the blessings of education for the ignorant. In Norfolk, there was a parish with 1,200 people wholly uneducated; and it had been recently proposed to build a school there—but there, so violent was the dissension, that, unless the Church of England would give up the use of the Church catechism, there could be no school at all. It was in such a case the duty of the Church of England to yield in points of that kind, where the education of the people was in question. Why should the Church insist on teaching the catechism and reading the liturgy in these schools? He was sure the Church, if it saw its own interest, and if it wished to see crime and ignorance abolished, would yield in those matters. Regarding the Amendment as a step in the right direction, though a small one, he should give it his support.
MR. PROTHEROEviewed the proposition of the Government as an encouragement of the voluntary efforts and of the voluntary system, inasmuch as although the aid was offered by the State, it was offered through the societies who were to receive it. Representing almost a Dissenting constituency, it would have given him great pleasure to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries; but he feared that in doing so he might, in this instance, injure the cause of education instead of advancing it.
SIR W. CLAYsaid, that the principle involved in the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member from Dumfries, was the same as that which was involved in the Motion that he brought forward the other night; and, after the division which had taken place upon his Motion, he thought it was scarcely necessary to divide the House again upon this Motion. He believed that his Motion and the Motion of his hon. Friend, would be productive of very considerable advantage; and, although neither of them were carried, would be of great value notwithstanding throughout the country. He hoped that the discussions which had taken place upon those Motions, would have the effect of showing the managers of schools generally, that there was a very general desire on the part of the House to see this assistance afforded to all children who had no other means of obtaining information.
MR. PHILIP HOWARDconcurred in the recommendation to his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. He certainly thought that if any such grievance could be proved to exist as that to which the Amendment pointed, it would be proper to provide a remedy; but he disapproved of this mode of interfering beforehand with the conductors of these schools. He had not voted for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark not from any disapprobation of it, but because he did not wish to be forced into a division against the Government, after the assurance which they had given.
LORD H. VANEdid not think it was necessary to divide the House after the general expression of opinion which had been afforded. He was satisfied that the general expression of opinion would have an effect upon the schools throughout the country.
MR. EWARTsaid, that as so many hon. Members who were in favour of the principle of the Motion, requested him to withdraw it, he would not press the question to a division. He would trust to the liberality, good feeling, and Christian spirit of all sects in carrying out the measure in such a manner as was calculated to agree with the liberal opinions so generally expressed by the House on this subject.
Motion withdrawn.
SIR GEORGE CLERKwould avail himself of that opportunity to express his deep regret at having heard the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the parochial schools of Scotland were to be the only schools in Great Britain which were to be excluded altogether. There was at present a very inadequate provision for those parochial schools; and he therefore the more regretted that they were to be excluded from this grant. What was the manner in which this sum of 100,000 l. was to be expended? It, was to be applied to three different purposes—to give additional salaries to the schoolmasters; to provide retiring pensions for those schoolmasters rendered by sickness or old age incapable ol following their profession; and to the purpose of training up young persons to be teachers, who were, of course, to receive a superior education. Why, he would ask, were the parochial schools of Scotland excluded from the advantages which were to be thus conferred? By the Minutes of Council, he saw nothing required but an application on the part of the schools, and an agreement on their

1419
part to submit to inspection; and if the parochial schools of Scotland agreed to these terms, he did not see why they should not obtain the advantages of having superior teachers, such as those persons who were to be educated at the normal schools would undoubtedly be. They were, in fact, by this exclusion, stating to the people of Scotland that the only schools which were to be excluded from these advantages were the schools in connexion with the Established Church of that country. He, therefore, trusted the noble Lord would consider this subject.
MR. HUMEwas opposed to the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. The parochial schools of Scotland were established on a sound principle, namely, that of being supported by the property of the district; and he did not, therefore, approve of the application of this plan to them. He thought it more for the interest of Scotland that instead of taxing the country generally for schools, the country gentlemen of Scotland should be assessed for the support of the schools. He did not think the present system of taking money from Scotland to support schools in England was fair; and he would, therefore, say that it would be better to give to England the parochial system of schools which Scotland had.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEsaid, the principle of the proposal before the House was, that Scotland should contribute to this system of encouraging education; and when she contributed her share, surely she was as well entitled to a portion of the sum for the encouragement of the schools as any other part of the country.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman asked him a question at an earlier part of the evening, he had but a quarter of an hour to consider it. He was, however, ready to consider the subject before the Committee of Council. The House should remember that this plan applied, however, only to the schools on the voluntary principle; and the question would arise whether, if they gave this grant to the schools supported by assessment in Scotland, they ought not also to extend it to the schools supported by endowment in England, and in case of such an extension he feared the 100,000 l. would go but a small way.
Resolution agreed to.
Report received.

RAILWAYS, PIERS, AND HARBOURS (IRELAND).
House in Committee on Railways, Piers, and Harbours (Ireland).
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it might be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen, who did him the honour of listening to what fell from him, when the noble Member for Lynn brought forward his proposition with respect to Irish railways, that he did not then express any opinion adverse to the construction of railways in Ireland. On the contrary, he had expressed an opinion that their construction would be beneficial; but he felt bound to oppose the indiscriminate and extensive assistance which the noble Lord proposed to afford them. Moreover, he did not think it expedient to go beyond the necessity of raising, as he had felt it his duty to raise, a large loan applicable to the relief of the existing distress in Ireland, and to propose a further loan of 16,000,000 l. The proposal he was about to submit to the House, was based on a different principle from that of the noble Lord. He did not propose to advance any sum of money to any railway in lreland, which was not in a condition, according to the terms of its Act of Parliament, to borrow. The advances and repayments would be made according to the same conditions as had on other occasions been settled by the Loan Commissioners, who, out of the funds at their disposal, year by year, had been in the constant habit of making advances to railways, if satisfied of the security and of the repayment of the money. In the present state of Ireland, it was impossible to deny that by this course the greatest impetus might be given to employment where the advances could be safely made. Accordingly, he found that the Loan Commissioners had agreed, from the fund usually placed at their disposal, to make small loans to railway companies; but, looking to the advances which it might be necessary to make for fever hospitals, in addition to other advances which might be required for some of the workhouses in Ireland, he was anxious that no very large sum should be drawn for the purpose of railways from the money at the disposal of the Loan Commissioners. Therefore, when the Commissioners reported to him that there was a railway line which they thought exceedingly advantageous to the country, and with respect to which they were of opinion that the advance of money would be safe, and ought to be made, and would have

1421
been made by themselves, without reference to him, if they had been in possession of sufficient funds of their own; and that the parties applying for a loan had engaged to make calls for the purpose of raising a sum of money of their own of precisely the same amount as the money lent them—he thought that in reference to the extent to which he proposed to go to-night, he should not only not run any risk, because the security was safe, but that it would be unnecessary for him to confer any powers of borrowing on the railway companies which they did not already possess. The railways to which he proposed to lend money having paid up 50 per cent of their capital, were in a legal condition to borrow. Under these circumstances, he thought that it would be advantageous to make a loan of limited extent to them—the loan not to exceed 620,000 l. The first line to which he proposed to make a loan was the Great South Western Railway. The capital of that company was 2,600,000 l., and 1,400,000 l. had been already paid up. They proposed to raise 500,000 l. by calls to be expended between this and December; and he proposed to place money at the disposal of the Loan Commissioners, to enable them to make a loan to the company of 500,000 l., to be advanced in five or six instalments between this and December; the company making up, at the same time, as he had before said, a similar amount by means of calls. This would enable the railway company to continue the employment of workmen, who, if the advance were not made by the Government, would be dismissed. It would also enable them to employ, as they engaged to do, within a fortnight after receiving the money, 15,000 men beyond the number they could otherwise employ on the line up to Cork, and would likewise furnish them with the means of bringing this part of the line into operation before next Christmas. In the same manner, and on similar conditions, he proposed to lend 83,000 l. to the Waterford and Kilkenny Railway Company. The capital of this company was 250,000 l., of which 125,000 l. had been paid up, and the company promised to raise by calls a sum equal to that which he proposed to lend them. To the third railway in Ireland which he proposed to assist, the loan would be much smaller. It would amount only to 36,000 l. The company to whom he proposed to lend this sum was the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Company. Their capital was 150,000 l., of
1422
which 100,000 l. had been paid up. These sums would be advanced on the usual conditions, the Loan Commissioners being satisfied with the security. The whole amount, therefore, which he proposed to advance, repayable and subject to 5 per cent interest, was 620,000 l. Adverting for a moment to another subject, he was sure the House would learn with satisfaction that there had been a diminution of expenditure on the relief works; and he thought it would be desirable to promote as far as possible by these advances on ample security—advances which would be properly expended and not thrown, away on useless undertakings—profitable employment of this kind. He was happy to say that the reduction in the expenditure on the relief works in the course of the last six weeks had been very considerable, and that the expenditure, which he had calculated as approaching to a million of money a month, had been diminished, and the expenditure was now going on at a rate not exceeding 600,000 l. per month. That was a diminution of 400,000 l. in the month of April, as compared with March. In the week ending on March 13, the expenditure on the relief works was 245,000 l., while in the week ending on the 24th of April the expenditure had decreased to 125,000 l. Further orders had since been given that the extent of the works should be diminished, as well as the number of the people employed on them; and he was very happy to say that a great number of the persons dismissed from the public works had been given employment by occupiers of the land. [Sir J. GRAHAM: Should not some allowance be made for expenditure on soup kitchens?] Undoubtedly some allowance ought to be made under that head; but the increased expenditure on that account did not at all approach to the decrease of expenditure on the relief works. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to direct advances to be made, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to the Commissioners for the issue of Loans for Public Works, and Fisheries, &c., to an amount not exceeding six hundred and twenty thousand pounds in the whole, to be by them advanced towards defraying the expense of making the following Railways in Ireland, viz., The Great Southern and Western Railway; the Waterford and Kilkenny Railway; and, the Dublin and Drogheda Railway."
MR. HUMEhad a great objection to this advance of public money under exist-

1423
ing circumstances. On the recent discussion on the Railway Bill of the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck), the Government made a very good case, and showed that only a small portion of the proposed advance would go to the relief of the labouring population of Ireland; most of the persons employed would be skilled labourers from this country. But there were difficulties now which did not exist at the former period. The Bank was at that time lending money at 3½ per cent, and Exchequer-bills were at a very considerable premium; but now the bullion in the Bank coffers had fallen from 13,000,000 l. to 9,000,000 l.; and what was the situation of railroads in England? Could any one of them borrow now at 5 or even 6 per cent? [Mr. HUDSON: Yes.] He was glad to hear it. He had been told by a person well qualified to judge, that since 1825 there had not been such a day as this in the city; and that there was so much difficulty that any bill exceeding a short date could scarcely be discounted at all. What was the case with Exchequer-bills? He doubted whether they had not been at a discount that morning; if not, they were very near it. Was that a state of things in which to advance so large a sum under such doubtful circumstances? Probably the Government would before long have to pay more than 5 per cent for any money they might want; and were we to lose by undertaking to provide this loan? At all events, the project required time for consideration, and it was now past midnight. There were hon. Gentlemen present who had been in the city that day, and would be better able to tell the Government the state of things than himself; but, for his own part, he could not agree to the vote with the statements he had received, and must move that the Chairman report progress.
MR. GOULBURNfeared the question now raised would give rise to considerable discussion; and perhaps it might be wise in the Government to allow the Chairman to report progress, and ask leave to sit again; but if they determined to press the vote now, he was ready to go on.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEhad been rather surprised to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer making so important a Motion at such a late hour, and could only on that ground account for the absence of many hon. Members representing Irish interests, and who were strangely negligent of their duty when the affairs of their country were to be discussed. He hoped
1424
these few words would draw from some hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies their opinion on this boon professed to be offered by the Government. He begged to deny that this was any boon to the people of Ireland. As far as he could gather, it was merely a loan of money which the railroads in question had a right to borrow; it was no more than what was provided by their Acts. What was the situation of Ireland at present? The right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury bench had taken it upon themselves to thrust a poor law upon that country; and he had expected it to be followed by supplementary measures to absorb the surplus labour of Ireland—something more than a beggarly grant of 620,000 l.—something that would have been remunerative to Ireland. And this vote was left to twelve o'clock at night; and then up got an hon. Gentleman and opposed the vote, because of the state of things in the city. What was the state of things in Ireland? He solemnly believed that by this time next year there would be very little standing between the noble Lord and revolution in that country. The poor law had already begun to operate, combined with the Soup Act; and the rates were 7s. in the pound in many districts. The Irish Secretary must be aware that no rates could possibly be collected in Ireland; you might collect them from the gentry in several places; but as to collecting them from the farmers and the small holders, it was totally impossible: they were unable even to employ the people in the common labours of agriculture. If the Government wished to save property from confiscation, and to save the lives of the people, they must come forward with some larger scheme than this; he would not say with one for 16,000,000 l.—that was the noble Lord's great mistake, calling for such a large sum—but some plan by which the surplus labour of the country should be employed in remunerative works. It was useless for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the House that 600,000 l. would be of any avail except to those particular railways; and the House had not heard that the Government were acting upon any great national plan.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmust, of course, yield to the Amendment, if the House was to have a long Irish debate, and observations upon the state of matters in the city; but it was an object that the loan to the Great South Western line should be made almost

1425
immediately (if made at all), for the sake of the persons now employed on it. There would be abundance of opportunities for raising the question, as he had to go through Committee with his Resolution, and then to bring in a Bill; and it certainly would facilitate the progress of the grant, if made at all, that one stage should be gone through on that night, and the Resolution be reported the next day.
MR. ROEBUCKcould not agree to that. He objected to the principle; and if he let the vote pass, he was, in reality, sanctioning the giving of the money. He must take the sense of the House in every stage on the advance. Talk about the fearful state of Ireland! It would be necessary soon to talk about the state of England too.
LORD G. BENTINCKshould not object to the vote going forward. There shall be "more joy over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons." He greatly rejoiced to find that Ministers had at length discovered that it was cheaper for England to lend her money receiving interest for it upon reproductive works, than upon those useless relief works, which were to return no interest and produced no fruits. He greatly rejoiced, also, to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, that in the course of the last two months, he had become better instructed upon the subject of the number of men to whom the construction or railways would give employment. He (Lord G. Bentinck) had proposed to employ 110,000 men a year with 6,000,000 l.; but the right hon. Gentleman then told the House that 6,000,000 l. laid out in railways would only furnish employment for 45,000 labourers; now he told the House that 600,000 l. would employ 15,000 labourers; so that upon his calculations 6,000,000 l. would afford employment not merely for 110,000, as he (Lord G. Bentinck) had formerly stated, but for 150,000 able-bodied labourers. It must be a great disappointment to the people of Ireland now to find upon what false grounds they were deprived of their darling measure for the construction of railways in Ireland. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had at last come to his senses, and now proposed to grant a portion, at least, of the 16,000,000 l. It had been said that he wished to advance money without discrimination to all railways throughout Ireland. He had done no such thing. It was only to those railways which the Railway Commissioners might recommend, and which
1426
should afford a certain guarantee, that he proposed to make advances. The right hon. Gentleman did not come down with any such guarantee. He selected three railways especially.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: One half of the capital must be paid up. What the noble Lord proposed was, that all railways should receive advances, whether they had or had not entitled themselves to borrow by paying up, in accordance with the usual conditions, one-half of their capital. The objection to that proposal was, that the railways had not complied with that condition. But those to which the present proposition related had paid up one-half of their capital, and therefore they were in a condition to borrow. But it was further stipulated that they should pay as much more as it was proposed to lend them.
LORD G. BENTINCK: The proposition which the right hon. Gentleman had described as offering loans without discrimination, was a proposition to lend money only to railways on which a sum equal to one-third of that asked for on loan from the Government, had been paid up and expended on the railway, and in favour of which the Railway Commissioners reported that they furnished sufficient security to the Government for the punctual repayment with interest of the capital borrowed. And the objection raised to it was, first, that this was not an efficient plan for employing labour in Ireland; and, secondly, that the state of the money-market did not permit such advances to be made. He now found that his calculation that 16,000,000 l. would give employment to 110,000 men in Ireland was understated. When it suited the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman, a million of money would give employment to half as many more able-bodied labourers as it could when it suited the right hon. Gentleman's purpose to resist a Motion proposed by his opponents. Then as to the money market; what was the state of the money market now? The right hon. Gentleman, since he (Lord G. Bentinck) made his proposition, had advanced the interest on Exchequer-bills. Nevertheless, Exchequer-bills, then at a premium, had now fallen to 4s. discount; and would it not be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the interest again? The advance of 16,000,000 l. was not, as had been represented, to be made this year; the amount proposed to be advanced this year was only 4,000,000 l.; and if the right hon.

1427
Gentleman had advanced the money four months ago, he would have saved a great proportion of the 1,000,000 l. a month which had since been, and was now in course of being, expended upon unproductive public works. It was impossible to avoid taking the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman to afford the House some explanation as to the state of the money market, and the prospects of the manufacturing interests of the country. They were told that the best bills could be discounted only at 7 or 8 per cent, and those were bills that had less than 60 days to run. They were told that even Exchequer-bills were scarcely saleable at the present moment. When matters had been brought to such a pass, it might well be asked if this could truly be ascribed to the effect of railway advances, or whether it were not with better foundation to be ascribed to the exportation of gold, which was sent, instead of manufactures, out of the country, as had always been predicted, to pay for unrestricted imports? What did the right hon. Gentleman expect to be the effect of that still larger export of gold required to pay for the corn which was yet to come from America? Had railway speculations done all this? Had it brought up the rate at which good bills were discounted? Had it brought Exchequer-bills to 4s. discount? He recollected that the Bank of England encountered no such difficulties in August last, when it was freely discounting at 2½ per cent, though Railway Bills had just then passed Parliament which involved an expenditure of 120,000,000 l. Was it not the Bank Charter Bill, so lauded in that House but a short time ago, which had forced the Bank to contract its issues, and so contract the currency that, it was already grinding the trade and commerce of the country to dust? Why, they would have the manufacturers of Manchester, the traders of Liverpool, all the operative classes throughout the country, in a state approaching very nearly to ruin. Was it the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to allow things to proceed in this downward course till the trade and commerce of the country could no longer bear the pressure; or was it their intention to come forward and afford the Bank of England some relaxation of those rigid rules which over and above 14,000,000 l. annually forbade her to issue any notes, unless each note so issued was represented by a sovereign in her coffers? The Bank Charter Act was a very good measure for fair wea-
1428
ther, but not for times like these. He called, therefore, on Her Majesty's Ministers before it was too late, before thousands of bankrupts came knocking at their doors, to give the Bank some discretion to make use of their credit, and thus enable the Bank directors to cease contracting their accommodation and circulation, which they had now begun, and for some time more would be obliged still further to contract.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad certainly not been prepared for the speech of his noble Friend, who must be aware that he had introduced matter of a very different description from what was actually before them. That matter had been introduced, too, at a time when it could not be fairly discussed—at a time when it was not desirable to discuss it—and, therefore, he did not think his noble Friend had exercised his usual discretion in introducing this subject; because, although he felt imperatively called upon to reply to some of his noble Friend's remarks, it was evidently impossible to go into the subject at any length; and besides it would be unfair to do so, considering that there were some Gentlemen who might naturally be expected to take part in the discussion, and who, at that time of night, would have no opportunity of expressing their opinion. He did not think, therefore, that it was quite right in the noble Lord to introduce the subject after it had been intimated that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was ready to acquiesce in the proposal to report progress. The noble Lord, it appeared, participated in the extreme alarm of impending ruin which was entertained by certain persons out of doors, and had fallen into the grievous errors of those persons in misconceiving and mis-stating (he was sure unintentionally) the facts of the case. The noble Lord had spoken of the state of approaching ruin into which the Bank had brought the merchants by the reduction of its circulation, in pursuance of the provisions of the Banking Bill. Now, in point of fact, the Bank had not reduced its circulation. What was called the stringent operation of the Banking Bill, had not been brought into play at all. The fact was, that up to this time the Bank had pursued that course which, on former occasions, before the Banking Bill, or what was called Sir Robert Peel's Act, passed, it had invariably pursued, namely, that during the earlier stages of a drain it had not reduced its circulation

1429
at all; and had, therefore, placed itself under the necessity of acting more stringently at last, than it would have been obliged to do if it had acted according to the intentions of the Bill. He did not think, then, that there had been any case whatsoever made out against the wisdom of that measure. Quite the contrary; for if the spirit of that measure had been acted upon three months ago, his firm conviction was that the country would not be in the situation in which it now was, Now, he considered it right that the House should know what the facts really were, which he thought rested on a somewhat better foundation than the very erroneous statement which the noble Lord had made to the House. He found that on August 29, 1846, the amount of bullion in the Bank was 16,360,000 l., and the circulation of notes 20,426,000 l. On the 17th of April last, the amount of bullion in the Bank was 9,329,000 l. (showing a decrease of 7,037,000 l.) duction in the circulation of notes? If the spirit of the Banking Act had been followed out, the diminution in the circulation would have borne some proportion to that in the bullion; but on the 17th of April, the amount of notes in circulation was 20,242,000 l., being a decrease of only 184,000 l. Now, would the noble Lord, or any person either in or out of that House, after that statement, which had appeared in the London Gazette, and in every newspaper in the city during the past week, talk of the reduction of the circulation? With respect to the opinions of the noble Lord, and the apprehensions he might entertain, that was for the noble Lord to form a judgment for himself according to the best of his ability; but he ought, at least, to be contented to take the facts as they stood, and not increase the alarm and apprehension which he was sorry to say existed too much already, by a mis-statement of the facts of the case. Next, take the accommodation given to the public, because there was another error Gentlemen fell into, not in a matter of opinion, but of fact. Now, as to the accommodation given to the public—to the traders—upon whom, according to the noble Lord, there was a general pressure, in consequence of the diminution of discounts—by the refusal to discount bills—(he did not mean to say that the Bank had not refused to discount bills, but there was a limit beyond which even the Bank could not go in discounting bills)—if the noble Lord would take the
1430
trouble of looking at the Bank return of last week, the noble Lord would find an enormous increase of private securities in the Bank; and everybody who knew anything of these matters was aware that an increase of private securities held by the Bank at such times as these, indicated an increase of discounts. He knew that an idea existed that there had been a pressure put upon the Bank by the Government; and that in consequence of the assistance asked by Government, the Bank was unable to afford assistance to the merchants in the same way as they used to do before the passing of the Banking Act. If the noble Lord would take the trouble of referring to the Bank returns, he would see how unfounded thatidea was. He took the period of the 29th of August last, and he found that the Government securities held by the banking department were 12,961,000 l., and that the private securities were about the same amount, not quite, being 12,395,000 l. How did they stand on the 17th of April last? Why, the Government securities had diminished to 11,677,000 l., being a diminution of 1,284,000 l., while the private securities had increased to 17,111,000 l., being an increase of 4,716,000 l., or nearly 5,000,000 l. Two weeks before (on the 3rd of April) the private securities amounted to no less than 18,627,000 l. It thus appeared, therefore, that the Bank had increased its accommodation to the traders in the way of discounts to the extent of nearly 6,000,000 l., while the Government securities were less by 1,000,000 l. Now, he did not think that these facts bore out the assertions or inference which were drawn from them, or that there was anything in the position of the Bank, as controlled by legislative enactment, which had forced it up, to the 17th of April, to curtail the circulation, or to prevent it from giving that increased accommodation which it had been accustomed to give in times like the present. The Hank had kept up its circulation; it had increased its discounts; but no doubt, having kept up its circulation beyond the proper amount according to the spirit of the Act, it now found itself, as heretofore, in the awkward position of having to pull up more severely in the end than if it had commenced at an earlier period, and thus to make the pressure more severe because less gradual. It was perfectly true that last week there had been some diminution of private securities; but it was equally true that the diminution

1431
of private deposits exceeded the diminution of private securities; the former having been reduced 1,213,000 l., and the latter 1,025,000 l., as had been the case on former occasions soon after the payment of dividends. He would now refer to another point. Of course there had been, last quarter, as in every quarter except January last, a certain amount of deficiency bills. Now, he would read to the House the amount of Government securities held by the Banking department in the first three weeks of January last. If he compared these with the first three weeks of April last, he should show how little foundation there was for supposing that the amount of public securities held by the Bank was such as materially to interfere with the aid to the public in discounting private securities. The amount of Government securities held by the Banking department on the 2nd of January was 12,826,000 l.; on the 9th of January, 12,757,000 l.; and on the 16th of January, 12,757,000 l. Again, on the 3rd of April the amount was 11,990,000 l.; on the 10th of April, 13,574,000 l.; and on the 17th of April it was reduced to 11,677,000 l.; being considerably lower than in the corresponding period of the month of January. Therefore, in point of fact, with the exception of one week, the amount of public securities held by the Bank was considerably more in January than in April. He would also contrast the month of April, 1846, with the month of April, 1847, with respect to the Government securities held by the Bank. They stood as follows on the days most nearly corresponding to each other in the two years:—

1846.

1847.

April 4,

£13,136,000

April 3,

£11,991,000

11,

14,437,000

10,

13,574,000

18,

13,957,000

17,

11,677,000

Comparing then the 3rd of April, 1847, with the 4th of April, 1846, the Government securities held by the Bank were less in the present year by 1,145,000 l. On the 10th April, 1847, compared with the 11th April, 1846, they were less by 1,063,000 l.; and on the 17th April, 1847, compared with the 18th April, 1846, they were less by 1,280,000 l. But what was more material as a test of what was called the extraordinary demand of the Government, was the increase in one week, and the decrease in the next. The increase in the week after the dividends last year, was 1,301,000 l. In the present year, it was 1,584,000 l. The increase, therefore, in the Government securities
1432
held this year by the Bank, in the week after the payment of the dividends, only exceeded the amount of increase last year by 284,000 l. There was only one week in which, as everybody knew, the maximum was held. In the course of the week following, the diminution last year was only 480,000 l.; but what was it this year? It was not less than 1,897,000 l. Consequently, within two weeks of the payment of the dividends, the pressure was taken off the Bank; and the demands of the Government were more decreased this year than the last in the fortnight following the payment of the dividends. He thought this statement completely answered the assertion, that, owing to the pressure put upon the Bank by the Government, the Bank was unable to afford the usual amount of accommodation. His noble Friend also had forgotten the amount of circulation which was usually out among the public in the corresponding period of former years. The amount now in circulation was 20,242,000 l., independently of the reserve in the Bank. He had sent for the report of the Banking Committee, and had turned to the returns for some years back, and preceding the passing of the new Bank Act; and he found that in the month of April the circulation never exceeded 18,000,000 l., and that in the year 1840, which was not one of pressure, it did not, exceed 17,000,000 l.; nor during the whole of that year did the circulation exceed that amount; and it had been down to 15,000,000 l. The present supposition of the noble Lord, therefore, was a little, more wild than some former calculations which had been made in that House. Neither the state of the circulation, nor that of the accommodation given to the public, in discounts, was sufficient to account for the alarm which existed in the city of London and in the country. He believed, himself, from what he had heard, that at, the present time of the year trade never was in a sounder state; there was an absence of speculation, and the bankers were acting with great prudence, and were reserving to themselves the ability to meet the demands which might be made upon them. There was no doubt that a drain of bullion was going on, and that this caused a pressure upon all the interests of the country; it had never been otherwise, and he believed it never would be otherwise; but if it were thought to be owing to the circulation of the Bank of England, the pressure could not arise from

1433
that. The price of stocks, no doubt, was low, and Exchequer bills, no doubt, sold that day at 4s. discount; but the price of stocks was not so low as it was a fortnight ago. The 3 per cents that day were 85 ⅞ to 86 ⅛; they were below this a fortnight ago; and now they were higher at the termination than at the beginning of the day. The 3¼ per cents were that day at 87⅛; and on the 10th of April they were as low as 85⅞. This pressure did not arise from the Government, nor was it so great as at the same time in other years. He had kept the Bank warned of what the probable demand for deficiency bills would be; and therefore if it had acted in any way in error, it was not for want of knowing what sum the Government would require. He might as well take that opportunity of referring to another mistake which had been made, in supposing that there had been some extensive operations with the savings' banks money. The complaint had been made that the Government had dabbled with the savings' banks money, and so lowered the funds; but all that had been done was very simple, and must have had a directly contrary effect. The depositors in the savings' banks, finding that a greater amount of interest was given by the private banks than in the savings' banks, had chosen to withdraw their money, as they had a perfect right to do. The only mode of meeting this withdrawal was by selling stock, and therefore the broker was instructed so to do; but in order to prevent a fall in the funds, he had applied the amount of the sinking fund in his hands to the purchase of the stock so sold on account of the savings' banks, thereby preventing the effect in the market which the operation would otherwise have had in the deterioration of prices. So that, so far from anything having been done by him which could possibly lower prices, the result of what he had directed, must undoubtedly have been to keep them up.
SIR J. GRAHAMrose, as he presumed, with the same object as many hon. Members who were anxious to address the House; for he must say, that after the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, it was absolutely necessary that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make some reply; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made his statement with great perspicuity; and, though it might not be in all respects so satisfactory as they could desire, it would have the in-
1434
variable effect of truth, to diminish exaggerated alarm arising from misapprehension. But with respect to the remaining point in this important discussion, he thought it too late then to decide, whether, in the present state of our monetary affairs, the House should agree to the Motion; they must gravely consider the wants of the Irish people and the condition of England, when they were called upon to borrow 650,000 l. to advance to three Irish railroads, after all the immense advances which the necessities of that country had compelled them to make during the last three months. This was too important to discuss then; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the Chairman's reporting progress.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad acquiesced in that before his noble Friend spoke, and was not prepared to object to it now.
MR. HUDSONcould not permit the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to pass without some explanation. If the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to bring forward his own views, without casting reflections upon the noble Lord, the House would have heard no observations from him; and if the right hon. Gentleman were to complain of his observations, the right hon. Gentleman had his own indiscretion and want of good judgment to thank for it. The right hon. Gentleman had chosen to state what was contrary to the fact, that the Bill of the noble Lord provided for an indiscriminate loan of money to the different railways in Ireland. That was not true. So far from it, that the Bill of his noble Friend guarded against it in the most careful manner. He wished to call attention also to the fact that in the statements of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Bank, he had not said one word with regard to the deposits, which was a most important question in considering the management of the Bank affairs. He thought it right to ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House if they ever knew the money market to be in such a state as at present, when with an amount of bullion in the Rank of England to the extent of nine millions, they found money at such a high price as it now bore? He did not wish to pledge himself as to any particular measure; but he thought it was matter for serious consideration with the Government that with such an amount of bullion in the Bank, money was so high in price as eight

1435
nine per cent; in fact, that there was as great distress in the country now as there was when the amount of bullion in the Bank did not exceed one and a half or two and a half millions.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester thought the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer was likely to remove the apprehension and alarm that existed; he hoped it might have that effect; but let him tell the right hon. Baronet that the objections, difficulties, and fear that now existed, did not originate from any reduction in the circulation of the Bank, but from the reduction and contraction of the facilities of accommodation afforded by the Bank. When the right hon. Gentleman knew, and none knew better than he did, that the whole trade of the country, and particularly the export trade, rested on credit, and that without the facilities of the Bank, that credit could never be brought into play; and that if there were any possibility of not obtaining discounts by the Bank, or any doubt of that possibility, no facilities would be given to trade; the right hon. Gentleman would see that if the Bank kept up the full circulation, yet the great difficulty and cause of alarm was not touched by him; which was this, that with that full circulation (and he did not agree with the right hon. Baronet that the Government had had no part in creating the difficulty), with more gold in the Bank than in old times was considered sufficient to keep the whole trade in the country in a flourishing state, yet everybody was afraid of what might happen—everybody was contracting his business, and looking to the Bank, and keeping his own bank notes; and that arose solely from the want of power of the Bank to give that confidence which the country required. He thought his right hon. Friend, when he considered that the statement he had made would remove the alarm that existed—when he stated that there was a circulation of 20,000,000 l., and that he had only taken his usual advances—had not touched the real question, which was, how was the trade of the country to be carried on if no facilities were given by the Bank?
MR. FORBESwished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer how it was that, with the accommodation which the Bank charter afforded, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester thought half a million so serious a
1436
matter in regard to Ireland, and how it was the application which had been made from Scotland by the Scotch banks for the relief of half a million of gold was refused?
MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, that the circulation was perfectly sound. They knew that the amount of Bank notes in the country was perfectly adequate to the general wants; but, confidence, which was shaken through the alarm as to the condition of the Bank, was wanted. They knew that the accommodation given by the Bank was limited to the amount of its rest, and that was the only ground of distrust. It was altogether a most anomalous state; for, instead of the currency being depreciated, he found it it was appreciated. It was probable that the inconvenience to which the Bank had exposed the community would have been less if they had made their contraction before; but he believed that in London there was unnecessarily great distrust and alarm. At the same time, he did not think that the statement of the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remove that apprehension, because it did not touch the grounds upon which that apprehension rested. He hoped that, if necessary, some discretion would be given to the Government to increase confidence in the Bank, and to confirm the opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet that commerce was never in a sounder state—that there was never less of speculation; but in his experience he had never seen alarm more general or greater than in the last few days. He believed that that alarm was not well founded; but it produced results equally as disastrous as if it were.
MR. NEWDEGATEbegged to call the attention of the House to one fact. A very great injustice had been done to his noble Friend (Lord G. Bentinck); for his noble Friend had stated that there was an anticipation of great distress and great pressure dating from this period—an anticipation, the truth of which the whole statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer tended to confirm. It was not fair it should go forth that his noble Friend had stated that the contraction of the circulation had taken place, when his noble Friend had only referred to the future, and when his whole statement was confirmed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman turned wholly on the word "hitherto;" for he said, that hitherto the Bank had not acted on the law, and

1437
that hitherto the pressure had not occurred.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproposed to adjourn the debate to next day, and he hoped that it might come on, for he thought it very desirable that
1438
this discussion, having been commenced, should be concluded.
House resumed.
Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at half-past One o'clock.

ERRATA.
Page 610 line 15, for Exchequer Bills (18 l., 310 l., 700 l.), read Exchequer Bills (18,310,700 l.).
699 line 11, for Watcharer, read Walcheren.
702 line 14, from bottom, for 1111, read 1811.

MINUTES.
Sat first.—The Earl of Yarborough, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Bankruptcy Law Amendment.
2a Army Service.
Reported—Customs Duties.
3a and passed:—Vexatious Actions, Protection against.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the Wood-bridge Union, in favour of the Rating of Tenements.—From Wrentham, in favour of the proposed Government Plan of Education; and from Dissenters of Glossop and several other places, against the same.—From Wexford, against affording Out-door Relief to the Destitute Poor of Ireland.—From Cappermore, against the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—From Shepton Mallet and several other places, for the Repeal of the present Law of Settlement, and for a National Rate for the Relief of the Poor.—By Lord Brougham, from Donagh, for the Adoption of a Measure to secure to the Improving Tenant in Ireland a Sufficient Permanency of Tenure.

THE ARMY SERVICE BILL.
The Order of the Day for the Second Reading having been read,
EARL GREYsaid, that their Lordships might remember that, before this Bill was brought up from the other House, a noble Lord whom he did not then see in his place (the Marquess of Londonderry) had stated to their Lordships some reasons why their Lordships should refuse their consent to such a measure as this; and the noble Lord had also stated the objections he entertained to the principle of enlistment in Her Majesty's Army for a limited instead of an unlimited period. He (Earl Grey) had, on that occasion, felt it to be his duty to protest against what appeared to him to be a premature discussion of a Bill not then before their Lordships' House; but in doing so he had stated that, when the Bill came up, he should give the reasons which had induced Her Majesty's Government to adopt this measure, and answer, as well as he could, the arguments of the noble Lord. In redemption of that pledge, it was now his duty to state the views on which the Bill had been founded. In the first place, he must observe that this ought not to be considered as a single or isolated measure. Their Lordships would entirely fail to form a correct judgment if they considered this Bill by itself, and apart from the measures for the benefit of the Army which had been adopted in former years, and which were now in contemplation, with which it was closely connected. This Bill, in fact, was only part of a course of policy and of a series of measures which for the last twenty or twenty-five years had been passed with the object of raising the character of the Army, and improving the condition of the

1317
soldier. The noble Marquess had spoken of this measure as if it had been preceded by no such measures, and had treated it as a piece of great presumption for Her Majesty's Government, who had not had that experience in military matters that proceeds from a great deal of active service in the field, to take up a subject of this kind. On this point, with all due deference to the noble Marquess, he must observe the Government for the time being had always means at its command for obtaining the best professional advice and assistance on this subject; and with that advice and assistance which Her Majesty's Government had enjoyed, like those who preceded them, they were perfectly capable of forming a sound and correct judgment upon the subject. He would further take the liberty of observing, that experience had proved that not any injury, but, on the contrary, very great gain had resulted to the Army from the circumstance that the regulation of its condition had not been resigned exclusively to those who were professionally connected with the Army, but had also occupied the attention of the servants of the Crown, and of Members of the Legislature who had not themselves served in its ranks. When the noble Marquess contended that because the Army had been victorious, it must necessarily be perfect, and that there ought not to be any interference with the present system, he (Earl Grey) assumed that the noble Marquess meant that there was no room for improvement, and no necessity for any change such as was contemplated to be effected by this measure. That he understood to be the drift of the argument of the noble Marquess. But here, again, he (Earl Grey) was compelled to differ from the noble Marquess. He conceived not only the room for improvement to be great, but that the improvement which had been going on in the Army under successive Administrations for many years ought not now to stop. When he said this, let it not for a moment be supposed that he was insensible to the merits of the British Army, or inclined to undervalue its achievements. On the contrary, he could assure their Lordships that there was no one who entertained a more enthusiastic admiration of the great achievements of the British Army than he did; but it was perfectly consistent with the highest appreciation of the merits of that Army to observe that by the derangements and deficiencies of the system those great achievements had been in some respects disfigured.
1318
It was from an anxious desire to remove as far as possible those deficiencies that he now advocated this measure; deficiencies which every real friend of the Army was more inclined to assist in removing, than to conceal or deny. To show the fallacy of the argument of the noble Marquess, that because the Army had been victorious, therefore the system was perfect, he might appeal to an illustrious authority, who was then among their Lordships. The noble Duke who sat on the cross-benches (the Duke of Wellington), in his despatches, which were at once the best and most authentic record of his great achievements, and therefore the most endurable monument of his fame—the noble Duke in those despatches had repeatedly described the difficulties with which he had to struggle in consequence of the defects of the Army he commanded; and he (Earl Grey) would say this, that their Lordships would not fully appreciate the great achievements of the noble Duke, and the great debt which the public owed to him, if they did not remember what those difficulties were; if they did not understand that the noble Duke had to a great extent created the means by which those immortal victories were gained; and that, by the discipline and instruction which he himself had imparted to the officers and soldiers of the Army under his command, he, in the course of a few years, at the head of that Army, rolled back the tide of conquest that had spread over a great portion of Europe, and ended by the victory achieved on the plains of Waterloo, that memorable contest which he commenced on the shores of the Atlantic. These despatches were the best evidence of the serious defects of the system existing in the Army at that day, notwithstanding the noble Duke by means of that Army was so eminently successful. At the same time their Lordships would recollect that these defects in our military system were much more observable in a time of peace than in a time of war. When called upon to fight, the inherent courage and determined spirit of the British soldier, more especially when that spirit was encouraged by high military talent, such as that possessed by the noble Duke, insured distinction in the field. But during the war their Lordships would recollect that it was principally during the intervals of active operation, and occasionally when called upon to retreat, as the most successful armies were sometimes required to do—and to be able to do that well was no less an essential proof of a gallant

1319
army than to achieve success—it was upon those occasions that the noble Duke had most to complain of the deficiency of the army which he commanded. But in a time of peace, those defects were still more perceptible. He would not go into the ungracious topic of pointing out in detail what were the faults of our military system during the earlier period of the peace, and before those faults had attracted, as they afterwards did, the attention of the military authorities and the Government of the day, and of the public. Instead of doing this, he considered it better to point out to their Lordships what were the improvements which since that time had been introduced—but so gradually introduced, from time to time, by successive Administrations, that he believed their Lordships were hardly aware of the extent of the change in our military system. Having pointed out those improvements, he would then endeavour to show their Lordships that the measure which they were now asked to read a second time, was strictly in conformity with the measures already adopted, and formed a step—and he (Earl Grey) believed a most important step — in that progress of improvement so long going on; and that it was, therefore, a measure which their Lordships would do well to sanction. The first fault of our military system which had most strongly attracted public attention, was the extent to which corporal punishment prevailed. It was in the recollection of many of their Lordships that the lash was, unfortunately, the main instrument of maintaining discipline in the Army. Offences, great and small, were punished by it; and for the more serious description of offences it was inflicted with a degree of unsparing severity, from which, in the present day, we should recoil with horror. As an instance, he would relate to their Lordships what occurred so lately as the year 1825. In that year a general court-martial sentenced a man to receive no less a punishment than 1,900 lashes; of that sentence no fewer than 1,200 lashes were actually inflicted. This subject long occupied the attention of the other House of Parliament; many debates took place upon it; but it was long before any material alteration was made in the system. It was true that, in the year 1815, and only in the year 1815, it was made illegal to bring out a second time to receive the remainder of the punishment a man who had been sentenced to receive a greater number of lashes than human nature could at once endure. In
1320
former times it had been the practice to bring out an unfortunate man who had received a portion of his punishment to undergo the remainder. In 1815 this was made illegal. It was a considerable time before any further change took place. It was not until 1832 that the number of lashes which could be inflicted by the sentence of a regimental court-martial was reduced from 300 to 200; and by a district court-martial from 500 to 300. But even then there was no limit to the number of lashes that might be awarded by a general court-martial. On the 24th of November, 1833, a general order was issued by Lord Hill, which restricted the infliction of corporal punishment to a small number of serious offences only, it formerly having been the practice to punish minor offences by the lash. By the Mutiny Act of 1836, which he (Earl Grey) had the honour to lay before the House of Commons, the number of lashes that could be inflicted was still further reduced. By that Act, for the first time, a limit was introduced upon the power of general courts-martial, which after that had no longer the power of awarding a greater number of lashes than 200; and the powers of the district and regimental courts-martial were also limited to the extent of 150 and 120. To complete the series of changes in this respect, last August a general order was issued by the noble Duke upon the cross-bench (the Duke of Wellington), by which the number of lashes to be given, under any circumstances and for any offence, was, as he (Earl Grey) thought, most properly, reduced to fifty. Observe the gradual nature of the change with respect to a mitigation of the law within this short period. In the course of twenty-one years from the infliction of 1,200 lashes as part of a sentence, of 1,900, they had come down to a state of things when the infliction of fifty lashes was the maximum of punishment for any offence. He should be able by-and-by to show that the practical administration of the law had diminished its severity no less than the law itself. But connected with this subject of corporal punishment, he thought it very important here to remark another change, which, in the course of a few years, had been adopted for the benefit of the military service. When corporal punishment began first to be abated for small offences, imprisonment was substituted, and military offenders were sent to the ordinary prisons of the country. There they necessarily mixed with offenders of

1321
every description of character, and, in many instances, the alternative of imprisonment for flogging was attended with the worst results. In the course of the last few years, however, arrangements had been made for the erection of military prisons, and also for the formation of cells for solitary confinement in the barracks. This had been attended with the happiest effects. But this was one side only of the question which he had to deal with. He had pointed out to their Lordships the improvements in the penal branch of the system, and what had been the changes made in the modes of punishment, by which it was endeavoured to advance the discipline of the service. He had, however, on the other side, to point out those changes and measures which had been adopted in order to render punishment unnecessary; namely, changes by means of which the condition and comforts of the soldier might be improved. This was a most important part of the subject, and one which had received a great deal of consideration from him. On looking back to a comparatively recent period, it was extraordinary to see how much, in most essential points, the comfort of the soldier had been promoted. One of the most remarkable of these particulars was the state of the barracks. The barrack accommodation, more particularly in the tropical climates, was most inadequate. The situations were in many cases badly chosen, the barracks badly constructed, and, besides, the space allowed for the soldiers was altogether insufficient for the health of the men. He found that the ordinary rule in constructing barracks in the tropical climates was to leave somewhere about 300 cubical feet for each soldier; but it had been discovered that for the healthy accommodation of the men, at least double that space was necessary, and that instead of 300 cubical foot for each man, at least 600 cubical feet should be allowed. A great improvement had taken place in this respect. The Board of Ordnance had taken very great pains gradually to improve the barracks of the soldier; but he was sorry to say that the improvement was still far from having attained the point that was desirable, and that the accommodation was yet very far from what it ought to be. In the improvements which had been made, a point was not lost sight of, which he thought very important—namely, providing in the barracks places for the recreation of the troops; and also another matter which he considered
1322
most useful—the making arrangements for the formation of libraries for the men. There was another matter, if possible, still more closely connected with the health of the troops in the colonial service; and he should remind their Lordships on this point, that it was the severe pressure of that branch of the service which had alwas rendered enlistment in the Army unpopular in this country; and, therefore, to render the colonial service more popular was a matter of the greatest importance. In respect to the supply of provisions in the colonies, a very great improvement indeed had taken place. Their Lordships were hardly aware, perhaps, that so late as the year 1836 it was the practice to allow the troops only two days fresh provisions in the week; and even that allowance was a considerable improvement on earlier times. In 1836, when he (Earl Grey) held the post of Secretary at War, his attention was called to the fact that the soldiers in tropical climates had five days salt provisions in the week; and measures were at once taken to make an effectual improvement in that particular, and but a very small quantity of salt provisions was now given to them in those stations. He would state by-and-by the actual effect of those measures on the health of the troops; but he wished, in the first instance, to refer to some other improvements that had been adopted within the last few years. He should beg to remind their Lordships that until a very recent period indeed there was no distinction whatever between the good soldier and the bad soldier. The only difference between them was, that the good soldier escaped imprisonment, extra drill, and the lash; and he possessed, no doubt, also the good will and respect of his fellow-soldiers and his officers; but in other respects the good and bad soldier were entirely on a level. After fourteen years' service the good soldier and the bad were each entitled to an increase of 2d. a day in their pay; and at the end of twenty-one years, if they were disabled or unfit for further service, they were equally entitled to receive their discharge, and received the same pension. In point of fact, the advantage, in this respect, was with the bad soldier; because a man who was in the constant habit of intoxication, provided he did not actually incapacitate himself for duty, though in other respects worn out by dissipation, being found unfit for service, was discharged with a pension; while the good man — the sober man, who had resisted

1323
temptation, and taken care of his health, and was always efficient to do his duty, from that very circumstance, and because he had been a good soldier to the end of the twenty-one years, was refused a pension, and compelled to continue in the service. In 1836 a change was introduced in this respect. An increase of pay was made no longer to depend upon length of service; it was made to depend on good conduct; and by the system then introduced, improved as it had been by a subsequent warrant, issued when Mr. Sidney Herbert was Secretary at War, and dated December, 1845, great encouragement was given to the good soldier. A man who behaved well got an additional penny a day for every five years he remained in the service; so that at the end of twenty-five years the good soldier had an increase nearly equal to half his pay; and he was, besides, enabled to carry this addition of pay to his pension. Another measure of great importance in encouraging good conduct in the Army, had also been adopted. Their Lordships were aware that the great cause of crime in the Army was the disposition of the soldier to spend his spare money in drinking. Within the last few years, however, a regulation was adopted, which, he believed, tended very powerfully to discourage the men from spending their spare money in this manner, namely, the establishing of regimental savings banks. By this means, the soldier might be enabled to accumulate his small savings, and receive interest upon them upon very advantageous terms, before he retired from the service. Much had been also done for the instruction of the soldier. Regimental schools for children and recruits had been some time established, and was a measure of great importance; but this provision had been extended within the last few years, and means now existed for giving instruction to the men themselves. This was a matter of considerable importance, because the future welfare of the discharged soldier greatly depended upon the instruction he might have received during the time he had been in the Army. It was found that pensioners who had received instruction, obtained situations of considerable value; for the very fact of his having a pension that could be taken from him, cast a responsibility upon a military pensioner, which made him useful in various situations, such as that of policeman on a railroad; an old soldier, from the habit of
1324
discipline which he had acquired, was found the very best man for such purposes, provided he had received the required amount of instruction. He believed that by these and other measures of improvement, much would be done to make the military career much more desirable for the better classes of the labouring population than it was at present. Having stated the most important measures which had been adopted within the last few years for the improvement of the soldier, he would now call the attention of their Lordships to the practical effects which those measures he had described had already been attended with. There were two tests which he thought might well be applied, in showing what the improved state of the Army was. First, the amount of punishment that had been inflicted, and next the mortality which had taken place in the Army in stated periods. In both these respects, the improvement was something which he should say was extremely remarkable. With regard to punishment in the Army, he was sorry to have to state that the returns were very imperfect in the older dates, so as to render it impossible to institute a comparison such as was desirable. From facts which came to his knowledge, he knew that if such a comparison could be instituted, it would display an amount of improvement very remarkable indeed; but even from the materials that were before him it would appear that the improvement which had taken place was very great indeed. For the year 1818, a very short period after the war, he had a return of the number of soldiers received in the hospitals after having undergone corporal punishment, in a certain number of foreign stations. The returns were not complete, but they included a great many stations, the troops amounting in all of them to 28,900. Out of that number, there were of men sent to hospital after receiving corporal punishment no less than 2,273—in other words, 80 men were corporally punished for every 1,000 in the service. In the same stations the number of soldiers receiving corporal punishment last year was only 4 in every 1,000, instead of 80, showing a diminution to the extraordinary proportion of 1 to 20. He would not trouble their Lordships with the details; but he held in his hand returns of the corporal punishments in the Army from 1829 to 1836, and they came down in the proportion, for every 1,000 men, of 19, 16, 14, 11, 10, 9; and in 1836, the proportion was but six nine-tenths. From

1325
1838, the progress downwards was continuous until in 1845 it was six seven-tenths; and in 1846, though the returns were not completed in consequence of the distance of some of the stations, still from the portions of the Army for which the returns had been received, the number receiving corporal punishment was not more than 4 in the 1,000. When he came to consider these returns, he expected that the great diminution in corporal punishment would be accounted for by other punishments having been substituted for it; and that an increase would be found in the returns of other punishments. Such, however, was not the case, as there was also a great diminution in the number of other punishments, more especially the more severe ones. In ten years, between 1826 and 1835, there were no fewer than 76 sentences of death actually passed on military offenders, and of these 41 were actually carried into execution, and 35 were transmuted into transportation. On looking to the period which occurred since, he found that, with the exception of a mutiny which occurred in a negro regiment in Trinidad, when a considerable number were sentenced to death, the diminution in the sentences for death was considerable, though the total strength of the Army was much increased. In 1839, there were only 3 sentences; in 1840, only 2; in the next 2 years only 1 in each year; and in 1845 only 2. The number of sentences for transportation was also considerably diminished; but without entering into details, he might say that for the two years 1844 and 1845 the sentences of transportation were 160 and 155 respectively, they having averaged 178 a few years before, when the Army was much less. Even the sentence of imprisonment was diminished. In 1838, when the Army numbered 96,800 men, the imprisonments were 7,900; and in 1845, when the number of men was 124,400, the number of imprisonments was very nearly the same, but rather less, being 7,857. He thought their Lordships must see in this statement of the diminution of punishments most satisfactory evidence of the improvement of discipline in the Army. But he would proceed to show, from the evidence of diminished mortality in the Army, even in the colonies, results no less remarkable. The mortality amongst our soldiers was, in former years, very great. He had a return which would show what the effects of the measures he had described had been upon their health; for all those
1326
measures had contributed to render the soldier more contented with his lot, and to make his condition generally better, so that they all contributed to reduce the mortality of the Army, and to produce a beneficial effect upon the health of the troops. In 1835, an inquiry was instituted into the health of troops, more especially in foreign stations; and it was most ably and satisfactorily conducted by the two gentlemen to whom the task was entrusted. From a comparison of the returns for the two last years, ending in March, 1846, with the twenty years from 1815 to 1835, some remarkable results might be arrived at. The colonies were arranged in groups, according as they were more or less healthy, and in all a very great improvement in the health of the troops was apparent. In the twenty years between 1815 and 1835, the mortality in the Mediterranean stations was 23 5–10ths a year for every 1,000; and in the two last years it was but 14 for every 1,000 men, showing a saving of human life to the extent of 9 5–10ths per 1,000 persons in the year. In the North American colonies, including the Bermudas and Newfoundland, the reduction was from 21 2–10ths in the former period, to 13 7–10ths per 1,000. In the Australian colonies, including St. Helena, the reduction was from 15 to 12 8–10ths. In respect to the Isle of St. Helena he would make one remark. Their Lordships were aware that during the imprisonment of the late Emperor Napoleon there, a considerable garrison had to be kept up there; and during the entire time, they never got any fresh provisions, except on Christmas days, and some few other remarkable festivities. The consequence was, that there was a very severe mortality amongst the private soldiers; while, at the same time, the officers, who were not so restricted, were to a most remarkable degree exempt from disease—in fact, he believed that only one natural death occurred among the officers during the entire six or seven years. In the tropical colonies, and above all in Jamaica, the improvement was most remarkable. It should be observed that he confined his statement exclusively to the white troops in these returns. In Jamaica, the deaths for the twenty years between 1815 and 1835, were no less than 128 6–10ths per 1,000 annually; but within the last two years, partly in consequence of arrangements having been made to keep the white troops on the higher grounds, except when they were actually wanted be-

1327
low, and by other arrangements, the mortality had been actually reduced from 128 6–10ths to 29 7–10ths per 1,000. Even this did not show the full extent of the improvement, because from accidental causes it was necessary to have a small detachment of white troops in an unhealthy quarter, from which they were, however, latterly withdrawn. He believed, in fact, that Jamaica would soon be actually as healthy as Van Diemen's Land. Taking all the tropical colonies, the mortality was decreased from 84 2–10ths, in 1825, to 42 1–10th, or precisely one-half. To put these facts in a more striking point of view, he would take the actual saving of human life within the last few years. Taking the average number of men employed in the colonies at 35,000, and comparing the deaths for the last two years with those for former periods, they had a saving of no less than 1,035 men, or a number equal to an entire battalion, which had formerly been annihilated by death in each year. From this statement he had excluded India. He was sorry to say that the improvement of the army in India, from causes which he was unable at present to state, had not been the same as in our other colonies; he trusted, however, that in future years it would keep pace with them. He had felt bound to enter into these details, to prove the fallacy of the argument that no improvement in the Army was required since our Army had fought well; he was bound to show the utter fallacy of that argument, by demonstrating the extent of the improvements actually made, and the good effects which had resulted from them; because the state of things which admitted of such improvements, must have been a state of disorder; whilst their results afforded an argument in favour of perseverance, and show ed that the Bill before their Lordships was a necessary and proper measure. For what had been done he did not claim credit for any one Administration, because, during the war, it was impossible to give the requisite degree of attention to the details upon which improvements in the Army depended; but since the peace, constant inquiries had been going on, and the utmost attention had been exerted to ascertain what improvements were practicable; and the improvements he had described had been carried into effect. Much, however, was, in his opinion, still required to be done before admission to the Army would be regarded, as he thought it ought to be
1328
by the better class of the labouring population, as a boon and a privilege. He thought it was impossible not to conceive the condition of the soldier under these improvements, as an improvement on that of a large portion of the labouring classes. The soldier was certain by good conduct to obtain a very great increase of pay, amounting even in the earlier stages of the service to 7s. 7d. a week; while the average earning of the labourer was not more than 7s. or 8s. a week. The soldier had besides, lodging, bedding, fuel, and a portion of his clothing, gratis; and no matter what the price of provisions might be, he could never be charged more than 6d. a day for his support. He had also the prospect of promotion; and taking all these things together, and comparing this state with that of the labourer in Dorsetshire or Wiltshire, he could only account for the unpopularity of the service by the dislike the poorer classes naturally had to be separated from their relations for life, as unlimited service might be considered to be. The present Bill would take away the great ground of this dislike; and he trusted yet to see the day when the military authorities would be in a position to say that they would take no man into the service who could not bring a good character with him. When they could once effect that change, they would see how beneficially it would operate. But to effect so desirable an object, there was no improvement more desirable or more necessary than to show the soldier that by enlisting he was not binding himself for life, and that it would be possible for him to retire after a moderate period of service from the Army, and return to those early associations with friends and relations which were by many so much coveted. An argument which had been adduced by a noble Marquess opposite against the principle of the Bill the other night was, that if men were enlisted for only ten years, every man at the end of that time would go away. Now, he would show that the noble Lord had founded his argument entirely upon the state and condition of things in the Army during his early knowledge of it, and not upon what had occurred of late years. The noble Lord's whole argument against the Bill was founded upon the assumption that every man who was in the Army was anxious to leave it—that, in fact, every man in it would leave it as soon as possible. He (Earl Grey) would show that it was not so. But if it were so—if it were the fact

1329
that every man who could leave the Army would leave it, and would consider the option of leaving not a punishment, nor a loss, but a boon: if such were really the case, it would add tenfold strength to the argument for the Bill. It would show the necessity for such a measure, and that there was an absolute and immediate necessity for improvement in the condition of the Army. He would observe, in passing, that the indirect effect of such a measure on commanding officers would be highly beneficial. When they knew that, at the end of ten years, a soldier had the power, if he thought fit, to leave his regiment, he believed that they would study much more than they now did—and he was perfectly aware of the great care and attention generally bestowed by officers on that object—the comfort and welfare of the soldiers, and endeavour to make them happy in the ranks, and thus induce the best men to continue in the service. This was what he (Earl Grey) should call the principle of the Bill. Its principle was to introduce the regulation that, in future, the soldiers of the British Army should be enlisted not for life, but for a limited period of service; and, according to Parliamentary usage, that simple principle was all that their Lordships were called upon to discuss. If they should, adopting the principle, sanction the second reading of the Bill, they would have to consider in Committee the various details of the measure—whether, for instance, the period fixed for service was too short or too long. They would also have to consider whether the special circumstances under which the engagements might be prolonged, had been defined as well as they might be; and he might state that, on this point, it was his intention to propose an Amendment suggested by the noble Lord who was lately Governor General of India (the Earl of Ellenborough)—an Amendment for which he felt much indebted to him, as it cleared up an ambiguity which might arise as to the legal sense of certain words used, and by which actual war might be made the only term on which a soldier could be retained beyond ten years. He would, therefore, propose an Amendment on that subject; but at present it was better that they should confine themselves strictly to the principle of the Bill, viz., whether they would or would not limit the period of enlistment. Considering, then, that their Lordships were now to determine only the principle of the Bill, he should state to
1330
them some of the considerations on which it was founded. They were aware that he was expected on the present occasion to endeavour to show from experience what would be the effects of the measure; but he regretted to say that he was unable to do so satisfactorily. The only period for which the system of limited enlistment had been tried was so short—he referred to Mr. Windham's Act — and the circumstances of the country were then so peculiar and so very unlike those at the present day, that any attempt to argue from the analogy of that Act would be inconclusive. But, so far as he could judge, the experience of the working of that Act was on the whole rather in favour of the principle for which he contended, than otherwise. They must, in considering the measure, look chiefly to general considerations. They must endeavour to ascertain as well as they could, from what they knew of the condition of the Army, what would be the probable effect of the proposed measure. He had stated that, in his opinion, the most important consideration was that of endeavouring to render the service in the Army more popular; but there were other considerations too important to be passed by. In the first place, in the present state of public opinion, they could not look upon corporal punishment as being of any great use. He was afraid that it was premature as yet to part with the power, in special cases, of inflicting that punishment; but, at the same time, they all felt that its practical use must be diminished to the greatest possible extent. The noble Duke at the head of the Army had already taken a great step in that direction; and he (Earl Grey) had shown to how small an extent corporal punishment was now made use of. But in these circumstances it did become of importance to find some efficient substitute, to adopt some mode of getting rid of bad soldiers. Now, once create in the minds of the soldiers and the people of this country an impression that to be dismissed from the Army was not a reward, but a punishment, and, practically, they would have got rid of the difficulty. In the police force no such thing as corporal punishment existed; and how did they keep up the system of discipline? Why, because the men felt, their position to be good, and, that to be dismissed from the force was the severest punishment. He wished, then, to be able to say to the soldier, "If you don't behave well, you shall not have the advantage of serving in Her

1331
Majesty's Army; you must not have these advantages arising from the service of Her Majesty in the Army which you cannot otherwise procure;" and, he believed, they were not so far from arriving at that state of matters as might be supposed. But it was altogether inconsistent with the policy which would establish such a state of things, that the man should be enlisted for a life service. There was another, and one which in his opinion was a very important, consideration connected with the reduction of the period of enlistment. It was the having a body of well-trained soldiers dispersed throughout the country, ready to be called on for the defence of the country in time of emergency. Many of the Continental States—he believed indeed all of them—had adopted the policy long since of making the period of service in their armies extremely short, and thus making a large proportion of the population in turn go into the ranks. In Prussia, for instance, the army was composed of men serving for the short period if three years, who after that period left the ranks, but were liable to be called upon to serve again in one of the forms of militia. Now, if that country were attacked, she could, at any moment, depend upon being able with certainty to call out a very large number of trained and disciplined soldier to form her army. The great proportion of the male inhabitants of that country were trained in this way to be soldiers; and it was impossible not to see how greatly it added to the safety of the country. No doubt it was more necessary in a Continental country, surrounded by active and ambitious neighbours, than here; but he had no hesitation in saying, and it was the opinion of others far better able to form an opinion than he was, that we had trusted far too much to the supposed safety arising from our insular position; and that, he thought, we ought to have more efficient means than we now had of getting, at short notice, in the moment of danger and invasion, the service of a large number of men trained to the use of arms. To a certain degree this policy had been already adopted. Four or five years ago a Bill was passed, brought in by Lord Hardinge, then Secretary at War, by which discharged pensioners were enrolled for service in companies to be called out periodically and at all times when considered necessary. The principle on which those companies was formed was, that they should serve for twelve days in each year,
1332
and at all other times when it was considered necessary to call them out. Under the provisions of that Act, a considerable number of men had been enrolled for service; the number now amounted to 13,000, and he had been told by many officers of high rank, who had seen them when called out for training, that though many of them had been for several years out of the Army, yet, having in their youth been trained as soldiers, it was wonderful how rapidly they regained all they had lost, so that in a very few days they could go through all their military exercises and evolutions with as much facility as in their best days. All the military authorities he had consulted concurred in this that in garrison, and in defence of our great arsenals, those pensioners would be found quite as efficient as any body of men that could be employed. If, then, in case of any emergency, these pensioners were thrown into such places as Portsmouth, Plymouth, and other garrisons, they would set free an equal number of active soldiers for service in the field. But if the anticipations of those who objected to the Bill were well founded, and if soldiers generally accepted their discharge after a ten years' service, that was at the age of twenty-eight years, they would have in the course of a very few years a large number of men scattered throughout the country perfectly trained to arms; and that, he might venture to say, would be a consideration of very great importance. One of two things should, therefore, happen. They should either relieve the Army from the unjust odium of retaining a great number of soldiers in the ranks against their wish or inclination, whereas he (Earl Grey) believed, they really staid of their own accord; or else, if he should prove to be wrong in that opinion, they would insure to the country a large trained reserved force against any emergency that might arise. Much stress had been laid by the noble Lord opposite, on a former evening upon the extreme inconvenience of losing so many of the best men at the end of a few years' service. He (Earl Grey) knew that no commanding officer liked to lose his most experienced and best-trained men; but his own anticipation was, that a much smaller number of men would quit the Army than was believed; and he thought he was justified by the experience of the few last years, in saying that the great majority of men, after learning their profession, would choose to continue in the Army. In the year 1829, a

1333
Bill for permitting soldiers to obtain their discharge from the Army had been first introduced. That regulation had been introduced by Lord Hardinge; and the period of service required before it would be competent to the soldier to obtain his discharge, was fixed at sixteen years. To that measure precisely the same opposition had been offered, and the same sort of prophecy as to the results uttered as now. But so far were those anticipations from being realized, that the period was reduced, to fifteen and subsequently to fourteen years; and, under Mr. Sidney Herbert's regulations, it had been permitted that soldiers who could produce good-conduct testimonials, might obtain their discharge upon the same terms as before, after a service of twelve years. [The Duke of RICHMOND: Hear hear.] The noble Duke cheered that observation. He (Earl Grey) understood the cheer to imply that the effect of the measure would be to get rid of the good soldiers, who would avail themselves of the opportunity to retire. But he (Earl Grey) thought that if the good soldier left them so gladly, there would be no vise in keeping the bad against his own consent; and if they should find, as he expected they would, the result to be that the good soldier would not, generally, leave the Army, there would be no cause for apprehension, for the bad soldier might go if he pleased, and welcome. But, from a memorandum which he held in his hand, he would show that instead of the soldiers having manifested any anxiety to accept the opportunity of obtaining their discharge, the contrary had been the fact. Between the years 1830 (when the first Act enabling them to obtain their discharge came into operation) and 1844, inclusive, the total number of soldiers who had applied for and obtained their discharge, gave an average of only fifty-five annually out of the whole British Army, being less than one man for every two regiments. Let their policy be of a more manly character, and let it be known that soldiers would not be kept in the ranks compulsorily, and they might depend upon it the effect would be to retain men in the service. They might form some judgment of the effects of enlistment for limited service from the working of the system in France, where, although it was compulsory on men to serve, they being drawn under the law of conscription, yet it appeared that they became reconciled speedily to the service, because they knew that they would be obliged to serve for only a short time; and in the great ma-
1334
jority of cases it was found, that military habits being once formed, men very willingly either continued to serve in the Army, or enrolled themselves among the gens-d' armes. As to the chances against the men who should accept their discharge enrolling themselves again for home service, he was perfectly persuaded that, whether they enrolled themselves or not, if danger to their country should arise from a threatened invasion by any foreign enemy, their loyalty to their Queen and their love of country would be sufficient inducements, especially when added to the desire to meet again their former comrades, to draw them to the service; and if danger really approached the British shore, those men, whether compelled by law or not, would, he was persuaded, willingly come forward, and risk their lives with their ancient comrades, in the defence of their country. As a proof of the state of discipline in which the enrolled pensioners appeared to be, he would state that when the first detachment of pensioners, consisting of seventy men, were embarked for service in Now Zealand, there were only three of the number who unfortunately got drunk; and the only punishment inflicted upon them had been to send them ashore in custody, a punishment which they felt to be a deep degradation and disgrace. Now it was alleged that there was no inducement held out to the pensioners to enrol themselves except the chance of meeting their old comrades during twelve days in the year, whilst on training and duty; but to those men who under the now Act would, after their ten years' service, enrol themselves again for the deferred pension, there would be a pension granted, when they might be only fifty years of age, of sixpence a day. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) smiled at the smallness of the sum; but it should be borne in mind that that would be given to men still able to do a great deal of work of many kinds. The inducement would be therefore not quite so small as at first sight it might appear to be. He was aware that the smallness of the pension had been objected to; but they should look to the many difficulties which surrounded the question, financial as well as others. In 1829 a warrant was issued allowing men to retire with a full pension after twenty-one years' service. Thus men at the age of thirty-nine would receive a pension equal to the pay given on remaining in the service; thus all inducement for such men to remain in the Army was taken away.

1335
In 1829, the pensioners in the Army amounted to the large number of 85,900, while the whole Army was only 98,000. The charge also for these pensioners was 1,348,000 l. Thus it was found that the charge for pensions for the peace service was as rapidly increasing as that for the war service had done. The state of things also which existed under the warrant issued shortly afterwards, by which it was rendered necessary that a soldier should go before the medical board at Chelsea, before he received his discharge and pension, operated in such a way as to give an advantage to the bad soldier over the good. For instance, men who were the most inveterate spirit drinkers would go before the board at Chelsea Hospital, and from the ruined state of their constitution would be discharged as unfit for farther service, and would thus, after twenty-one years' service, obtain a full pension; whereas a sober and steady man, who had taken care of his health, would be sent back to his regiment, or not obtain a full pension. To avoid such an evil as this, the system was revised in 1833, when it was declared that after that period the soldier, at the expiration of his twenty-one years' service, should not be entitled to a higher pension than sixpence a day. He was perfectly willing to admit that there was a fault in this warrant on the other side, as it gave too low a scale of pensions to the soldiers; no doubt it was sufficient for the bad soldier, but it was a very inadequate remuneration for the good. The consequence of this was, that in 1835, he (Earl Grey) had the honour of proposing, as Secretary at War, a measure by which the soldiers would be entitled to get additional pay for good conduct. This warrant was further extended by one issued by Mr. Sidney Herbert, in January 1845, by which a soldier, in addition to his pay of sixpence a day, might receive fourpence a day more for good conduct, thus making together ten-pence a day; and if the period of his service extended beyond twenty-one years he might receive even more. It was now suggested that the minimum pension should be increased: that instead of 6d. there should be given 8d. a day, and that the additional 4d. for good conduct should still be granted, in order that the full pension of 1s. per day should reward the temperate and good soldier on his retirement from the service. It had been proposed to extend the allowance for good conduct to sixpence a day. He would only say on that point,
1336
that the proposition should receive every attention from Her Majesty's Government. There were two or three other points to which he had intended to allude, as they had been introduced into a discussion which took place on this subject a few nights ago; but in consequence of the great length to which his observations had extended, he would not enter upon them; but he trusted the House would allow him to supply any deficiency which might appear in his statement in reply. In conclusion, he would at once move the second reading of the Bill, and in doing so he felt bound to thank the House for the indulgence with which they had listened to his long statement on this very complex subject.
VISCOUNT COMBERMERE, who was almost inaudible, was understood to object to the principle of the Bill, and to the mode in which the changes were proposed to be carried into effect; they might have been made by the Commander in Chief under Royal Warrant as well as by an Act. He was of opinion, and he knew that others who possessed great practical experience on the subject coincided in opinion with him, that the proposed system would not improve the condition of the Army, or induce a better class of men to enter the service; nor would it tend to improve the moral condition of the soldier. He should be glad to know what better class of men they could expect to enlist than those who were now in the service; for now they obtained their recruits chiefly from the agricultural population, which was the best class for that purpose. He objected to the plan because it would create two kinds of service in the Army; it would entail an enormous expense upon the country to discharge and return the men whose services should have expired, while it would impair their efficiency as a military body. He thought, moreover, that the men themselves would not understand the difference between limited and unlimited service. It appeared that the condition of the soldier had been stigmatized by the term slavery. From this assertion it might be assumed that it was derogatory to the character of an Englishman to be a soldier under the present arrangement. If, however, this was the case, why not put the present soldiers on a footing with those who would hereafter exist? Out of the 121 regiments in the service, 72 were constantly on foreign service, and about 6,000 every year went abroad or came home. If they passed, not merely this Bill, but any Bill for limited

1337
enlistment, they would find that the greatest confusion would arise, not merely in time of war, but in time of peace; and it would be utterly impossible to carry the plan into effect in the East Indies. Not only the inconvenience of trying the scheme would be very great, but the expense attending it would be enormous. He concluded by moving that the Bill should be read a second time that day six mouths.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: My Lords, certainly it was unnecessary for my noble Friend to apologize for addressing your Lordships on this subject. There is no officer in the service better qualified than he is, from his long experience and acquaintance with military transactions in most parts of Europe and Asia, to judge of the effect likely to be produced by the measure under your Lordships' consideration. I agree with my noble Friend, with respect to the importance of this measure in its bearing upon the interests of the Army; and I assure him, that if I thought it was calculated to deprive the Army of the old soldiers, I would be the first to object to its adoption; but, having well considered the measure ever since it first came under the deliberation of Her Majesty's servants, it is my opinion that it will not lead to any diminution of the number of the old soldiers in the service. My Lords, I maintain that old soldiers are absolutely necessary to the very existence even of the Army. I will not direct any observations as to what ought to be the condition of the Army when engaged in active service, because I am aware that it is unpalatable to a British House of Parliament to consider in time of peace what is necessary in a period of warfare. I, therefore, will refer only to the Army in time of peace. I say that you must have the best disciplined troops in the Army which you maintain for the service of the country. This country cannot exist without such a body in its service; and I earnestly entreat your Lordships to attend to that circumstance in dealing with this measure, and to take care that it shall not deprive the country of the services of its old soldiers. It is they who set the example; it is they who maintain discipline and good order; it is they who at all times put themselves at the head of all great enterprises; and it is they upon whom you must rely for the performance of those services which are required from an Army in time of peace as well as in war. I must observe that, although this country has been
1338
under the protection of treaties of peace for thirty years and more, I have, during that time, had under my consideration military operations of great extent and importance, not only in the Mediterranean, but in North and South America, in South Africa, and all over Asia, nearly at the same time; and if you had not had the highest discipline and the best troops in the world, it would not have been possible for you to carry on those operations. Look, my Lords, to the case of China. In that case it was necessary to transport troops from Australia, and land them in China, where they were called upon to act on rivers, in creeks, and upon islands, in concert with the ships of Her Majesty. They succeeded in effecting all that was expected from them. How was that done? It was done by the discipline of your troops—the discipline maintained by the old soldiers. They were the men who led the young ones, and, acting together, they are able to achieve any conquest. I may also, my Lords, refer to another transaction which was mentioned in one of the despatches of my noble friend Lord Hardinge. One night, during the operations against the Sikhs, a regiment was lying on their arms, and Lord Hardinge was lying on the ground at their head. The enemy opened a fire upon them and annoyed them very much; in consequence of which my noble friend ordered the regiment to rise and advance upon the guns. The order was obeyed, and the guns were captured. This was at night, remember. Now, my Lords, I ask whether such a feat could have been performed, under such circumstances, except by old soldiers? It would have been impossible. Bear in mind the conduct of the Emperor Napoleon with respect to his old soldiers. Remember the manner in which he employed them. Recollect, too, how much they are prized in every service all over the world; and then I will once more entreat your Lordships never to consent to any measure which would deprive Her Majesty's service of old and experienced men, and thus pave the way for disasters which would assuredly follow when the Army should come to be employed in war. It is my opinion, however, that the present measure is not calculated to have such an effect. It is my opinion that, considering all the circumstances connected with this measure—considering the comforts which the soldier already enjoys—considering the other advantages about to be conferred upon him, it is not likely to be attended

1339
with the effect of diminishing the service of the old soldiers. I beg to remind your Lordships that the servants of the Sovereign of this country have always had it in their power to enlist soldiers for limited or unlimited service—at least such power has been vested in them since the failure of the experiment of 1806, to which my noble Friend referred. The Government fixed the amount of bounty, which, as has been truly stated, regulates the enlistment for limited or unlimited service; and, therefore, the proposition of limited service is not exactly new to the Army. It is new, practically, as far as this, that there are not now any limited service men in the Army except in some of the bands. In point of fact, the whole of the Army at the present moment is enlisted for unlimited service. It is now purposed that henceforth men shall enlist for limited service. The noble Earl who so ably addressed your Lordships in moving the second reading of this measure anticipates that one of its consequences will be, that a superior description of men will be induced to enlist in the service of Her Majesty. I sincerely hope that such a result will follow from the adoption of the measure; but I confess I very much doubt it. But, putting that out of the question, I believe that, looking at all the circumstances of the case—looking at the advantages held out to the soldier, in the rewards for good conduct given after five, ten, fifteen, and twenty years of service, the Army will suffer no injury from the measure, that the soldiers will re-enlist at the of ten years' service. That being opinion, I requested the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the Secretary at War to insert in the Mutiny Bill and into the present measure a clause to enable men to re-enlist at the end of ten years. I believe that, under the circumstances, they will re-enlist. I, therefore, have no objection to try again the measure of limited enlistment; and I entreat your Lordships to adopt the measure. It is my firm belief that this measure will make no difference in respect of the number of old soldiers in the Army. It is quite clear, from the statement of the noble Earl, that the soldier who re-enlists, will, at the expiration of his second period of service—that is to say, twenty years—if he be a well-conducted man, be entitled to the accumulation of good-conduct rewards amounting to 4d. a day, as well as to the present pension of 6d. a day, making altogether
1340
10 d. per day; and, if the proposition adverted to by the noble Earl be adopted, and the pension fixed at 8d. instead of 6d., the soldier would, in that case, be entitled to 1s. per day, which was the amount of the retiring allowance established in 1806. The soldier will also be entitled to another advantage — if well behaved he will at the end of twenty years receive a bounty of 5l. Then, there are the various advantages held out to non-commissioned officers, as well as good-conduct allowances, after having served the number of years specified. The prospect of becoming a non-commissioned officer will be another inducement to the soldier to continue in the service. I maintain that, in consequence of these rewards for good conduct, men will acquire the habits and qualifications which are the characteristics of good soldiers, and become much attached to the profession in which they enjoy so much comfort; and knowing the advantage which they will eventually obtain—an advantage which, is possessed by no man in any other walk of life—they will be desirous of re-enlisting and remaining in the Army. All I desire is, that they should so remain, and give their country the benefit of their services during the whole period for which they are capable of serving. I do not desire this for the sake of the commanding officers. I know that commanding officers are naturally anxious to have old soldiers in their regiments instead of young men; but I do not take their wishes into consideration; I desire it for the sake of the public service. For the reasons which I have stated, I think your Lordships will run no risk of injuring the Army by adopting this Bill, more particularly if the Government should make the pension for good service equal in amount to that fixed by the Act of 1806. My noble Friend referred to the inconvenience which was experienced under the Act of 1806, in consequence of the men receiving their discharge at the expiration of the first period of service, which I think was in 1813. I recollect there was some inconvenience of that nature; but it was met as the British Army would always meet any inconvenience to which it might be exposed. The great thing is to secure the service of the men; and, if we succeed in doing that, I do not care much for the inconvenience which may arise. It is true, as my noble Friend has stated, that expense will be incurred in bringing the men home from distant colonies. That cannot

1341
be helped; the troops must be brought home at any cost. It is a great hardship upon regiments to be kept abroad, as they are now, for 20, 25, or 26 years. Many persons think that the present measure will greatly improve the service. As I before said, I hope that will be the result, though I am not so sanguine as to expect it. All that I can say is, that I shall do my best to carry the measure into execution, and to see it fairly adopted; and being convinced that it can be adopted without the risk of losing the services of the old soldiers of the Army, and being certain that it is the wish of Her Majesty's Ministers, as it is mine, to retain the old soldiers in the Army, I earnestly recommend your Lordships to let this measure pass. My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to two other questions, namely, the question relating to pensioners, and the question relating to punishments. With respect to the pensioners, I beg to warn the noble Earl, and I beg to warn your Lordships, against the belief that the old soldiers who are in the way of receiving pensions, are at all to be compared with the veterans of whom I have been talking. These veterans are the leaders of their regiments—they are the mainstay of the service. The pensioners may be very good men; they may do very well when embodied in another form, or even when embodied with those veterans; but they are not the men of whom I have been talking, who are the heart, and soul, and courage, and life, of a regiment. My opinion is that you will not lose these men by the measure you are now called upon to adopt. My opinion is that these men will re-enlist; I have no doubt that they will be induced to do so by the advantages held out to them. My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl in the observations he made relative to punishments. I sincerely wish that circumstances may enable us to diminish corporal punishment still more, and that at length it may be entirely abolished. The Mutiny Bill which was lately passed contains another measure, with the view of enabling the officers of the Army to do without corporal punishment. The Mutiny Bill authorizes the officers to commute sentences of corporal punishment for other punishments, which they are enabled to inflict. I have no doubt that use will be made of that authority, in order still further to diminish the amount of corporal punishment. I hope it will be found to have been still further diminished when the next return is laid before Par-
1342
liament; and that, finally, we may be enabled to put an end altogether to a punishment which is so much in opposition to the feelings of the country. My opinion is that this punishment or any other punishment has nothing whatever to do with the question of limited or unlimited enlistment. That which affects the character of the Army is the hardship of the service, the regularity of the discipline, the necessary severity of the discipline, the hardships which the men are obliged to undergo in long service in our colonies abroad—it is these things which affect the popularity of the Army. Punishment has not the smallest effect upon it. What I want to see is good conduct prevail by means of those inducements which produce good conduct among other classes of society—not by punishment, not by fear, but by good treatment and justice. I believe that these effects can be produced. I believe that the system of education which is encouraged by Her Majesty's Government will have a great effect in inducing that good conduct, and in rendering the soldier aware of the superior benefits he enjoys compared with other classes of men in the same ranks of life. I do not believe that the measure will have the effect apprehended from it by my noble Friend (Viscount Combermere), namely, the removal of the old soldier, and therefore I entreat your Lordships to adopt it.
The DUKE of RICHMONDobserved that after the speech of the noble Earl who had moved the second reading of the Bill, and of the noble Duke who had supported it, he could not for a moment suppose that the Government intended to do anything but what they professed, viz., to endeavour to ameliorate the condition of the soldier. He most sincerely believed that such was their intention; but he could not refrain from looking with much doubt and hesitation at the Bill now before them. The noble Earl who proposed the measure had told them that a short period of service would have the effect of inducing a better description of men to enlist in the ranks of the British Army, and, at the same time, he said that dismissal from the ranks would be the severest punishment that could be inflicted upon them. He (the Duke of Richmond) believed that considerable difficulty would arise in the Army at foreign stations or in regiments ordered to the coast of Africa, for instance, or the West Indies; but he did not believe that the West Indian colonics were disliked by

1343
the soldiers. The duty to be performed in the latter colonies was not as severe as the duty in Ireland, and, he believed, many men did not object to go there; but order a battalion of 1,000 men to Africa, let their head-quarters be at Sierra Leone, and he asked how many men who were within a few months of the expiration of their period of service would like to reenlist for that service? Not one; and the result would be, that if out of the battalion of 1,000 men 200 claimed their discharges after ten years' service, it would occasion the greatest dissatisfaction among the 800 who remained. He believed that at the present moment the Army, in point of morality, discipline, and general efficiency, was never better, an I that mortality had very much decreased in it. Now if it were generally and gradually progressing, why not let very well alone? If all those benefits which the Army now enjoyed, were obtained under the system of unlimited enlistment, why did they now wish to change it? The noble Duke told them, he recommended them to vote for the Bill, because its operation would not occasion the loss of the old and experienced soldiers. But suppose those soldiers had inducements offered to them to leave the Army, the country would lose the benefit of their services, and the desideratum of their continuance in the ranks would be lost to the country. He objected very much indeed to the period of service which this Bill proposed. What inducement did it afford? It provided that the recruit was to enlist for ten years, and if he wished, at the expiration of that time, he might enlist for eleven years. Now, he asked, if they were to pass any Bill (and he entirely denied that they ought), why not have made the period of the first service fourteen years, and of the second service seven? It would have been much better to have done so, and he trusted that his noble Friend opposite would see the necessity of taking this suggestion even now into consideration. The Bill as it stood was at all events clearly defective in one respect, namely, that it did not make any provision for the passage home of soldiers whose period of service expired while they were stationed in the colonies. It was nothing less than a mockery to tell a soldier whose period of service might happen to expire in New South Wales, that it was at his option to remain in the service, or to re-enlist, unless, in the event of his preferring the former, they provided him with
1344
a free passage home. The object of the Bill was declared to be that of introducing into the Army a better class of men, and inducing good conduct on the part of soldiers; but he very much questioned whether it would have any such effect. The surest way to insure those desirable objects was to increase the pension, and to give additional encouragement to the soldier. The necessity for a measure such as this was entirely superseded by the admirable arrangement introduced by Mr. Sidney Herbert, on the 3rd of December, 1845, whereby a regulation was made that a soldier who had been so well conducted as to receive two good-conduct stripes, should, at the end of a service of twelve years, be entitled to demand his discharge. That was a good measure, because it offered a great inducement to the men to behave well. The object of the Bill, as he had already stated, professed to be that of raising the character of the soldier; but he very much feared it would have a very different operation. The effect of the 10th Clause would be, or might be, that a soldier who had been transported for twelve years would be permitted to re-enlist. The Army would gain an oldish man, no doubt, to drill the recruits; but it was very much to be apprehended that he would drill them in habits and practices that were anything but desirable.
EARL GREYdenied that there was any clause in the Bill susceptible of the construction put upon it by the noble Duke. The clause was totally unlike the version of his noble Friend.
The DUKE of RICHMOND: He was far from saying that the present system was totally free from objection. He considered that the English nation treated their old soldiers, and particularly their wounded soldiers, in a most ungrateful manner. If a man lost his leg in action, a distinction was made as to the exact part of the limb in which amputation took place. He knew a case in point, in the person of a soldier in the 92nd Highlanders, who lost his leg in Holland. On coming home he received a pension of 9d. a day; but, finding this sum insufficient for the support of himself and his wife in their decline of life, he applied to the Chelsea Commissioners for an increase of his pension. The Commissioners, who answered his application with characteristic courtesy, wrote to him to say, that if the amputation had been above the knee his petition would be laid upon the board for

1345
decision; but, inasmuch as the doctor had thought fit to cut off the limb below the knee instead of above it, the poor man, although now nearly seventy years of age, was not allowed an increase of pension, and had still to endeavour to support existence on 9d. per day. It was said that the increase of soldiers' pensions would be attended with expense; but he liked it all the hotter for that, for the more expensive war was the better, as nations would be prevented from engaging thoughtlessly in it, as in olden times. He had to take exception to certain expressions which, in the course of the debate in another place, had fallen from his Friend the Secretary at War, who stated that unlimited enlistment was slavery for life. Well, they were going to keep 90,000 men in a state of slavery for life—was that a judicious thing for the Secretary for the War Department to tell the soldier? But he (the Duke of Richmond) denied that it was a slavery for life, for if a man chose to behave himself well, he would receive the good-conduct stripes, which would entitle him to receive his discharge in twelve years. If the Government wished to benefit their old soldiers, he would tell them what to do. Let them appoint old soldiers to such offices as they might be fit for: for instance, make them park-keepers, instead of giving such posts to the sons of voters for Members of Parliament. He should cordially support the Amendment.
LORD STRAFFORDaddressed the House for a few minutes, but not a single observation was audible.
LORD DE ROSsaid, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had rested his support of this measure on the likelihood of its detaining the old soldier in the service. He (Lord de Ros) much doubted whether there were sufficient inducements held out by Her Majesty's Government for that purpose. Considering the time and experience that were requisite to make a good cavalry or horse-artillery soldier, he thought the period of enlistment by far too short.
The DUKE of CLEVELANDsaid, the Army was never in a more efficient state than at present, and yet the noble Earl (Earl Grey) said that it wanted great changes. How could this be? He could not reconcile such a contradiction. Time might have done something towards improving the habits of our soldiers; but he much doubted whether they were much better than when he commanded a regi-
1346
ment twenty-five years ago. It was said that this Bill would induce a better class of men to enlist, and that it would very much diminish the necessity of military punishments. If it would have that effect, he would support it; but he did not see how it could. He never knew an instance in which recruits, on enlisting, had preferred a limited service, and naturally for this reason, because a common soldier, when he enlisted, looked to the Army as a provision for the rest of his life. He thought twenty-one years the longest term which a soldier ought to be called upon to serve, for during fifteen out of the twenty he was generally on foreign service, and exposed to all the vicissitudes of climate, from hot to cold and from cold to hot. When the soldier served for twenty-one years, on the whole he thought he was entitled to a pension of 1s. a day; and after ten years' good service he would wish to see a rule made whereby he might be entitled to a pension of 6d. per diem. He thought the experiment about to be made hazardous and unnecessary, and regretted the Government had attempted it.
LORD STANLEY, who was in parts inaudible, said, he felt that he was presumptuous in addressing their Lordships upon this Bill, not having the honour to belong to the service to which it referred. He should certainly feel that presumption much more strongly, if, upon a question of this nature, he could believe that Her Majesty's Government had the support of the deliberate and favourable judgment of his noble Friend the noble Duke at the Table (the Duke of Wellington). It was true the noble Duke had intimated his intention of voting in favour of the second reading, and he (Lord Stanley) was well aware of the great impression which that determination must have upon the minds of their Lordships; but, if he (Lord Stanley) was not mistaken in his recollection of the words of the noble Duke, they tended only to express an intention not in his public character to oppose the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, although the noble Duke's private opinion was, that the measure was one of doubtful utility, and of no inconsiderable hazard. He (Lord Stanley) was decidedly of opinion that the measure was one which did not promise to realize the expectations held out by the noble Earl. It was one incurring an unnecessary risk, and therefore most unwisely interfered with the best and most efficient Army they had ever had in this country,

1347
and, he might add, the best that any country in the world could boast. It ran the risk of a dangerous interference, without holding out any reasonable prospect of gaining the advantages proposed. Even if the Bill were wholly unobjectionable—even if its principle were right, and it was wise and judicious to try the experiment of limited enlistment, there was no need of it; and, if no need, then it was not desirable that their Lordships should be called upon to sanction the measure. In 1806, when Mr. Windham brought forward his measure for limited enlistment in the Army—and their Lordships would bear in mind that that was the single instance and precedent adduced in support of the present measure—a precedent which the noble Duke had designated as a failure—when Mr. Windham brought forward that proposition in Parliament, the objection was taken, and repeatedly urged, and never answered, that, admitting the experiment to be reasonable, the Crown had full power by its own prerogative to make that experiment without asking Parliament for its sanction. The same remonstrance might now be justly made to the Government. This was not an enabling—it was a restraining Bill—it was a restriction upon the prerogative of the Crown—that prerogative, which, though it might not now be improperly exercised under the noble Earl opposite, might be, at some future time, exercised under the advice of very different opinions. He would repeat, that it belonged to the prerogative of the Crown, in this as well as in other kingdoms, to say under what terms, circumstances, and for what duration, the armies of the Sovereign should be recruited. It was the right of the Crown to enlist with or without limits. This prerogative conferred that power to the fullest extent. Why then, unnecessarily, hazardously, and, as many thought, unwisely, ordain that in future no man was to be enlisted except for a limited period? But what were the objects which the noble Earl contemplated by this measure? He thought he represented the noble Earl correctly when he stated, that he sought by it to make the service popular—to introduce a better class of persons into the Army—and to have a large portion of the population of this country trained to arms and ready to assist in the military defence of their country. His noble and gallant Friend, whom he did not see in his place, said, this Bill, so far from having a tendency to promote, had rather a tendency to check enlistment.
1348
He had a strong opinion that such might be the result. But let them see the arguments of the noble Earl in favour of the measure. The first hour, or hour and a half, of the noble Earl's speech, was occupied with statements exceedingly interesting and important; but they were interesting and important only as they bore upon the present condition of the soldier; for they had no sort of reference to the present Bill—not the slightest reference to any one of its provisions. There was not in that part of the noble Earl's speech the shadow of an argument bearing upon the provisions of this measure. Nay, more, not only was there no argument in favour of the Bill, but the whole tendency of those observations was to show that the Bill was wholly unnecessary. He alluded to the period of 1806, when Mr. Windham's Enlistment Bill was brought forward. The noble and gallant Duke (the Duke of Wellington) was then hardly known in connexion with the European Army. His experience was, of course, great; but yet he would appeal to him or to any gallant officer in the country, who knew by experience, or who had studied the history of the Army, if the Army, as it stood in 1806, was at all comparable to the Army of 1847? Successive Administrations had gone on since then improving the condition, of the soldier. The noble Duke had been also instrumental in that improvement. Did he say that improvement ought to stop? Far from it. In God's name let the Government go on and improve the condition of the soldier. Let them confer upon him all the advantages which the noble Earl had enumerated—let them go on with the reduction of corporal punishments—let them go on with the improvement of barracks—let them go on improving their rations—in making places of recreation—in forming military schools—in giving them libraries, and in making the Army as desirable as he anticipated. They were agreed on all these questions. But the question they then had to consider was, whether or no there was anything in that measure which would make the Army more efficient, better ordered, and more popular than it was; and if so, whether such prospective advantages would compensate for the risk. The single precedent by which the Bill could alone be supported was under very far different circumstances. There was a difficulty in procuring troops sufficient to fill up the vacancies occurring, and the country was in the midst of a dangerous, a bloody, and a protracted war.

1349
It was under these circumstances Mr. Windham brought forward his limited Enlistment Bill. Were there any such circumstances to justify the introduction of the present measure? The noble Earl said the Army was unpopular. Where was the proof that the Army was so? He could not see any dislike to entering the Army amongst that class from which the Army had been hitherto supplied. They entered readily enough into its ranks. The noble Earl had made the assertion—he wanted the proof. He knew no such proof. But he did know, that in the course of the last seven years 37,000 had been enlisted, and no less than 12,000 or 13,000 who offered themselves had been rejected. He knew, also, that recruits to the extent of 50,000 had offered, and that the average enlistment was only 10,000 or 11,000. Did that show the Army was unpopular? But the noble Earl said it was so. Then he demanded, once more, the proof. They had some experience on their side. He had collected a few figures in the course of the morning. He would not weary their Lordships, but he would just state some of them. But first, he would say that there was this difference between Mr. Windham's Bill and the present, that whereas the former applied only to a portion of the Army—and that to a small one—the present one applied to the whole Army. And yet, Mr. Windham complained most grievously in 1808, after the experience of some fourteen or sixteen months, of the success of his measure, and put in a clause enabling them to contrast fairly limited with unlimited enlistment. At the time of the war, there was, he admitted, an increased bounty for unlimited service; but that was soon materially diminished, and in a short time sank to almost nothing. He had then before him the returns of enlistment in the London district from 1817 down to 1828. The whole of that period was one of peace. From 1817 to 1828 the returns of limited and unlimited enlistment were concurrent in their regiments. Let them go to plain figures. If that limited service was so popular, let them see how the figures supported it. He found, by the returns before him, that from 1817 to 1828 12,006 were enlisted for an unlimited period. How many, did they think, were enlisted for limited service during the same period? He would tell them. Two hundred and eighteen men were all that chose the "popular" alternative. But he had a stronger case. He would take the Dublin
1350
district. In that district, during the period he had stated — from 1817 to 1828–39,687 men were enlisted. How many of these were for limited service? A very considerable number they would say, no doubt. How many thousands?—how many hundreds? Just ninety-five men. Ninety-five men, out of 39,687—the remainder preferring unlimited to the limited and "popular" enlistment. In the year 1829, it was thought that this experiment had been tried long enough. In that year, the Commander-in-Chief, by a general Order from the Horse Guards, directed that enlistment of recruits for limited service should be discontinued. If, then, Her Majesty's Ministers were now of opinion that their experiment was necessary, and if the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) thought it was safe, why not issue an order; because, by the testimony he (Lord Stanley) had produced, it required nothing more than an order from the Horse Guards to say, that henceforth limited service should be the rule of enlistment? Try your experiment, but don't call upon Parliament to sanction it. It was in the power of the Secretary of State to make the experiment upon his own responsibility without calling upon Parliament. But it was said, that this measure was to make the Army popular. The noble Earl was of opinion that the Army was at present unpopular. He (Lord Stanley) denied the fact. The noble Earl thought that this Bill would make the Army more popular. He (Lord Stanley) doubted the conclusion. The noble Earl had said, that the Bill would bring a better class of men into the Army. Now, what was the remark of the noble Duke upon that point? The noble Duke said, "The noble Earl says, that the Bill will bring a better class of men into the Army. If it do so, I shall be very glad to see it, but I must say I very much doubt it." That certainly was no very strong argument that the Bill would bring a better class. But why should there be a better class? Better, for what purpose? Better, in what way? Better, as soldiers? Where would they find better men than composed the British Army at the present time? They were as well disciplined, as gallant, and as well-conducted soldiers as any Army in the world. Did the noble Earl mean by the term "better," that tradesmen would enter the Army? In the first place, he (Lord Stanley) doubted whether the noble Earl would got them; and, in the next place, he very much ques-

1351
tioned whether, if he did get them, they would be better soldiers. If this country began to enlist their Army from lawyers' clerks, bankers' clerks, and that class of persons, the result would be that the Crown would not have a better class of soldiers, but that they would be the worst of soldiers and the most turbulent men in the Army. He (Lord Stanley) did not believe that unlimited service enticed bad men to enter the Army, and kept good men from it. With an Army of 100,000 men, he admitted it was more than they could expect, that all the men should be of unblemished character; but it was not a limited service that would change that character. The noble Earl had said, that the alternative of a limited service was a service for life. It was not so. It was for so long as the men were capable of serving. However, he (Lord Stanley) did not believe that recruits would enter the service calculating upon the term they would have to serve. If any such calculation should be made, it would be the rash, headstrong, and ungovernable boys, who, knowing that the term of enlistment was but for ten years, would in a moment of disobedience run from their masters and rush into the service. It was not the man himself, but his relatives, who cared about the period for which he was to serve, and they would look at the ten or twelve years proposed by this Bill as being as great a separation as the period of service at present required by the Army. If any recruit should draw a distinction in his mind between the two services, it would be only such scapegraces as those. The noble Earl seemed to desire that their service should be the same as the Continental service, and that the whole of their male population should be trained to arms. He (Lord Stanley) very much doubted the advantage of that system. He thought it most desirable that, when a man went into the Army, he should go with the view of making that as much his profession as any other party did who entered a civilian profession, make that the profession of his life. The soldier should feel that the Army was to be the field in which he was to display his exertions and capacities—he should feel that the duties of the soldier were those which he would have to perform as long as he was able—that the rewards to which he was to look were to be the rewards conferred upon him in case he conducted himself well—that it was the profession by which he was to live—that it was the profession which he ought to follow as long as he was
1352
able, and not merely for a period of ten or twelve years. But the noble Earl said, it was a great advantage to have the whole population of a kingdom trained in the use of arms. He thought, on the other hand, that such a system was liable to very grave objections. He did not, for a moment, doubt the advantages stated by the noble Earl, to have been reaped from the plan introduced by Lord Hardinge, when Secretary at War, the object of which plan was to keep the pensioners in close connexion with each other—to separate them from the evil influences to which they might be exposed. That was an admirable plan; but such was not the principle of that Bill. If the present Bill was to be carried out, men entering the Army would feel that nine-tenths of their lives might be devoted to civil professions, and that one-tenth only would have to be passed in the Army. Did they believe that the inducement which was offered by that Bill to a man to re-enlist, would be a sufficient consideration to any man to do so? The noble Earl said, he was desirous of making the Army popular, and he was also desirous of keeping good men in the Army. But then the noble Earl went on to express his hopes, that when that Bill had come into operation, they should have a fine military population. He meant to have a fine body trained up in the use of arms, ready to be called up in case of emergency. But then, after the noble Earl had talked so much of the benefits to be derived from such a body, the noble Duke at the head of the Table (the Duke of Wellington) said, that he did not believe that that Bill would have the effect of withdrawing the old soldiers from the Army. Now, one of two things must happen—either the Bill would withdraw the old soldiers from the Army—and then, as had been said by the noble Duke, it would seriously injure the character of the Army—or it would retain them, in which case the hopes of the noble Earl as to a military population would not be realized. It had been truly stated by the noble and gallant Duke, that the old soldiers in a regiment were of great advantage to the younger portion of it; that the younger soldiers profited much by their example; that they were guided by the influence and counsel of the old soldier; that, in fact, he was a sort of leader of his regiment; but all these advantages they would lose, if the hopes of the noble Earl were to be realized. The noble Earl said, that enlistment under the present system was very much like

1353
slavery for life; he, in fact, told the soldiers "you are soldiers for life." Now, he believed that such language coming from an individual holding the distinguished position of his noble Friend, would have a most injurious effect upon the discipline of the Army. But he did not believe that the Army believed the present service to be a sort of "slavery for life." He did not believe it. He did not say it disrespectfully—he meant he did not believe that the feeling in the Army was, or that the result would be, such as the noble Earl anticipated. He thought he had adverted to the three points which the noble Earl had placed before them, as to the want of popularity of the Army—as to the better class of men who would enter the Army under that Bill—and as to the advantage of having a population trained in the use of arms. He would say one word, and only one word, upon those remarks of his noble and gallant Friend whom he did not then see, who spoke with all the experience of an officer of very high character and very long service. He would wish to ask whence the desertion which he alluded to arose? Did they believe that desertion took place in consequence of the period of service which soldiers were then obliged to serve in the Army? Did desertion take place with the old men in the regiments? Why, it was notorious to every man who knew anything about regiments, that almost the whole of the desertion was from the recruits. He had a return from the British Army for the last eighteen years, which showed the greatest number of desertions that had taken place during any one year in that period to be 1,757. Of whom did they think that number of deserters was composed? Why, of the 1,757 who deserted, 1,177 men were recruits who deserted in the first year of their service, when they were, sick of their new labours, and tired of learning their new profession; when they were disgusted with the constant drilling to which they were unaccustomed: 170 more of the whole number of deserters consisted of men who had not been two years in the service, and 109 of such as had been two or three years; and of the whole number there were only 212 who had been five years in the service. With such facts before them, let him ask what ground they had for supposing that desertion would be prevented by that Bill? He begged to call their attention to some of the duties which the soldier had to perform, and to the calls which they made upon them. There was no Army in the world that was subject in time of peace to
1354
one half of the labour and fatigue to which the British Army was subject. Two-thirds of that Army were constantly abroad, protecting their foreign possessions. It had been the anxious desire of successive Administrations so to divide the Army, that every soldier should be ten years abroad, and five years at home: during ten years out of fifteen, and, he might say, twelve years out of sixteen, the British soldier was subjected to every variety of life; and they told him by that Bill that he was to have a right of claiming his discharge at the expiration often years. Suppose that after he had served nine years at home, he was sent out to India or Canada, and circumstances should occur in the country to which they sent him which rendered it necessary that his discharge should be delayed: he claimed his discharge, and they refused it. He was angry; he got, perhaps, half drunk; he was in a state of excitement, he was one of their best men—in fact, it was on account of excellence that they retained him—he quitted their service, and took his knowledge, experience, and discipline over to the other Power, whom they had intended to overrule by his aid. It was said, that in case of peace the commanding officers would be empowered to retain a man one year more than the specified period of service, and two years in case of war, if they should deem it necessary. But what was war? The operations in China and other countries where they had recently had engagements, were not wars. What were the cases of emergency in which it would be lawful for commanding officers to retain their men longer than the ten or twelve years specified in that Bill? Suppose a soldier claimed his discharge after having served the specified period abroad, and the commanding officer, on the plea of "emergency," refused to grant him his discharge: the soldier might bring the question before a court of law in England, on the ground that he had been unjustly detained by his commanding officer; and a jury would have to try the question between the commanding officer and the soldier, whether there had been such a state of affairs in India as constituted an emergency, that would justify the commanding officer in detaining the soldier. He believed that the great bulk of the improvements in the condition of the soldier, for which the noble Earl took credit on the part of the civil Government of the country, had been wrung from successive Administrations by the repeated and constant applications

1355
of the commanding officers of the regiments. The noble Earl said, and his noble and gallant Friend also said, "I know the feeling of commanding officers; I know that they would do a great deal to keep a good man; but I think that it is a dangerous inducement to say to a man, 'You are known to be a good man, and means will be taken to secure your advancement.'" He felt that he had to apologize to their Lordships for presuming to give an opinion on this subject, or to trouble them with any observations on a question on which he had had no experience; but looking at the results of the regulations of 1806, he thought he might be permitted to express his opinion that the anticipations of the noble Earl would not be realized. He believed that all the arguments of the noble Earl about the improved comforts of the soldier, only furnished the strongest arguments against the measure; but, above all, he felt that if this great experiment was to be tried, the responsibility of trying it ought to rest with the Executive Government—with the constitutional advisers of the Crown. He entreated them not to let Parliament be forced to take a part in that unwise interference with the Army. He asked their Lordships not to take a part in that interference; or make themselves partners in a responsibility which did not properly belong to them. He called upon them, notwithstanding all the arguments in favour of the Bill—notwithstanding the speech of the noble and gallant Duke—he called upon them to say, "This responsibility shall rest with the advisers of the Crown," and to refuse to give their sanction to this most unnecessary and dangerous Bill.
The EARL of HARDWICKEbegged their Lordships to pause before they determined to give their support to this measure, which he feared would prove prejudicial to the interests of the Army and the country generally. If their Lordships decided that this Bill, which related to the Army only, should be passed into a law, they might depend upon it that they would see a Bill introduced for the purpose of granting similar privileges to the marines. He therefore called upon their Lordships not to treat the subject lightly.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE(who was very imperfectly heard), was understood to say that the Crown could not risk the responsibility of such a measure as the one before the House. He felt confident that the Bill was not liable to the objections made to it by the noble Lord (Lord (Stanley).
1356
He was fully convinced that the measure now under the consideration of their Lordships would have the effect of popularising the Army, and of enlarging the field of selection. If the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington) had made the remark imputed to him, "that he saw in the measure no inconsiderable degree of danger," he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would most probably have withheld his assent to the measure. But, independent of the authority of the noble Duke in support of the measure, the Government had the benefit of experience in their favour. A considerable portion of the Army in Canada were entitled to their discharge, and many others would be so in the course of a short time; but he had been informed by an officer who had recently returned from that, country that although desertion had formerly been very common, not one of those soldiers who had now the prospect of being discharged had deserted. He believed that the alteration proposed would so much improve the service, that men would afterwards enter with the consent of those who were the most near and dear to him.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he should not trouble their Lordships at any great length, on account of the fatigue which he had suffered from attendance to the judicial business. Many of their Lordships had been in the House since five and six o'clock; but he himself had been there since ten o'clock in the morning, and was now thoroughly worn out by business and want of sustenance. Although he complained of want of sustenance, he had to admit that he had been sustained and edified, as well as amused, by the able speeches he had heard; but he laboured under a want of that sustenance which one generally expected after thirteen hours' work. He would fain not enter into the present debate at all, seeing that he had no military knowledge or experience to make his observations carry any weight, and upon that account he would willingly have dispensed with making any observations; but still he felt he was bound to state his view of the measure before their Lordships. He must say that he was more alarmed than he could well express at the measure before the House. At the same time he felt bound to say, that if he could believe the measure was heartily approved, or even really sanctioned by the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), the highest of all authority on such a subject; if he could believe that the Government had brought it forward on the recommen-

1357
dation of the Commander-in-Chief, then he should feel not only diffidence but shame in setting up his opinion or stating his fears against that noble Duke's transcendent authority. But in point of fact, the Commander-in-Chief never recommended the proceeding; the Commander-in-Chief was the last man in England who would have made such a recommendation; and if there was any man who could, before this night, have supposed there was a possibility of his giving such an advice—if there was any man who had so far forgot his noble Friend's usual circumspection, which was so large, and his sagacity, which was so great, and his providence, winch was so safe—and no one who knew the sagacity, the circumspection, and providence of his noble Friend, could entertain a doubt that he never could have proposed such a measure; but let any such man, if such there was, cast his recollection back upon the last hour or so of the debate, and remember the manner in which his noble Friend lent his support—he would not say his sparing, parsimonious, stingy, support — but he would only say his most moderate support, to this measure, accompanied by his reasons, which told all against it, and then believe, if he could, that the measure could have been recommended by his noble Friend. They must have observed the warning which he gave; that warning went to guard his own consistency, which needed no defending, and his wisdom, which needed no protection—the warning which he gave Government as to the proceedings they were now taking. He (Lord Brougham) never could forget what this reminded him of, having read under the noble Duke's own hand his reply to a gentleman who had asked for materials to write a history of the battle of Waterloo. The noble Duke said—"If you wish it, I will give you the information; but my advice is, leave the battle of Waterloo alone." Now, his (Lord Brougham's) advice was, "leave the English Army alone." It was the best Army, he believed sincerely, the best composed, the best trained, and the best commanded Army in Europe or the world, or that the world ever saw or was likely over to see again. The noble Duke had given them a most solemn answer to the question that had been raised as to the danger of the measure. It went to the heart of every one who heard it; and it awakened the suspicions and aroused the fears of many. The fears which were awakened had refer-
1358
ence to disastrous possibilities which might happen; possibilities only, if you will, but that was quite enough for him. He was not bound to show ruin and destruction as flowing from this measure, or from any other charge. But the bare possibility of injury to the Army, that Army which the noble Duke had led on to conquest—and such an Army! the possibility, and the not remote possibility, of mischief accruing to it, was enough to excite fear and alarm. What the noble Duke had said, and his elaborate and earnest manner of saying it, respecting the "old soldiers," who were the strength and heart of the Army, was enough to awaken his suspicions not only as to the consequences of this measure, but as to the Duke's original opinion of it. He concluded that the reason why the Bill was not made retrospective was perfectly evident—the promoters of the measure did not wish to lose the services of the old soldiers, but also they durst not encounter the opposition of the noble Duke. The speech of the noble Mover, and the speech of his noble Friend who last addressed the House, furnished that opposition of one argument to another, that self-destructive array of diverging reasons, which usually left the hearer incapable of saying which side was the stronger. The noble Duke's speech was plainly made against another Bill; it was directed against the Bill as at first framed, and that Bill no longer existed. It had been changed to escape the noble Duke's opposition; but he delivered his speech all the same. There was the greatest inconsistency in the statements which had been made in favour of the Bill; and the Bill itself was full of contradictions. The object was, as it had been expressed, to popularize the Army; and the effect would be to leave the inducements to entering it just as they stood. It was a delusion to suppose that such a measure would facilitate the recruiting service. It was now always in the power of the Commander-in-Chief to issue a prohibitory order, preventing any enlistment except for limited service; and this was, in effect, an Act for removing the power and option, and prohibiting the Crown from enlisting except for limited periods. This interference was most injudicious and most dangerous. They fixed periods of ten years and twelve years for the enlistment; but if a recruit was guilty of bad conduct then, to raise the character of the service, he was dismissed at once. Was not this an inconsistency—was not this favouring the bad

1359
soldier? He (Lord Brougham) disliked all interference between the Crown and the soldier; and he must disapprove of every measure which went to restrain the power of the Crown in dealing with enlistments, for all such measures necessarily placed the Army and the Crown in a most invidious and perilous posture towards each other. The Bill was likely to produce the greatest discontent among those 27,000 men whose enlistment was for an unlimited time; it would proclaim to all those men that the service was one to be avoided, and that they suffered the severest hardship in not being at once liberated from their engagements. There was not a word which had been said in that House that night which would not be the subject of conversation in every canteen in England; and was it to be thought that discontent would not be produced in our colonics, especially among the native troops in India, when it became known that every speaker, on every side, in their Lordships' House had declared that the Army was ill treated, and that the pensions which were received after long service were altogether inadequate as a reward for the duty already performed, and the duty still expected to be clone? He did not blame noble Lords for having expressed that opinion; it was the inevitable result of the debate. His late Friend, Mr. Windham, had a notion—at the time it was called a crotchet, but now it might be called a notion—that the country and the service would be gainers by enlistments being made limited: that notion was not shared in by any of the noble Lords opposite who were then in the Ministry; and the notion was pursued altogether contrary to the views and wishes he would not say of every one of Mr. Windham's Colleagues, but certainly of all their supporters, who all were sick of his crotchets. For these reasons, holding that the Bill was absolutely useless, needless, superfluous; holding that it would do harm instead of good; holding, even by the admission of its promoters and authors, that it was only to do that by statute which it was now in the power of the Crown to do without statute, he felt himself bound to give to it his most strenuous and firm opposition.
EARL GREYwould trouble their Lordships with a few words in reply. He was well aware of the distinguished talents of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham); he was well aware of the noble and learned Lord's command of language and power of expressing himself, so marvellous to the listener and to the
1360
hearer: but he was also aware, and he did not learn the fact now for the first time, that the noble and learned Lord never displayed his abilities more astonishingly than when dealing in romance; and much of the reasoning of the noble and learned Lord on this occasion was based on romance. The statement made by the noble and learned Lord in reference to the proposition of Mr. Windham, was not only not accurate, but directly the reverse of the fact. The noble and learned Lord impressed on them the expediency of leaving the British Army alone. Why, that advice might have been given with as much reason preliminary to the adoption of any of the improvements which had been effected during the last ten years; and, strange to say, that advice on every occasion had been given by the noble and learned Lord himself. But the noble and learned Lord had himself given him a justification. In June, 1811, the noble and learned Lord made a speech against flogging in the Army; he did not then say, "Let the Army alone!" But in the general tissue of error of which the noble and learned Lord's speech that night was composed, he did think he would have contrived to be right on a point of law. The noble and learned Lord said they had no business to effect the change by Act of Parliament; why did they not do it by the Royal prerogative? This was very remarkable; for the noble and learned Lord had recently found extreme fault with the Government for taking on itself to issue an Order in Council in a matter in which Parliament distinctly authorized it to do so. But he could further inform the noble and learned Lord (and it was remarkable he should be ignorant of it), that, in time of peace, the Crown had no power to enlist troops except by virtue of an Act of Parliament. One of the earliest measures of the Revolution was a declaration that the maintenance of a standing Army in time of peace, otherwise than with the consent of Parliament, was contrary to law. In time of peace, the Crown could not enlist one man, except under the Mutiny Act, and as that Act provided; and if the House did not pass the present Bill, men would not be raised for ten years' service. Instead of being unnecessary, it was absolutely required. The Mutiny Act, though passed every Session, was not generally printed. What would the noble and learned Lord have said, had the Government altered the schedules of the Mutiny Act, of which no one would have been aware till it received the Royal Assent? Would

1361
that have been proper? Was it not the fairer course to come down to Parliament boldly, stating the purpose of changing the law, and explaining the grounds on which they asked their Lordships to consent to it? He would only allude to one other point that had been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, and other noble Lords who had addressed the House. He (Earl Grey) had been misrepresented as having described the state of the British soldiery as one of slavery. Nothing could be more inconsistent with what he really said; he had argued that, practically, they did not retain men in the Army for life. He had shown that men with good-conduct marks could obtain their discharge after twelve years' service, and without those marks at the end of fifteen years. He showed that this privilege of obtaining a discharge was not used to any considerable extent; and his argument on that was, if the longer service was voluntary, was it good policy to keep up a law which made it apparently a system of slavery and compulsion? They ought to make the law correspond with the practice. Men did not stay in the Army beyond those terms by force, but because it presented an advantageous career. He had contended, that changing the law would have a good effect on the relations of those young men who might enlist; at present the great objection in their minds was, that a young man was contracting an engagement for life. At the present moment there were nearly 27,000 men in the Army who might have their discharges by asking for them.
LORD BROUGHAMexplained what he stated of Mr. Windham's measure to be this—that it was regarded as injurious to the Government by the friends of the Ministers, not by Mr. Windham's Colleagues. But he found he had understated the case; a noble Friend sitting near him informed him that a person then holding a high office, speaking of the measure, used this somewhat coarse phrase, "We must get rid of this man and his plans together." He would give the name of this person to the noble Marquess opposite, and he would understand the likelihood of such an expression having been used.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, present 64; Proxies 44: 108:—Not content, 53; Proxies 41: 94:—Majority 14.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor.

Wellington.

DUKES.

MARQUESSES.

St. Alban's

Lansdowne

Bedford

Anglesey

1362

Clanricarde

VISCOUNT.

Westmeath

Falkland.

Headford

BISHOPS.

Northampton.

St. Asaph

EARLS.

Worcester

Clarendon

Durham

Burlington

Salisbury.

Auckland

BARONS.

Minto

Strafford

Morley

Foley

Yarborough

Camoys

Grey

Campbell

Fitzwilliam

Erskine

Jersey

Wrottesley

Galloway

Monteagle of Brandon

Powis

Colborne

Granville

Sudeley

Lovelace

Glenelg

Devon

De Freyne

Cowper

Byron

Zetland

Dacre

Effiingham

Montfort

Camperdown

Teynham

Fortescue

De Mauley

Waldegrave

Denman

Suffolk and Berkshire

Leigh

Ilchester

Beaumont

Ellesmere

Carrington

Dalhousie

Churchill

St. Germans

Wharncliffe

Bruce.

Lyttleton.

Proxies.

DUKES.

Abercromby

Norfolk

Poltimore

Sutherland

Lismore

Somerset

Oxenford

Devonshire

Mostyn

Leeds

Hamilton

Hamilton.

Dinorben

MARQUESSES.

Furnival

Normanby

Lovat

Breadalbane.

Morson

EARLS.

Plunket

Albemarle

Stuart de Decies

Carlisle

Rossmore

Thanet

Howden

Scarborough

Boyle

Gosford

Oriel

Fitzhardinge.

Stanley of Alderley

VISCOUNTS.

Dunally

Ponsonby

Lurgan

Torrington.

Ponsonby

LORDS.

Wenlock

Audley

Dormer

Kingston

Stafford

Methuen

Sefton.

Kilmarnock

List of the NON-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Cardigan

Richmond

Ranfurly

Newcastle

Egmont

Beaufort

Lucan

Buckingham

Munster

Cleveland.

Kinnoul

MARQUESSES.

Somers

Downshire

Ellenborough

Exeter

Stradbroke

Ailsa

Orkney

Winchester.

Leven and Melville

EARLS.

Longford

Eglintoun

Hardwicke

Malmesbury

Sheffield

1363

Limerick

Colville

Lonsdale

Heytesbury

Desart

Sondes

Harewood

De Ros

Romney

Ashburton

Eldon.

Stanley

VISCOUNTS.

Blaney

Beresford

Gray

Combermere.

Templemore

BARONS.

Colchester

Redesdale

Saltoun

Kenyon

Tenterden

Bolton

Feversham

Rodney

Southampton

Wynford

Brongham

Proxies.

DUKES.

Stanhope

Marlborough

Mountcashel

Portland

Nelson

Rutland.

Chesterfield

MARQUESSES.

VISCOUNTS.

Waterford

Hill

Ailesbury

Doneraile

Londonderry.

Exmouth

EARLS.

Lake

Mayo

Canterbury

Airlie

LORDS.

Abingdon

Ravensworth

Beverley

Skelmersdale

Camaroon

Polworth

Mansfield

Farnham

Macclesfield

Carlton

Ferrers

St. John

Moray

Willoughby de Broke

Delawarr

De Vesci

Sandwich

Crofton

Erne

Alvanley

Donoughmore

Sinclair

Brooke and Warwick

Grantley.

Paired off.

CONTENT.

NOT-CONTEST.

Earl of Leicester

Earl of Lauderdale

Earl Speneer

Earl of Charville

Earl of Radnor

Lord Walsingham

Earl Ducie

Marquess of Salisbury

Lord Beauvale

Lord Gardner

Lord Crewe

Lord De Lisle

Lord Langdale

Lord Willoughby de Eresby

Marq. of Conyngham

Viscount Strangford

Earl of Fingal

Duke of Montrose

Marquess of Donegal

Lord Boston

House adjourned.