Sitting of 22 May 1851

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Newry, v. Viscount Newry, deceased; for Argyllshire, v. Duncan M'Neill, Esq., Judge of the Supreme Court in Scotland.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° British White Herring Fishery.
2° Stamp Duties (Ireland) Continuance.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
SIR GEORGE CLERK: Sir, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his place, I wish to know whether, in consequence of the numerous and fatal accidents that have recently occurred on railways, arising, as it appears to me, from the short interval now allowed between the departure of one train and the starting of that which succeeds it, the Board of Trade are prepared either from their own authority to recommend to the Railway Board to adopt such measures as will prevent as far as possible the recurrence of such accidents, or, if the Railway Board are not possessed of sufficient powers to do so, whether it is the intention to apply to Parliament for such additional powers as are necessary to enable the Railway Board to interfere effectively to protect the lives and limbs of persons travelling on railways? I believe it is more than ever necessary that some precaution should take place at the present time, when there are advertisements from almost all the railway companies stating that several cheap trains will start to bring up numbers of persons to visit the Great Exhibition. The consequence might be, that either trains would be overloaded, being what were called monster trains, or it would be necessary for the companies to despatch trains at so short an interval that if the slightest accident occurred to a previous train, it would not be able to proceed before the next came up, and a fatal collision took place. There ought to be a regulation that a train shall not approach a station until it is signalled by the electric telegraph that the preceding train has passed beyond it. Two serious accidents have recently occurred on railways; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to state that measures will be taken to prevent the recurrence of such fatal accidents, as far as lies in the power of the board.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Undoubtedly the subject has received, and continues to receive, the utmost attention on the part of the Railway Commissioners. It is quite

1235
true, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that two most disastrous accidents have recently occurred upon two different railways in this country. With regard to the first of those accidents, an able Report has been presented to the Railway Commissioners, by Captain Nathaniel, who was sent to investigate the matter, and I shall lay that Report before the House. With regard to the other, a coroner's inquest is sitting upon it, and we have sent down an inspector specially to investigate and report upon the circumstances. With regard to what the right hon. Baronet has said a3 to the propriety of the Railway Commissioners undertaking the special control of railway arrangements with a view to the public safety, I must take the liberty of asking the House to be very cautious before it adopts the opinion that the public security would be increased by taking the responsiblity and control out of the hands of the railway directors, and transferring them to the hands of the Railway Commissioners. It is very natural, when several accidents occur, that we should have alarm and excitement on the subject; but notwithstanding the two recent occurrences, I must remind the House that, taking the railway communication on the whole, it has been conducted with a degree of personal security to the persons who travel, as well as with a degree of regularity and expedition, that is quite surprising. The subject will receive the best attention of the Railway Commissioners; but I cannot, as at present advised, hold out any expectation that I shall come to the House for any measure to give increased control to the Government over railway directors.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
MR. EWARTrose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice. It referred to two points connected with the criminal law—Scotland and the Colonies. There might be many different opinions as to the expediency of capital punishment. There could be none as to the desirableness of the uniformity of the law, and the coincidence of its theory with its practice. In Scotland, and in many of our colonies, the administration of the law nearly corresponded with that of the law of England. His (Mr. Ewart's) object was, that the letter of the law should coincide with its administration. He would first refer to Scotland. The criminal law of Scotland was formerly much milder than the crimi-
1236
nal law of England. In Mr. Alison's work on the law of Scotland, he found the following observations:—
"The English criminal law was founded on Statute, often made on the moment; the Scottish, on common law, which had been softened by the increasing humanity of successive times, and had accommodated itself to the ideas and necessities of more civilised ages. Hence, while the capital crimes of England were still (notwithstanding the enlightened efforts of recent legislation) nearly 300, those of Scotland were not 50, of which more than half had originated with the British Parliament."
A great change had, however, taken place in the criminal law of England. It was now of a more mitigated character than the criminal law of Scotland. At present the English capital crimes were about four in number, while the only one really capital in practice was that of murder. He (Mr. Ewart) must regret the difficulty of acquiring in England an exact knowledge of every point connected with the present law of Scotland. He had moved for returns on this subject; but they had not yet appeared. But according to Mr. Alison's work on the criminal law of Scotland, the crimes capitally punishable in Scotland, but not so in England, were as follows:—Rape, housebreaking, furtum grave, theft of more than one sheep or ox, employés in Post Office secreting, embezzling, or destroying any letter containing money, or any voucher or security for money, 5 George III., c. 25, 7 George III., c. 50., 42 George III., c. 81, 52 George III., c. 143; stealing or robbing letters from Post Office; altering any bill, note, order, or warrant for payment of money; forgery, arson, 'wilful fireraising,' not only houses, but corn, coalheughs, and woods, 1 George I., c. 48; certain acts of malicious mischief against animals, returning from transportation, 5 George IV., c. 84; many offences against the coin, being treason, Statute of 8 and 9 William III., c. 26, and of 56 George III., c. 68. He might be told, that though there existed this formidable list of capital crimes, it was not the practice to carry the law into effect in Scotland. The Lord Advocate had power to do what was technically called "restrict the libel"—that was, to mitigate the indictment—thus limiting the punishment so as not to inflict the penalty of death upon the offender. He saw, however, no reason why the law should not be conformed to its practice, and correspond with the law of England. The law should not direct one thing, and the Judge upon the bench ano-

1237
ther. He therefore asked the House to assimilate the law of Scotland in theory as well as in practice to that of England. He next begged to call the attention of the House to the state of the law with respect to capital punishment in our colonial possessions. In the first place, he would state that great variations existed with respect to the law. In St. Lucia, for example, the old French law of Louis XIV. was in force. He then found, according to the returns which he had obtained, that the crimes punishable capitally by the letter of the law were rape, arson, burglary, highway robbery, offences against the coin, sedition, and treason (as defined by the old French writers), embezzlement of stores and public money, and escape from prison. None of these crimes were capitally punishable in England; and they came under an obsolete French law, long ago abolished in France itself. In Ceylon and the Cape of Good Hope, the Dutch Roman law prevailed and a vast number of crimes which had ceased to be capital in this country were still capital in that colony. In Ceylon he found that coining was a capital offence; so was sedition, aiding to escape from prison, arson, homicide, theft, the receipt of stolen property, robbery, forgery, rape, abduction. He was aware that a change in the law of Ceylon was proposed. He hoped it would be assimilated to the law of this country. In the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, it appeared that a code dated, principally, from the time of Charles V. (A.D. 1545) prevailed. He there found that the crimes capitally punishable were cattle stealing, theft (after a third conviction), forgery, all crimen falsi, coining, housebreaking, robbery, piracy, arson, riot, embezzlement. In Malta the principles of the Justinian code prevailed. There too, he was happy to say, a change in the law was proposed, and would, he hoped, soon be effected. But by the letter of the existing law, he found crimes capitally punishable were—duelling, thefts of any amount during the night, attended with personal violence, attempts to poison, grave injury with danger by a son or descendant, malicious discharge of fire-arms, peculation, and, lastly, the infraction of the quarantine laws, in certain cases. In other cases there were, among our colonies, discrepancies with the law of England. So far as the returns he had obtained enabled him to judge, the criminal law in fourteen of our colonies corresponded with the law of England; in
1238
three it was partly assimilated to that law; in nine it was much more severe. It was urged that a more stringent law was necessary in convict colonies like Bermuda and Van Diemen's Land; and this he did not mean entirely to deny, though capital punishment would not, ultimately, be found expedient even there. He admitted that, in all our colonies, there was a practical approach to conformity with the law of England. The Colonial Governors, indeed (in their answers to the returns), had generally recommended such conformity. In some of the colonies, the change he advocated was now going on. It was true that we now, most wisely and most justly, were leaving the government of our colonies to themselves. Still, even where self-government was beginning to prevail, public opinion expressed in England would have its moral and its material influence. It was for this that he called on the present occasion. In Scotland we could act; in the Colonies we could influence action. The proposition he submitted to the House was based on two principles: that the law of all parts of Great Britain and her dependencies should be, as nearly as possible, the same; and that the theory of the law should correspond with its administration. On these grounds he moved—
"That it is expedient that the mitigations which have been made in the Laws inflicting Capital Punishment in England be extended to Scotland, and (as far as possible) to the Colonial Possessions of this Country."
MR. FOX MAULEregretted very much that on a question affecting the criminal jurisprudence of Scotland the right hon. and learned Lord-Advocate should be unavoidably absent; and he might state that nothing but the absolute necessity of that learned Lord being present at a meeting of the Supreme Court to go through certain forms necessary to his taking up his high appointment, prevented him being in his place, and answering the statements brought forward by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart). To the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, he did not himself see any objection. It amounted simply to this, that in Scotland and the colonies, the laws inflicting capital punishment should be the same as in England. But he objected to the House of Commons committing itself to vague Resolutions of this description. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) had looked to the practice that had been pursued in Scotland, and the laws that had passed since Mr. Alison Wrote his

1239
treatise, he would have found that the law of England and Scotland, on certain subjects, was exactly the same. By the 4th and 5th William IV. cap. 67, capital punishment was abolished in certain cases in Scotland as well as England; and by a subsequent Act, in the case of letter stealing in the Post Office, capital punishment was repealed in Scotland as well as in England. The common law of Scotland differed much from the common law of England, inasmuch as the Scottish Judges had the means, under the common law, of reaching many crimes that in England it required statutory enactments to punish. For example, the Lord Chief Justice of England had introduced a Bill in another place to punish robbery and other crimes committed by means of chloroform; but the Judges of Scotland, by the common law of that country, had the means of punishing crimes of that description without any enactment whatever. Besides, the Public Prosecutor in Scotland had the power of restricting the libel; and, so long as public opinion was in favour of restricting as much as possible the punishment of death, the hon. Gentleman might depend upon it that the practice in Scotland would be the same as in England. Then, as regarded the colonies, he did not think they were called upon to legislate in this way on their behalf. The colonists were themselves the best judges of what was suited to their respective cases, though at the same time he trusted that they would see it their duty to follow the example set them by the mother country as regarded capital punishment. To pass such a Resolution as the present, would be entirely discordant with the usual practice of the House as regarded the colonies, and therefore he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press them to divide upon his Motion, especially when he considered the disposition ever shown by the Government to limit the infliction of capital punishment as far as they found it possible to do so.
MR. HUMEdid not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fox Maule) had done justice to his (Mr. Hume's) hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who had introduced this Motion. He (Mr. Hume) could bear his testimony to the good effects which had arisen from the frequent agitation of this question in Parliament. Capital punishment had been remitted with respect to many crimes, the recurrence of which, it was at one time contended, could only be prevented by the retention of that mode of
1240
punishment. But, notwithstanding—if not in consequence of—that remission, those crimes had reduced in number. The crimes of sheep-stealing and many others once capital had all been reduced in number since the capital punishment was taken away. It, therefore, became necessary that they should have a similar system extended to every part of the British dominions. He should like to see that which was practically done in Scotland done by the law. Then, with regard to the colonies, he was unwilling to interfere in these colonies where a system of self-government prevailed; but where that was not so, it was the duty of the House to endeavour to assimilate the law. A short time ago five men were executed in the island of Ceylon. That act was deprecated by the whole colony, and yet the law was imperative. He hoped the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, with whom questions of punishment and justice more immediately resided, would give this subject his early attention, with a view to the assimilation in the law contemplated by his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart).
MR. HAWESsaid, with regard to Scotland, all had been said that was necessary to be said on that subject by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Fox Maule); and he (Mr. Hawes) must say that his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) ought to have introduced a Bill, and not to have proceeded by way of Resolution, because the Imperial Parliament was the place in which the law was to be altered, if anywhere. In regard to the colonies, he freely admitted that the discussion of the question might do good. The only question for the House to consider was, whether the mode proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) was that which it was desirable to adopt. There was only one of two ways by which the end of his hon. Friend could be attained, and that was either by the direct influence of laws to be passed in the colonies where there were representative institutions, or, in case of the Crown colonies, by directing laws to be introduced. At the same time, he thought the wisest course was to leave the colonies to follow entirely what their own sense of right and expediency pointed out. Already in eighteen of the colonies the criminal law was the same as in England. The colonies might be divided on this subject into three classes. There were some of the smaller North American and West Indian colonies which were be-

1241
hind the legislation of the mother country; there was another class that might be called conquered colonies, in some of which, as at the Cape of Good Hope, the Roman Dutch law existed with very severe penalties; and then there were the penal colonies, where very stringent laws were absolutely necessary. Now, with regard to the North American and some of the West Indian colonies, where legislation rather lagged behind the spirit of the age, he must say that, though the law differed from that of the mother country, the practice was the same. At the Cape of Good Hope, though the law was different, the practice was also the same as in this country. In such circumstances, he thought it was better to leave those colonies alone, and not attempt to enforce upon them imperial legislation, especially as successive Colonial Secretaries had recommended an assimilation of the law in this matter to that of England. In the case of the penal colonies, the hon. Gentleman himself admitted that it might not be proper to change the law as regarded capital punishments. He need hardly say that it was the wish of his noble Friend the Colonial Secretary, and, indeed, of all the Members of the Government, to see the criminal law mitigated as much as possible in the colonies; and he hoped his hon. Friend would see the expediency of not pressing the House to a division, which would not further the object he had in view, and that by withdrawing the Motion, he would save him the necessity of meeting it with a direct negative.
SIR GEORGE GREYwished to say one word, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), as to his turning his attention to this subject. He quite agreed in the spirit of this Resolution so far as it related to Scotland; and the best assurance he could give the hon. Member that he would turn his attention to it was, that he had already been in communication with the late Lord Advocate on the subject. He would also enter into communication with the present Lord Advocate, who, he had no doubt, would direct his attention as promptly to it as his predecessor had done, with a view to the assimilation of the law.
MR. EWARTwould not press his Motion, after the assurance which had been given him by his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey).
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EDUCATION.
MR. W. J. FOXbegged to move a Resolution for the establishment of free schools for secular instruction. The language recently used by a noble Lord in another place indicated that there was an approximation towards each other of the classes who had held different opinions on the subject of education, and that those classes endeavoured to realise a more extensive and general education for the people of this country. "I feel," said the noble Lord, "that this is the time for such efforts to be made." That was some concession to the principles for which he (Mr. Fox) had contended; and it showed that the proposition he had to introduce was not in its object ill-timed. He did not infer from that language that the particular proposition which he had now to make would be honoured by the support of that noble Lord; but he thought he was entitled to expect this much, that it would not be met by any obstructive course on the part of the Government. The noble Lord had given them assurances which led to the belief that he was prepared to introduce some measure on the subject, or that he would look as favourably as possible on the efforts of others, and give them the aid and concurrence of Government; and, if such was the result of his present Motion, it would be, not all he (Mr. Fox) could desire, but all, perhaps, that he could expect. There were many circumstances at the present moment which made us feel uncomfortable with respect to the position of the country on the subject of education. There were few points on which an Englishman was not well justified in feeling proud of his country. Its enduring and liberal institutions commanded the respect both of the Conservative and Democratic parties in other countries. Its military and naval fame elicited admiration. The genius of its literature commanded the homage of genius in other countries. In the great national competition of artistical and industrial display, we had every reason to rejoice in the rank which this country took. There was every occasion for honest self-gratulation until we came to that one point of education. The word "education" called up a blush for this country, not merely that we were so far behind the new world, but that we were also behind the old one. It was not whether we stood first in the means and appliances of human education, but whether we stood ninth, tenth, twelfth, or in some more inferior

1243
and humiliating position. That was a state of things not creditable to the country or to the Legislature. There was in the very heart of society a growing evil that must be grappled with. Look to crime and pauperism increasing day by day, and likely to be prolonged—evils which defied our police, our philanthropy, and our religious institutions. He did not mean to pretend that education would cure all social evils. His reliance on it was that it would prove of a preventive rather than of a reformatory character; but there were other circumstances which showed its importance in a different point of view. It had been reckoned that the pauperism of Liverpool alone had burdened the town to the extent of 700,000 l. per annum in expenses consequent on the apprehension and punishment of criminals. In an interesting report by Mr. Neale, chief constable of Salford, it was stated the punishment of offenders in Manchester and Salford had cost as much as would have been sufficient to educate the entire population of the borough. The annual report of the Preston gaol chaplain referred to one instance of a family of thieves, fifteen in number, who, after an average of 6½ years each of successful depredation, had cost the country not less than 26,000 l. If it were merely a matter of police, the question of education should be regarded as an instrument of the greatest importance. In the present condition of our population we had evidence that when they were thrown out of work in any particular branch of labour they sank into pauperism, owing to the want of education, and that there was a superfluity of unskilled labour and a deficiency of skilled labour, an anomaly which the extension of education could alone remove. What could prevent the working classes from engaging in those vain strikes which ended, in 99 cases out of a 100, in leaving them in a worse condition than before; what could keep them from habits of improvidence and waste, but some knowledge of the succession of events in life, such as education could supply? And then the fair construction of our constitution required education to be diffused among the people; they were called on to exercise the elective franchise, to serve on juries—it was to the public that appeals were made on great questions of policy; and was it just, that when such were the requirements of Government, more should not be done to supply the people with the requisite qualifications to discharge the important func-
1244
tions which devolved on them? It was not as a measure of compassion for the poor and wretched, but as an act of justice to the national character and to the people, that he called on Government and the Legislature to afford better resources than yet existed for universal instruction. The system of voluntary contributions was in a state of demonstrated inefficiency. His case in support of that assertion rested on the testimony of the Government inspectors themselves, and he was perfectly content to abide by their evidence. These gentlemen declared education could not be sustained, even in its present position, unless recourse was had to an educational rate. The Rev. Mr. Watkins, in his report, stated—
"I am continually appealed to—'What is to be done?' I can offer no suggestion; I can give no advice. But my conviction is this, that such schools must be given up, unless one of two things take place; either that they be aided by your Lordships' Committee to an extent and in a form hitherto unrecognised, that is, as 'supported schools;' or that a rate, compulsory if not voluntary, be levied for their support on the owners or tenants of houses and lands, the possessors of factories and other large works in the parishes where they are severally situated. On glancing at my list of schools, I can count up thirty-eight in Yorkshire only (i. e., nearly one-fifth of the whole number on the list) which are thus hovering between life and death, or which are already extinct as daily schools."
Mr. Kennedy, in his able report from the North-Western district, said—
"I see no way to bring about this vital measure except by large special assistance from the Committee of Council, derived from the Parliamentary grant for education, or from an educational rate. The voluntary system has done a vast deal, but it has nearly, if not quite, run to the end of its tether. And if I were to sum up in one sentence the result of my experience during the last twelve years, which I have chiefly devoted to education, as a parochial clergyman, as secretary of the National Society, and one of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, I should say that the problem which statesmen have to solve in England is, how to continue to have schools managed and supported pretty nearly as they now are, but at the same time to have their grievous wants and deficiencies supplied by large public aid derived from a Parliamentary grant, or, still better, from a rate for education."
In the present year the inspectors used still stronger language. One rev. gentleman said, "Some measure must be devised for the extension of the system of education." The Rev. Mr. Kennedy repeated his opinion, and went on to observe—
"Men's minds seem more prepared than I ever

1245
remember before—nay, even anxious—for some great development of the present meagre and tantalising state of popular education. It is felt that very much effort is made for a small result. The clergy make great sacrifices of money and time, and, what is more, enact the harassing and humiliating part of 'mendicant friars' (to use the expression of a vicar of a large parish in Lancashire), in order to keep schools alive; and the higher and middle classes are annoyed by constant demands upon their purse in aid of schools about whose efficiency and permanency they entertain doubts. In short, school managers and other promoters of education begin to feel that theirs is a strenua inertia: much work and little result. They regard the present system as a stopgap. All this has, I think, led in some places to a temporary lull in the active promotion of the present machinery of education; while men's eyes are cast about to discover a system of maintaining schools which shall be at once efficient and sound, vigorous and permanent. Everything seems to point to a rate for education."
There they had not only the case, but the peculiar remedy stated by the agents of Government; not, it must be recollected, from an inspection of particular schools, but from a general survey of the state of education, and from an examination of the best classes of schools seen in their best condition. Nor had they occasion, indeed, to look any further on this point than the fact that the schools in actual existence were at least twice as large as the number of pupils required. In the general return of schools receiving Government grants for building amounting to 2,582 l., and receiving 454,710 l. 17 s. 3d., it was stated that accommodation was provided for 549,493 pupils, while the average daily attendance on 1,762 ascertained instances was only 196,041. The mode in which the system of education was carried on, was another cause of inefficiency. Nothing could be further from his thought than to accuse the Committee of Education of wilful partiality; with intentional partiality he did not charge them; but he believed there was a partiality inherent in the system which induced the public to' withhold a hearty co-operation with it. The British and Foreign School Society, and the Church School Society, were both institutions half a century old. The former had rendered great and extensive good to the country; but how stood the grants of public money made to it, as compared with those made to the Church Society? In 1840 the Government grant for education was 60,000 l., and then it was nearly equally divided between these societies. The Church Society upon that occasion received 5,246 l., the British and Foreign
1246
Society 4,420 l. The next year, the grant was increased, and the Church Society received accordingly 13,197 l., while 10,945 l. was all that was received by the British and Foreign Society. In 1849, the grant was still further extended, and the Church Society received 39,574 l., while the British and Foreign Society only received 3,350 l. Up to August last the public money applied to Church Schools was 24,720 l., and the British and Foreign Society only received the sum of 386 l.; this was chiefly in connexion with the grants for building; by the summary of the entire distribution, it appeared that the Church schools had received 404,622 l. 8s. 8d., and the British and Foreign only 50,672 l. 15 s. 11¼d. He believed this disparity might very much be traced to the religious feelings which had arisen in the country, but it did not represent the relative labour and usefulness of these two bodies. The present system necessarily produced partiality in another way. Out of the whole number of inspectors there were only three who did not belong to the single profession of clergymen of the Established Church; and in these three cases the exceptions were inevitable, because one inspector was required for the Roman Catholics, another for the British and Foreign Schools, and a third for the Wesleyans. But there were men in the country who understood the theory of education as a science, and the practice of it as an art; and the country in vain looked to the Government to call them in, thinking that it was by no means the best means of securing good education to place it in the hands of the Church. Another appearance of partiality sprung from the provisions and restrictions laid down in the Minute of the Privy Council. The Government grant gave least help where most was wanted. It was doled out, not in proportion to the educational requirements of the locality, but according to the amount of subscriptions which had been received. There was another partiality which had a ruinous tendency—the poor ratepayers in a rural district could not look on with much complacency when they found themselves rated to give to pauper children in the workhouse an education they could not give to their own—a discrepancy which was pointed out some time ago by the Poor Law Commissioners. In the Third Annual Report for 1850 they said—
"There are workhouses, like that of the Atcham union, in which the children receive an education

1247
beyond all comparison better than is within the reach of the children of labourers in any part of the country. In the girls' school of Ludlow union, children now receive an education in all respects superior to what the humbler ratepayers are able to purchase for their children. This high standard of workhouse education is fast ceasing to be exceptional."
But the worst result of all was the inequality with which the support of schools pressed on different classes, and more especially on the country rectors. In one of the reports the evil had been pointed out in a practical manner:—
"The lord of the manor and principal landholder, 3l. 3s.; the rector, 17 l. 10 s. 4d., the rector's lady, 1l. 1s.; a friend of the rector, 5l.; a farmer and landholder, 5s.; ditto, 5s.; ditto, 5s.; ditto, 5s.; ditto, 5s.; ditto, 10 s.; ditto, 5s.—Total, 28 l. 14 s. 4d."
"The following paragraph from———,addressed to me by a zealous clergyman in my district, details, in a few words, the experience of almost every one who in a rural parish undertakes to establish a school:—'I have had to make great sacrifices of time and money to provide a school at all; and, after I had raised the building, I found nobody in the parish, or out of it, to assist me in supporting the school expense. Neither owners or occupiers of land contribute a farthing. A coal merchant and a land agent are the only subscribers of a pound a-piece, and every other expense falls on me.' I have often borne testimony in my reports to your Lordships to the fact, that when a school is maintained in an agricultural parish, it is generally by an act of great pecuniary self-sacrifice on the part of the clergyman, made often in diminution of a very limited income, and with the sense of a divided responsibility. Whoever looks at the question in a practical point of view will see that the education of the country cannot be provided for generally, in parish after parish, over the whole surface of the country, and year after year, in this manner. We have no right to calculate upon acts of self-sacrifice being multiplied, by which the clergy have in some instances subjected themselves to personal liabilities which they are unable to meet, and by which in others they have been greatly straitened."
Surely that showed the necessity of an intervention of Government to lay a rate on the towns, according to their means, and on those who would assuredly feel the benefit of it at some future time. The present system offered a stern denial to every proposition for secular education, but gave support to every kind of religious teaching. It seemed as though there was something evil in knowledge, which required to be counteracted by even bad theology; that history was not to be studied unless it was accompanied by heresy; and that decimal fractions were fatal to the soul if they were not mingled with that which some called idolatry. The Scriptures became secta-
1248
rian in the hands of sectarian teachers. The British and Foreign Schools had a creed of their own, as much as the National schools. Would Protestants pay for schools in which, as they were told, the image of the Madonna was fixed, that the children might worship it as they entered? He mentioned this merely to ask where was the propriety of calling upon Protestants to pay for such a system? One of the school catechisms spoke of the Puritans as men who murdered their Sovereign and starved the clergy. Were Dissenters to pay for such things as that? The result of the whole system was, that every man had to pay for something he did not believe; and in his turn became a cause of taxation to others for something he believed and they did not believe. When he proposed an educational rate, he trusted that the House would not deem that he invited them to an expense which an empire ought to grudge. According to the best calculations, founded on estimates made for the county of Lancaster, a rate of 5d. in the pound would be sufficient to erect schools for all the children in the country; and, instead of having in each district different schools for the different classes of children, the question might turn upon the point of making the schools so good that the education of one class should be the probation for another. The country was paying as much now for the imperfect education it afforded as would be required for a complete system of national education, while the struggling ratepayers with large families would be greatly benefited by the change. The experience of America on the subject of education was extensive, and that indicated the great advantage, both in a pecuniary and intellectual view, of a graduated system of schools in each district. A few years ago, a valuable report was published by Mr. Henry Barnard, commissioner of schools in Rhode Island, who indicated the advantage arising from such an arrangement in the localities where it had been adopted:—
"Hallowell (Maine).—While this system proffers to all our children advantages equal to those enjoyed in the best academies, it has diminished the expenditure, including both public and private instruction, in this place about 600 dollars or 700 dollars, being about 25 per cent per annum. And whereas, before the adoption of this system, the wealthy and elevated classes would scarcely in-trust their children to the public schools, now the children of all classes mingle on terms of reciprocal cordiality and kindness.
"Nantucket (Massachusetts).—The whole amount of money expended for schools has been

1249
much diminished by the substitution of a public for private schools, and the teaching has been much more thorough in the former than it was in the latter, as the temptation is not so strong with the teacher of the public school to force children forward in order to please parents and fill up his school. The whole community seem to be aware of this.
"New Orleans.—They (report of the commission) entertain no doubt that the pecuniary benefit derived by the taxable citizens from our public schools far exceeds their cost.
"Bangor (Maine).—As to expense, our present system costs, I presume, not one-half of the old."
The Resolution which he was about to submit to the House asserted the necessity of local taxation and local administration for the purposes of education. Local administration would afford facilities for preventing the evils which some anticipated from a sudden change of system. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had denounced a system which he conceived to be opposed to religious training. The plan which he (Mr. W. J. Fox) advocated involved the separation of secular from religious education; but separation and annihilation were very different things. There could be no proper education which did not comprise religious instruction; but the schoolmaster's province was to prepare the mind for religious training, to which it would subsequently be subjected by the minister of the chapel, the clergyman of the parish, or the parish priest. Under the present system the religious principle failed in producing the moral effect which ought to attend it, and the reason of this was, that an intellectual atmosphere was wanting. The advocates of secular instruction were doing more to promote religious education than those who, under the present system, were satisfied with the mere appearance of religious teaching. Without separating secular from religious education, there was no chance of combined efforts. Then, look at the effect of the present system. Was it wholesome that men from their earliest youth should be trained up within the lines of sectarian demarcation? On the other hand, was it not probable that, if men could refer to their schoolboy associations with persons of different creeds, they would be induced in after life to regard with more charitable feelings those who differed frem them on religious questions? It was impossible that secular and religious instruction could at one and the same time flow from the mind of the teacher to the mind of the pupil. What
1250
affinity was there between the Athanasian Creed and the multiplication table? Secular education and religious education were treated as distinct even under the existing system, for one of the Minutes of Council of Education instructed the inspectors to report upon secular education only. It was evident, then, that the distinction was recognised now. Religious education was, to a certain extent, already provided for by the voluntary principle, both in the Established Church and among Dissenting bodies. Perhaps he ought not to use the phrase "voluntary principle" in connexion with the Establishment; for it was the bounden duty of clergymen of the Established Church to attend to the religious instruction as well of adults as of the young in their respective parishes. The 59th canon in the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, agreed upon by the clergy of the province of Canterbury in the Synod begun at London in 1603, provided, that—
"Every parson, vicar, or curate, upon every Sunday and holyday, before evening prayer, shall, for half an hour or more, examine and instruct the youth and ignorant persons in his parish in the Ten Commandments, the articles of the Belief, and in the Lord's Prayer; and shall diligently hear, instruct, and teach them the Catechism set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. And all fathers, mothers, masters and mistresses shall cause their children, servants and apprentices, who have not learned the catechism, to come to the church at the time appointed, obediently to hear, and to be ordered by the minister, until they have learned the same. And if any minister neglect his duty herein, let him be sharply reproved upon the first complaint, and true notice thereof be given to the bishop or ordinary of the place. If, after submitting himself, he shall willingly offend therein again, let him be suspended if so the third time, there being little hope that he will be therein reformed, then excommunicated, and so remain until he will be reformed. And, likewise, if any of the said fathers, mothers, masters or mistresses, children, servants, or apprentices, shall neglect their duties, as the one sort in not causing them to come, and the other in refusing to learn, as aforesaid, let them be suspended by their ordinaries (if they be not children) if they so persist, by the space of a month; then let them be excommunicated."
It was therefore the bounden duty of the minister to invite the young and all ages to attend for at least half an hour to religious instruction upon a Sunday. Let his work be well done, and it would be done sufficiently. He did not want to meddle with the ragged schools—those were for the outcasts of society, it had been said, and he was not disposed to meddle with the—but why should they not permit the ratepayer to choose what religion he would

1251
wish to have his children instructed in? As to the Sunday schools, a world of good had been done by them, and it was a consoling fact to him that numbers of the Sunday-school teachers had petitioned in favour of his Resolution. They said that their religious lessons would sink deeper in the breasts of their pupils when their minds were prepared to receive them. He was aware that a rival scheme to this had also been propounded in Manchester: the details of it were sufficiently before the public, and it was not necessary to enter into any elaborate statement of their points of difference. There was nothing new or unheard of in what he proposed, nor was it unsupported by high authority. About two years ago the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a charge delivered in the cathedral of St. Paul, made some observations on the subject of education, in which these expressions occurred:—
"The Roman Catholics are prone to instil into the infant mind that the salvation or perdition of the soul depends upon the grace or blessing of the priest. It ought not to be more difficult for you to imbue a child with a knowledge of what he owes to God, to set Jesus Christ and Him as the ground of his hope and acceptance, that he may be, not in name and word, but in truth and sincerity, a faithful soldier and servant of Christ in the warfare that lies before him. He will not learn these important truths from the master of the school. However valuable masters of schools may be in other respects, we seldom find them possessed of the ability to communicate real religion. The language of Scripture may be lodged in the memory indeed, but the doctrines which lead to practical godliness must be inculcated by those whose office it is to expound the Scriptures. The literary character of the school will depend on the master, but the religious character of the school must depend on the clergyman."
It would be found that in some of our public schools the separation of secular and religious education was practically complete. In Eton and Westminster schools the religious lessons bore to other lessons the proportion of one to thirteen. A similar proportion was maintained in the Royal Naval School, which was under high patronage. There was also a plan for the studies of teachers drawn up by one of the inspectors, in which religious instruction stood separate from secular education—a certain number of hours being appropriated to the former, and a certain number to the latter, just as would be done in the schools which he proposed to establish. In fact, it was done everywhere in the higher class of schools. It was only when education was to be given to the poor, when it was
1252
to be administered as a sort of charity, that religion was inculcated, not for the sake of its own benignant influences, but for the sake of keeping them in order and tranquillity; and then it was that such a preponderance was given to theology. The noble Lord, in the speech to which he had already alluded, attached great importance to the daily reading of the Scriptures; but he (Mr. W. J. Fox) questioned whether this was really the way to promote a reverence for the doctrines taught in that book. Dr. Hook, of Leeds, whose character stood deservedly high, saw this, and in his own pointed way complained that religion did not consist in dogs'-earing the Bible; and, looking to the higher objects for which it was given, he could not avoid being impressed with the fact that Providence never intended the Bible for a schoolbook. It could hardly be contended that this reading of the Bible in schools would produce a religious impression on the minds of ignorant children. How did it operate with adults? On this point there was a remarkable passage in a speech delivered in that House eighty years ago, namely, in February, 1772, by a man whose philosophy was as profound as his eloquence was brilliant, and whose piety was unquestionable—Edmund Burke. In the debate on the Clerical Petition for relief from subscription, Mr. Burke said—
"The Scripture is no one summary of doctrines regularly digested, in which a man could not mistake his way; it is a most venerable, but most multifarious collection of the records of the Divine economy; a collection of an infinite variety of cosmogony, theology, history, prophecy, psalmody, morality, apologue, allegory, legislation, ethics, carried through different books, by different authors, at different ages, for different ends and purposes. It is necessary to sort out what is intended for example, what only as narrative, what to be understood literally, what figuratively, where one precept is to be controlled and modified by another, what is used directly, and what only as an argument ad hominem, what is temporary, and what of perpetual obligation, what appropriated to one state and to one set of men, and what the general duty of all Christians. If we do not get some security for this, we not only permit, but we actually pay for, all the dangerous fanaticism which can be produced to corrupt our people, and to derange the public worship of the country. We owe the best we can (not infallibility, but prudence) to the subject—first sound doctrine, then ability to use it." [Parl. History, xvii. 285.]
If this were a valid argument in the way in which Mr. Burke applied it, with reference to Christian ministers, how much more true must it be with respect to the comparatively unimproved minds of schoolmas-

1253
ters and children! It had always been contended that education operated as a barrier against crime; but circumstances showed that as it was conducted in this country it was not as efficient a barrier in that respect as had been supposed. The criminal tables showed that for nine consecutive years, namely, from 1839 to 1848 inclusive, there had been an increased per centage of criminality among the imperfectly educated. The tables, however, attested the value of sound instruction by a constantly diminishing ratio; while they also showed a constantly diminishing ratio in those who were not taught at all. In the period he had mentioned, the number of committals among those who were unable to read and write, had decreased from 33.53 per cent, to 31.93 per cent. In the class which could read and write imperfectly, there had been an increase from 53.48 to 56.38 per cent; and in the well-educated class there had been a decrease from 10.07 per cent, to 9.83 per cent. In Ireland, where the separation of secular from religious education prevailed to a considerable extent in the national schools, as well as a larger mixture of children of different sects—a system by which the faculties were better developed—the criminal tables presented results the reverse of those furnished in England. The committals in Ireland from 1839 to 1848, in the class who could read and write, had decreased from 26.37 per cent, to 17.66 per cent; in the class who could read only, they had decreased from 13.11 per cent, to 10.75 per cent; while, in the class which could neither read nor write, they had increased from 31.72 per cent, to 43 per cent. Mr. Kennedy, inspector of Sunday schools in Lancashire, had made some observations which merited the attention of the House. He said—
"Sunday schools of Lancashire are remarkable. I believe that in no other county, not even in Yorkshire, are they so numerously attended, or inspire so much interest. Nearly every church, in a town at least, has its contingent of Sunday scholars, numbering from about 500 to 1,000 persons of both sexes. This is the principal arena on which the clergy meet their poorer parishioners; and a useful arena it is, in spite of its shortcomings and defects. These schools are doing the work of, and therefore superseding, the old plan of catechising in church in an afternoon. And I believe that such religious knowledge as is to be found among the Lancashire poor is mainly imparted in these schools. They commonly open and conclude with prayer; and when one school-room is over another, it is customary, in this county, for the upper room to have a large trapdoor opening into the lower room, in order that the persons in both rooms may join together in their devotions. The
1254
actual work that is done in the Sunday schools is sometimes judicious; at other times it consists too much, perhaps, of repetition by rote of a hymn or a collect, or the catechism, or of reading, without explanation, some little understood epistle of St. Paul. The grand difficulty is, I believe, to get really competent and judicious teachers. There is much zeal in them, but very often without adequate knowledge. Some curious statistical information about the number of prisoners who have been scholars in Sunday schools has been collected by a circular to the gaol chaplains. From this it would appear that 63 per cent of the prisoners had attended Sunday schools, and 50 per cent for not less than three years. A circular to the matrons of penitentiaries elicited the fact that 75 per cent of the inmates had been scholars of Sunday schools. I am not sure that these facts, if correct, prove anything against Sunday schools. A majority of the population (at least in Lancashire) attend Sunday schools during some portion of their life, and if they commit crime it is in spite of the Sunday school, not by reason of it. Moreover, it must be remembered, that these schools are necessarily places for giving religious knowledge, much more than for imparting moral training: the training must ever, I think, be the work of the week-day school, and of the home. And it is training—the formation of good habits—which is the great preventive of crime; no mere knowledge, however important, is sufficient without such habits."
He did not adduce these facts as showing anything beyond this—that the Sunday school instruction needed some other kind of instruction along with it to render it more efficient. He would now leave the House to form their own judgment upon the evidence which he had adduced before them, and by which he had attempted to show that the system now pursued was not adapted to meet the emergencies of the case—that, defective as it was in principle, it was not capable of extension as fast as the necessities of the country required; so that, if not upon the ground of preference, yet from the necessities of the case, they must fall back upon some such proposition as that which he had introduced to the House. A conviction to that effect was spreading throughout the country, and especially among those whose co-operation was essential to the success of any plan of national education. The Resolution he was about to move had the advantage of the express concurrence, to a large extent, of the working classes. These were the schools which they desired. These were the schools they would have. A number of them were already established in London under the name of Birkbeck schools, in which the education was of an order that had elicited the commendation of Mr. Moseley. Nor were these schools confined to the metropolis; on the contrary, Mr. Morell, one of

1255
the inspectors of the British and Foreign School Society, bore testimony to the progress they were making in the northern districts. It now only remained for him to thank the House for the patience with which it had heard him, and to add, that the present was peculiarly the time for efforts to advance the cause of education. Amid the conflict of political parties, amid the collision of rival churches, amid the strife of sects and the hostility of different classes, amid the clashing of various systems of policy, whether commercial or institutional, and amid the influence and competition of nations, brilliantly developing their industrial and artistical energies, nothing better could become the Legislature than to employ itself in building up the fabric of national greatness and prosperity upon the only foundation on which national greatness and prosperity could permanently rest—namely, the broad basis of national intelligence.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That it is expedient to promote the Education of the People, in England and Wales, by the establishment of Free Schools for secular instruction, to be supported by local rates, and managed by Committees, elected specially for that purpose by the ratepayers."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that although he could not assent to the Resolution in the terms in which it was framed, he could assure the hon. Member (Mr. W. J. Fox), on the part of the Government, that he would be met in no spirit of unfair opposition in any attempt he might make to extend the means of sound and useful education to the children of the great body of the people of this kingdom, or to draw closer together the members of the different religious denominations into which society was divided. He was not prepared to deny that great deficiencies existed in the present system of education, or that there was a want of means to bring that system, defective as it was, into operation generally throughout the country. Having made that admission, he must nevertheless remark that, of late years, a great increase had taken place in the means of educating the labouring classes throughout the country. In saying this he did not refer merely to the increase in the actual number of schools, but to the improved qualifications of teachers, and the improved character of the education. What they were now asked to do was, to assent to a Resolution that it was expedient to promote the education of the people in England and
1256
Wales by the establishment of free schools for exclusively secular instruction, to be supported by local rates, and managed by committees elected specially for that purpose by the ratepayers. Now, so far as that proposition implied an opinion that it was desirable that local rates should be raised to supply the existing deficiencies in education, he did not differ from the hon. Gentleman, for he thought that no reasonable distinction could be drawn between the raising of local rates for the purpose of education, and the application of a portion of the general taxation of the country, which was now appropriated for the same purpose under the sanction of Parliament. He further concurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that great advantages would be derived from local management, if, concurrently with this, there was established an efficient system of inspection of schools. He might, however, hesitate before adopting a Resolution that it was expedient to enforce over the whole country a uniform system of levying rates for this purpose, because the circumstances in different part of the country were infinitely diversified; and he doubted, therefore, whether the system could be applied universally, though he thought it would be easy to allow the inhabitants of different districts the exercise of an option in this respect. They had several precedents for such a course of proceeding. An Act had already been passed to allow portions of the local rates to be applied, at the option of the ratepayers, in the erection of baths and washhouses; and there was now a Bill before the House which had been introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Bath, giving the ratepayers the option of expending a portion of the local rates on the improvement of the dwellings of the poor; and he saw no good reason for not applying the same principle to education. But everything must depend on the character of the education to be given. Upon this point he felt the same insuperable objection to the hon. Member's Resolution as he had to the principle of his Bill of last Session, which was rejected on the second reading by a large majority, because it was founded on the principle that the aid to be granted from local rates should be limited to schools in which secular instruction alone was given. The adoption of that regulation would, if it did not supersede, necessarily operate to the disadvantage of other schools, because

1257
in the schools proposed to be established under the hon. Member's scheme, education was to be free. The hon. Gentleman had stated the strong difficulties which existed in the existing system, and the objections which were urged by many persons to grants being made to schools, which, while professing to give religious instruction, gave it of a character of which certain parties did not approve. But if these objections were taken to the present system, he (Sir George Grey) did not see that they would be got rid of by substituting grants, whether from the public revenue or from local rates, applicable to schools from which all religion was excluded; for if there was one thing upon which the opinion of the country had been clearly and distinctly expressed, it was this, that education should be based upon religion; that, instead of excluding that which was the most essential object of education, they ought to take especial care to see that all education included the instilling of religious principles, based upon the word of God, which was the only security for the discharge of those duties which man owed to his fellow-man, and still more for the discharge of his duty to God. The hon. Gentleman had asked, "What had the multiplication table to do with the Athanasian Creed?" True; but there were other parts of the system of education necessarily pursued in the elementary schools, where the children of the poorer classes received all the education they received anywhere, into which religion must enter. It ought to be borne in mind that the distinction between such schools as the hon. Gentleman spoke of, and such institutions as the London University, mechanics' institutes, and the like, was this, that these latter places were not institutions in which the whole education of the persons frequenting them was comprised; that, on the contrary, they were institutions for the express purpose of affording special instruction in special branches of knowledge or science; and that those who attended those institutions were persons who had the means of receiving religious instruction in their earlier years from other sources; whereas the schools frequented by the children of the lower orders were schools which afforded them the only education they were ever likely to receive. The hon. Gentleman had read one of the canons of the Church with respect to the duty of the clergy to administer catechetical instruction to the children of their
1258
respective parishes; and had said that, if this duty was properly performed, it would amply supply the present defect of religious instruction. But he seemed to forget that there was no power of compelling the children to attend the catechetical instruction of the clergy. It ought never to be forgotten that in dealing with this question the House was dealing with schools for conveying to the children of the poor all the instruction they were ever likely to receive during their earlier years, and that from these schools the hon. Gentleman would have them to except the reading of the word of God, and all religious instruction whatever. Now, against this principle, which was involved in the hon. Gentleman's Bill of last year, the House had pronounced a decided opinion; and the repetition of the proposal on this occasion must meet with the same opposition from the Government as the proposal of last year had met. The hon. Gentleman would exclude from any share of the money proposed to be raised by a local rate, every school in which religion was taught as a part of education. He had referred in a tone of commendation to the result of the Irish national system of education; and yet by the terms of his Resolution those schools would all be excluded from the system he proposed. He had spoken of high authorities, in his favour, and quoted the opinion of Dr. Hook, whose opinion was certainly entitled to great weight; for no man had paid more attention to the subject, or had more earnestly exerted himself to promote the cause of education. The hon. Gentleman said that Dr. Hook had denounced the system of dogs'-earing the Scriptures; and no doubt the rev. gentleman might have said that the Bible ought not to be made a text book—not a mechanical part of instruction; but he apprehended that Dr. Hook had never expressed any opinion against the reading of a chapter of the Bible to the scholars, for he believed that the communication of religious instruction to the scholars Dr. Hook would be the last man to undervalue. He (Sir George Grey) confessed he entertained great doubt whether a scheme of purely secular education was at all possible. He doubted whether schoolmasters and schoolmistresses who really entertained a proper sense of the responsibilities involved in the right discharge of their important duties, could avoid conveying religious instruction to the children placed under their care; and hence the

1259
effect of such a system as that now proposed would be to exclude from the schools a large class of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses who had been trained in a different system, and who had been led to look to the inculcation of sound religious principles as the most important part of the duties they had to discharge. The hon. Gentleman assumed that they must either adopt his plan, or abandon all hope of the improvement of the present system of education, because it was impossible upon any other basis to have a common and mixed system in which the young of all religious sects could be educated together; and he had adverted to the rival plan of the Manchester Association as having proved an entire failure. Now, he (Sir George Grey) must say that in his opinion the Manchester plan did hold out some hope of a settlement of this difficult question, and that the country was not reduced to the alternative which the hon. Gentleman had supposed. Mr. Entwistle, the Chairman of that Association, who had formerly represented South Lancashire, had called upon him some time ago, with some other gentlemen, taking an active part in that scheme, and, in the anticipation that this subject would be revived during the present Session, had stated to him that the Association were anxious that the House should be informed that they were engaged, and he believed successfully engaged, in maturing a plan applicable to Manchester and Salford, and that they had already prepared a Bill which, being of the nature of a private Bill, could not be introduced this year, but which they hoped to be able to submit to Parliament next Session. Now, by that scheme it was proposed that the schools should be supported by a local rate; that existing schools where religion was taught in connexion with different religious denominations should be included; and that where schools of this kind did not exist, schools should be established, in which religion should be taught upon some general plan acceptable to the different religious denominations. Upon the Committee of the Association were the representatives of every religious denomination in Manchester and Salford; and although he regretted to say that since he saw Mr. Entwistle, some difficulty had arisen with regard to one denomination; that although objections had been started to the plan by two Roman Catholic priests, there were still Roman Catholic
1260
laymen members of the Committee, and strong hopes were entertained that the objections of the Roman Catholics would be ultimately removed. He understood that the Association still retained their intention to proceed with their Bill next Session, and that an attempt was making at Leeds to adopt a similar plan. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would not, assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He trusted that the subject might be brought before them under more favourable auspices, in connexion with the populous districts to which he had adverted, and, if found successful there it might then be extended—if not universally throughout the country, owing to the impossibility of adapting it to some of the rural districts—yet throughout the populous districts of the country so as to augment the means of education by combining the different religious denominations in a common effort, which would be one of the greatest blessings that could be conferred upon the children of the poorer classes of the country.
MR. HUMEthought it would be well if the Government were to attempt that which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) had clearly pointed out as possible, namely, a system of education to include all classes. The right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) said it was not possible; but was it not fair to argue its possibility from the example of the United States, where it had completely succeeded? In every State of the Union a system of education existed, independent of that point of general contention—religious opinion. He concurred in the opinion that it was the duty of the Legislature to prepare the minds of every class of the community for the performance of their duties to society, and that it was of as much importance to train the mind by early education as to feed the body by physical nutriment. He was equally of opinion that education ought to be provided through the property of the country, for those who could not afford it, as nourishment was provided for the destitute by the poor-rates. He believed if an equal amount of money was expended in education as was expended on pauperism and crime, and the consequent building of jails, it would be found to be economical in its results, besides improving the moral and religious condition of the population. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government was understood to complain of the Roman Catholic priests not agreeing

1261
with the system of Education in Ireland, because the Roman Catholic religion was not its foundation. That was the objection made, and hence the designation of "the godless colleges." The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) would not agree to any system of education which did not teach true religion. He (Mr. Hume) begged to ask, what true religion did he mean? There were twenty different sects in this country at least, who dissented as to what were the true principles of religion, and it was impossible to prevent their withdrawing themselves from the one established religion, whether Protestantism or Catholicism. They must then agree upon some such scheme or some such plan as was proposed at Manchester for meeting this difficulty. In the United States, where there were fifty houses, the proprietors were compelled by the law to keep open a school for six months in the year—where there were a hundred, for the whole twelve months. The Americans had agreed on a system of education, leaving out each distinct creed, but giving an opportunity for that moral training which would fit the young for the various duties which must necessarily fall upon every citizen. Let the example of the Americans be looked to, and what was it? The example of a Government performing its duty of bringing up and supporting a moral, religious, and instructed population. What were we doing? Quarrelling whether a boy or a girl should be brought up to this or that opinion, rather than agreeing in a moral training, which induced proper subservience to constituted authority, and prevented those ebullitions of passion, arising from ignorance, which led to criminality, and those frightful pictures of degradation which disgraced the English Government. In educating the people, as had been stated recently by the Archbishop of Canterbury, at St. Paul's Cathedral, there were two portions of that duty perfectly separate and distinct. It was the duty of the schoolmaster to prepare the child in the rudiments of instruction and moral training. It was the duty of the clergyman to instil the opinions which the parents thought fit. What did his hon. Friend (Mr. W. J. Fox) ask? Not to diminish or refuse, or to place religious instruction beyond the reach of children; on the contrary, to prepare their minds for its reception, to adopt means by which all classes may be instructed and none excluded. It was a benefit of the utmost importance, worthy the
1262
attention of the Government at any moment, but particularly now, when we were quarrelling with our distant colonies, for forcing on them the inmates of our gaols, the result of our own negligence. He did say it was a grave charge against this House that they did not look at the origin of the greatly-increasing amount of crime; and he considered it a reproach and a scandal, to which Government ought to direct their immediate attention. His hon. Friend (Mr. W. J. Fox) asked them to put an end to that reproach by adopting that clear example which the United States afforded. The States of New York and Massachusetts, and many others, had obtained a system of education which did not interfere with religious opinions. The inhabitants of every parish met, and raised the necessary funds by a general rate; every locality contributed its proportion. They did not quarrel about its application, and though they differed as much with regard to religious opinions as the people of England, he did not learn that they were less religious. Whether they professed as much he could not say, but he confessed he preferred acts to professions. The magistrates of Edinburgh had directed an inquiry into the condition of 500 individuals in the prison at one time, to ascertain where they came from, and by what means they had fallen under the punishment of the law; and it turned out by the report which they received that there were families who had for two, three, or four generations, at all times contributed one or two of its members to the number of prison inmates—that they were left in a state of ignorance little above the brutes, and therefore they preyed upon the property of their neighbours, instead of providing for their wants by their own industry. Trifles ought not to prevent an effort to diminish that class of crime, which must go on if ignorance continued. With that view a plan of education had been proposed in Manchester, which had given great satisfaction throughout the whole of Lancashire. It was the same as the plan in Massachusetts for general education, without compromising or interfering with the religious opinions of any man. He knew that many such schools had been established in England by an association of private individuals; but they could not be kept up, because many of the largest holders of property in the district would not contribute. If, then, the Government would pass a Bill giving powers for assessing all

1263
parties alike for the establishment of schools in every parish, he (Mr. Hume) had no doubt they would achieve the de-desirable sbject which his hon. Friend (Mr. W. J. Fox) had in view. Knowing the noble Lord at the head of the Government and his family to be warm supporters of education, he did hope the noble Lord would take the broad principle of affording education independent of any particular religious opinions.
Mr. A. B. HOPEcould not allow the subject to pass off without a few words, feeling very strongly, as he did, the absolute necessity—as he had lately, on various occasions, stated—of giving the utmost development to the conscientious sentiments of all religious bodies, consistent with truth and order. He must, in pursuance of that feeling, most strongly oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham, as a measure more fraught with danger to that principle—more fraught with danger to all liberty of religious belief and action, than any other which could will be conceived or brought forward by any Gentleman holding the same views as the hon. Member for Oldham. Even could he agree to all the hon. Member's data, there were other reasons for opposing the Motion, beyond the supposing they could give a purely secular education. Secular education, supposing it to be possibility, might be a good or a bad thing, though no infringement or attack on religion. But purely secular education was a thing absolutely impossible by the immutable laws of nature. You must teach some religion, or the negation of religion, which, under the circumstances, was itself a species of religion. The hon. Member (Mr. W. J. Fox) said, what had the multiplication table to do with religion? Last Session he drew vivid pictures of the beauties of nature, and said what had they to do with a dogmatic religion? He (Mr. Hope) asked, how was it possible to teach a child the first rudiments—not to say of science, but of things as they were—a knowledge of things, and names of things, without teaching the child that those things had been created, or had not been created, or else, by silence, leaving him to the same inference of their not having had a Creator? At the least you must teach Deism or Atheism, and either, in one sense, was religion. Therefore, those schools must be seminaries of some sort of religious education. What would be the result? The institution of a system of
1264
compulsory education. That compulsory education would be administered by a set of schoolmasters acting under Government orders; they would teach a system of Deism side by side with the established religion of the country; and thus there would be another religious establishment, of an attenuated form, but still a religion. He appealed, therefore, to hon. Gentlemen whether, as he said in the beginning, anything could be more fraught with danger to religious toleration than such a system of compulsory education, from the meshes and religious accidents of which they could not escape? It was upon these grounds, besides many others, that he should on all occasions be found a decided opponent of a compulsory system of education, whether purely secular, or possessing, like the Manchester scheme, the adjunct of religion. He was one with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) in opinion, that it was the duty of Parliament to retrieve the country from the national sin of ignorance; but he could not understand upon what warrant of reason the hon. Gentleman could, upon this subject, go against his warmest convictions on all other matters. It showed a want of faith in that good old Anglo-Saxon decentralisation principle which had distinguished us from other countries. In commerce they were told free trade was a sound principle. Why then could not the hon. Gentleman trust competition in this one matter of education? Let them be consistent. Either abolish toleration, or give up compulsory education. To advocate toleration and to advocate compulsory education in some form of religion, was not consistent, and never would work. Let them force upon the Government the affording more education; let them force the Government to give grants, less impaired with obnoxious impediments and greater in amount, not only to the Church of England, but to Dissenters. Let them encourage every class of schools by rewards, and let them levy taxes for education, but let those taxes be applied in numerical relation to the different religious denominations, and then they would attain something like a national system of education. In the London University they had an aggregation of religious opinions, each college following out its own system of secular education, but at last sending their pupils to a joint examination at the central mother university, as to their proficiency for their different acquirements. A similar system might be

1265
applied to inferior education. By adopting such a system as that, they would avoid both the personal interference on religious matters, and that great, gigantic, crushing, illiberal, and intolerant system which he called a compulsory system of education.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, there were many things upon which men agreed, but there was one upon which they could only agree to differ, and that was religion. Was there no possibility of carrying on the common object of education without the interposition of the subject upon which men seemed determined to quarrel? Was it not possible to set apart an hour or two hours a day for religious instruction, without mixing it up with the other lessons? We saw boys and girls learning writing, arithmetic, French, German, Italian, and many other things, without any difficulty arising out of the interposition of religion: where then was the precise point where it became necessary to explode all union by the introduction of this dangerous element? If all those things could be learned without introducing a religious quarrel, was there something about the art of reading alone which made it indispensable? It appeared to him that sensible men might do something to get rid of this difficulty. There was no want of establishments for the teaching of religion; everybody could point to numerous and most expensive ones; why then could not these do their duty by a simple division of labour and time, without insisting on doing it in the way that was to end in nothing being done at all? The different sects seemingly were not persuaded that they had a rational foundation for their creeds, and therefore they were all afraid of knowledge; but he felt, as a Protestant, that the conduct of our forefathers had been of a very different nature, and that the great advantage of Protestantism was in its appeal to rational argument and human knowledge. Let those who were afraid abstain from this appeal; but let those who had no fear take advantage of it.
MR. TRELAWNYsaid, that the hon. Member for Maidstone had argued that there could be no education without some sort of religion, or some sort of negation of religion; but if by the operation of education they could prevent crime, why should they be precluded from using education to that end? Looking at the expenses incurred in the punishment of crime through the quarter-sessions, the convict system, and other modes, the higher classes were in-
1266
terested, if only in an economical point of view, in making some sacrifice to diminish, by means of education, the amount of crime. He did not quite understand the position occupied by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The noble Lord came down to the House, and asked for such a miserable pittance for educational purposes that he seemed, by so doing, to be damning education rather than effecting any other object. If education was not worth anything, then let the noble Lord ask for no sum; but if it were a good thing, let him ask for a sum worthy of a great country. He was quite certain that the great masses of the people were with those who desired to spread the means of education, though there might be some selfish feeling against any such measures on the part of the middle and trading classes on account of the expense. They were going to extend the suffrage, and he was in favour of its extension, but that extension ought to be accompanied by a large and comprehensive system of education. He should give his warmest support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham.
MR. WILSON PATTENwould state the reasons why he felt most reluctantly compelled to vote against the Motion. He believed that throughout the country generally there was a great fear lest a step should be taken in the wrong direction, and that a system of education should be established not founded on religion. In the county he represented, efforts had been made in all directions and on different principles to promote education; and those schools in Lancashire had succeeded the best which combined with their instruction a system of religion. The plan of education alluded to in the town of Manchester was that which offered the best hope, if it could have had a trial, of our arriving at some sound system. It had failed owing to the circumstances stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but still he had no doubt that it would be followed up by those who had taken it in hand, and, if so, that it would turn out the most consistent with the interests of all classes; for it left to the parents the fullest liberty to have their children instructed according to whatever religious form they preferred. He, in common with all classes in his county, was anxious for the spread of education; but he believed he was acting in conformity with the sentiments of his constituents in withholding his support from the scheme now proposed so long as there was a hope

1267
of conducting education in combination with religion.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that he had hoped the right hon Baronet the Home Secretary had been more favourable to the scheme of education proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) than afterwards appeared; but from a part of his speech he inferred the right hon. Gentleman to be favourable to the support of education by public rates. The real difficulty appeared to be to carry out anything like a general system, the prejudices entertained on all sides being so great. But of this he had never entertained a doubt—that if schools were to be supported by rates, they must not be denominational schools, must not be sectarian schools. They must be schools in which all classes of ratepayers could have equal advantages. If rates were imposed for denominational schools, matters, instead of being improved, would be made worse, and the majority of ratepayers in any parish would be enabled to enforce the teaching of their religion upon the minority. Talk of the church rate! why in that case the school rate would be based upon precisely the same principle as the church rate, which was so much objected to. And if they were to attempt to entitle the majority in a parish to levy rates on the minority to teach the religion of the majority, they would at once involve the whole country in religious conflict. Therefore, although he agreed with the principle that there should be rating for schools, he disagreed with the proposition that there should be a rating for denominational schools. If secular schools were established to be supported by public rates, did it necessarily follow that those schools should be of an irreligious character, as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose? He regarded that opinion as a mistake, arising from misapprehension of what the object really was. It was not proposed to teach in the schools everything that children ought to be taught, but to give them only such part or portion of education as could be given in institutions that were supported under such conditions and circumstances. It was not said that religion was not to be taught to the children at other times, and in other places, but it was proposed to give them what in itself was necessary, and good, and valuable, as far as it went—primary instruction. The difficulties of teaching religion would be greater if primary instruction
1268
were not given in the first instance. If a child was taught reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography, was his chance of learning religion elsewhere less than if that child had been left neglected in some alley, and taught nothing at all, but, on the contrary, bred up in vice and ignorance? It appeared to him so obvious that the giving of this primary instruction must be a benefit to the child, that he could not allow it to be said that they who supported the hon. Member for Oldham were adopting a system which made it impossible to have a religious and moral training, and therefore that their proposal would do more injury than good. He had some jealousy, he confessed, of allowing the masters of schools to be teachers of the doctrines of religion; and he said this because he had heard of opinions professed by clergymen of the Church of England, and by ministers of religion of various persuasions, which gave him the notion that they did not entertain sound views on the subject. He denied the right of the clergy to be the controlling parties over all the education in the country. And he asked the House to look at the different views of religious education taken by religious persons themselves. There was the Rev. Francis Close, for example, an evangelical clergyman, who, he found, had addressed a meeting of the Tradesmen and Working Men's Association at Cheltenham, some time since, and made use of the following expression: "The more a man is advanced in human knowledge, the more he is opposed to religion, and is the more deadly enemy to the truth of God." Now, he differed altogether from the Rev. Mr. Close; and instead of believing that knowledge was opposed to the truths of religion, his firm opinion was that religion flourished better, and was far more likely to take root in an intellectual atmosphere, than where ignorance and darkness prevailed. On the subject of the Lancashire school system, and speaking of the plan of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, the Rev. Francis Close said—
"He considered it impossible, false, hypocritical, and absurd to say that there could be a separation between religious and secular instruction excepting in pure mathematics. He would say that a man who could teach history and ordinary matters of instruction in various branches of secular instruction, without religion, should not set his foot in his (Mr. Close's) school to teach anything. What they sought was to interweave Church of England evangelical principles with all their instruction, and to diffuse them through the schoolroom all day long. If they should attempt

1269
to separate secular from religious education, they would separate that which God had joined together."
Now, he unhesitatingly said that such a system of schooling could never be agreed to if supported by public taxation. The people of this country, divided as they were into various religious bodies, could never be brought to agree to any one system of religious education. Why? Because the people observed that such clergy of the Established Church made no secret of their intentions as to education; that it was to put secular knowledge in the shade, and to use the schools for the purpose of proselytising and making all minds converts to their peculiar persuasion. Would any one say that the people of Holland and Belgium were more indifferent to religion than other people? He should say, on the contrary, of either, that they were a grave and serious nation; and a gentleman in one of those countries had pointed out to him the plan on which a large school was conducted. He said—
"I know the state in which you are in England. Here you see a school composed of children belonging to various religious denominations. If you asked me what was the religion of any one child here, I could not tell you; but if you were to inquire further, you would find, although we do not teach religion in this school, that at other times, and in other places, the ministers of the various religions to which these children belong, do teach them religion; and you would find also that this school operates as the means of bringing the children of the different religions together, so that the ministers of all sects know where to find them. Thus, although religion is not taught, the school facilitates instruction in religion."
Here was a correct representation of the practical operation of a secular system of education in another country, showing it was not adverse to religion, and therefore it was not fair to throw the imputation upon his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, of desiring to oppose and discourage the teaching of religion.
MR. LOFTUS WIGRAMsaid, the growing interest in this subject showed that the real question was not, whether education should be given, but how it should be given: and the question they were now considering was, not the general subject of promoting education, in which they all agreed, but the particular scheme of the hon. Member for Oldham, in the leading features of which he could not agree. The three leading features of that scheme were—that the education should be free, that it should be supported by local rates, and that it
1270
should be secular. Now, he had great doubt as to the expediency of making education altogether free in this country. Practical men, who had dealt much with this subject, were of opinion that that was not the system best adapted to this country, best suited to the independent feelings of the lower orders, or best calculated to produce an efficient scheme of education. They thought the existing system better adapted for the purpose under which the parents of the poorer boys were invited to make small contributions towards the expenses of education. Doubtless, in some classes of schools, such as the ragged schools, education must be given free of expense; but he believed that neither the necessities nor the wishes of the lower orders were such as to warrant the adoption of a general system of free education. With respect to the next feature of the hon. Member's plan, he doubted the propriety of calling for aid towards educating the people by means of local rates. He considered, so far as public aid was to be given, it would be given in a more equitable form, and the expense be more fairly borne if the burden were diffused over all, and that the least objectionable form was by grant from the Consolidated Fund, according to the system at present adopted, and not by levying a local rate like the poor-rate, as a system which would throw the burden very unequally. With reference to the third feature of the scheme, that secular education only should be given, he was altogether opposed to the principle of such a proposal. He did not see that such a scheme would give satisfaction in any quarter. He did not mean only the Church of England; but that it would not give satisfaction to the people generally. The Roman Catholics, they all knew, would receive no satisfaction from a system of that kind. The mass of the people belonging to the Church of England, or the body of Dissenters, would not be satisfied with such a system. Any system including religious teaching would give more satisfaction. Many Dissenters continued to send their children to the Church of England schools, for they knew that these schools were not teachers of polemical theology, but that the religious teaching they gave was instruction in the truths of the Scriptures. He could not possibly think how such a system of education as that proposed by the hon. Member was adapted to secure the end it professed to have in view. It was said the

1271
system was proposed for the purpose of doing justice to the poor. But surely it ought to be the aim of all who sought to elevate the poor to implant in their minds the great principles of religion. If education were confined to secular subjects—if carried out without religious instruction—he did not believe that the tendency of such a system would be to diminish vice and crime—he did not believe that such a system would be either beneficial to the individual or the community. But it was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, "What we propose is that children shall be educated in the school, and receive religious instruction elsewhere." But let that system be carried out, and what would be the result? How long were the children to remain at school? If inquiry were made, it would be found that in many places parents would not leave their children at school beyond the age of thirteen, at which period they began to be capable of earning something. All the education these children received, which was to govern the whole course of their future life, was given before they were thirteen years of age. How, then, could the proposed scheme be carried out? Where could these children get their religious education? and when were they to get it? Were these children, up to that age at which their educational training ceased, to be sent to school where they could get no instruction in those great moral principles upon which all Christians were agreed, nor even in the first principles of religious duty; for instance, the duty of worshipping God? If the principles in the Resolution were carried out, the children would receive no instruction in the schools in their first duty—that of worshipping the Creator. To such a system he was decidedly and on principle opposed. The argument urged in its favour was, that there was a necessity for it. He did not believe the necessity existed. He believed the existing Government plan could be carried out so as to introduce a general system of education; but two things were wanted, a great deal more money, and more time, to obtain the required machinery. What was wanted, in the first instance, was good teachers. Something had been done to remedy this want. Several institutions had been opened for the purpose of providing good teachers. An institution at Highgate, which furnished eighty teachers, had been very recently opened. The system of pupil
1272
teachers was also tending to supply the want. He believed, therefore, that the present system, with some addition to it for providing free education for the very poor, would at no distant period carry into effect the object of a general system of education for the people. He must oppose, on principle, the present proposition; at the same time he felt obliged to the hon. Member for Oldham for bringing forward the general subject, as its discussion must be productive of good.
MR. ADDERLEYmust vote with reluctance on the question against those with whom he usually voted, for he felt he could not conscientiously vote against the propositions of the hon. Member for Oldham. There was an old proverb, "Take care of the pence, and the pounds will take care of themselves;" the moral of which was susceptible of a wide application. If the House took care of such elementary questions as these, they would find that many great complicated questions would take care of themselves. He regretted to differ from the opinions expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram), who, in expressing his dislike to free education, dealt with only a part of the case as if it were the whole. The hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) said, he felt anxiety on the question, but would consent to support the propositions before the House in the event of no better scheme being put forward. The question, then, was, what chance was there of a better system being carried out, and what would happen to the country in the meantime? All were agreed that religious and secular instruction were both wanted, and that one should be based on the other. They were also agreed that both could not be carried out without the help of a national rate. But it also appeared that, while secular education could not be carried out except by a national rate, religious education could not be carried out by a national rate. So, therefore, as one-half of national education was impossible without a rate, the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge practically set his face against the whole. He (Mr. Adderley) would, however, show the House that while one part could be carried out by a national rate, the other part could be carried out by a voluntary aid, and thus both, the avowed object on all sides, could be achieved. The proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham could not

1273
be controverted, that the present secular education was deficient in this material respect—that it failed, for instance, to point out to the poor how they were to find their own subsistence. Now, as crime proceeded frequently from want of employment, good secular education would tend, to prevent such crime. If, for instance, the poor knew more of geography, that would enable them to understand the advantages of our wide colonial territory, in offering them the means of a livelihood, and, as in America, our colonies would soon become our back settlements. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary referred to the standard of education as being of an improving character. He thought the standard of primary education was vastly too high already; it was vastly higher than was required; and he considered that the prizes of the Committee of the Privy Council upon Education went to a higher class than had any right to be educated at public expense. The money that was spent by the Committee of the Privy Council upon Education was lavished on a class for which it was never intended, and who, in many cases, ought ought not to receive a farthing of it. The gigantic plan of the Privy Council, besides, could not be carried out, and debts had been already incurred which could not be liquidated. There was, therefore, no permanent hope to be derived from that quarter. But while they were discussing the possibility of national education, an efficient national education was going on, but it was only accessible to two classes—the prisoner and the pauper. The education given in some of our prisons was elaborate and very perfect: in Parkhurst, Bridewell, and some prisons for the reformation of juvenile offenders, the education was good. In some workhouses also, the education was vastly superior to that given by the poorer classes of the neighbourhood to their children. Here was a national system of religious and secular education at the expense of the country; and the only question was, whether an equal chance of both should not be extended to the poor outside the workhouses and prisons merely because the free would not receive both together? It might be said that the prison system would always be superior, because it mixed up religious instruction with secular education; but would they then consent to open the doors of such places equally to the honest poor outside? He confessed he was dis-
1274
satisfied at seeing the honest poor debarred from the advantages so liberally afforded in those penitential places. He approved of a national rate for general education; and he thought it was highly creditable to the county of Lancaster that it should have been the first to come forward with a petition to Parliament to tax them for such purposes. He had the authority of a distinguished traveller for stating, that no Englishman could visit America without blushing at the great superiority of the Americans over this country in point of primary education amongst the people. He had heard only two serious objections to the propositions: first, that, if adopted, they would supersede the present schools. But that objection was of no force, for if the present schools were inefficient, it would be an advantage to supersede them. The second objection was, that it was impossible to separate secular and religious instruction. That was a mere play upon words. We acted upon the principle every day of our lives in the education of our children. No man asked his dancing master to fiddle and teach religion to his children at the same moment. We showed that the two could be separated without mischief. The advantages of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. W. J. Fox's) proposition would be plain and obvious. The necessities of the case were also obvious; and he approved of a plan which would compel the people to take an interest in their own schools.
The SOLICITOR GENERALconcurred with every hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House on the importance of this subject, and believed with them that no subject of greater consequence to the well-being of the nation could come before them than how best to educate the young of those numerous classes who were at present wholly uneducated. He had never, however, in the course of any debate heard so many singular fallacies—so many errors in fact and errors in principle—brought forward as had been uttered that night by hon. Members who supported this Motion, and particularly by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who certainly would not have made the observations he had offered to the House if he had had time to reflect over the matter. Could there have been anything more surprising than for the hon. Gentleman to have based his support of the Motion on the ground that there ex-

1275
isted insuperable difficulties in obtaining the concurrence of the various bodies of religionists to a system which embraced the religious education of the poor—which he (the Solicitor General) did not admit—and the assumption that there were not insuperable difficulties to the adoption of a system of secular education—which he (the Solicitor General) also disputed. And the hon. Member (Mr. Adderley) had said they could obtain both secular and religious education by imposing a rate for the former, and leaving the latter to voluntary effort. Did the hon. Gentleman suppose, that, by imposing a rate for the purposes of secular education, all difficulties in the way of having the people religiously educated would vanish? He (the Solicitor General) did not think that the hon. Member could arrive at such a conclusion; for being a member of the National Society in common with himself, he well knew the difficulties that interposed in the way of obtaining subscriptions. Did the hon. Gentleman not feel that if a compulsory rate were imposed, the difficulties in procuring subscriptions for the support of those schools at present in existence, and where the religious element had been introduced, would he found insuperable? Parties who at present subscribed to the free schools would take the excuse which the imposition of the rate would afford. Such a measure as was proposed would be of the most tyrannical character as respected all the schools in the country where anything in the shape of religion was introduced, and people would be compelled to pay a double rate before they could obtain that species of education they desired; they would be obliged to pay the rate for the secular schools, and also to contribute to the support of the religious schools. The real effect of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham would be to shut up every religious school in the country, and force some persons to maintain schools which they abhorred. Then the hon. Gentleman had referred to what had been said by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten), who had admitted that if he could not get anything better, he would at least concur in the plan now proposed. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) had said that the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) might wait for ever while nothing was being done, while here was a secular plan open to adoption. He (the Solicitor-
1276
General) would ask, had nothing been done hitherto? He would tell them what had been done. During the 27 years preceding the time when the Government grant had been made to the schools of the Church of England, there had been in these schools 550,000 children; and during nine years since the grant had been made, the scholars had increased by 449,000. The benefits, however, had not been confined to the extent of the Government grant alone; for by that grant a stimulus had been given to voluntary exertions, and the result had been a very large increase of contributions under this head. Before the grant had been made, the voluntary contributions towards the Church of England schools through the National Society alone had been about 3,000 l. annually; whereas during these nine years the sum had risen to 20,000 l. per annum, or nearly a seven-fold increase under the affect of that stimulus. It could not then he said by any means, that we had arrived at a point at which the present system had failed—though he would by no means have it supposed that we had arrived at a state in which it might be left. He did not think that the system of secular education, as proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham, was one which the people of England were agreed to adopt. The promoters of this scheme seemed to be aware that "secular" education would not be popular, for their Society had been first called the Lancashire Association for Promoting "Secular" Education, but it was now named the National Public School Association. The name had been changed—changed advisedly, and the word "secular" had been dropped out.
MR. COBDENbegged to explain. It had been proposed at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, that the word "secular" should be introduced into the title of the Association; but he (Mr. Cobden) had urged that the name should not be altered, and it was the same now as it had been since its institution.
The SOLICITOR GENERALwas much obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden) for putting him right—but the correction did not materially alter the inference which he wished to draw from what had occurred at that meeting. He remembered that there had been a discussion on the subject at Manchester, and his impression had been that at that meeting the word "secular," which had formerly been in the title of the association, had been

1277
dropped. It appeared, however, that the association having ceased to be merely a local board, it was thought by some desirable that the name should be changed for that of "the Association for Promoting Secular Education," but that, mainly through the instrumentality of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden), who had a talent for discovering what would be acceptable to the people, the word "secular" had not been adopted. The hon. Member himself said at that meeting that education, without any religion whatever, would not be palatable to him. If it were said that the people were in favour of "secular" education, he would only refer to the instructive proceedings of that meeting at Manchester. There were, however, other parties at Manchester engaged in the cause of education besides those who attended this meeting. A committee had been formed there, consisting of gentlemen of every shade of politics, from the highest Tory (if any such now existed), to the strongest Radical, and gentlemen, too, of every religious creed. It was quite true that there had been a secession of Roman Catholic priests, but none of the laymen had seceded. This Committee had secured the co-operation of a large body of the people to a system which he would not say was perfect, but which seemed to him to have met the difficulty which encompassed the subject in a manner which he had not previously heard proposed. They did not propose, like the hon. Member for Oldham, to sweep away every existing school supported by voluntary contributions. The hon. Member did not propose to do that in terms, but that would be the immediate results of a forced contribution. They, on the contrary, said, "Let us avail ourselves of existing schools, many of which are not full enough for want of means, and wherever we find a school certified by the Government Inspector, let us pay the master so much, in proportion to the number of children attending his school." That allowed every person to educate his children in his own way, and it was most valuable, because it was a local system. In this all-important matter, it was of the utmost consequence that no false step should be made; and in bringing in a Bill, they confined it simply to their own town, inserting, however, a clause which gave a power to other towns to adopt the plan if they thought fit. They would have then the advantage of seeing this local experiment tried in one of our largest
1278
towns on a large scale, without being committed to any false principle. The right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) had said that it would be a hard thing to compel children to go to a school the religious teaching of which their parents did not approve. It was not necessary, however, that all the children should be sent to one school. They might have ten schools in one place, giving all the children secular education and religious education at the same time, according to the views of their parents. Was not this a very perfect way of carrying out an educational scheme? But how would it be under the local rate proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham? The hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) said that we had secular education, but only in our prisons and our workhouses. That was a good antithesis, no doubt; but this argument militated against his own position, for in the prisons and workhouses the education was partly of a religious character. The hon. Member had doubtless said he would be content with such a system of education; but he must recollect that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) held that these schools inculcated too much religion. That hon. Member wanted no religion at all inculcated, and said that if they taught any religion, not a sixpence of the rate would they get. That, therefore, appeared to him the worst possible example that could be cited. Then the hon. Member for Montrose appealed to the Irish schools, and the hon. Member for Oldham said, Look how much less crime they have under those schools. But these hon. Gentlemen seemed both to forget that the Irish schools taught religion; and further, that the scheme now propounded would close all these schools, because those who now contributed to them would naturally excuse themselves if they were compelled to subscribe to a local rate. The whole matter, in fact, rested upon a false principle—upon errors in principle, as well as upon errors in fact. The hon. Member, in his eloquent peroration, said that he wished us to erect the great fabric of national prosperity upon the solid basis of national intellect; but he (the Solicitor General) would wish it to stand not upon that basis only. Man was a moral and a spiritual, as well as an intellectual being. We must then educate all the powers given him by his all-wise Creator; but not one only, to the exclusion of the others. [Mr. HUME: Hear, hear!] He (the Solicitor General) knew that such

1279
remarks would expose him to the unjust accusation to which the clergy and every individual who held views similar to himself were subject, namely, that he was afraid of the education of the intellect because he had no faith in the religious system he advocated and supported. He (the Solicitor General) denied such an allegation in toto. During the last twenty years, education in the hands of the clergy had been greatly advanced: they had improved their schools in a manner the most creditable; and so far from being afraid of instruction, the only question in men's minds was, whether the National Schools were not too highly instructing the people—whether, with regard to the portion of the people who were engaged in outdoor manual occupations, they were not educating them to the prejudice of their physical capacity. The proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham was as unphilosophical as it was opposed to religious principle. He (the Solicitor General) found man an intellectual, moral, and religious being, and he did not extinguish any one of these powers. But the hon. Member for Oldham insisted on withdrawing one of those qualities—and that the most important of the three—from all active development. It was difficult to speak of gradation in these faculties. A man might be made mad by cultivating the spiritual only; he might be made a hard-hearted creature, incapable of moral or religious feeling altogether, by cultivating the intellectual only; and he might be made stupid and unintellectual by developing the moral principle, and cultivating the affections alone. All these, then, ought to be considered. It was scoffingly asked, what had religion to do with the rule of three or the multiplication table? That was a most idle question. They should have both; and the question ought rather to be put in this wise—"Why should the teaching of the rule of three exclude religion?" [Mr. HUME: What religion?] Let every man answer for himself and for his children. Did any man ask that in reference to his own family? Did he wait until it was quite clear that he had got the right religion before he instructed his children? Or did he take that which his fathers had professed before him? He did not think any earnest-minded man need be at a loss to know what religion to give to his poorer brethren: he would act upon that which he himself thought right, and no doubt God's
1280
blessing would rest on that. If a man did not believe the three principles he had named existed in man, there was no more to be said; but if he did so believe, he would also believe it to be his duty to develop all those in the best way in his power. The examples adduced in support of this scheme were certainly unfortunate, for neither the London University nor the Irish Colleges could be considered to afford a parallel case. In the one case they had the children of the poor, from the ages of five to thirteen years, living at home, where they had actually no religion, where they had few advantages of any kind, their minds being in a tender state favourable to the development of their powers, but as yet wholly uncultivated. In the other, they had the children of wealthy parents, who had passed a number of years at school, who had had all the advantages of a good home, and whose character was in some measure formed. The case of America had been referred to. He did not think the United States was an example so favourable to the case of the hon. Member (Mr. W. J. Fox) as some supposed. All the States were not agreed on the subject—all did not exclude religion. As to the law with respect to education in the slave States, he might observe that a few years ago it was death to teach a black child to read and write; but he believed the punishment was now commuted to a penalty. With regard to all the States, America possessed this peculiar advantage: it was not an over-peopled country; there were not great incentives to crime; men had the means of accumulating wealth, and the children were more certain of having a home in which they could get religious instruction. The arguments which had been used with respect to the effect of the want of education on crime, he held to be overcharged. You say, the percentage of educated convicts has increased. Well, but if you educate every child, the educated convicts must be cent per cent; for no system of education would make crime disappear. It was idle, again, to talk of the poor giving their children religious education at home. Parents of this class came home from their labour worn out and jaded, and many of them had not the time even though they possessed the will to impart religious instruction to their children. [Mr. TRELAWNY: What is the Church about?] His hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock asked what the Church was about. The clergy

1281
were willing to do what they could for the religious education of the people, but in most of the manufacturing districts their number was so disproportioned to the population, that they could not undertake the daily instruction of the people. He believed that a child was educated by all he heard and saw, and it was of the utmost importance that religious instruction should be imparted to him, not merely as opportunity offered, but by the religious atmosphere in which he lived. Under the present system, the schools were opened with prayer, and the little child of six years old was taught to go upon his knees. It was said that religion should not be mixed up with the multiplication table; but it might be introduced in giving instruction with respect to the products of the earth, or in teaching geography and astronomy, and the system of the heavenly bodies. Was it nothing to tell a child that the same Providence that formed those infinite worlds, watched over him as if he were the sole object of creation? Then, again, take history? Is there no difference between a Protestant and Roman Catholic history of Queen Mary; and if religion was to be excluded, how was the schoolmaster to conduct himself respecting it? He recollected that a very distinguished Member of the Spanish Cortes once told him that before he got acquainted with English history, he always thought that Queen Mary was one of the most popular of British sovereigns. To a schoolmaster the opportunities were constantly occurring in which he could imbue the mind of the scholar with sound religious knowledge. An earnest, religious man would imbue the minds of his scholars with religious feelings; and an earnest teacher disposed to inculcate disbelief would endeavour to imbue the minds of his pupils with principles similar to his own. Good principles were most easily inculcated in the period of youth; and ministers of religion of all denominations should be allowed to make their services available in developing in their full integrity in the minds of the youth of the population all the powers of their minds, and in particular religious principles, which, if not developed in a human being, he was not a man, but worse than a man. Lastly, he would say that he wished to see the fabric of our national prosperity based, not merely on the intellectual advancement of our people, but on the full development of their intellectual, moral, and spiritual functions.
MR. COBDENsaid, that if some stranger had entered the House during the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, he would have supposed that the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham was not a proposition for voting an additional sum of money to remedy a defect in education, the existence of which they were all ready to admit, but he would rather have imagined it to be a proposal to withdraw the funds already applied to the instruction of the people in general, or that his hon. Friend intended to abolish the National Church, and to withdraw the 5,000,000 l. or 6,000,000 l., which was its present endowment, and that the moment he should succeed in carrying his Motion, all the present voluntary contributions of the dissenting bodies would entirely cease. That would be the conviction of any one who entered the House during the speech of his hon. and learned Friend. When his hon. and learned Friend charged the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) with fallacy, he thought that his (the Solicitor General's) speech had been founded on fallacy from beginning to end. And he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had misunderstood and misapplied the argument of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire; for he went upon the assumption that the hon. Gentleman supported two kinds of education—an education of a secular, and an education of a religious, kind, both out of the public funds. Now he (Mr. Cobden) understood the hon. Gentleman to say that there was an ample provision for religious, but that there was no sufficient provision for secular, education, and that he would agree to a system of secular education, rather than have none at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General said this system was impracticable; but the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that his own plan had been tried for fifteen years in this country, and had been brought to a dead lock; and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had informed them that a deputation had come from Manchester, and informed him that the scheme which had originated and had been attempted to be carried out by the men of Manchester had failed, and that, he contended, was an argument against the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham. Now, before the House decided upon the subject, it was, in his opinion, right that they should examine the statistics which were before them,

1283
Let them, in particular, look to the amount of money which they had granted for educational purposes. For the last five years they had had a grant of 125,000 l. a year, while there was but a very trifling increase on the population, and scarcely any to the number of persons who received education in consequence of the State grant. And why? Because it was a subject that the Government dare not touch in that House; because the present system was so unsatisfactory that, in spite of two large blue books of correspondence and minutes, and an expenditure of 125,000 l. per annum, the little education we did get in this country was owing to the efforts of the Committee of Privy Council; and he did not blame them for those efforts, but he honoured them for trying to do that which could not be done in that House. No one knew better than did Government that they dare not stir the question with a view of getting a grant commensurate with the wants of the country, in order to carry out the system which at present exists. And now what was it that Government was falling back upon? A local scheme in Manchester, which had already failed in precisely the same way as the Government plan had failed on these religious difficulties. The gentlemen who came to town from Manchester did him also the honour of calling upon him; and he rejoiced to see them endeavouring to overcome the difficulties of realising a system of education. They told him, as they told the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that they had the concurrence of all the religious sects—that the Roman Catholics had joined them as well as the Dissenters; but he received a letter from them after their return to Manchester, that, to their surprise and regret, they had to tell him that not two of the Roman Catholic clergy, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, but eighteen, virtually the whole body of the Roman Catholic clergy in that town, had seceded from that plan of education. And why? Simply because the committee that met in Manchester made it a fundamental principle of their scheme, that in all schools erected at the public expense in Manchester, the authorised version of the Bible should be read; and that being a condition which the Roman Catholics could not comply with, that, of course, separated them altogether from this plan of education. Now, he asked any one in that House, if any plan of public education could be satisfactory in the boroughs of
1284
Manchester and Salford combined, which excluded the poorest of the poor classes. There were in Manchester and Salford at least 100,000 Roman Catholics. They were the poorest of the population, and if ignorance were an evil, they were the most dangerous part of the population to be left in ignorance. And yet this was a plan on which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary relied in order to relieve him from the difficulty he was in. They were in precisely the same difficulty in Manchester that they were in in that House; for he maintained that the little good that was done was done surreptitiously by the Educational Committee of the Privy Council, and not by a Vote in that House. What were the Minutes of the Privy Council? Did they suppose they would stand the debates in that House any more than the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. J. Fox). Bring forward a Vote for the maintenance of Roman Catholic colleges, in which they would be allowed to carry on in their own peculiar way their own doctrines and worship, and did they think that Vote would pass that House? There was a fundamental evasion and fallacy about the whole of this Educational Vote. He asked them, when they talked so much of religious education, if this 125,000 l. was for religious teaching?—because he understood when they were passing an Educational Vote it was not for religious education. When the Vote was first agreed to, in 1834, it was called school-money; it was 10,000 l. or 20,000 l. to begin with. Afterwards it was changed to a vote for education, but they did not vote the money for religious education. Could they vote any sum in that House if it were asked fairly for religious instruction? No, it could not be done, and it could not be done for many years past, and never more would they vote any money in that House as an endowment for religion; and, therefore, when they talked to him about voting for religious education, he said it was not an accurate description of what they voted it for. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) had talked as if there were some great conspiracy in the country, as if there were some parties aiming to deprive the country of its religious faith; and he seemed to assume that, if they allowed schools to be established without religious teaching, they would practically be establishing schools to teach infidelity; and he also said that by establishing schools for secular education without reli-

1285
gion, we were in fact divorcing morality and religion from education. Now, when the hon. and learned Gentleman rung the changes about advancing the attributes of our nature, and of promoting the intellectual qualities at the expense of the religious and moral, he might surely give them credit that it was practically impossible to do anything of the kind. They knew that religion was a part of moral training, as well as the hon. and learned Gentleman did; but what they said was, that there was ample provision in this country already for religious training. There was twice as much spent in this country for religious training that there was in any other country in the world. Then how could it be said that they would exclude religion from education? He wanted to do nothing of the kind. Again, they had been taunted with the use of the word "secular." Well, he did not know any other word they could use. He said once for all, he considered there was provision made for religious training, but not for secular training, and therefore he wished to provide for secular education. He wanted people to be able to read and write—to be able to write their names when they signed a contract or registered the birth of their children; he wanted people to be trained in habits of thought and forethought; and he did not know any other term than secular for this kind of education. But why ring the changes upon secular education? He said once for all that he was not opposed to the Bible or any other religious book being read in schools. What he wanted was to have the same system of education in England that they had in Massachusetts in the United States of America. He would not go to Louisiana or Georgia, but his system was that of Massachusetts; and he challenged hon. Gentlemen to test that system by the experience of that State, and the good it had effected there. That State was not open to the argument that it was a thinly-peopled country: it was an old country, and one which sent forth vast numbers of emigrants; the people were of our own race, and had our own habits, and he wanted to know why we could not adopt the same plan in England that they had adopted with success in Massachusetts. We had just now a competition with all the world in the production of that which ministered to the comforts of mankind. If we saw the
1286
result of ingenuity in any part of the world, we plumed ourselves that we could imitate it. If we went to the Great Exhibition and found a machine there, however cunningly it might be contrived, we should find men say that what was done in Boston, in America, we could do in England. But if they adopted the Massachusetts system of education, they said it would make the people an irreligious people. He would meet them on that ground. He had been in Massachusetts, and, testing them by any test they might wish—by the number of their churches, by the number of attendants at their churches, by the amount paid for the teaching of religion, by the attendance at Sunday schools, by the observance of Sabbath, by the respect paid to religious teachers, by any one test with regard to religion, he would challenge a comparison between Massachusetts and any part of England. Well, then, the system of education adopted in Massachusetts was a secular system; and did they prevent the children from reading the Bible? Why, he ventured to say that in the report which he held in his hand of the Board of Education in Massachussets, there was not a single word about religion from beginning to end, and that, probably, there was not one in a hundred of these schools where the Bible was not read. He had no objection to a parish having local management having the Bible in its schools as well as any other book; but what they did in Massachusetts they should do here, by saying, as a fundamental principle, no book should be admitted into the common school which favoured the peculiar doctrines of any Christian sect. Well now, with a people so jealous of their religious independence as the people of Massachusetts were, what they had been able to do, surely we could do in England. They had the same battle to go through there that we have. In Massachusetts, originally, they taught the catechism in their schools which had been taken there by the Pilgrim Fathers when they left England, and who carried with them as much intolerance almost as they left behind; but another system now prevailed, and with the greatest possible advantage. Now, practically, he believed that system would work as well in this country as it did in Massachusetts; and if the system proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham were carried out, he was persuaded that in 99 out of 100

1287
of the parishes of England nobody would object to the Bible being read in the schools, provided it were read without note or comment. In a vast proportion of these parishes there were no Roman Catholics; but he had that opinion of the good sense and rational conduct of men, that if there was a very small minority—that if there were a few families of Roman Catholics who objected to the reading of the Bible—the reading of it could be so adapted to particular times as not to interfere with any one's religious conviction, and in a way that would exclude nobody. He believed that when the system of free schools was adopted, such would be the estimation in which education would be held by the mass of the people that it would not be easy to keep children from the schools. Where was the difficulty of their doing what had been done in Massachusetts? He would not be driven from that ground. Give him the Massachussets plan. He declared his belief that the mass of the people in Massachussets were as superior in intelligence to the population of Kent, as the latter were to the people of Naples. He said that advisedly. He asked, then, why they could not have this system in England. Would they tell him it was on account of the Established Church? Why, surely, having an Established Church with a very rich endowment, which supplied a clergyman to every parish, and the means of religious instruction to the mass of the people—for the mass of the people had religious instruction without paying a farthing for it in the rural parishes—would they tell him, having this advantage, they could not maintain their ground against another people who left religion to voluntary effort, and who endowed their secular schools? Now, there had been an objection made that they intended to supersede existing schoolrooms; it had been assumed that the plan of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. J. Fox) must necessarily throw to waste all existing schools belonging to places of worship. He saw no necessity for that at all. He considered they might make use of the existing school-rooms, as well for this system as for any other, and he never contemplated such a waste as to render useless existing school-rooms. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had told them, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs was of the same opinion, that if they adopted
1288
this plan of secular education they would shut up all the other schools. That was an admission, by the way, that they were going to establish something better than the old system. But they went further, and said, when they shut up the schools they would deprive the people of religious education, because the great bulk of the people got no religious instruction now, except what they got in their schools. When his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny) ejaculated what were the clergy doing? he thought that was a natural exclamation. They paid 5,000,000 l. or 6,000,000 l. a year to the clergy, and it was rather a bold thing for a devotee of the Church to say if the children did not get religious training in the schools they would get no religious training at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, when he answered that ejaculation of the hon. Member for Tavistock, turned immediately to the manufacturing hives, where, from increase of population, he said, there was much ignorance. He begged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; but the great mass of ignorance was not in the manufacturing towns, but in the rural districts, though he admitted there was much ignorance in the manufacturing districts, because the surplus population of the agricultural districts went to the manufacturing districts. He did not blame the clergy for being the cause of that ignorance in secular matters, although he thought there was a great deal to be said as to the duty of the clergy to see that all persons in their parishes could read, inasmuch as he could not see how a person could be a Protestant at all who could not read; yet he did not attempt to fasten upon the clergy responsibility for ignorance that existed in the country. He knew that in many districts they had undertaken more than any one else for the cause of education, and he knew that they found great difficulty in maintaining their schools by voluntary efforts in some places. In many rural parishes three-fourths of the land was owned by absentees, where the clergy had very little chance of getting support from absentee landed proprietors. How, then, were they to raise the funds to maintain the schools? He wanted a plan by which, for the purposes of secular education, a parish would be able to rate property. Let property be rated, and each proprietor, whether he were an absentee or resi-

1289
dent, would contribute towards the education of the people. He was firmly convinced that money could not be better applied in any of the small rural parishes than in providing good secular education. By such an education the people would gain self-reliance and self-respect. Let them be taught a little geography. Let them learn what was going on in other parts of the world—what, for example, was the rate of wages in the Colonies—and they would not then rot in parishes where they were a burden on the poor-rates. 80 l. or 100 l. a year laid out on education in a rural parish would do more to keep down the poor-rates, and to prevent crime, than the same amount expended in any other way. He could not help expressing the great gratification which he felt at the difference between the tone of the discussion that evening, and the tone of the debate last year. For his own part, he must say that there was no other subject on which he felt so tolerant towards every body as he did on this subject of education. If they saw the Government doing something—he cared not how—he was grateful for it. If he saw hon. Gentlemen opposite—whether High Church or Low Church—trying to secure for the people a better education, he thanked them. He saw the enormous difficulty of taking any combined step, owing to the religious element which always stood in the way. If ever there were a time, however, when it was necessary for parties to combine in a system of secular education, apart from religious sects, the present was such a time; for no one could deny that never before was there so much strife and disunion amongst different religious bodies. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Heald) belonged to a religious community which was torn in twain. Was there to be one set of schools for the reformed and another for the old Wesleyans? As a matter of economy—as a matter of charity, goodwill, and kindness, let them all try to get on neutral ground; let them try to do so, not only on account of the good which would thus be done to the mass of the people of this country, who would never be educated under any other system, but in order that they might have an opportunity of meeting, as it were, out of the pale of those religious strifes which were now more threatening than ever.
SIR R. H. INGLISacknowledged with satisfaction the moderation of tone in which the hon. Member had dealt with the sub-
1290
ject. The hon. Gentleman had great influence with the country, and was always powerful; but he hoped the hon. Member would excuse him for saying that he wished he had never been more powerful than in the argument which he had used that evening. He rose to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham; but instead of supporting him, he had in fact proposed that the Bible should be read. He added that he knew his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham was not the Member to object to that; and touched him affectionately on the shoulder in expectation of assent. Was that assent given? No; the hon. Member for Oldham looked as immovable as at that moment. He knew that the hon. Member for the West Riding would not exclude the Bible from any school under his own control; but was it fit that, whatever might be done by individuals, the nation should adopt a proposition which would practically exclude the Bible as well as the catechism, and all other religious instruction, from the schools of the nation? He would not repeat the arguments used by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, for no man could follow him on such a subject without great disadvantage. A speech more philosophical, or more filled with religious principle and practical good sense, he had not heard in that House; and he congratulated the Government on having such a cause so defended by one of their chief officers. He had not been aware that this discussion would come on to-night; but he had so often declared in the House the principles which guided him in the consideration of this question, that he could at once re-state his case. He did not regard mere knowledge in itself as a benefit, but rather as an unmixed evil, when unsanctified by the blessing of God—he did not regard the existence of education without religion as a blessing to a nation or to an individual. The question was not new either to the House or the country, A few years ago attention was called to the subject; and what had been the success of the two different parties competing for public favour? The Earl of Harrowby, when a Member of that House, took the lead in the agitation, for the purpose of calling public attention to the want of Christian education, and a larger sum was raised by voluntary subscription for that object than had been collected, he believed, for any other purpose. What had the Dissenters done? It was only the other day that he saw

1291
it stated that they numbered one-half of the population of England. The assertion was ludicrous, and scarcely required comment; but assuming that they amounted to a fifth part, had they contributed a fifth part, or even one-tenth, of the sum raised by general subscription for education? They had not. The proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham, was that the nation, as a nation, should repudiate religion as the foundation of education; and if the hon. Member in his reply should tell him that it would not be excluded from the general teaching of the country, he answered, no thanks to him, for he was doing what he could to exclude it. So far as his Motion was concerned, so far did he exclude it from the national system; and the House was called upon to establish the principle that education would be fitly and properly carried on without that element. He gave the hon. Member for the West Riding credit for not wishing to be a party to support such a proposition; but that was not the question. He did, in fact, support it by voting in favour of a proposition that a nation ought properly to adopt a plan for educating all its subjects without reference to religion. As the hon. and learned Solicitor General had correctly said, the people were called on, in addition to all their voluntary subscriptions for the furtherance of education, which were greater than the State provisions for that object of any other country in the world, to support a rate, the object of which they abhorred. Was that language too strong, when it was considered that the plan of the hon. Member for Oldham proposed to compel a Christian parent to pay for the education of his own children, or the children of his neighbours, with an utter absence of all those hopes and lessons of wisdom which the Bible alone could give, and leave them to chance—aye, chance—for instruction in that which alone rendered knowledge precious, and life valuable? If they compelled a parish, or the thousands of parishes in England, to support a system which the major part of the inhabitants abominated, could they justify the attempt by "a plea on behalf of liberty of conscience?" and, if successful, were they not doing that which, as far as in them lay, would bring up a generation of infidels? He regretted that his right hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gladstone) was not then present in the House; and he was authorised by his
1292
right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) to express his regret that he also was absent, from indisposition; but he (Sir R. H. Inglis) felt that the sentiments of both his right hon. Friends had been so fully and completely expressed in this House upon the subject, that it would be well understood that nothing but unavoidable absence had prevented them from making their statements to the House on this occasion. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) had asked them what a stranger was likely to think who had entered that House for a first time, and listened to the debate of that night? But he (Sir R. Inglis) would ask, could the stranger have supposed it possible that this question having no longer ago than the 5th of June last been discussed and decided by a majority of 287 against 58 for the proposal of the hon. Member for Oldham [see 3 Hansard, cxi. 756], they would so soon have had it again brought under the consideration of the House? And let the House bear this in mind, that what the hon. Member then desired to engage the House to recognise and admit was in the shape of a Bill, on which, even if the second reading had been agreed to, the House might have had some locus penitentiœ in the future stages; but they had now to deal with a Resolution which contained the very essense of that Bill, and committed the House to the whole principle; and he did trust that there would be such a majority recorded against it that they would not again hear of the subject another year. The hon. Member for the West Riding had alluded to the Irish Colleges, in which he said the principle of the Member for Oldham's plan was embodied and in practical operation. Upon that subject he (Sir R. Inglis) saw no reason to alter the views he had once expressed; but if he believed it to be an evil in the case of Ireland, it was not the fact of its having been adopted in Ireland that would justify him in giving his consent to its adoption in England. On the contrary, in exact proportion as he saw encouragement given to it elsewhere, in that exact proportion was he bound to resist its introduction here. With the deep conviction on his mind that the proposition—plausible to some minds, but little adapted to catch the feelings or the principles of the great body of the people of England—was itself of a most deleterious character, he did trust that the House would reject it now as they did the kindred Motion last

1293
year; and that if it were again brought forward it would again be rejected by such majorities as to prove that this House at least recognised the principle of Christian and religious education, and that they would not sanction any plan of education for their fellow-subjects which was not founded on the love and fear of God, our Creator and our Redeemer.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, with respect to the remark made by the hon. Member for the West Riding, as to the impression which would be made upon a stranger, listening to the speeches which had been addressed to the House that night, he entirely agreed as to the views which that stranger was likely to take. He (Mr. S. Herbert) thought that any stranger listening to the debate would suppose the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. J. Fox) was desirous of abolishing the Established Church of this country. Such a person, knowing the general tone of opinion held by hon. Members occupying the different benches of that House, would justly and naturally conclude that that was the object, as it would be the result, of such a system wherever it was introduced. He (Mr. S. Herbert) rejoiced at the spirit of toleration which had been displayed on the subject of education, but protested against people arguing this question by appealing to the amount of ignorance and vice existing in this country, as though they alone were the persons who objected to ignorance and who detested vice, and that if the House did not adopt their system, it would render itself liable to the charge of conniving at that ignorance and vice. He apprehended there was no question on which there was such unanimous agreement in that House and in the country, as that, first, that education must be extended; and, secondly, that that education, differing entirely from that proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham, must be not only secular but likewise religious. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden) had referred to the system of education pursued in Massachusetts; but there was a difference of habits in a new as distinguished from an old country, and that system which was applicable to the one was almost necessarily inapplicable to the other; arid the hon. Gentleman forgot that he was contemplating Massachusetts instead of England. The hon. Member said, in the schools at Massachusetts the Bible was universally read, without any comments being made by the teachers. He
1294
(Mr. S. Herbert) believed that was contrary to the rule involved in the system proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham. Now he (Mr. S. Herbert) defied them to read the Bible in schools without note or comment. They might as well put a Hebrew or a Greek book into a child's hands to read without assistance, as to endeavour to teach a child the Bible without note or comment. And, moreover, he would tell them this—that if, on the other hand, they excluded the Bible from their system of education, they would not get children to come to their schools. When the hon. Gentleman said that he did not wish to do away with the voluntary system of education, he would beg to ask what private individual could enter into competition with the State? For should his plan be adopted, none but State schools could exist. The Irish system of education had been referred to in the course of the debate. He did not disapprove of the Irish system; on the contrary, he would adduce it as an argument against the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham. It was not true that that was a system from which religion was excluded—he would venture to say, if the hon. Gentleman would go into the national schools of Ireland—he did not say all, but most of those schools—he would be forced to admit that an Irish child educated there would stand a better examination in scriptural reading and scriptural knowledge than an English child. That which was taught to them in those schools they knew better, partly because there was a greater aptitude for learning in an Irish child than an English one, and partly because there was a greater aptitude on the part of the instructors there; but he denied that there was an exclusion of religious teaching in those schools. In addition to that, probably in no University, so far as they had yet gone, had the principle of imparting religious instruction to young men of different religious persuasions been so well recognised as in the new Queen's Universities in Ireland. It had been asked in the course of the debate—What were the clergy doing? Now, he was able to quote from the evidence of Mr. Moseley, one of the inspectors of schools, that the proportion of expenditure applied to the purposes of education by the clergy in England, greatly exceeded their fair share in proportion to their incomes, and greatly exceeded the share given by persons from whose position in society larger

1295
contributions might have been expected. He thought the clergy, as a body, had been most unjustly held up as the enemies of popular education. He believed the clergy devoted their time to the education of the poor to an extent which was not generally believed. In towns they were inadequate to the work, from the number of the flocks; but he trusted this defect would soon be remedied. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had contrasted the intellectual condition of a manufacturing with that of a rural population. He (Mr. S. Herbert) believed it to be perfectly true that there was a much greater sharpness of intellect and a greater keenness of wit in a town than in an agricultural population. That was the very result of their aggregation in large masses and of the nature of their employment, which had a tendency to develop their intellect; but it must be admitted at the same time, that there existed in towns an opposite extreme which did not prevail in agricultural districts. He contended that no system of education could be successful which was not founded on the full development of the religious system of each religious denomination. He was a Churchman, but he did not undervalue the labours of the Dissenting bodies of this country. He knew how much the country was indebted to them; but the Church is the larger body, and must take the larger share of the work. He hoped those differences which had existed between the Committee of Education of the Privy Council, and some of the educational bodies in this country, might be soon terminated. He felt certain that a great deal of the difficulties which had been experienced between the Committee of Education and those bodies might be got rid of: the disagreements were really not so great as they were imagined to be. He believed everything that the Committee of Education wished to see adopted, they might have attained through the means of simple recommendations, though they have failed in carrying out the same measures, the adoption of which they insisted upon. It was an invasion of our old municipal and parochial systems to have particular stipulations enforced from a central board; and he repeated his belief that the Committee of Education would have succeeded better in carrying out their objects if their wishes had been conveyed in the form of simple recommendations, instead of orders. They could not get rid of religious
1296
differences by excluding all the different opinious held by different denominations, or by paring them down to a form to which none of them would submit. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) had adverted to the congregation of immense numbers of persons, mostly from the sister country, in the large towns of the kingdom. Any one wishing to be acquainted with the condition of those large masses of the population should read the testimony of the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel, who said there was that lack of religious and educational knowledge in this country which produced the greatest amount of practical heathenism. He (Mr S. Herbert) looked with very great alarm on the great increase of that class of the population, from the absence of religious instruction in the large towns in which they were collected; and if it were for no other reason than that, he hoped the Government would apply themselves to the discovery of some method of increasing the amount of religious instruction, without invading the religious feelings of the country in the way proposed by the Motion before the House. Whatever religious education was to be got by the children of the poor man, was to be got at the school, and the school only. The parents were at work, and the child at a certain age was carried off from school to work also; and if they placed the child of a poor man at school, which was the place where he got the whole of his religious education, and at the same time forbade instruction in religion while he was at school, they were practically debarring him from all religious instruction whatever. They had it on divine authority, "Suffer little children to come unto me;" but by this process they said that little children should not come to be taught religious knowledge. He submitted that such a system tended to dry up the very sources of salvation. If they excluded all religious instruction from the school, they would virtually deprive the children of the poor of all chance of being grounded in the simplest elements of Christianity. On these grounds he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham.
MR. HEYWORTHexpressed his conviction that the noble and generous principle of voluntaryism would ultimately succeed in giving to the people of this country all the education they would receive, and would give it to them of the best possible kind. It was a delusion to say that they were giving a gratuitous education to the

1297
poor if they gave it through the medium of taxation, because there was no mode of taxation which they could adopt which did not ultimately fall on the shoulders of the labouring man. There were hundreds and thousands who contributed voluntarily and with pleasure to promote the cause of education among the people. He himself did not give less than 200 l. a year towards voluntary education, and he gave it from the principle of self-love. If they levied a tax for the purposes of education, they would stop the issues of the voluntary system. He thought the system proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham was a vicious one, and he would vote against it.
MR. W. J. FOX,in reply, said, when he considered the principle on which the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) avowedly started, viz., that knowledge was an evil unmixed, he ceased to wonder at the astounding apprehensions which the hon. Baronet entertained with regard to the measure which he (Mr. W. J. Fox) wished to introduce. He hoped, however, that the hon. Baronet was singular in that view. From what had passed in the debate, it might have been supposed they were discussing church extension rather than the question of education. He (Mr. W. J. Fox) agreed thus far with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. A. B. Hope), that they could not separate religious from secular education. He believed that no man engaged in any study whatever without having a religious tendency; but everybody knew the distinction that was made between religious and secular education in the ordinary concerns of life, and he thought it not a little hard that that distinction, which was so common, should have been fixed as an imputation on those who supported the proposition which he had brought before the House. He was brought up with religious views different from those of a majority of that House; but his notion of a Church was that they brought within its fold not only the sheep, but the lambs—not only the adults, but the children; and his great object was to extend to all of them the blessings of education. It had been said, that this was a Motion to exclude religion—it might as well have been said it was a Motion to exclude the sun. He did not propose to leave out religion as one of the means of developing the whole of a human being's nature, but he maintained that the minister of religion and the parent could alone give religious education
1298
to a child. As to the Bible, wherever it could he read, so as not to have the effect of exclusion, he thought it was desirable and useful that it should be read; but he would not consent to its being the means of exclusion to the children of any class whatever.
The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 139: Majority 90.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

O'Brien, J.

Anstey, T. C.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Bass, M. T.

Power, Dr.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Rawdon, Col.

Blake, M. J.

Russell, F. C. H.

Blewitt, R. J.

Salwey, Col.

Brotherton, J.

Scholefield, W.

Clay, J.

Smith, J. B.

Cobden, R.

Spearman, H. J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Talbot, J. H.

Ellis, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Ewart, W.

Thompson, Col.

Fergus, J.

Thornely, T.

Geach, C.

Tollemache, hon. F. G.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Trelawny, J. S.

Grace, O. D. J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Greene, J.

Wakley, T.

Hastie, A.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Headlam, T. E.

Willcox, B. M.

Henry, A.

Williams, J.

Heywood, J.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

Willyams, H.

Hutt, W.

Wilson, M.

Lushington, C.

TELLERS.

Melgund, Visct.

Fox, W. J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Dunne, Col.

Ashley, Lord

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Evelyn, W. J.

Baldock, E. H.

Farrer, J.

Bankes, G.

Fellowes, E.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bellew, R. M.

Filmer, Sir E.

Bennet, P.

Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. J. W.

Berkeley, Adm.

Forbes, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Blair, S.

Frewen, C. H.

Blandford, Marq. of

Fuller, A. E.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Broadley, H.

Goold, W.

Brockman, E. D.

Gordon, Adm.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Greenall, G.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Grenfell, C. P.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Grenfell, C. W.

Burroughes, H. N.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Childs, S.

Grey, R. W.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Hamilton, G. A.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Hamilton, J. H.

Crowder, R. B.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Denison, J. E.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Dodd, G.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Drummond, H. H.

Hawes, B.

Duncuft, J.

Heald, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Henley, J. W.

Dundas, G.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Heyworth, L.

1299

Hodges, T. L.

Price, Sir R.

Hope, A.

Prime, R.

Hotham, Lord

Pugh, D.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Rice, E. R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Richards, R.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Rushout, Capt.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Langston, J. H.

St. George, C.

Lawley, hon. B. R.

Seaham, Visct.

Lewis, G. C.

Seymour, Lord

Lewisham, Visct.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Smollett, A.

Locke, J.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Lockhart, A. E.

Spooner, R.

Long, W.

Stafford, A.

Mackie, J.

Stanford, J. F.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Stanley, E.

Magan, W. H.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Stuart, H.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Meux, Sir H.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Moody, C. A.

Taylor, T. E.

Morgan, O.

Tollemache, J.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Townshend, Capt.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Tyler, Sir G.

Napier, J.

Vesey, hon. T.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Villiers, Visct.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Walter, J.

O'Connell, J.

Wegg-Prosser, F. R.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Paget, Lord A.

Wigram, L. T.

Paget, Lord C.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Pakington, Sir J.

Wilson, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wodehouse, E.

Parker, J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Patten, J. W.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Perfect, R.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Pigott, F.

TELLERS.

Pilkington, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hill, Lord M.

HOPS.
MR. T. L. HODGESthen rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to reduce the excise duty on hops. The object of the Bill which he proposed to introduce, if the House would allow him, was to reduce the excise duty on British hops from 2d. to 1d. per pound; the duty at present owing to Government to be paid in full. The duty on hops was a very ancient source of revenue to the Crown. They were originally imported from Flanders, but at last some enterprising Englishmen brought over the plant, and from that time they had been largely grown in England. In 1711 a duty of 1d. a pound was imposed upon British, and 3d. a pound on foreign hops. In 1804 Mr. Pitt doubled the duty on English hops, and raised that on foreign hops considerably. At the time that the duty on British hops was thus increased, there was an artificial rise in the prices of agricultural produce, from the effect of the paper currency, sufficient to justify the measure. But when that currency ceased in 1819, the difficulty of paying this double
1300
duty commenced, and had gone on increasing. Notwithstanding this, however, and the fact that the duty on foreign hops had been since reduced, the double duty on British hops had been maintained. He felt convinced, however, that the farmers would not much longer have the means of meeting the demand; and he hoped that the House would therefore allow him to bring in a Bill to reduce the duty, and at the same time to put an end to the system of credit in the payment of the duties which had proved so onerous to the growers. Against that system the Commissioners of Excise had expressed a strong opinion in their sixteenth report, and had recommended that arrangements should be adopted, by which the collection of this duty should be assimilated to that of other excise duties. His Bill would have only one enacting clause—to reduce the duty to 1d., and to make that duty payable within the year that the crop was grown. This would only be doing justice to the consumer, while it would relieve the hop-planter most effectually.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the reduction of the Excise Duty on Hops."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he could not, consistently with his public duty, agree to the Motion of his hon. Friend. He was willing to admit that his hon. Friend's proposal was not open to the objections which had been taken to former Motions of the same kind, for he did not propose to put a second time into the pockets of the hop growers the duty which they had already received from the consumers. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend that the system of extended credit given to the hop growers (at their own request, however), had proved a most mischievous boon to them, and that it would be a great advantage to them that it should be put an end to. Had his hon. Friend merely proposed to effect that object, the Government would not have opposed the Motion; but he proposed also to reduce the duty, which was quite a distinct question. His hon. Friend said, that at the time the protecting duty on foreign hops was reduced, that on home-grown hops was not. When, however, a duty was prohibitory, it signified little what was its amount, and that the duty on foreign hops was now as nearly prohibitory as possible, was shown by the fact that while 48,000,000 pounds of homegrown hops paid duty last year, only

1301
250,000 lbs. of foreign hops came in. The argument which his hon. Friend grounded upon the reduction of the protective duty, would not, therefore, stand him in much stead. If his proposition had been to reduce somewhat the duty on both homegrown and foreign hops in favour of the consumer, there would have been something in its favour. But the present proposition was to reduce the duty on home-grown hops, leaving that on foreign hops as at present—prohibitory; the effect of which would be simply to put into the pocket of the producer the amount of the difference between the present duty and that which was proposed. Everybody who had considered a subject of this kind must admit that when a party was in possession of a monopoly, the duty they paid was, one year with another, reimbursed to them by the consumer. No drug came into competition with hops, and the producer therefore enjoyed a complete monopoly. He quite admitted that there were some exceptional circumstances in which the producer paid the duty; and he would state to the House in what they consisted. They had been created by the hop growers themselves, who had brought into cultivation a greater quantity of land than formerly, and had by this means, and by improved cultivation, in fact, increased the produce far beyond the demand of the country. Without troubling the House with many figures, he would show them how this was so, and he would in the first place premise that since the year 1830, with the exception of 1847, the duty on hops had been regularly paid. Taking the three years, 1843, 1844, and 1845, the production of hops had been 30,000,000 lbs. In 1843, the price of hops was 120 s. per cwt.; and in 1845 it had risen to 150 s. per cwt. The hop growers, under these apparently favourable circumstances, thought it advisable to increase the produce, and brought fresh land into cultivation. So in 1846, 1847, and 1848, the production of hops was nearly 47,000,000 lbs.; the consequence was a fall to 75 s. a cwt. in the year 1847. This depreciation took place before a single bag of foreign hops came in, for the first importation took place in 1849. In 1849, there was a rise again in the price, which led to the experiment of bringing in a very insignificant quantity of foreign hops. In 1850 the produce was 48,000,000 lbs.; the consequence was another great fall in the price. His hon. Friend had spoken of the
1302
inevitable ruin which would ensue from the payment of the duty now due; but he must warn the House against such representations. They had been repeated year after year. In the autumn of 1848, a most important deputation waited upon him. It was composed of noble Lords, Members of Parliament, bankers, landowners, country gentlemen, solicitors, clergymen, and a considerable number of hop planters; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Hodges) acted as the master of the ceremonies. The deputation stated that if the payment of the duty was insisted upon, the whole hop-growing interest would be ruined absolutely and entirely, and that the whole population would be thrown out of work. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) felt that he was hard-hearted; but he did insist upon the duty, and the consequence was that the 200,000 l. was all paid up within a month, with the exception of 5,000 l., and he could not find that any such consequences as had been anticipated did in fact occur. Much the same thing happened last autumn; and when hon. Gentlemen represented year after year that they would be ruined, and, nevertheless, went on much as before, they could not expect that he could place very implicit reliance on their statements. There was a system of agitation upon this subject going on in the counties of Kent and Sussex, which was anything but creditable to the parties themselves. They held out distinct threats to their tenants, to induce them not to pay. He held in his hand a copy of a letter which had been published in a Sussex paper by a gentleman named Neve, who was agent to some gentlemen in that county, and which he would read to the House:—
"Benenden, Staplehurst, Nov. 16, 1850.
"Sir—As the collection of the hop duty will take place previous to Mr. Moorland's rent audit, I am directed by him to inform his tenants that those of them who pay their hop duty he will expect to pay their rent; therefore those who cannot pay both, I hope will see it right to pay their rent first, and let the Government have the odium I of putting in distresses, if they think fit to resort to such extremity. In adopting this course, I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Moorland, as well as other landlords, is acting under my advice in this matter. "THOMAS NEVE."
Now that was the duty of two years back. He did not think that such a proposition was fair. The hon. Gentleman knew, perhaps, who Mr. Neve was?
MR. HODGES: He is my steward.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUER: Let the House bear in mind that this was written with regard to the duty, which, although received by the grower on the sale of his hops, which were sold at duty-paid prices, had been held by him, for his own benefit, for no less than two years. In his Budget he had left himself with a probable surplus for the next year of 350,000 l. If he consented to this Motion, he should reduce the revenue by 400,000 l., and leave himself unable to fulfil his promises. Upon these grounds, therefore, he resisted the Motion of the hon. Member.
MR. A. B. HOPEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to consider it a good joke when he acquainted the House with the result of his hard-heartedness in extracting the hop duty out of persons who said that they would be utterly ruined if he persevered. No doubt the hop growers had paid the duty—they had paid it out of their capital. However, all things had an end, and the right hon. Gentleman might be assured of this—that the smash, when it came, would only be the greater. But if all the right hon. Gentleman had said were true, what did it amount to? Merely this—the men of Kent (under circumstances of extreme suffering and distress) paid the hop duty, and they got laughed at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for their honesty. If the right hon. Gentleman bought a farm in Kent, and took to hop growing, he would come back to the House with new ears and eyes, an addition which would unquestionably be useful to him. He had taunted them with having brought forward many propositions. It was true that they had; but if the Government had proposed some remedy—as it was their duty—the representatives of the hop growers would be saved the odium of presenting to the House a multitude of schemes. With regard to the taunt of over-production, if the right hon. Gentleman took the farm to which he alluded, he would find out that there was no crop which depended more upon the fluctuations of the weather; a single unfavourable night was sufficient to ruin it entirely. Had they, then, the command of the winds and weather?—could they know the exact amount of land to put into cultivation? In conclusion, he would support the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hodges).
MR. BASSwished to refer to a former speech of his, which had been wrongly construed by the noble Lord the Member
1304
for Colchester (Lord John Manners). Upon that occasion, he (Mr. Bass) had not contended that it was the importation of foreign hops which led to a diminished cultivation—a reason which had been put forward on the other side as the main one for the admitted suffering of the hop growers. He had, on the contrary, endeavoured to show that it was the extreme fluctuations of the plant which led to this distress. What were the facts? Why, in 1837, there were 56,000 acres of land in cultivation for hops; in 1843, there were only 43,000 acres; in 1847, there were 52,000 acres; and in 1850 the number had again fallen to 43,000 acres. In his opinion, it was mainly the producer who paid the duty. That might seem a contradiction in political economy; but a few words would show that, owing to the extreme fluctuation of the plant, the fact was so. In 1843, 44,000 acres produced only 62,000 l. of duty, while in 1847 the same number of acres produced 424,000 l. of duty. One year with another, therefore, it was the producer who paid the duty, especially when it was remembered that the price of the crop fluctuated from 3l. a ton to 30 l.
SIR EDMUND FILMER,as Member for West Kent, would feel ashamed if he did not support the Motion before the House. He believed he might defy the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go into the Weald of Kent, or Mid-Kent, and find a tenant who had not for the last two years paid his rent out of capital, and not from his profits.
MR. FULLERconsidered that if they did not take off 1d. in the pound, they ought at least to make the protecting duty 3l. 5s. instead of 2l. 5s. Foreign hops paid the same excise duty when taken out of bond as was now paid by the English grown at the end of the year, whether sold or not. There were about 7,100 growers of hops, and 1,000,000 of people were employed in the cultivation. The war tax was imposed on hops by the Addington Administration, when hops were sold at from 10 l. to 15 l. per cwt. Hops had not fetched since 1845 5l. per cwt. A relation of his, during the Earl of Liverpool's Administration got 1d. in the pound taken off. As his Lordship was a hop grower himself, he knew how uncertain the growth of hops was; and he (Mr. Fuller) wished the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer grew hops, for he would then know how the hop grower suffered. He

1305
(Mr. Fuller) was confident if 10 d. a quarter was taken off malt, and 1d. per pound off hops, the consumption would be so great that the revenue would not suffer to any great extent; for when the duty was taken off spirits the consumption doubled and trebled. The hop manufacturer paid heavily in land-tax, tithes, and rates, and for the raw material of his manufacture on the land; yet not only was he heavily taxed, but taxed before he could bring his commodity to market. The cotton manufacturer, on the other hand, paid no tax whatever; his raw material was free of duty, at the expense of 20,000,000 l. to the whole community. He thought this was not fair dealing between the hop grower and the cotton manufacturer.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwas always an humble but persevering supporter of any proposition for the relief of the agricultural interests; but when he saw hon. Members giving their votes in favour of a Government which opposed every suggestion for that purpose, he could not reconcile himself to vote in favour of a partial measure introduced by such hon. Members. If his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hodges) was to disengage himself from his present company—noscitur a sociis, and bring forward a general measure for the relief of all classes, he should have his support, but not otherwise. If the hon. Gentleman would not leave his present bad company, he could not expect support from that (the Protectionist) side of the House.
MR. FREWEN,said, after what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, he could not but express his regret also that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hodges) always opposed the Motions made in that House for the relief of agriculture. He thought there was no part of the kingdom in which so much distress existed as in the hop districts. There was no tax so unjust as that, and it was the only one which remained unrepealed since the war. He had his doubts as to the accuracy of the prices of hops during the former years as stated by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not know upon what authority the right hon. Gentleman had made his statement. One house in the borough might tell one thing, and another another thing; but a good deal depended upon the quality of the hops taken. Even in one year the hops grown in one part of the country brought a much higher price than those grown in another. He had heard of so much as
1306
6l. 10 s. being paid in Sussex, but the average price was only 3l. 7s. The planters in the Weald of Kent must have lost at least 1l. per acre on an average. One great claim which the hop planters had on Government for a reduction of duty was founded upon the precarious nature of the crop. When the hop growers got the lowest price for their hops, they had the highest amount of duty to pay; and he therefore hoped the Government would take the case into their earliest consideration. He (Mr. Frewen) doubted if a single landowner received, in the Rape of Hastings, one quarter of his rental for 1850.
MR. COBDENsaid, he could not understand the tactics of the friends and advisers of the hop growers, because they asked for everything that was impracticable, and would not allow those who were disposed to vote for the removal of the excise tax, through their advocacy of a principle that no one could approve. Why, here was a tax producing little more than 300,000 l. a year, and they had a whole army of taxgatherers to collect it, spread over only four or five counties; and nothing so barbarous could scarcely be conceived out of Turkey as the system they had of levying a tax so small in amount. Why, if the hop growers of Kent, Sussex, and elsewhere would only unite amongst themselves on a common principle to do away with this impost altogether, nothing would be easier than for them to succeed in it; but there were some great growers of hops in certain parts of Kent who did not want the duty to be taken off, and some others said they would not have the whole repealed, but only one-half; and then they mixed the question up with some childish fears about free-trade principles. He (Mr. Cobden felt naturally some sympathy with the growers of Sussex; but if they wanted to get relieved, they must go for the total abolition, and then they would have the support of the free-traders. So long as they made two bites of a cherry, and wanted to keep up the whole of the machinery to get in only half the tax, they might depend upon it no Chancellor of the Exchequer would compromise his character by dealing with the matter in that way; and if he should, that House ought not to be inclined to support him in it.
MR. PLUMPTRE,from his connexion with the hop growers of East Kent, could state that they would be glad to have the

1307
penny in the pound taken off, which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hodges) proposed; and therefore he should cordially support the Motion.
MR. HODGES,in reply, said, with respect to the letter from Mr. Neve, he had heard nothing of it until he had seen it in a newspaper.
Question put, "That leave be given to bring in the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 88: Majority 61.

List of the AYES.

Baldock, E. H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Bass, M. T.

Portal, M.

Bennet, P.

Rushout, Capt.

Blackstone, W. S.

Scholefield, W.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Spooner, R.

Child, S.

Stanford, J. F.

Dodd, G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Frewen, C. H.

Tyler, Sir G.

Fuller, A. E.

Waddington, H. S.

Goold, W.

Wakley, T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wegg-Prosser, F. R.

Hodgson, W. N.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Hope, A.

TELLERS.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

Hodges, T. L.

Mullings, J. R.

Filmer, Sir E.

List of the NOES.

Ashley, Lord

Heywood, J.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Heyworth, L.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Hindley, C.

Bell, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bellew, R. M.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Blake, M. J.

Howard, Sir R.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Hume, J.

Brotherton, J.

Hutt, W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H

Clay, J.

Langston, J. H.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Lawley, hon. B. R.

Cobden, R.

Lewis, G. C.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Coke, Hon. E. K.

Locke, J.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Lushington, C.

Crowder, R. B.

Mackie, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Matheson, Col.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Drummond, H. H.

Milner, W. M. E.

Duncuft, J.

Morris, D.

Dundas, Adm.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Dundas, G.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Farrer, J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Fellowes, E.

Paget, Lord A.

Fordyce, A. D.

Paget, Lord C.

Fox, W. J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Parker, J.

Geach, C.

Pigott, F.

Grenfell, C. W.

Pilkington, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir J.

Price, Sir R.

Grey, R.W.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Russell, F. C. H.

Hastie, A.

Salwey, Col.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Seymour, H. D.

Hawes, B.

Seymour, Lord

Headlam, T. E.

Sheridan, R. B.

1308

Smith, M.T.

Willyams, H.

Smollett, A.

Wilson, J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Wilson, M.

Spearman, H. J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Stanley, E.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Stuart, H.

Thompson, Col.

TELLERS.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Hayter, W. G.

Willcox, B. M.

Hill, Lord M.

KENSINGTON GARDENS.
MR. HUME MR. HUME moved for a copy of the Order in Council, or Letter from the Treasury, sanctioning the alterations lately made in Kensington Gardens by the First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That an humble address he presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there he laid before this House, a Copy of the Order in Council, or Letter from the Treasury, sanctioning the alterations lately made in Kensington Gardens by the First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests:
"And, Copy or Extract of any Memorial or application made to the Lords of the Treasury, or to the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests, for permission for horsemen to ride in Kensington Gardens."
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that he was unable to comply with the Motion of the hon. Member. No order in Council or letter from the Treasury had been issued on the subject. The pleasure of Her Majesty had been made known, and the object had been carried into effect by an order from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was informed that the alterations and arrangements which been made, ought not to have been carried out without, at all events, an order from the Treasury.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. Friend behind me is quite mistaken on that point.
MR. HUMEsaid, that he believed the proceedings that had been adopted were, then, illegal. However, if there were no documents to produce, it would not be of any use that he should press his Motion. He would, therefore, withdraw it.
MR. COBDENsaid, that the equestrians had been admitted into Kensington Gardens under a misapprehension of the inconvenience which the Exhibition would occasion in Rotten-row. If, when the matter was first talked of, it had been known that there would be no more interruption to the equestrians in the Park than there was now, Kensington Gardens, in all probability, would not have been conceded to them. At all events, he hoped that it would only be considered as a temporary

1309
concession. The Exhibition had now realised the expectations of every one, and everybody would feel a pleasure in submitting to some inconvenience to promote such an object; but after this year he hoped that Kensigton Gardens would he given up to their original object.
COLONEL SIBTHORPdenied that the Exhibition had realised any such expectations as the hon. Member for the West Riding had referred to. He was justified in making that denial, and every day produced some fresh conviction on his mind that his own impressions were right on this subject. He considered that the tradesmen of this metropolis had been grossly insulted in this matter—that which he felt much disposed to term a gross fraud had been practised upon them. In these days—these days of novelties—people seemed to have no hesitation in making every possible inroad upon the rights, properties, and liberties of Her Majesty's subjects; and they were deprived, without the hope of redress, of the rational enjoyment of these parks and gardens to which they had been so long accustomed. The Government, in order to get a little dirty and fleeting popularity, had made this innovation in Kensington Gardens. As for the building in Hyde Park, he never looked at it, except from a distance; but he always considered it a disgrace to a free country, and he regretted to find the foreigner patronised, to the injury of the heavily-taxed people of this country. People walked heedlessly in and out of that building without ever appearing to think of the money which it would be the means of tearing from the pockets of Englishmen, and all for the mere purpose of bringing together so much trumpery and trash. The ceremony on its opening he considered a desecration of religion. He must say he had much regretted to see the justly-venerated head of the Protestant Church of this country in the position in which he was placed at the inauguration of this affair. Crowds went to admire it, but they might collect crowds in any square to look at a dead cat, for, according to the old saying, one fool made many. The day would arrive—let them depend upon it—when the trade of this country, which ought to be supported in preference to that of the foreigner, would feel a stagnation for, perhaps, several years as the result of this Exhibition. He regretted the encouragement that had been given to such a measure; but it was a source of no little satisfaction
1310
to himself that he had done everything in his power to check it—to check that which he solemnly believed would he a great curse, morally, socially, and religiously, to this country.
LORD CLAUDE HAMILTONrejoiced in the success which had attended the magnificent experiment of the Great Exhibition; but the main object they all had in view still remained to be carried out, namely, the providing free and unrestrained access for the great multitudes of persons who had hitherto been kept back from visiting the Exhibition from the high prices. It would also he desirable to consider whether the present number of admission doors would in future be sufficient.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the circumstance adverted to by the noble Lord had not escaped the attention of the Commissioners; for that morning, in conjunction with the representatives of the railways, they took into consideration the most convenient mode, in reference to the parties themselves and the preservation of the public peace, of accommodating the vast multitudes whom the diminished price of admission might be expected to attract to the Exhibition. Without entering into a controversy with the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Sibthorp), he must express the great satisfaction with which he saw the magnificent spectacle now exhibited in Hyde Park, which, besides being a source of rational pleasure, would tend, he believed, to very permanent benefit to the people of this and other countries.
MR. LUSHINGTONbegged to express on the part of many of his constituents, and many of the inhabitants of Kensington, Bayswater, and Notting Hill, the great dissatisfaction with which they viewed the manner in which they had been deprived of the enjoyment of the quiet retirement of Kensington Gardens. The noble Lord (Lord Seymour) had taken occasion on a former evening to sneer at what he was pleased to term "the aristocracy of Bays-water." Now, he (Mr. Lushington) did not profess to stand there as the representative of their aristocracy—he, rather, represented their democracy; this, however, he would say, that the inhabitants of the district in which the gardens were situated, were thoroughly disgusted with the proceedings which had taken place under the sanction of the noble Lord.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The House adjourned at half-after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management.
3a Property Tax Bill.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT BILL.
The EARL of CARLISLE,in moving the Second Reading of "a Bill for the Management and Regulation of Episcopal and Capitular Estates and Revenues in England and Wales," felt himself called upon to claim the utmost forbearance and indulgence of their Lordships. He made this claim upon their Lordships from having found the subject one of a most difficult and complicated nature—one with which till within a very recent period he had been almost entirely unversed, and which, from the nature of its provisions, was almost sure to displease all the parties to whom those provisions applied. There were, however, two or three circumstances connected with it from which he derived consolation and encouragement. First of all, it was a measure entirely free from all party considerations; next, he had a firm conviction that Government in proposing it were actuated by no other motive than that of removing existing inconveniences, and of supplying existing wants. He also derived encouragement from the importance of the measure itself, and from the great advantages which it was calculated ultimately to ensure to the Church and the country at large. He likewise derived encouragement from this circumstance, that it was a measure which deserved, and, indeed, required, the most minute and careful atten-
1208
tion; and, therefore, he hoped that their Lordships would give it a second reading, in order that he might refer it to a Select Committee carefully constituted, where all its provisions might be narrowly sifted and diligently considered. None of their Lordships, by acceding to the second reading, would be pledged to the provisions of the Bill further than this, namely, to admit that the improvement of Church property, and of the means of increasing the efficiency of the Church, was a fit subject for deliberation. The management of the property of the Church had, as their Lordships well knew, long been admitted to be very unsatisfactory, and had given rise to many and just complaints. It acted unsatisfactorily, and injuriously to all parties, to the Church as well as to its lessees; to the Church, inasmuch as it produced to its dignitaries much less of the legitimate value of their property than it ought to do; and to the lessees on account of the uncertainty of the tenure inherent in the property itself, and increased of late years by the course taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed under a recent Act of Parliament, and by the discussions which the subject itself had recently undergone. Besides acting unsatisfactorily to the lessors and the lessees, it discouraged improvement, prevented the employment of capital, and promoted a negligent and imperfect system of cultivation. He did not make that, statement upon his own views alone, but on the views of men of much higher and graver authority. It was stated in the report of the Commissioners appointed in 1849 to inquire into the Episcopal and Capitular Revenues, in reference to the terms upon which renewals of leases were effected, that it appeared to them that the Church realised ordinarily from one-fourth to one-third only of the rack-rental value of its estates, the remainder being in the hands of the lessees; and that the fines were calculated so as to allow the lessees a return varying from five to ten per cent. There is a little doubt that, under a different plan of management, the estates might be made to produce a much larger income for the Church, and, at the same time, be held upon a tenure more aceeptable to the lessees. The Committee of the House of Commons which had sat upon Church Leases in 1839, used the following language in their Report:—
"Your Committee are prepared confidently to assert, that the system of raising revenue by fines, always improvident, is particularly disadvanta-

1209
geous to the church lessor, from the peculiarity of his tenure; that the objections to it are felt in leases for terms, and aggravated most materially in leases for lives. They are also convinced that the balance of inconvenience over advantage is against the lessee, and that the system tends to prevent the investment of capital in the permanent improvement of the estate, whereby a check is put to the extension of buildings in some places where they are much required, and the country is deprived of all the benefit that might be drawn from the emancipation of a great extent of land which is now excluded from the advantage of the most approved system of agriculture."
From the promulgation of opinions like these, the country at large expected that an alteration in the present system, or at least a very great modification of it, would have been effected before now; and that expectation had placed in suspense the arrangements of all parties, and had discouraged all material improvements in this description of property. With a view of sifting every branch of this important subject, and of procuring results which would be fair and satisfactory to all, Her Majesty's Government issued in 1849 a Commission—
"For the purpose of inquiring into the present system of leasing and managing the real property of the Church in England and Wales, belonging to the archbishops and bishops, to the cathedrals and collegiate churches, and the several members thereof, being corporations sole, and to the several minor corporations aggregate within the said cathedrals, and also that vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England; and for considering how, and by what system of management, such property can be rendered most productive and beneficial to the said Church, and most conducive to the spiritual welfare of the people, due regard being had to the just and reasonable claims of the present holders of such property, under lease or otherwise; and also for considering whether any and what improvement can be made in the existing law and practice relating to the incomes of the said archbishops and bishops, and of the several members of chapters, dignitaries, and officers of the said cathedrals and collegiate churches, so as best to secure to them respectively fixed, instead of fluctuating, annual incomes."
That Commission was composed of the noble Earl on the cross-bench (the Earl of Harrowby), of the Dean of Canterbury, of the present Solicitor General, of Mr. Armstrong, and of Mr. Jones. These Commissioners in the year 1850 presented two Reports, both of which had been laid on the tables of the two Houses of Parliament; and Her Majesty's Government had, after mature consideration, determined on embodying their recommendations, with scarcely any alteration, in the Bill then upon the table, and on submitting them to the consider-
1210
ation of Parliament. It was now his duty to state the sum of these recommendations, and he would do so as clearly and concisely as possible. His Lordship read the following extract from the Report of the Commissioners:—
"The tenure of such property generally is by lease, either for three lives, renewable at the dropping of any one life; for 21 years, renewable at the expiration of every seven; for 30 years, renewable every 10; or for 40 years, renewable every 14; and in such leases a rent, usually little more than nominal, is reserved, and a fine, varying in different cases (being, in fact, the principal source of emolument to the lessor), is payable at each period of renewal. Power has been obtained under special Acts of Parliament, and also under the Leasing Act passed in the fifth and sixth years of Your Majesty's reign, for granting leases for long terms of years, for building, mining, and other purposes. Some portions also of the property of the Church are let at rackrent, and others are in hand."
The rents reserved to the Church under these leases were very small, and in some cases almost nominal; but the fines taken at each renewal formed the main property of the Church. In leases for lives the custom was to assess the fine at 5 per cent or upwards, so as to secure to the lessee that rate of return for the money which he paid as his fine. In leases for terms of years the custom was to give him interest for his money at the rate of 7, of 8, and even of 10 per cent. In the ordinary case of a lease for 21 years, the fine had generally been made equivalent to a year and a half's value of the land let, which gave the lessee 7 per cent for the money which he thus laid out. Now, their Lordships must be aware that landed property in England generally sold for 30 years' purchase, which gave the purchaser little more than 3 per cent for his money. To show the difference between Church property and landed property generally, he would mention that the Church lessee who paid 5 per cent for his fine, gave 20 years' purchase for his property; if he paid 6 per cent, he gave only 16¾ years' purchase for it; and if he paid 9 per cent, he would only give 11 years' purchase. From this statement it appeared that if the bishops and deans and chapters had been in the habit of renewing leases, which secured 5 per cent to their lessees for lives, and 8 or 9 per cent to their lessees for terms of years, it would be as disadvantageous to the Church, considered as an enduring body, as if they had sold property which ought to have brought 30 years' purchase, for 11, 16, or 20 years' purchase. There

1211
was then ample opportunity for making these estates productive of a larger income for the Church, and for placing them on a tenure more acceptable to the lessees. Very opposite views had been taken as to the principle which ought to regulate the final adjustment of the rights and claims both of the lessors and the lessees of this species of property. It had been asserted by some that the Church should be dealt with as if it might properly run all its leases out, and at the end of subsisting terms enter into the absolute possession of the property. It had been asserted by others that the lessees were entitled to a renewal of their leases on the same advantageous terms which they had hitherto practically enjoyed. Now, it was clear that, according to the strict letter of the law, and according to the precedent adopted by the Crown towards its lessees—although the lessees of the Church were not, as he would show hereafter, in a situation exactly similar to that of the lessees of the Crown, an argument might be raised favourable to the extreme views taken by the Church, or, in other words, the lessors. It would, however, be a very grave matter utterly to extinguish the connexion which for ages had existed between the owners and lessees of Church lands—and, if he might use a phrase but too well known at present, to "ignore" all the advantages to which the Church lessees had hitherto been accustomed. There had been such confidence placed by the lessees of the Church in the practice and terms on which their leases were renewable, that they had long reckoned upon their property as all but equal to freehold, and had made it subject to mortgages, family settlements, and devises by will. Let it be remembered in what position the parties respectively stood. These fines constituted the actual income of existing bishops, and deans and chapters. If they did not renew the leases, they had no income. It was often the object of the lessees to wait; but the bishops could not wait; if the bishop was an old man, or in precarious health, or expecting a removal, he might be led to continue the lease at a disadvantageous rate to his successor. He (the Earl of Carlisle) was of opinion, and he thought their Lordships would agree with him, that no class of men should be less liable to an uncertain and fluctuating income than those who filled high dignities in the Church. It was therefore impossible, without the aid of Parliament, to effect an arrangement favourable to the Church
1212
by giving them power to run out the leases, which they had hitherto never failed to renew; and, to such an arrangement as that, he did not expect that Parliament would willingly assent. The Commissioners had recommended a compromise between the extreme views taken by the Church on the one side, and by the lessees on the other; and that compromise was incorporated in this Bill. The main ground of this compromise was a recommendation of the Commissioners to give to the lessees a perpetual right of renewal. That was, indeed, a large concession; but he did not see in what way their Lordships could improve the property of the Church without making some such arrangement with the lessees, who had many ways, as their Lordships could easily imagine, of making their views and just wishes felt in the other House of Parliament, and who, he was sure, would never consent, without adequate consideration, to give power to the bishops to run out their leases. It was therefore proposed that the lessees should have a perpetual right of renewal. He would first deal with the lessees for lives. That had always been deemed, and on good grounds, a most objectionable form of arrangement. It exposed both parties—both the Church and the lessee—to great precariousness and uncertainty; it might suddenly destroy the anticipations which both parties had been led to form, and compelled the lessees in many instances to insure the lives of the parties in their leases. It was, therefore, proposed to convert leases for lives into leases for an equivalent term of years. There might be cases where there were precarious and uncertain lives, and where the lives of members of the lessees' families had been insured, which might render them desirous that their leases should not at once be converted into leases for years. It was therefore proposed that in such cases the Commissioners should keep up the existing lives, and only have the power to substitute a term of years for the third or new life in the leases under which they now held. Thus in the course of a few years all leases would be brought under the category of leases for terms of years. In what way, then, did the Bill propose to deal with those leases? He would explain as briefly as he could. Suppose a farm worth clear 100 l. a year let on a lease of twenty-one years, renewable every seven. Suppose seven years to have expired, and that the lease has now fourteen years to run. In the ordinary course the lease would be re-

1213
newed, that is, another term of seven years would be added upon payment of a fine differing in different districts. The more usual fine is a year and a half's purchase, that is 150 l. in this case. This process would be repeated septennially, so that the lessee would receive a septennial fine of 150 l., which the Commissioners state to be equivalent to 25 l. per annum. Now, if the lessor should determine to run his lease out, he would receive no fine, and at the end of the fourteen years would become entitled to enter upon this farm of 100 l. a year. It was found that a perpetual rent of 100 l., to commence fourteen years hence, which was the extreme right of the lessor, was equivalent to a perpetual rent of 63 l., to commence immediately. Accordingly the beneficial interest which the lessor (the Church) practically would enjoy from this farm of 100 l. per annum under the present system of renewal, is equivalent to 25 l. per annum; but if the lessor were to run out the lease, his beneficial interest would be equivalent to 63 l. per annum. Now it was proposed by the Commissioners—and he would give their Lordships the words of the Commissioners themselves—to divide this difference between the lessors and lessees in the following way. They propose, that
—"henceforth a septennial fine should be paid to the Church, calculated at the same rate of interest as at present, but only on half the annual finable value; and that at the end of the now existing term an annual rent should thenceforth be paid to the Church equal to the other half of the annual finable value. We may in other words express the arrangement thus, viz., that as to one moiety of the annual finable value, the Church should, as it were, run out the lease; and, as to the other moiety of the annual finable value, the Church should renew the lease upon a fine calculated at the same rate of interest as at present."
Now, he would apply this to the instance which he had just selected. Instead of paying, as now, on the renewal of his lease a fine of 150 l., the lessee would have to pay a fine of 75 l. in respect of one moiety of the annual value of the property, and a like fine of 75 l. at the end of every seven years, and as to the other moiety, he would have to pay a 50 l. rent, to commence at the end of fourteen years, when his lease would, unless renewed, have expired. The Commissioners have ascertained that the septennial fine of 75 l., and the annual rent of 50 l., to commence at the end of fourteen years, are together equivalent to an annual rent of 44 l., to Commence immediately prœsenti, so that by
1214
the arrangements proposed, the lessor (the Church) would receive what is equivalent to 44 l. per annum, instead of the septennial fines of 150 l., which, as before stated, are equivalent to 25 l. per annum, showing a gain to the Church of 76 per cent on the present fines. He knew the difficulty of following such nice and intricate calculations; but the result of the arrangement was, that the Church, instead of running out the whole lease, would only run it out so far as half the annual value of the property was concerned, and, instead of receiving the fine on the whole annual value of the property, would receive it upon an annual rent equal to the other half of the annual finable value; and thus the Church would only get half of its extreme rights, and the lessee only one-half of his extreme claims. It was proposed to employ the agency of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to ascertain the precise rates of the fines now levied, that is, the proportion which the fine bears to the value of the property. Those Commissioners would also have a further power. It appeared that there were certain districts of the country, especially in the north of England, where, either from some notion of ancient right, or from invariable usage, the lessees were so confident of the renewal of their leases at the ordinary fine, that a twenty-one years' lease was of as much value as the fee-simple of the estate. In these districts, which would be defined by the Commissioners under the Bill, greater indulgence would be shown to the lessees. Instead of running out the lease as to half its annual value, and continuing the system of fines as to the other half, the lessor would in these districts run out the lease only as to one-third its annual value, and continue the system of fines as to the other two-thirds. Property in houses did not stand on the same footing as that in lands and farms; but it was intended even in that case to bring about a nearly analogous result. From the deteriorating nature of house property, it would be impossible to make a reservation of rent to the extent of half the finable value upon the expiration of the lease. It was proposed, therefore, with respect to house property, to give the lessee the right of renewal upon the present amount of fines; but in such cases there was to be reserved, besides the rent which he would have contracted to pay, a further additional rent, equivalent to half

1215
the value of the right now to renewal to be conferred upon him. By these means the advantage would be divided between the lessor and the lessee in equal proportion as in the other cases. Property in mines was to be placed on the same footing as property in land. There was, however, one species of property which was not to be put on the same footing as other property, and that was tithe rent-charges. The greater portion of these rentcharges were let on leases for lives or twenty-one years. The Commissioners were of opinion that they should be dealt with on different principles from those suggested for the management of land. They recommended that they should be suffered to run out, and not be renewed, except in special cases, to be approved by the central board. They founded this recommendation on the fact that these rentcharges had neither been formed by the past exertions, nor were likely to be improved by the joint future exertions, of lessees and lessors; there was not here the plea of lands being intermixed with other freehold lands of the lessee; and they stated generally that there were no circumstances of association and attachment to the property like those which actuated the leaseholder who had long occupied the estate, and might have other freehold property in the district. With respect to manorial rights, he thought they could hardly be looked upon as a very fitting ecclesiastical appanage: it was therefore proposed to let the leases run out, or to put them up for sale, or otherwise dispose of them. It was also proposed, in cases of copyhold property, to give the lessees facilities for enfranchising their lauds by surrender; and any money accruing from this or any other source was to be vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—first, for the purposes of this Act, and next, for the purposes of the Act under which they received their appointment. He had not mentioned what was proposed to be done with respect to timber—a species of property which had suffered most from the existing arrangement. The lessee had no right to cut it; the lessor had no right of entry on the land, and therefore had no power to cut it; and the lessee, having no interest in it, would neither enclose nor protect it. The consequence was, that the timber on the estates of the Church was in a very bad and unsatisfactory condition. It was therefore proposed that all timber now growing on the leasehold es-
1216
tates held under the Church should be valued at the next period of renewal, and paid for by the lessee, and thenceforth be considered as his property. It was also proposed that the future fines should be assessed upon the value of the land, without reference to any timber growing thereon. There were also facilities provided for the reimbursement of any sums expended, either by the lessor or the lessee, for the improvement of the estate, which would occasion unusual outlay; but, in future, those arrangements would be made on a valuation at the end of every twenty-one years, instead of every seven years, as at present, a circumstance which would be at once a benefit to the lessee, and a security to the interests of the Church, for it would afford scope for the improvement of the property, without depriving the Church of any ultimate advantage which might accrue from that improvement. He thought that these details would remove from the Bill the imputation that it was a Bill for the alienation of the property of the Church. He would not defend himself from such an imputation, as he trusted that, with his well-known opinions, it was quite unnecessary. He thought the Bill would enable the Church to improve its property, and by its improvement to increase its means for the spiritual instruction of the people. Such were the material provisions of the Bill, so far as regarded the relations between the Church and the lessees of its estates. The Bill also comprised other arrangements not wanting in importance for the management of the estates vested in bishops, deans, and chapters. It would give to those high dignitaries fixed instead of fluctuating incomes. That had always been the intention of the Legislature, but hitherto it had been inadequately realised. Some bishops had received more, others less, than the income intended for them. To put an end to this state of things, to secure the regularity of the incomes of the right rev. Prelates, and to guard them against any injury which might accrue from this change of system, it was proposed in the case of all bishops appointed subsequently to the passing of the Act of 1848, to vest the management of their estates in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the bishops receiving in the meantime the fixed incomes assigned to them by law until they were provided with separate estates and endowments to that amount, while the surplus was to be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners

1217
for the purposes of that Commission. It was not proposed to take the management of the corporate estates belonging to our cathedral and collegiate churches, nor the estates of deans and chapters, out of the hands of those bodies. Where their incomes were fixed by law, those incomes would be paid to them. Any deficiency would be made good by the Commissioners, and the sums so advanced would be charged on the estates attached to their incumbencies. In order to provide for any unforeseen emergency which might arise out of these changes, power was given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to borrow money on debentures. With respect to the whole measure which he had now introduced to their Lordships—and he well knew how imperfectly—he had only to repeat the observations with which he had commenced, that he presented it to them in the hope that it would receive their careful and deliberate consideration. If their Lordships should take, as he hoped they would do, the usual course of reading the Bill a second time, and should then refer it to a Select Committee, they would be able to decide which of its provisions ought to remain, and which ought to be omitted. It was not for him to give advice to the right rev. bench of Bishops—advice as to the course which they ought to pursue: but this he might be permitted to say, that he thought it would be impracticable to carry through Parliament, as it was at present constituted, or as it might be hereafter constituted, any Bill for the purpose of enabling the Church to run out its leases, and to enter into the full enjoyment of their estates without full consideration for the lessees—and that even in ease such a provision could be carried, it would be matter of doubt whether it would be prudent that bishops and ecclesiastical dignitaries should be changed into the holders of landed property, and become landlords at rackrents, and liable to all the inconveniences and vicissitudes of such a position. If such a large amount of income could be raised by such a measure as the present for the benefit of the Church—an amount which in the opinion of some might be doubled and even tripled by the new system of management—if such an increase of revenue could be realised for the Church either by this or any similar measure—then he put it to the right rev. Bench to consider whether it would not be most conducive to their own interests to give—he
1218
would not say a courteous and careful, but a scrutinising and even suspicious, attention to its provisions. Feeling confidence in the character of the measure itself, and in the advantages which it was calculated to produce, and feeling confidence also in the character of the illustrious body to whom he submitted it, he now moved that this Bill be read a second time.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYsaid: My Lords, the noble Earl who has opened this complicated and delicate subject to the House with so much clearness and candour began by saying, that he approached the subject with much anxiety; and I trust that your Lordships will give me credit when I say, that I rise with peculiar reluctance and embarrassment on the present occasion. It is not without the greatest pain that I speak a word in disparagement of a measure proposed by Her Majesty's Government, with a sincere desire, I am assured, of promoting the best interests of the Church. And I know that it proceeded from a Commission which has been justly characterised by the noble Earl, two of the Members of which I had the privilege of naming, and which had no other object (it could have no higher object) than to make better provision for the religious wants of the community. Under these sentiments, which are shared, as I know, by my right rev. Brethren around me, no other than the strongest motives could impel me to desire any delay in the second reading of the Bill. But, my Lords, we are impelled by the strongest motives, by a paramount sense of duty, to express our apprehensions regarding this measure. We cannot, as at present advised, give assent to the principle of a Bill which we consider as tantamount to an alienation of the last remaining possessions of the Church—possessions of which the corporations now holding them are for the time trustees and guardians, and which their successors have a right to receive from them, as they received them from their predecessors. My Lords, the Bill before us gives to present lessees of Church property the right of perpetual renewal; and the right of perpetual renewal seems to us to be possession. To concede such possession seems to us the violation of a trust which we cannot conscientiously surrender. But, my Lords, the noble Earl has declared, in the distinctest terms, that in sending this Bill to a Select Committee, we do not pledge ourselves to support it finally, or to admit the principle of per

1219
petual renewal. My Lords, if this can, be established and generally understood, the apprehensions which influence me will be greatly relieved. I had apprehended that, according to Parliamentary usage, a Select Committee would have the power of inquiring into the several clauses of the Bill, of examining, revising, and changing its details; but not of altering its general purport, or of inquiring generally into the subject of Church leases. It could not be at liberty to inquire, for instance, whether any better mode than that proposed in the Bill might be devised for delivering the estates of the Church from their present state of thraldom, and making them more available to the general interests of the Church at large. But if I am misinformed in this respect, and if the Committee are at liberty, not only to consider the present measure, but to receive such other plans of treating this property as may be proposed, to compare them with the recommendation of the Commission, and report to your Lordships the result of their deliberations, the object which we had in view in desiring the postponement of the Bill will be, in a great measure, attained. If it shall then appear, after the large and full inquiries of the Committee, that no better mode of dealing with Church property can be recommended, more free from the objections to which the present measure is exposed, we shall still have that measure before us; and if it be then approved by your Lordships, our consciences will be so far relieved that we shall not be yielding to a primâ facie expediency, but to a sort of moral necessity. For your Lordships must not suppose that, in objecting to the proposed change, I am defending the present system. The present system is neither defensible in theory nor satisfactory in practice, and has nothing to recommend it except that it has been acted on for 300 years. I am so far from upholding that system, that I signed a petition to Her Majesty in favour of Church extension, which assumed that the management of Church property might be improved. I shall he most happy to concur in any measure which may produce such an effect, consistently with security of the property itself. My Lords, I have thus ventured to state the grounds of my hesitation concerning the second reading of this Bill. If it be clearly understood that the Select Committee is at liberty to take the whole subject into consideration, with reference to the present
1220
measure alone, my objections to the second reading will be in a great measure removed.
The BISHOP of LONDONwished that some one of their Lordships better acquainted than himself with the rules of that House would point out how far the noble Earl (the Earl of Carlisle) was correct in stating that by assenting to the second reading of this Bill, they were not committing themselves to its principle. He strongly objected to the principle of giving the power of perpetual renewals of Church leases; and the House ought not to assent to that principle without considering carefully what the right of the lessee was in a legal, an equitable, and a moral point of view. He certainly thought the lessee's right was not a legal, nor an equitable, much less a moral one, and that all he was entitled to was the exact value of his interest, whatever it might be, and which must be capable of a definite estimate. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who bad now vested in them a large amount of property in lands and tithes, had dealt with the lessees on the assumption that the latter had no legal or equitable right; and if they adopted the principle of this Bill, they would, to a certain extent, throw a doubt upon the transactions of the Commissioners as to the sale and purchase of reversions. He did not agree that there were no other measures for providing for the spiritual destitution of the country but measures like this, which would subject the property of the Church to great diminution. No one was more desirous than he was to see the property of the Church made available for relieving that spiritual destitution; but that would not be accomplished by that Bill. In fact, the Bill would deprive the population of a future day of the means of supplying that destitution. It would rob posterity. He and his right rev. Brethren held the property of the Church in trust for the people of this country, and they felt that it would be a dereliction of their trust if they needlessly sacrificed one iota of what the Church was bound not to surrender. He was ready, however, to admit that the ancient system of managing Church property, which had come down from the times of Elizabeth to the present day, was imperfect and defective; and therefore he wished to see the whole question investigated before a Select Committee of their Lordships—for he was sure there could not be a more competent or impartial tribunal—in order to discover

1221
how the resources of the Church could be made more available for the spiritual instruction of the people; and also to consider, he would not say the rights, but the claims of the lessees, which, as far as they were fair and just, ought certainly to be considered. He hoped that their Lordships would pause before they sanctioned the principle of giving the lessees at once a right of perpetual renewal. Whatever course was ultimately pursued, the present occupiers of sees were in no way personally interested, because they would receive sufficient protection from the Legislature; but no lay Lord having risen to express his opinion, he had felt it to be his duty to the Church, for which he was a trustee, to make the few observations he had addressed to their Lordships.
The DUKE of RICHMONDthought this Bill would operate much more against the lessees than against the lessors; but he was willing to allow the Bill a second reading, on the distinct understanding that in assenting to the second reading, noble Lords were not pledged to any thing but a full and fair inquiry before the Select Committee. The Select Committee, he could assure the right rev. Prelates, would have the power of altering every single word in the Bill, except the word "whereas," at the beginning. He did not assert that the lessees had a strictly legal right, but he said they were placed in a position in which the lessors were so completely interested in granting them a renewal, that they hardly ever ventured to refuse. The lessees in England were not nearly so provident as their brother lessees in Ireland; for if their Lordships looked to the Act of Parliament in Ireland, they would find it contained a clause allowing the lessees to force the renewals of their leases. The lessees ought to have done the same in this country, and then we should not have had these discussions so constantly taking place on that subject. But he had risen to say that to many of the details of this Bill he strongly objected; but he could scarcely be one who wished to give up to the lessees the property that belonged to the Church, because he desired to see the Church have more means at its disposal than it had; but, in considering this question, he thought they were bound to take into account the fair and moral right of the lessees of Church property. He thought the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ought to have treated these lessees in the same way as they treated their own tenants—they ought not to have
1222
rackrented them, but dealt liberally with them in a way that would have done justice both to themselves and the tenants.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCHsaid, that he had lately presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Westminister, praying, as he believed other petitioners had prayed, to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House against the Bill. This was a reasonable request, which he thought their Lordships ought not to refuse. Here was a Bill, which though professed to be brought forward on public grounds, was in reality a Bill affecting particular interests. He feared if they were to assent to the proposition of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carlisle) and read the Bill a second time, it would be tantamount to affirming its principle. He did not much approve of the suggestion of referring the Bill to a Select Committee. It was a convenient and expeditious device for pushing the Bill through the second reading, but it certainly was not that course which was best calculated to promote careful discussion and mature deliberation upon the question, the importance of which must be evident to all. The best course, and the most creditable by far, would be to refer the whole question of the management of episcopal and capitular estates to a Select Committee, with instructions that they should also take into consideration the Bill now befor their Lordships. Such a Committee would, no doubt, devote to the question all the attention that its complicated importance required; and it would be time enough for their Lordships to undertake to legislate on the subject after the labours of that Committee had been concluded, and their report sent in. He admitted that he had only glanced over the present Bill; but the impression which his mind had received frem the superficial view that he had been enabled to take of it was, that it was the commencement of a system for the alienation of the property in the hands of the Church, and that its inevitable tendency would be to destroy that independence which a Church, especially in this country, ought always to enjoy. It would, in fact, be only leaving them stipends out of their own property. At a, moment like the present, when the aggression of a foreign Potentate had created such an excitement in the public mind, it was the duty of the Legislature to take care lest an encroachment no less dangerous should be attempted from a quarter not so remote. He confessed that he looked upon the present measure with some distrust, because

1223
he believed there were good grounds for apprehending that it would do more to destroy the independence of the Church than to benefit its revenues. With these convictions, he could not consent to give a silent vote. He had stated his views as briefly as was consistent with perspicuity, and he hoped their Lordships would consider the suggestion he had taken the liberty to submit.
The EARL of HARROWBYwas understood to express his general approval of the principle of the Bill, and of the suggestion for referring it to a Select Committee. Such a course was not unusual, and he believed it might with great propriety be adopted in the present case. A reference to a Committee did not necessarily imply an affirmation of the principle of the measure—it would merely indicate an opinion on the part of their Lordships that the present state of Church property was far from satisfactory, and that it was desirable that it should be inquired into with a view to its better regulation. He would not enter into the details of the measure; but he could not conceal his conviction, that his right rev. Friend the Bishop of London had dealt rather too hardly with it. He was far from expressing an unqualified approval of all the provisions of the Bill; but he should be sorry that their Lordships should rashly reject the only measure that had yet been submitted to provide for the great and growing wants of the Church.
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the details of this measure, there is one point, at all events, upon which there appears to be an unanimous concurrence of conviction, namely, that the correspondences which have taken place upon this question, and the amount of attention which it has attracted amongst the public, and the reports of the various Committees which have been appointed to consider it in both Houses of Parliament, have created a necessity for some legislation upon the subject. On the one hand, I believe that the public mind has been so excited upon this question, and that so strong a feeling has been aroused throughout the country as to the propriety of instituting an investigation into the management of this description of property, that it has become desirable, and indeed essential, with a view to the interest as well of the Church as of the lessees, that Parliament should expeditiously—yet not with more expedition
1224
than may be consistent with due deliberation—determine upon a clear and definite course of policy upon the subject. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that there prevails amongst the public a very general, and, indeed, I think, a very justifiable impression, that Parliament ought not to think of taking this question in hand without having previously given to all parties concerned at least as full a notice and as clear an intimation of the intentions of the Government and the Legislature with respect to it, as it is customary to allow even to persons who have an interest in a private Bill. For my own part, I should have no hesitation as to the course I should be disposed to pursue, if I could bring myself to believe that the statement which has been made by a noble Lord who spoke in this debate, was strictly accurate, namely, that the option we have to exercise in this matter is simply this—whether we shall affirm or reject the principle of this Bill? But I do not think that the case can be so stated. It appears to me that the question may be compressed into narrower limits, and that it does not comprise so important a proposition. If I could think that by voting for the referring of this subject to a Select Committee, I was necessarily rejecting the Bill, and expressing my disapproval of its principle, I should be averse to take such a course, for I should be sorry to do anything the effect of which would be to negative the only project that has as yet been submitted with a view to the attainment of an object which all must admit to be desirable. But I do not think that, by acceding to the suggestion that has been made for the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee, the House shall be taking a course which can in any degree tend to the rejection of the principle of the measure. Neither do I think that the House would, by so doing, be necessarily affirming the principle. It seems to me that my right rev. Friend opposite (the Bishop of London) very much over-estimated the powers with which the Select Committee are proposed to be invested, when he hazards the opinion that the principle of the measure will be affirmed if your Lordships should think fit to refer it to that Committee. I am sure that my right rev. Friend will not hesitate to admit that it would not be unworthy of the Legislature to enter upon an investigation to ascertain by what means those objects may most effectively be attained which are detailed at length in the preamble of this Bill. The

1225
Bill appears by its preamble to be devoted to two principal purposes: firstly, to the improvement of the present system of leasing and managing the real property of the Church, and to render it most productive and beneficial to the Church, and most conducive to the spiritual welfare of the people, due regard being had to the just and reasonable claims of the present holders; and also to the improvement of the law and practice relating to the incomes of the bishops and members of cathedral establishments, so as best to secure to them fixed instead of fluctuating annual incomes. I am inclined to think that the noble Earl opposite was in error in assuming that the principle of allotting fixed incomes to the bishops has been adopted by Parliament. Undoubtedly it has been felt that there was a great variety and fluctuation of income among a body of men of equal rank, and that the income was not proportioned to the amount of duty, and endeavours were consequently made more to equalise both the labours and revenues of the respective seas, and to amend a system under which one prelate, by the number of fines falling to him, might be extremely opulent, and his successor in the see comparatively very poor. But these attempts cannot be said to have passed into a system, nor can it yet be affirmed that the principle of giving to all the bishops a fixed annual income has received a formal recognition from the Legislature. It is expressly stated in the last Report of the Commission upon this subject, that the object which they think it desirable for the Legislature to attain, is not to equalise the income of all the bishops for each particular year, but rather to establish such a state of things that, upon an average of years, the incomes of all the bishops shall appear to bear some proportion of equality. Therefore, it appears to me that the noble Earl opposite has spoken rather inconsiderately in saying that the Legislature, as yet at all events, has laid down any definite system on the subject of fixed incomes for all bishops. The last portion of this Bill involves some complicated arrangements whereby it is proposed that the whole of the episcopal revenues shall be taken into the management of the Commissioners—that, after being under their control for some time, they shall be reconverted into landed property, with a view to their being assigned again to the bishops, and distributed amongst the different sees, so as to provide equal endow-
1226
ments arising from land. Now, without pausing to examine the elaborate details of such a proposition, I am sure your Lordships will at least go with me to this extent, that such a proposition is one of unusual importance, and that the magnitude and the variety of the interests concerned, require that it should be made the subject of the most careful and the most deliberate consideration. The earlier portion of the Bill refers to the relative positions of lessors and lessees. The right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of London) did not hesitate to express his disapproval of this portion of the measure. I understood him to say that he must always look with extreme disfavour on any proposition for granting to a tenant a right of renewal in perpetuity, because he could not but regard any such right as tantamount to a complete alienation of the property of the Church. Now, it is very certain that the lessees of Church property have no right, legal, moral, technical, or indefeasible, to a renewal of their leases. That we must take to be unquestionable; hut, at the same time that we make that admission, we cannot refuse to consider what is the immemorial custom with respect to such tenures, and what has been found in all times to be their practical result. We cannot but be aware that, as things now stand, it almost invariably happens that the lessee occupies this position in relation to the lessor, and has this kind of holding on the lessor, that although he may not have a legal right to the renewal of his lease, the lessor finds it his interest to renew it, and recognises in the lessee a moral claim almost as strong as a legal right. The difference between the value of a freehold estate and a lease renewable for ever, may be measured with accuracy, and represented by precise figures. A fee-simple property may be calculated, upon an average, to sell for thirty years' purchase; whereas, property held under a Church lease, with the understanding that the lease will be continually renewed, will sell for twenty-four or twenty-five years' purchase. The difference is only that between twenty-five and thirty. Now, my Lords, however anxious I may be to improve the estates of the Church, and however deeply sensible I may be of the importance of the Church's being in the possession of property adequate to her great requirements, I cannot bring myself to look upon this question in the light of the Church's being in full possession of all

1227
these estates, so that she has nothing to do to get them, in an absolute and unqualified sense, into her own hands, except to run out the lives, and let the leases revert to herself. We see that the control which she desires to exercise over them cannot be conferred otherwise than by an Act of Parliament; and if the Act be passed for her benefit, I think it is but equitable that the Church should grant some co-relative advantage to those against whom the Act will operate. We must look upon this question in an impartial aspect, and admit it to be one in which something must be conceded upon one side and upon the other. Such is the view which I take of the matter; but if the right rev. Prelate, or any body else, can point out to me any method whereby, without any injustice to the existing holders, the Church property may be increased to the requisite amount, without granting to the lessees the right of perpetual renewal, and without altering the present position, in that respect, of lessee and lessor, I do not hesitate to say that I should greatly prefer such a method to that now under consideration. There is one point to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. The Bill proposes to do away with leases for lives renewable for ever. Now, in the case of agricultural property, a lease for lives is not generally found to be an advantageous description of property; but in case of a lease for lives renewable for ever the lease has an undying interest in keeping the property in a beneficial state, and in permanently improving it. This Bill, however, proposes to convert leases for lives into leases for terms of years. In a political point of view, this is a very material alteration, for it is converting a freehold into a mere personal property. The Bill proposes to alter altogether the incidents of a very large amount of property, which, if it were held upon leases for lives renewable for ever, would be of a most valuable description, and to take away both civil and political rights. This is a subject which, in my opinion, deserves most serious consideration; and, though I would be very unwilling to appear to reject what is said to be the principle of this Bill, there are some words in the preamble which excite great doubts in my mind. The preamble not only recites the object of the Bill, but adds that the Commissioners had reported, and that it is expedient to carry into effect their recommendation; and it is difficult to say whether, by assenting to
1228
that preamble, your Lordships would not bind yourselves, to a certain extent, to an approval of the principle of the measure. I think it is most desirable, for the interests of all parties, that some adjustment of this question should be effected without any undue delay. I do not desire to reject this Bill; but, on the other hand, I think it desirable that the subject should be investigated calmly, carefully, and deliberately, and that the fullest opportunity should be afforded to all parties of stating their respective cases. I will, therefore, suggest to the noble Marquess opposite whether a course may not be taken by which your Lordships would neither affirm nor reject the principle of the Bill. I apprehend that there will be a technical difficulty in the course recommended by my noble Friend (the Duke of Buccleuch), because the House cannot refer a Bill to a Select Committee until it has been read a second time. I will suggest whether the second reading may not be postponed, and a Committee appointed to investigate the subject, to whom may be referred, not the Bill itself, but the reports of the Commissioners upon which the Bill is founded.
EARL FITZWILLIAMthought there would be great danger in adopting the proposition just made by his noble Friend, because, if his advice were followed, no Bill on this subject would pass in the course of the present Session. He believed that his noble Friend was aware of the interest which was felt on this question by all classes of persons connected with this description of property, as well lessors as lessees; and when he recollected how long this question had been hung up already, he thought his noble Friend would agree with him that it was not desirable to take a course which would have almost the necessary effect of suspending legislation upon the subject till another Session. He agreed with his noble Friend that, in a pecuniary point of view, the lessees would not stand quite so well under the Bill as at present; but, at the same time, they must consider the advantages which they would derive from certainty of tenure. The right rev. Prelate said that lessees had no rights, either legal, equitable, or moral—
The BISHOP of LONDON: I said they had no rights, either legal, equitable, or moral—only an interest.
EARL FITZWILLIAMobserved, that there were difficulties in making distinctions between claims and rights, but the lessees certainly had claims. He con-

1229
ceived that the lessees had a strong claim for consideration. Two centuries ago much of the Church property was sold by a Government, which, if not a Government de jure, was at all events a Government de facto. At the Restoration a good deal of this property was restored to the Church, but under this condition—that the Church should grant the proprietors of the restored estates those leases which have been renewed ever since. Now, those persons had, in his opinion, a strong claim for consideration, although they might not be able to show any absolute right. There was another point in respect of which the lessees deserved to be treated with consideration, and that was the relief which they had afforded to the lessors from all troubles connected with landed properties during the past few years, when the occupation of land had been attended with some inconvenience and loss. He was quite sure that it was desirable that they should adopt such a course as would at least not have the effect of further postponing legislation upon this subject. He would support the second reading of the Bill, with the view of its being referred to a Select Committee, although he was far from saying that he was entirely satisfied with all its provisions.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEhad no intention of entering upon any discussion in regard to the merits of the Bill, but would merely make a few remarks upon the course of proceeding which, according to the general expression of opinion, it appeared desirable for the House to pursue. He would begin by saying that there was very little in the speech of the noble Lord opposite with which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would be inclined, to disagree; but he did think that the noble Lord would see, upon consideration, the advantage of that course which had been proposed by his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Carlisle) and which was perfectly consistent with the objections entertained by the noble Lord and many others to the provisions of the Bill. That course was to give the Bill a second reading, without pledging any person whatever to any of its provisions, beyond the general declaration contained in the preamble, that the present state of Church property was not such as ought to be continued, and that it was desirable that the Legislature should interfere with the view of putting it on a better footing with respect to its objects, and with respect to the interests of those who held that property,
1230
as well as of those who occupied under them. Beyond this he considered nothing to be affirmed by giving the Bill a second reading. Their object was that the Bill should be considered; and unless they were willing to read it a second time, with the view of referring it to a Select Committee, the Committee could not go into the consideration of the Bill itself, although they might institute an inquiry into the reports of the Commissioners, on which the Bill was founded. What he wished was, that a Committee might have the opportunity of considering both the Bill and the reports of the Commissioners together. He would ask their Lordships whether it was not a great advantage in Committee upon any difficult and complicated subject that there should be a skeleton and outline of a Bill, which pledged no person to details, to form a substratum for the consideration of the Committee? Their Lordships might, if they thought proper, reject in detail every one of the specific enactments of the Bill; in case their Lordships agreed to the second reading he did not consider they would be in any degree pledged to the principle of the right of the lessees in all cases to an absolute renewal. The preamble of the Bill spoke of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners; but its terms were not such as to exclude all proposals for altering or adding to those recommendations; and he saw nothing to prevent them being either approved, rejected, or modified in the way most conducive to the interests of the Church, with a due regard to those claims which the right rev. Prelate admitted to belong to the occupier. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) concurred with the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Fitzwilliam), that if they sent the reports of the Commissioners to a Select Committee, without giving it the power of considering the provisions of that Bill, it would be equivalent to postponing indefinitely all legislation on the subject. It was now fourteen or fifteen years since the question had been first brought forward, and all who were interested in it had been led to expect that some settlement would shortly take place. The interests of the Church and the interests of the occupiers had both been affected in a material degree by the delay already occasioned, as it had been found impossible, in the unsettled state of the question, to make any new bargains upon which the resources of the Church depended. The subject was one intimately connected with the spiritual instruction

1231
and the general interests of the people; besides that, it had an important bearing upon a great body of landed proprietors, and he thought, therefore, that in order to have it fully discussed, the Bill should now be read a second time pro formâ, and then referred to a Select Committee.
The BISHOP of OXFORDrose to make a specific Motion in the direction pointed out by the speeches of the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) and the most rev. Prelate, namely, that a Select Committee of the House be appointed to consider by what system of management the capitular and other property of the Church could be rendered most productive to the said Church, and most conducive to the spiritual welfare of the people, due regard being had to the just and reasonable claims of persons now holding such property, whether under lease or otherwise. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had answered a most forcible objection brought against the course proposed to be pursued, by saying that although it was quite true the preamble of the Bill proposed to carry into effect the recommendation of the Commission, yet it contained certain qualifying words—namely, "with such modifications and additions." But the noble Lord had overlooked the conclusion of the sentence—"as hereinafter contained"—which did not leave the question an open one in any degree, but only modified the recommendations in the special manner provided by the clauses. He thought it was most desirable to approach the subject, pregnant as it was with the spiritual interests of future generations, in a manner the most unfettered and unprejudiced, and in which time could be given for the consideration of those claims and alleged rights a due regard to which was an essential part of that great duty of trusteeship, which primarily indeed belonged to his right rev. Brethren, but which in a secondary manner devolved upon all their Lordships. It might be objected that this course would produce delay, but it was a case to which the proverb "most haste is worst speed" might be applied; and he trusted they would at least be extremely cautious what measures on such a subject they carried through Parliament that Session.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'That' to the end of the Motion, for the purpose of inserting the following words; namely, 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider by what System of Management the Real Property of the
1232
Church in England and Wales belonging to the Archbishops and Bishops, to the Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches, and the several Members thereof, being Corporations Sole, and to the several minor Corporations aggregate, within the said Cathedrals, and also that vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, could be rendered most productive and beneficial to the said Church, and most conducive to the spiritual welfare of the people, due regard being had to the just and reasonable Claims of the present Holders of such Property under Lease or otherwise.'"
The EARL of CARLISLEwould give his most decided opposition to the Amendment. After the discussion which had taken place—after the general concurrence in the opinions which had been expressed—after the subject had been under consideration for upwards of ten years—after a Committee had been specially appointed last year, as to the report of which there had been no complaint—and after the Government had brought forward a measure founded upon that report—he thought it would be acting a most ungracious part now on a sudden to refuse the Bill the courtesy of a second reading, for—he thought the noble Lord had admitted—at least the present Session. He (the Earl of Carlisle) had been most astonished at the observation of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) with respect to the preamble; because it would be perfectly open to the House in Committee to strike out the preamble; besides which they might alter every single provision in the Bill; and then the words "hereinafter contained" would apply to the clauses so altered. If a Select Committee were appointed, he thought that the person would be very sanguine who should suppose that its report would finally dispose of the question; and as he considered that the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be a virtual withdrawal of the Bill, he should give it his most strenuous opposition.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down had spoken of a second reading as a matter of courtesy; but the fact was, that the second reading, whatever might be the understanding they had come to, affirmed the principle of the Bill. He knew it was often difficult to explain what was the principle of a Bill; but that principle, whatever it might be, was, as he had said, undoubtedly affirmed by the second reading. If the principle of this Bill were, as had been represented by the most rev. Prelate, the renewal of leases in perpetuity, that would be admitted by the second reading, and

1233
they would be debarred from touching it in Committee. The provisions of the Bill they might deal with in Committee, but the principle they could not. The second reading was, therefore, not exactly a mere matter of courtesy.
EARL GREYentirely concurred with the noble Earl who had just spoken, as to the adoption of the principle of the Bill being implied in the second reading of it; but what was the principle of the Bill? The noble Lords had both stated that they were willing to take as the definition of that principle the first, and the first part only, of the preamble, namely—and this was all that the House was asked to decide by the second reading—that it was acknowledged on all hands that the existing management of Church property was such as to be most injurious to the Church, the lessee, and the public, and that they would endeavour to pass an Act which should substitute for the present such a system of management as should render it most beneficial to the said Church, and most conducive to the spiritual welfare of the people, due regard being had to the rights of the present holders of such property, whether by lease or otherwise. They might alter the preamble in Committee, and even say that whereas a report had been presented with which they did not agree, such an alteration was proposed. Although the Amendment was not that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, it did, in fact, negative the Bill; and considering the present condition of Church property, he considered that the House would incur a great responsibility if they thus decided against any legislation on the subject whatever.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYstated, that after the explicit declaration of the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, as to the instructions of the Select Committee, and also of the noble Duke and noble Lord opposite, as to the powers which the Committee would possess, he would no longer think himself justified in opposing the second reading of the Bill.
After a few words from Earl POWIS,
On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion,
The House divided:—Content 46; Non-Content 28: Majority 18.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
House adjourned till To-morrow.