Sitting of 30 June 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Legislative Council (Canada); Borough Rates.

THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEALAND.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he rose in pursuance of a notice which stood on the paper in his name, to request the attention of Her Majesty's Government and of the House of Commons to the circumstances under which the usual vote of 600 l. for the support of the Bishopric of New Zealand had been removed from the Estimates this year. The House might recollect that on Monday evening, when the Colonial Estimates in reference to New Zealand were under consideration, he had addressed a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey), in consequence of certain information which had reached him only during the sitting of the House; and it was in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department that he felt bound to call the attention of the House to the subject again. The answer of the right hon. Baronet was very short,
948
and in substance amounted to this—that he himself (Sir J. Pakington), when he had the honour of holding the seals of the Colonial Office, had been in some degree the cause of this stoppage of the allowance to the Bishop of New Zealand, in consequence of a statement which he had made when the Colonial Estimates were under consideration in 1852. And, in the next place, the right hon. Gentleman said, that this was not a new step, for the salary of the Bishop had been stopped last year, and was removed from the Estimates of 1853. Now, with regard to the first part of that answer, namely, the reference to his (Sir J. Pakington's) statement in 1852, and as to its furnishing any reason whatever for the reduction made in this Estimate, he begged to say that he held in his hand the volume of Hansard in which his answer appeared—and though he did not wish to trouble the House with reading his statement on the occasion, still if any hon. Gentleman would refer to it he would find that nothing which had fallen from him could have led in any way to the abrupt reduction of this allowance to the Bishop of New Zealand; or show on his part the least intention, or made it the least incumbent on those who succeeded him in office, to place the Bishop in the position in which he now stood. And he might be allowed in addition to this to state in the most emphatic manner, that while he had the honour of acting as Secretary for the Colonial Department, nothing in the world would have induced him to be a party to the reduction of this allowance in the manner or at the moment in which it took place. Having made this declaration, he would now pass from this not very important part of the question, to the very much more important statement of the right hon. Baronet, namely, that the allowance did not appear in the Estimates of 1853, and, therefore, that it was not now stopped for the first time. Now he was sure the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion did not intend to mislead the House or create any erroneous impression. Nevertheless, while he (Sir J. Pakington) admitted that what he had said was literally correct, namely, that the Vote did not appear in the Estimates for 1853, he did mislead the House as to the real facts which had occurred, and he did mislead him (Sir J. Pakington). This (Sir J. Pakington's) statement to the House, on the authority of a friend of his, had been, that without any warning—without any notice—the Bishop of New Zea-

949
land had received a private letter from a member of the Colonial Office, intimating to him the abrupt cessation of his salary. That was, in substance, his statement. However, the right hon. Gentleman having stated that the Vote had been removed—not for the first time this year—that there was nothing new in the circumstance of its disappearance, as it had not appeared in the Estimates for 1853—his impression naturally was that he had been misinformed on the matter, that he had spoken under some erroneous impression, and therefore he said nothing more in reference to it. However, under such circumstances, he had made it his duty to inquire what the facts of the case really were. And here he might be allowed to acid, that his inquiries had not been addressed to the Bishop in person, as such a course might have been deemed wanting in proper delicacy of feeling—but he had addressed his inquiries to a gentleman whom he knew to be a friend of the Bishop's, and whom he knew to enjoy his confidence. The result of his inquiries was to ascertain that the statement which he had made to the House the other evening was substantially correct; and he held in his hand a written memorandum from the Bishop of New Zealand in reference to the subject. The Vote of 600 l. did not appear in the Estimate of 1853; but it should be remembered, that from the time when the allowance of 600 l. a year was first established in 1842, the mode of payment Lad always been through the authorities of the colony—the payment never having been made directly by Her Majesty's Government at home. The memorandum of the Bishop was in these words:
"The salary has been always paid through the colonial treasury, to avoid the difficulty of proving that the bishop was alive, and has been always paid in the same manner from 1841 down to the present time, including, of course, last year.
So that, although the vote did not appear in the Estimates of last year, in consequence, he presumed, of the mode of payment which had been adopted, the colony had paid the salary as usual, and the bishop had received it as usual. Now, this gave rise to two questions—first, why this salary was abruptly stopped in the year 1853; and secondly, why, if it had been the intention of the Government to remove the Vote from the Estimates of 1853, no notice had been sent either to the Bishop of New Zealand, or to the authorities of the colony, of the change which had taken place. Well, and what is the
950
next statement which he had made? Why, that the bishop had had no notice whatever of the intention to withdraw the usual annual Vote. The first notice of any intention to withdraw it was given by a private letter from the Colonial Office, dated June, 1854, which was not received until the 25th of this month. On this the bishop wrote to know whether that letter was official; whereupon he received an answer promising an official communication, but up to that moment no such official communication had been received. Such, then, were the facts of the case—the stoppage had never been communicated to the bishop—it had never been communicated to the colony, and in consequence of no such communication having taken place, it appeared that the bishop had received his income as usual, and he never received any intimation whatever, until the 25th of the present month, that the salary conceded to him had not been included in the Estimates. Now, he was quite aware that there were many Gentlemen in that House who were of opinion that charges for the maintenance of colonial bishoprics of the Established Church ought not to be defrayed from the general funds of the country; but he believed there was no one, no matter how strongly he might entertain that opinion, who would not feel that in the case of the Bishop of New Zealand, as in the case of other public officers, at least the rules of fairness and courtesy ought to be adhered to. The first occasion, he belived—speaking from memory—on which objections were urged in this House to defraying the salaries of colonial bishops was in case of the bishoprics of Canada. A good deal of debate took place about the years 1831 or 1832 with regard to this payment, and a great change consequently took place. That change was this—the Government, yielding to the objections entertained against the payment being defrayed from the revenues of this country, consented that it should cease, but subject to the understanding that their salaries were to be continued during the lives of the existing receivers. Now, according to this rule, though the question of policy as to payment or nonpayment might be raised, still no one could take exception to the perfect fairness of the decision. He could not believe that Her Majesty's Government had the smallest intention of acting with unfairness towards so distinguished a man as the Bishop of New Zealand, and therefore let him call attention to the circum-

951
stances under which his appointment took place. The noble Lord the President of the Council (Lord J. Russell) would recollect that it was at his suggestion—in fact, it was at the time the noble Lord held the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, under the administration of Lord Melbourne, and towards the close of that administration—the noble Lord determined that the episcopacy ought to be extended to our colonies. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Government of the day, several additions were made to the episcopacy, and amongst the others was that of the bishopric of New Zealand. And it was at the noble Lord's own request that the Bishop of New Zealand was appointed to that see, and it was at his suggestion that the salary of 600 l. was voted in the estimates, and so continued to be every year since, up to last year. Now he would not again dwell upon the personal qualities of the bishop; what his feelings were on that point he had stated on Monday night; and the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had re-echoed his sentiments. But he would put it to the Government whether it was right that a man whose ability and capacity were as great as his character was remarkable for its purity and exemplariness, that a man with such prospects as were ensured to him by his great talents, who having abandoned his country had gone to the other side of the globe to minister to the spiritual necessities of his scattered countrymen, and of the heathen population of the colony, receiving for his services the miserable pittance of 600 l. a year—was it right or decorous, he would ask, that the income of such a man should be taken away from him at a day's notice, without any warning, or without the courtesy being shown him of a communication as to the intentions of the Government? He was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman who had so recently succeeded to the Colonial Department must be personally cleared of any part in the transaction, and he was equally convinced that the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) was the last man to intend any disrespect or any discourtesy to such a Prelate, and therefore he could not help thinking that there must be some misapprehension in the matter, and that the Government had been acting under some mistake or misapprehension. If that were so, he hoped that justice would yet be done. He had stated the arrangement which was come to in the case of the Canada bishops—namely, that the existing
952
bishops should hold their incomes for their lives; though he did not mean to say that in all cases as a matter of right that rule ought to be followed; for he found that there were several bishops of the Church of England in the Colonies who at one time were paid through the Estimates, but whose salaries had gradually disappeared from them; but at the same time, he believed he was right in stating that their names had not so disappeared until some other arrangement had been made for them, and until some equivalent was granted. And he would appeal to the Government to adopt a similar course in this case. He would repeat, he had had no communication whatever with the Bishop of New Zealand himself on this subject. The Bishop of New Zealand, it was well known, was a man of the greatest disinterestedness; indeed, he believed the Government had had a striking proof recently of his devotedness to his duty; so much so, that he would say that the bishop was desirous of persevering in his position unremunerated by any salary from the Government. That, however, was not the question involved; the question was, not what might be the individual feelings of a right rev. Prelate—not what might be due to the dignity and position of the Bishop of New Zealand, but what was due to national faith and fair dealing—between Parliament and a person in such an exalted position. He believed he had now correctly stated the facts of the case; but they appeared to be so inconsistent with good faith, and so practically inconsistent, that he must express a strong hope that the Government would reconsider their decision, and continue the allowance to the bishop—not so long as he held his bishopric, but until some arrangement had been made which might provide for him in a satisfactory manner a sufficient income. He trusted, then, that some explanation of the circumstances would be offered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped it would be quite unnecessary for him to state that no possible disrespect could be intended to the Bishop of New Zealand, for he believed every Member of the Government entirely approved of the conduct of the bishop in his diocese. And, independently of the zeal which he had shown in the management of his bishopric, he might add that he had given proof of the greatest disinterestedness, so far as pecuniary considerations were concerned. But the step which had been taken by the Government had no reference whatever to in-

953
dividual character or position, but resulted from the general arrangements which had been decided on regarding the public expenditure. Now he would repeat the facts which he had stated the other night. He had stated then, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) that he was under a misapprehension in supposing that the Vote was withdrawn for the first time in 1854; and in proof of that he had called attention to a despatch addressed in 1851 by the Governor of New Zealand to the Secretary of State. In that despatch, dated 15th September, 1851, Governor Grey said—
"He thought he might come to the conclusion that the colony had attained a financial position that would enable it, with the assistance of a grant from Parliament of 10,000 l. in 1852, and 5,000 l. in 1853, to defray all its expenses; but that from and after that period it would require no farther pecuniary aid from Great Britain."
In the Estimates for the year 1852, therefore, under the directions of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Vote for the whole civil expenditure of New Zealand was, in accordance with the opinion of the Governor, reduced to a sum of 10,000 l. But that was not all; for the right hon. Gentleman appended a note to the Estimate, giving the substance of the Governor's despatch, and stating that after 1853 no further aid would be required out of the revenues of this country for the colony. In 1853 the Vote was reduced to a sum of 5,000 l., to defray the salaries of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, the Judges, and Attorney General, with a sum of 300 l. to pay the salaries of the clerk to the Council. To that Vote a note was appended to the effect that it was the last occasion when the Vote would be submitted to Parliament in an Estimate for the civil establishments of New Zealand. Shortly after he (Sir G. Grey) received the seals of the Colonial Department his attention was called to the subject by a despatch from the Governor of New Zealand, which alluded to the amount of the salary that the bishop might draw during his leave of absence in this country—a despatch which occasioned him some surprise, as it scented the Governor was not aware of the withdrawal of the Vote from the Estimate. In consequence of this he requested an interview with the Governor of New Zealand, who was 310 in this country, pointed out to him the note appended to the Estimate of last year, and asked him the reason of his being under a misapprehension. The Governor in reply said he could only ac-
954
count for it by the fact of his having left the colony almost immediately after the Estimate of last year arrived there; that his attention had not been specifically directed to the subject, and that he was not aware that the bishop's income of 600 l. was not comprised in the Vote of 5,000. On ascertaining this he felt, that as the Vote had been twice omitted from the Estimates, in 1853 and 1854, and as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) had himself given Parliament, reason to expect that it would disappear altogether from the Estimates in 1854, he could not come to the House of Commons and ask them, on grounds that would be satisfactory either to them, or to himself, to replace the Vote on the Estimates, and so rescind the decision of his predecessor in office, and what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman. What he did was this, he desired that a despatch should be prepared to the acting Governor of New Zealand, calling his attention to the question, and requesting him to submit to the Legislature of that colony the propriety of making some provision in the colony itself for a Vote which, with many other items, had for a long time been defrayed by the liberality of the British Parliament when the colony was unable to bear its own expenses. At the same time, knowing that the bishop was about to resign a sum of 600 l. a year from another source, and anxious that he should not do so without knowing that the sum hitherto voted by Parliament would not in future be granted, he spoke to Mr. Merivale, and that gentleman communicated with the bishop upon the subject. Much of the misapprehension upon this subject had probably arisen from the fact that the bishop and the Governor arrived in England last year so soon after the Estimates were received in the colony that they hardly knew how they stood. Under the impression that the bishop's salary was included in these Estimates, it was paid out of funds which were at the disposal of the Governor, and it could not, therefore, be said to have terminated abruptly. He trusted that he had now given satisfactory reasons why no Vote for the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand appeared in the Estimates; but the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had raised a higher question, on which he must say a few words. The right hon. Baronet had said that a salary once granted ought to endure for the life of the bishop to whom it was granted. This was not a sound Parliamentary doctrine. If a colony were able to bear its

955
own expenditure, there was no reason why the ecclesiastical any more than any portion of the civil expenditure should fall on this country. In this instance, there was the less reason why such should be the case, because he believed that, on account of the deserved esteem and popularity in which the Bishop of New Zealand was held in the colony, there would be no difficulty on the part of the Colonial Legislature in providing a salary for that right rev. Prelate. If, however, the right hon. Baronet entertained the opinion that the salary ought to be voted during the life of the present bishop, he (Sir G. Grey) regretted the incautious language of the note to the Estimate of 1852, and of the speech which the right hon. Baronet addressed to the House on the subject. If he had thought that good faith required the continuance of this salary, it would have been but fair of him to have stated then that, though the rest of the Vote would disappear in 1854, this item of 600 l. must still remain upon the Estimates.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that it was quite certain that through some neglect or misapprehension of what was going to take place, a great hardship, to say the least of it, had been perpetrated upon the Bishop of New Zealand. He bad listened attentively to the statements of his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, and the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, and it appeared to him that an intimation had been made to the House, but not to the colony or to the Bishop of New Zealand, that the Estimates which had usually been granted for the Civil Service of that colony would be reduced in 1853, and come to an end in 1854. The censequence was, that, so far as the House of Commons was concerned, the Bishop of New Zealand ceased to obtain the salary of 600 l. a year, which had been paid to him from the time of his appointment up to the present moment. The House never granted the money last Session; but it was paid to the bishop nevertheless, and he was under the impression that the salary was to be continued. But observe the fact—that neither last year nor during the present year, until a week ago, had any intimation been made to the bishop that the salary, which had been paid to him and continued for a long series of years, was about to be withdrawn by Parliament. Until a week ago no such intimation was given. Now, he put it to the House whether, in the case of any civil servant of the Crown, they would withdraw from an an-
956
nual vote, a salary from that civil servant without any notice whatever? He must say that, until provision was made by the Colonial Legislature for the Bishop of New Zealand, the salary ought not to be withdrawn at all. Sure he was that, upon the case stated by Government themselves, it ought not to be withdrawn during the present year. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would re-consider the question and see if a Supplemental Estimate might not be laid on the table for the purpose of continuing, at any rate for the present year, the salary which had been so unexpectedly and, as his right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) had truly said, abruptly taken from the Bishop of New Zealand.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought it had been well understood that the colonial bishops should not be paid out of the public funds, but that provision should be made for them by the voluntary contribution of the colony where the services were rendered. When the colony was first formed this country made great sacrifices in contributing large sums towards the salaries of its public officers, but last year a promise was given that this particular item should be withdrawn from the Estimates. He was glad to find that the Government had adhered to that promise, and he had no doubt that the bishop was aware of the proceedings which took place last year. and knew that the vote would be withdrawn. A large majority of the people of this country did not belong to the Church of England at all, and he objected to their being compelled to submit to the degradation of contributing towards the support of the bishops and clergy of a Church from which they derived no benefit.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he regretted very much that there had been any misapprehension upon the subject, and that the Bishop of New Zealand should not have been properly acquainted with the intention of Government to withdraw this Vote. The salary was first granted to the Bishop of New Zealand some years ago, when he (Lord J. Russell) was Secretary for the Colonies, and, at the time, it was proposed, he had thought it right to inform the bishop of his intention to propose it, and to state at the same time that it was a sum of money which was not intended to he permanently added to the, Estimates. In 1852 the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) stated that in 1854 the vote for New Zealand would cease, and he (Lord J. Russell) should have thought that this would have been sufficient notice to the

957
bishop on the subject of his salary. The misapprehension which had existed seemed to have been caused by the departure of the governor and the bishop from the Colony so soon after the arrival of the Estimates, and, while regretting the existence of that misapprehension, he could not see that it was sufficient ground for introducing a Supplemental Estimate for this salary.
Subject dropped.

THE POLICE BILL—QUESTION.
MR. PALKasked, if it was the intention of Government to proceed with this Bill?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, when the Order for the second reading of the Bill was read, it was his intention to move, for the purpose of withdrawing the Bill, that it be discharged. At the same time, he intended to ask leave to bring in another Bill, which would be confined to the county constabulary. The objections which had been urged against the present Bill, on the part of certain boroughs, were objections which he thought were not well-founded, and it was his opinion that the boroughs would be found to be practically the resort of offenders from the counties, and that they would very greatly feel the inconvenience of such a state of things. He had already received representations from several boroughs on the part of the inhabitants, stating that they entirely disagreed with the objections which had been made to the Bill by the municipal councils. That was a matter, however, which the inhabitants and the councils would probably find the means of settling among themselves. If the inhabitants found that their authorities did not avail themselves of provisions afforded by the law, and of which they themselves approved, they had their remedy in electing other councillors. If the inconvenience were to be such as he thought it would be, he had no doubt the inhabitants would adopt that course.

ACCOMMODATION OF COMMONS MEM BERS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS— QUESTION.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he wished to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House for a few minutes to a subject which affected the personal comfort of hon. Members. He did not know exactly to whom he ought to address the question he was about to put, whether to his right hon. Friend the First
958
Commissioners of Works, or to the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. He was deeply anxious that everything should be done which could at all contribute to the personal comfort of hon. Members, but he had some difficulty how to frame his question, for fear of offending against the rules of order. The subject to which he wished to refer, was the accommodation, or rather the want of accommodation, provided for the personal comfort of Members of the House of Commons, in what was to be described, in Parliamentary phraseology, as "another place." He was sure many hon. Members would be disposed to agree with him, when he said that, upon some occasions, the inconvenience which was felt by hon. Members when they were attending to what passed there, was very great. On a recent occasion, when certain explanations were given upon a subject of very great European importance, the Members of the House of Commons were unable to find that accommodation which was necessary to enable them to hear what passed. The galleries appropriated to their use only provided accommodation for a very few Members, but below the bar, there was a space which it was understood might be occupied by Members of the House of Commons, anxious to hear what was going on. Upon the occasion to which he alluded, such a crowd assembled in that space, that, speaking from experience, he could say that he was never more hustled on going into a theatre than he was then. Certainly, there were more persons present who were not Members of the House of Commons, by a great many, than there were Members; and, at the time such inconvenience was being experienced, the large galleries, which he believed were consecrated to Ministers of foreign Powers and foreigners of distinction, were perfectly empty. In the gallery in the House of Commons to which foreigners were admitted, Peers were admitted as well, and it did not seem unreasonable that a similar indulgence might be granted to Members of that House in another place. He thought that, if a representation were made in the proper quarter, either by the First Commissioner of Woods and Works, or by Mr. Speaker, some means would be taken to remedy an evil which certainly interfered with the performance of what might be considered a portion of the Parliamentary duty of Members of that House.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he quite concurred in the observation of

959
his noble Friend with regard to the want of accommodation for Members of the House of Commons attending on important occasions in another place. On the particular occasion referred to, he himself was compelled to listen to the explanation of a distinguished statesman on his knees. He thought, however, that if a treaty were to be entered into between the two parties, it should be one of reciprocity. Looking at the nature of the accommodation provided for Peers in that House, it did not seem to him that hon. Members had much right to complain; for there was not a half or quarter of the room set apart for noble Lords that was provided in another place for Members of the House of Commons.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—EDUCATION.
House in Committee.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 263,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, for Public Education in Great Britain, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: In rising, Sir, to move the educational Votes for Great Britain, I shall have a short explanation to give to the Committee, but I shall not think it necessary to make many remarks on these Estimates, for the principle upon which these Votes are founded is well known, and no change has taken place in the character of the Estimates. The whole amount proposed to be voted for public education in Great Britain for the present year is 263,000 l., but there is a balance from former Votes of 80,873 l., so that the sum proposed to be expended up to the 31st of March next is 343,873 l. The Committee are well aware that the principle on which these Estimates have been founded for many years, is not the principle of providing generally for the education of the people at large, but rather a system of assisting the volunary efforts that may be made by the various religious denominations for that purpose. In adopting that principle, we are, of course, obliged to adopt the plan which those persons may choose for themselves in forming their schools. We do not pretend to furnish the whole of the funds, and we cannot, therefore, dictate the terms and conditions upon which the education is given. The question was how, by extending this Vote, we could confer the blessings of education in the best manner? Now, it appeared to the Government, some years
960
ago, that a much greater advantage would be derived by improving the character of the education given than by effecting a very great increase in its amount. A few years ago the education given in the schools of the poor was of a very low, insufficient, and unsatisfactory kind. In 1839, and still more by a Minute of Council in 1846, various plans were suggested and have been adopted for the improvement of the quality of the education given. I stated on one of these occasions, in 1839, that the great point we had to look to was an improvement in the education and in the character of the schoolmaster—that as was the schoolmaster so would be the school, and we have, therefore, since that period directed our efforts to that end. Great labour has consequently been bestowed with the view of giving efficient instead of inefficient assistance. Instead of monitors, who were part of the system both of Bell and Lancaster, we have adopted the better system of having assistant pupil teachers, which has answered extremely well, and has greatly improved the quality of the education given. Of late years these pupil teachers have greatly increased in numbers. In 1850 there were 1,717 schools, with 4,600 pupil teachers; in 1851, 2,066 schools, and 5,607 pupil teachers; in 1852, 2,277 schools, and 6,180 pupil teachers; and in 1853, 2,546 schools, and 6,912 pupil teachers—these pupil teachers representing 280,000 children taught in these schools. But the benefit derived from these pupil teachers has not been confined solely to the improvement of the character of the schools and the quality of the education given in them. The poorer classes have derived great benefit from their sons receiving incomes averaging about 18 l. per annum for their merit and talents, and time parents have considered themselves raised in the social scale from these advantages and have derived a great deal of satisfaction in seeing their children distinguish themselves in these schools, and making a progress in the world that was creditable to themselves. This is a Vote, therefore, which may be given with very great satisfaction by the Committee. The Vote under this head of grants, to pay the annual stipends of pupil teachers and gratuities to the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses instructing them, this year amounts to 130,000 l. It is not necessary that I should say much upon the sums of money proposed to be granted under the heads which have formerly ap-

961
peared in the Estimates. There is at the beginning of the Estimate a Vote for assisting the building of schools, elementary and normal, and it was determined by the minute of last year that a larger proportion of assistance should be given for this purpose in places where the poverty of the district was such that the inhabitants were unable to collect a sum sufficient for this purpose. There is also an increase of 500 l. in the Vote for the articles of books and maps. Another item in the Estimate is the support of training schools. A few years ago there was but the one training school at Battersea, and that was very incomplete; but both the Church of England and the other religious denominations have very much exerted themselves in promoting the establishment of training schools. An increased number, both of young men and young women, who have been educated for schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, have received in these training schools a much higher education than they could otherwise have obtained. The average cost of the education given in these training schools is about 40 l., the young men costing about 50 l. each per annum, and the young women something under 30 l. The Government contribute about 20,000 l. to these training schools. They are now twenty-nine in number, and the annual expenditure of these training schools altogether may be reckoned at about 60,000 l. a year, so that the sum contributed by the public is about one-third of the whole. I have a few words to add as to the establishment at Kneller Hall, for which a sum is proposed to be voted. The original intention was to have a training school there, and a model school for the education and reformation of convicts. It appears that there are difficulties in the way of the establishment of a model school for the education of convicts; but I have been communicating lately with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to his opinion upon what had best be done for the future with regard to a convict school. My noble Friend is of opinion that a penal school would be desirable, and, if desirable, the best mode of effecting it will be by attaching a school to Keller Hall; so that those who are trained in that school may have the advantage of a training specially adapted to the education and reformation of convicts. No Vote, however, will be taken for this specific object, and no plan has yet been proposed. Upon the general question of education, it is not
962
proposed to alter, in any way, the system which has been approved by this House. I will not enter upon those questions which have been matters of controversy, but I hope before any long time elapses that there will be a greater concurrence of opinion than there is now with respect to the important subject of education. For, although it is shown by the Census of education which has lately appeared, as far as statistical tables went, that there has been very great progress made in the quantity of education given in the country, and that whilst in the year 1818 there was but one in seventeen of the population receiving instruction, the proportion has now increased to one in eight, or one in eight or nine; yet our general knowledge and experience of particular localities, and especially of those districts which were most populous, only too clearly proves that a less favourable state of thing exists in many places than the statistical returns, giving general averages, would lead us to infer. Whether we take the case of London, or any of the large and populous towns throughout the country, or whether, again, we take the rural parishes, we shall find that there are a very great number of young children who are not receiving instruction, and also a great number of persons who have grown up to be adults without possessing the commonest elements of education. This can only be regarded as a very unsatisfactory state of this question. The evil is one which is no doubt diminished by the great amount of voluntary contributions and voluntary efforts that have been made; yet I fear it presents a state of things which cannot be wholly reached by voluntary exertions unsupported by assistance from the State. At the same time I must confess that unless there is a prospect of a greater concurrence of opinion on the subject of education, and more especially on those religious points which creates very warm differences, I think it will be useless attempting to bring forward in this House any general plan of national education. If the Government were prematurely to introduce a proposal for establishing such a general system of education, and they failed in carrying it, such a result would only be calculated to exasperate the differences to which I have alluded, and probably defer to a later period the adoption of any comprehensive scheme on the subject. Therefore I will not now enter into the discussion of any plan of general education,

963
but simply content myself with saying that the Government are, I believe, now doing a considerable amount of good, although I admit that they do not accomplish so much as could be desired. They have endeavoured, where persons voluntarily united to establish schools and gave education, to assist their efforts by contributing a sum to reduce the amount of subscriptions they were called upon to make, but to a far greater extent, by means of the inspectors and the system of pupil teachers, to improve the quality of the education imparted. Without the aid afforded in this way by the Government, the conductors of these schools would be ignorant of the improvements made in other places, and the general tone of education would not be so high as in all the better free schools I am happy to say that it is.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had listened to the observations of the noble Lord with feelings of disappointment which were very much akin to those with which he had observed the conduct generally of the noble Lord upon this most interesting and important subject from the first moment at which the present Government was formed. The noble Lord at the outset of his Administration, upon this subject, alluded to it most justly and truly as one of the greatest and most pressing questions of the day. He proceeded in the course of the last Session to carry out those views upon the subject, and he laid on the table a Bill which proposed some very important alterations in the system of education in this country. The noble Lord, however, now told the Committee that he despaired of adopting any general system of education on account of the religious difficulties, and of the impossibility of inducing Parliament and the country to concur in any general measure. But the fact was this—the noble Lord had never given the House of Commons an opportunity of stating their views upon the subject. If the noble Lord were as anxious as he was willing to believe he was to meet the views of the country upon this subject, the noble Lord ought to recollect that there was no social subject of the present day upon which the public mind was more intent than upon this question of education. With those professions of the noble Lord—and he (Sir J. Pakington) did not doubt their sincerity—how was it that the noble Lord did not bring the measure of last Session to a second reading; and that he had never given the House an oppor-
964
tunity of stating the opinions they entertained on this question? What had happened in the present Session? The noble Lord had not again brought forward his Bill of last Session, nor had he proposed any legislation upon the subject. The noble Lord had maintained a complete silence upon the subject until now, when at the end of the Session the noble Lord comes down, and to his (Sir J. Pakington's) surprise and disappointment, in moving the Estimates, he had first told the Committee that the Government considered the quality of education to be of more interest and importance than the amount and extent of education, and that the religious difficulties were so great that he abandoned the attempt in despair, and had no intention of submitting to Parliament a proposition for any general or more extended system.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I did not say I despaired of any measure being assented to by Parliament. I said that I should postpone such a measure for the present.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: But the noble Lord said that he considered the quality of education of greater importance than the extension of it. Now he was about to remark that there was some inconsistency in that observation with the statistical argument adduced by the noble Lord to show the increase of education in the country. The noble Lord said that the returns showed that there was one out of every eight only of the population now receiving an education. He (Sir J. Pakington), however, believed that if they went into the most populous districts in England they would not find that statistical statement borne out. On the contrary, they would find that the number of persons receiving education in those places was considerably smaller than one in eight of the population. In the United States he believed the proportion was one in six. He believed that that was the proportion that ought to be receiving education in a country that was well governed in this respect. The Government should not relax their endeavours to extend education to all classes. Although the noble Lord shrunk from this subject with a degree of apprehension, he would find himself scarcely borne out by the feeling of Parliament. There had been a movement made upon the subject this year which he considered to be of great importance. He was sorry that the noble Lord did not treat that movement with more attention. He al-

965
luded to the Manchester scheme of education, which had been brought before the House for several Sessions. They had had a discussion upon the second reading of that Bill. He believed, if the House would address itself to this question with firmness, determination, and moderation—if they approached this question in the same fair spirit as to religious differences as had marked the Manchester measure—if they adopted the principle of that measure mainly and essentially—that they would arrive at a satisfactory solution of the general question of education. It was well known that the Manchester scheme had attracted great attention for some time past. And whatever might be the opinions of men upon the general subject, and the nature of the arguments urged by persons of different religious denominations—whatever might be their differences of opinion as to details—his belief was that if a general measure were founded upon the same principle, it would be acceptable to the country, and would relieve this nation from the stain which would rest upon it so long as it permitted the humbler portion of the population to remain in the state of ignorance which unfortunately at present prevailed to a great extent. He deeply regretted that the Manchester measure was not successful. He hoped that the Government would face the general question in a bolder spirit than they had hitherto shown; and he thought that they would be neglecting their duty if they allowed another Session of Parliament to pass with that apparent indifference to this important question that had marked their conduct in the present Session. He trusted that they would bring in a measure founded essentially upon the principle of that Manchester Bill. He would support any Minister who dealt with this question in a bold and generous spirit, and he believed that by adopting such a course they would confer a great boon upon the country.
MR. MIALLsaid, he must congratulate the Committee that the Lord President of the Council had given them the benefit of his able assistance on the present occasion. Last year, it would be recollected, the education Vote for England and Wales, which exceeded the Estimates of the previous year by 100,000 l., was put from the Chair without any Ministerial statement whatever, and actually passed without a single remark, not because the Committee were agreed, either upon the principle of
966
national education or upon the mode of carrying that principle into effect, but because the educational question had hitherto been brought under the notice of the House in a most inconvenient shape; and, in point of fact, the whole of the affairs connected with the education of the country, might be regulated each year in a particular manner, simply from the accidental absence of a Member of the Government from illness or otherwise. He must say they had reason to complain that the education question came before the House of Commons in such a manner as to preclude anything like full and fair deliberation, either of its principles or the mode in which it was worked. Last year a new principle had been introduced with regard to the expenditure of the money granted by Parliament for educational purposes under the direction of the Committee of Privy Council; and though he did not for a moment offer an opinion as to whether such a change was a good one or not, still he thought it ought to have attracted some attention; but the fact was, the Education Estimates were brought in on the first day after the Easter recess, and had been passed without sufficient deliberation. He was glad to see such a state of things put an end to, and that the noble Lord the President of the Council had made a statement which, as far as the Committee of Privy Council were concerned, would give the Committee an opportunity of discussing the Vote. He did not think the noble Lord had given a sufficient reason to warrant any increase of public money for the purposes of education this year, beyond the sum devoted to that purpose last year. It was true he had stated it was not so much to provide for a greater extension of education as to improve the quality of the education parted, and that it was rather an aid to the voluntary principle; but he had said nothing that would justify the Committee in coming to the conclusion that whereas 260,000 l., the Estimate of last year, was found more than sufficient for the wants of the Committee of Council on Education, there should now be demanded a sum which, with the balance, would amount to no less than 343,873 l.; and he could not but regret that the noble Lord had not seen the propriety of explaining clearly to the Committee the necessity that had arisen to call for so vast an augmentation in this Vote. He (Mr. Miall) hoped that the popularity and abstract merits of the cause

967
of education would not so dazzle the eyes of hon. Members as to prevent their watching with jealousy the application of these steadily increasing funds, and taking care that their control and management were not committed to despotic and irresponsible hands. The present First Lord of the Admiralty, and also the late Sir Robert Peel, some years ago, had described the Educational Committee of the Privy Council, to whom these functions were confided, as a body clothed with arbitrary and uncontrolled power; and the latter great statesman especially had thrown ridicule on the idea of those who supposed the Committee of the Privy Council to be responsible to Parliament when the measures they devised for carrying on education were prepared and executed without the consent of Parliament. He (Mr. Miall) considered that there was much force and truth in this representation of the matter, and could not but object to the unconstitutional character of the State machinery by which education in this country was conducted. He did not wish to enter into the question of national education, but he asked the Committee whether it was quite safe to go on expanding the present educational machinery, unless it was first ascertained that such machinery was actually producing those results which it was intended to produce? Almost every Bill that had been introduced on the question of education, including those of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and of the Lord Advocate, had involved the necessity of centralisation; there appeared to be no objection to allow the ratepayers the liberty of taxing themselves, but they had never been allowed to control the expenditure of their own money. The Committee ought to entertain great jealousy of the extension of such a principle, and he could not help thinking that too much attention had been paid to what might be called the executive part of this question, as compared with the legislative. The Committee must recollect that when the Committee of Privy Council were first appointed, a long and solemn discussion took place in the House of Lords, and a series of Resolutions were passed against which some Protests were made. One of those Resolutions was as follows—
"That it appears to this House that the powers thus intrusted to the Committee of Council are so important in their bearing upon the moral and religious education of the people of this country
968
and upon the proper duties and functions of the Established Church, and at the same time so capable of progressive and indefinite extension, that they ought not to be committed to any public authority without the consent of Parliament."
That was the opinion of the House of Lords on the constitution of the Committee of Council on Education, and that opinion was in accordance with that of various authorities on the question, who had also pointed out the entire irresponsibility of the Committee of Council. He thought, therefore, that when they were asked to devote 343,873 l. for the purpose of education, they should take care that the machinery used to effect the objects of the grant was of a safe and constitutional description, which he did not think could be said of the Committee of Privy Council. At the same time he wished to be distinctly understood as not casting the slightest imputation upon the honour and integrity of those who administered the educational grants. His strictures were applicable to the system itself. He thought they were expounding a system unsound in itself, and he wished to have some inquiry into the educational results that had been produced. He had looked over the Reports of various inspectors that had been laid upon the table, and had compared them one with another. He could not for a moment pretend that these Reports were unfavourable to the system; on the contrary, he thought it might be fairly expected that these gentlemen would give direct testimony in favour of a system in which they felt they were directly interested; but if they gleaned these Reports, and went over them with a jealous eye, they would be able to pick out passages which throw more light incidentally on the subject of education both in populous places and in rural parishes, than they could gather from any of the direct testimony which they contained. There were two or three results which he inferred from the facts that were stated in these Reports. He inferred, first of all, that the system must fail in this respect, that it had given money largely where money was not wanting, and it had not given money for the promotion of education where money was really required. He could also refer to the Reports to show that the utmost restlessness of spirit had been produced amongst the pupil teachers; that expectations had been raised in their minds by the promises of the Government, which were never likely to be fulfilled; and that results were there-

969
by produced which were exciting the utmost alarm in the minds of the inspectors. The inducement to scholars to remain longer at school than they had previously done was another of the objects which were contemplated at the time of the institution of the Committee of Privy Council; but he gathered from the Reports that that object likewise bad not been accomplished, that the scholars do not now remain longer in the schools than they had been accustomed to remain, and that no improvement had taken place in that respect. It appeared that, as regarded the teachers, they had not raised the status, or increased the average of salaries; and with regard to the pupils, they had not afforded sufficient inducements to keep them together in large numbers for a greater number of years. These were the inferences which he drew from the Reports of the inspectors, but his conclusions might be unwarranted by the real state of the facts if they were impartially examined. He did not propose to stop the action of the machinery now employed, but he proposed that they should not further expand it until they ascertained, by the inquiry of a Committee, the results that had been actually produced. He proposed, therefore, that the Vote should lie limited this year to what it was last year, 160,000 l., including the balance of 80,873 l. now stated to be in hand.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding 160,000 l. be granted to Her Majesty, for Public Education in Great Britain, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, when he said that no improvement had taken place in the educational condition of the people of this country. He admitted that, as respected keeping children at school as long as might be wished, there was a great difficulty; but he did not believe that it was to be attributed to any defect in the system pursued, but only to the pressure which existed upon the means of subsistence among the population. When parents found they could get 2s. or 3s., or even more, a week by the labour of their children, they were loth to keep them at school, and so deprive the family of their earnings. HE (Mr. Henley) believed that to be the great reason why the children of the poor remained for so short a period at school. In the rural districts, with which he was best acquainted, children went out to work at ten or eleven years of age; and in the manufac-
970
turing districts, he believed, not less early. With regard to the question of pupil teachers, he must confess that he could not himself share in the apprehension that had been expressed on the subject by the hon, Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall). He could not understand why young men with a good education were not as likely to make their way in the world as young men with little or none. If that proposition were adopted, education should be given up altogether as an advantage. At present there was a considerable demand for persons trained to the teaching of others; he did not find any redundancy of such teachers; on the contrary, he believed the void was not as yet tilled up; and when a young man following that occupation was of competent character he found no difficulty in procuring a situation, and that remuneration for his services which his position in life entitled him to expect. With regard to the large money grants for the purpose of education, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite that accounts in detail ought to be rendered of the expenditure. He had never seen one that was satisfactory on that point. He did not understand why there should not be a statement showing what was spent every year upon the Estimate. The Estimate showed that 343,873 l. had been granted, but be did not believe all that sum had been spent; he believed that the Government had armed itself with the balance remaining over, and that there was a gradually accumulating amount in the hands of the Government. He thought, therefore, this Vote should be put on the same footing as the civil contingencies, and that there should be an Estimate on a separate paper of the amounts spent and received. He believed that, by searching through the Reports of the Committee of the Privy Council, much information on the matter would be found; but that was not in so convenient a shape as if it was presented separately. With regard to the large amount of the grant, he did not, he confessed, regret it, although he should have been better content if the conditions imposed upon the members of the Church of England had been the same as those imposed on the members of other religious bodies. He could not say that he thought the Church of England had quite fair play; in fact, it had not the same facilities as were accorded to Roman Catholics, but still he would not lessen the grant for that reason. He was not sanguine on the subject of any general system of education;

971
but he should be glad to give such a system his best consideration when it came before Parliament. In the present divided state of religious opinion, however, he doubted much if such a system was possible. As regarded the Manchester scheme, he was not surprised that the Government did not bring forward any general measure founded upon it, seeing the ill-success which it had met with in that House, and also considering the little hope of success for a general scheme in case of the failure of the local one. He confessed he was not enamoured of that scheme, and he believed that education would be better promoted and assisted by the present plan than by any other. When the physical condition of the people was mended, and their pecuniary means increased, there would be plenty of children sent to school. With respect to the Kneller Hall establishment, he believed it to be a failure, and that the cause of the failure was, that schoolmasters were wanted to be trained after a particular fashion which was not fancied by a large portion of the people of this country, and because they were paid less than they could get elsewhere. They were, as he understood, to have 60 l. a year in workhouses as an inducement; whereas they might get 70 l., 80 l., or even 100 l., for their services in other places, according to their qualifications for teaching. He likewise understood that another condition was that they should go into the workhouse for some time. That was not likely to attract young men, with plenty of other training-schools, when they could get equal education, with better chances. Unless, therefore, the Kneller Hall School was put to more useful purposes, it would be better to sell the premises and get rid of it altogether. He thought it would not be unreasonable in another Session of Parliament to look into the working of the system more closely than had yet been done, as the information now attainable, being had from the officers of the Committee of Privy Council, was necessarily somewhat one-sided, men being never apt to colour their own acts on the wrong side. In conclusion, he desired to express his belief that popular education was increasing steadily, even in a greater ratio than the increase of the population; and he believed, also, that it was increasing in quality as well as in extent. He should, therefore, support the grant, and he hoped the next Session that a Parliamentary Committee would be named to inquire into the subject.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, be wished to make one remark upon the financial part of the question, in answer to an observation that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government in previous years had taken a greater amount than was spent in the year, and he inferred from that circumstance that the sum proposed to be taken now was estimated upon the calculation that there might be an excess in the Vote over the amount actually required. The fact was, that his right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, pointed out when the excess became considerable, and the amounts voted had not been all spent, and recommended that in future the Vote should be reduced until that excess should have become absorbed. This had been done, and year by year less had been voted than was actually required for the expenditure of the year, the deficiency being made up out of the surplus remaining over from previous years. So far from the Vote now asked for being less than the sum required for the year, he had received a letter the other day from the managing committee, stating that the whole of the grant now proposed, including the 80,000 l. balance, would be expended by the 31st of March next. He had forwarded that letter to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, however, agreed with him that it was not necessary to make any alteration in the Estimate. At the same time it was clear that the whole amount, together with the balance, would be expended, and that on the 31st March there would be none of the money remaining in hand. That being the case, he wished the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Miall) to consider whether he thought it advisable to propose to diminish the Vote, and make it 80,000 l. less than that of last year, the consequence of which must be that many persons who received yearly payments out of this fund could not be paid, and good faith would not be kept with them. He should not object to the appointment of a Committee next year as suggested, and if they should think it necessary that the system ought to be amended, he should be prepared to consider such recommendation, but under the circumstances he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Amendment.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord the President of the Council

973
that it was more important they should attend to the quality, rather than to the quantity of the education bestowed. He considered that the education of the country possessed two very different aspects according to the points from which it was viewed. When they saw a number of pupils on paper, and looked to the Report of the Inspectors of Schools, there would appear to be strong reasons for gratulation; but when they looked to those same pupils as they advanced in life, and gave their attention, not to returns from schools, but to returns from gaols, and when they looked to the number of those who, when they came to be married, could not read or write, they were astonished at the very narrow limits within which this selfsame education was confined, which, on the other view, appeared to be so extensive. It was well worth while to inquire into the reasons of this strange contrast and seeming contradiction. They found that out of 5,677 men composing the Militia of the counties of Cambridge, Essex, Huntingdon, Norfolk, and Suffolk, there were 2,051 of them who could write their names, and there were 3,626 who were unable to write their names. Then let them look to the gaols. Amongst the 21,000 criminals reported to have been committed in Scotland last year, they found that, except about 4,000, all had been at school for some time or other. There were only 300 or 400 of those prisoners who had received a higher education than mere reading and writing, which showed the importance of education when really extended beyond the narrow boundary to which it was usually confined. To estimate the value of education, they must look at its permanent effects on the minds of the people, and to what extent it was a barrier against criminality and vice, and upon this point the state of our gaols afforded the most reliable information. The flaw in the system appeared to him to be in leaving education to the efforts and direction of religious bodies, instead of intrusting it to the parishes, townships, and other local divisions of the country. He thought that so long as education was made contingent upon the voluntary efforts of religious bodies, it was impossible they could have an extensive national education; and for this reason, that religious bodies had another object in view besides giving that instruction which would merely make good citizens; they had another and a higher object, an object infinitely higher
974
he fully admitted, but it was because it was infinitely higher that it excluded from view that which was the proper business of schools. The schoolmaster became, under the circumstances, rather a missionary than a schoolmaster. The school became a juvenile church or chapel; but, though it was very important to have such institutions and missionaries, let them not elbow the schoolmaster out of his work, and deprive the world of that sort of utility which it was in the power of society to confer on the poorer classes. He believed that religion was a most vital part of education, but he thought that a school established by the State, or by the wealthier classes for the benefit of the poorer, was not the machinery for giving education in its entirety. It was only capable of being made a medium of instruction to a limited extent and on certain subjects. The State had established schools of design under the Board of Trade, without insisting on their being placed under ecclesiastical superintendence. Why, then, should they not do the same with regard to schools for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic? He believed that the denominational and sectarian teaching had a tendency to deteriorate the quality of schools. As an instance of what the schools connected with religious bodies were worth in comparison with those of a purely secular character, he might mention that an analysis he had made of the Educational Report which had been delivered respecting Scotland, told very much against them. The schools in Scotland were divided into four classes, namely, the old baronial schools, the schools which have endowments, the schools which were supported by religious bodies, and other public schools, by which was meant those founded on the general philanthropic principle; and to these schools he had applied four tests, with the view of ascertaining their respective merits. First, he had tried them by ascertaining the number of children that regularly attended the schools; secondly, by the cost of the education; thirdly, by the salaries paid to the masters; and, lastly, by the amount of the voluntary contributions of the children. The result was that while in the religious schools the attendance on the census day was 81 per cent, in the other schools it was 85 and 6–10ths per cent; the cost of the school in the religious schools was 11 s. 9d. per head, in the other schools it was 20 s. per head; the salary of the master in the religious schools was 39 l,

975
a year, in the others it was 46 l. 6s. 8d. a year. The contribution of the pupils in the schools connected with religious bodies was 2s. 3½d. in the other schools it was 4s., giving the master in the religious schools 20 l. 5s. a year, and the masters of the other schools 25 l. 16 s. 6d. a year. Now, that was a tolerably correct illustration of the state of things in this country also, and the test fully established that so long as schools were connected with religious bodies, they kept down the standard of education. To show the error of an educational system based upon religious connection, he would state the case of a girl who, upon being examined before a Committee, and when asked what religion she was, replied, "Nothing." "Are you a Christian?" she was asked. "She did not know," was her reply. "Are you a Protestant then?" "Not that I am aware of," was the reply. "Then do you know what von are? "Yes, when I was at school I was told I was a Baptist, and so I am now, I suppose." All this showed that the sectarian principle of education was not applicable to the people of this country. True, there were well-organised sects in the country, but the mass of the people were not sectarian, and the introduction of sectarianism in matters of education rendered our public schools unpopular with the working classes, and the less the working classes bad reason to suspect its presence in the arrangements for teaching their children, the more popular would be the schools to which they were invited to send them. He did not think there was much force in the objection which was urged to the action of the Committee of Privy Council on the ground of centralisation. For, in fact, in this case that merely amounted to there being a point to which information might converge, and from which it might be again disseminated to the various localities. They did not seem to have exercised any other influence over the various schools, except by disseminating information with respect to the various modes of teaching; and the utility of this no one could doubt. He had no sympathy with the objections that were urged to this Vote, and indeed would gladly see it enlarged, although at the same time he thought it should be more impartially expended than at present, and that Government should keep in view, as their primary object, the raising of the quality of education, an end which might be attained by graduating the schools, and
976
by giving more decided attention to the dissemination of secular and useful knowledge. Instead of that, however, the Committee of the Privy Council set its face against schools of a non-sectarian character, and refused them the assistance to which they would otherwise be entitled; and yet there were such schools, in which thousands of children were being taught, both in this metropolis and in Edinburgh and in Glasgow, and the inspectors who had visited them acknowledged that they stood in the highest rank amongst the schools for the instruction of the children of the poor. He must, however, acknowledge the great services which the Committee of the Privy Council had rendered to the cause of education. He believed that, without them, we should neither have had the quantity, limited as that might be, nor the quality, undesirable as that might be, of education which we had at present. What was called the voluntary system had put forth its greatest powers and done its greatest good, only under the conviction, the stimulus, and the impulse, if not by the help, of that body. It was when it was first instituted that people began to stir themselves in different parts of the country, and that the rapid increase of schools and pupils commenced. Earnestly wishing to see the instruction rendered more solid, enduring, and useful, he would support the Vote, trusting that if the time were not yet come to introduce a broad and general measure of education, much might, nevertheless, be done by the efforts of the Committee of Privy Council to correct the failings and errors which were inherent in our present system of instruction.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the speech of the noble Lord the President of the Council, and he thought if anything could tend to confirm the noble Lord in his opinion that at present no great or comprehensive system of national education could be established, it was the speeches they had just heard from different Members, of whom no two were agreed as to the system that should be adopted. He thought, therefore, that Government had acted prudently in continuing the existing system, though at the same time he could not conceal from himself that there was great room for improvement in it. The Reports of the Inspectors of Schools showed the very early age at which, in the majority of cases, the children left the schools, and therefore it was most desirable that some

977
portion of this grant should be directed to the encouragement of adult schools, which had proved most successful wherever they had been established. More was accomplished in this way by the voluntary efforts of the people while thirsting for education, than by the reluctant labours of children; and, looking at the success which had attended the evening lectures at the Museum of Practical Geology, where the working classes listened with so much eagerness and attention to what was addressed to them, he thought the system of adult schools might be judiciously extended. Under the existing system children were taught to write as children, but they never had an opportunity of writing again; that could only be corrected by establishing an adult system, because, if they made the adults to know the value of education, the adults themselves would insist upon their children going to school, and afterwards practising what they learnt there. Thus, under an adult system, they would be working two ways for the instruction of the people. He saw a very large sum in the Vote for pupil teachers. Now, it seemed to him we were raising up a large class of pupil teachers, and he did not see how hereafter they were to find employment. You gave them an education above their class, and they were then of course unwilling to go back to labour, looking for some better position. It seemed to him that, unless you could give them that position, you were raising up what would be a discontented class of persons throughout the country, and he wished therefore to ask his noble Friend the President of the Council whether there was any future scheme for the employment of pupil teachers which would avoid the evil he had pointed out?
MR. E. BALLsaid, if there were so many persons uneducated as asserted, the course to adopt, in his opinion, was to augment the grant for educational purposes. It was asserted that out of a population of 5,000 persons in a district, 3,000 could not read and write. Now, as these persons were mostly grown up, it was not fair to quote the circumstance as an argument to prove that the educational system had failed. These uneducated persons had grown up before the present system came into operation. He had attended examinations of children in his parish and in adjacent parishes; he had invited ministers of all denominations to be present, and not one had ever left the schools after ex-
978
amination of the children without expressing their astonishment and entire satisfaction at the amount of information—not prepared for the occasion—which was displayed by all the children. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) said that gaols were full. Now, admitting this to be so, so far from objecting to education as founded on sectarianism, the fact ought to operate the other way, and they ought to endeavour to get more of the religious element into education. His opinion was that education was not too sectarian and too religious, but that there was too little of religion in the education of the present day. He collected one curious fact from the progress of Mormonism—that two-thirds of those who went over to that imposture were able to read and write; and the inference he drew from this was, that the religious element was not in sufficient abundance in the education given to them; for those persons might be considered as educated, and yet were melancholy examples of want of instruction in religious truth. Another instance might be drawn from the reformatory institutions. He found that 86 out of every 100 of the inmates could read and write. He thought, therefore, that so far from discountenancing religion in education, they ought to do all in their power to extend it. For his own part, he would never give his support to any Vote which merely gave secular education uncombined with religious instruction to the people.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, considering the amount of ignorance that prevailed in this country, he greatly regretted the small amount of public money devoted to education. He had no faith in the voluntary principle; and he did not think that principle could supply the place of an efficient general system of education. America was an instance of the value of a system of education; and in Austria there was not a soldier who could not read and write. He was as much opposed to the system of centralisation as any man, and he was as willing to leave education free to local authority wherever it could be managed fairly. But When he found that the local authorities could not, or would not, do what was requisite, then it was, he said, that it was proper to resort to another system, and this induced him to acquiesce in the principle of Government supervision and Privy Council support. The noble Lord the Lord President of the Council had been blamed for not bringing forward

979
a Bill on the subject of a national system of education. But, after the fate of the Bill brought in for Scotland by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, he could well understand that a general measure would have little chance of being accepted by that House. He was for a general plan of education, founded on unsectarian principles. Looking at the state of education in Prussia, Belgium, and Austria, he could not but think that the state of education in this country was disgraceful to the nation. He trusted the noble Lord would give a fair distribution of the funds to schools in Scotland without reference to sectarian feelings and principles.
MR. BIGGSsaid, he was so thoroughly a friend of education, and he was so sensible of its beneficial results, that he would have voted for 2,600,000 l. instead of 260,000 l., if that sum had been proposed by the noble Lord. He knew that in the manufacturing town of which he was a native, in Manchester, London, and other towns where children were little educated, destitution largely abounded. This country paid 2,000,000 l. a year for correcting vice, and between 5,000,000 l. and 6,000,000 l. for maintaining paupers. How could they dare, then, to admit to a foreigner that, for the education of the people, they paid annually only the magnificent sum of 260,000 l.? He felt certain, that, if a fair, open, public meeting were called anywhere in this country, an immense majority would be in favour of a system of national education. That 260,000 l. was in his belief the best spent money in the kingdom, though perhaps it might net be spent in the best possible way. What class was most interested in educating the people? Why, the wealthy class; for how could capital, how could religion, how could free institutions, be safe, with an ignorant population? Early next Session, for the purpose of testing this Legislature, and seeing whether the House of Commons was really friendly to a national system, he should move a Resolution to this effect:—"That, in the opinion of this House, a system of national education is desirable." That would commit no Gentleman to any peculiar views on the subject at all—and the question would then come to be one only of mode—not as to the result, but only as to the means of carrying out the Resolution, upon which measure he trusted they should agree. Further, in the event of the Government
980
not proceeding with a measure or any Member older and better qualified than himself, he should bring in a Bill for extending education to the people of England and Wales framed on principles similar to those adopted in the United States. In Scotland it had been stated, on the best authority, that one-third of the children were wholly uneducated; and of the remaining two-thirds, one-half were so ill educated as to be none the better for what they had learned. Under such circumstances he must think that Sunday School teachers were the purest patriots that ever existed. What was it that prevented the establishment of a system of national education? Religious bigotry. But for that they should next Session have a national system that would include every child born in England, Ireland, and Scotland. He was surprised at the conduct of lion. Members sitting on the Government side of the House. How could Gentlemen professing civil and religious liberty oppose a Vote for the education of the people? Let them remember that they had annually 17,000 juvenile criminals on their hands, and whom they must meet in after life, and for punishing whom they must pay a sum ten times as large as that for which they might now educate them. Nothing would give him greater pleasure than to send to gaol every parent who would not educate his child. He hoped the noble Lord would think better of the matter, and reintroduce an Education Bill such as the country required. That would send his name down to posterity as the most successful statesman of this or any other age—and after that, if he wished to quit the political arena, they could spare him.
MR. MILESsaid, he thanked the hon. Member for a large portion of his speech, but he could not help thinking that for a Liberal Member the hon. Gentleman was somewhat illiberal, when he said that he would send to gaol the parent who would not educate his children. He rather thought that that was a system of education upon which they were not yet prepared to act. With respect to the Resolution which the hon. Member had declared his intention to bring forward next Session, he believed the hon. Member might save himself the trouble of doing so, for he believed it would be generally consented to by the House. They were all aware of the difficulties that existed to the establishing of any national system of education. The noble Lord the President

981
of the Council had given great attention to the subject, and knew that on this question of education three distinct systems—the sectional, the denominational, and the voluntary—had been adopted, and that if be delayed dealing with the question he would still have the same opposition to meet, and the same arguments to contend against, that he now had. The noble Lord had uniformly, during his Parliamentary career, supported the denominational system, which had now received such a development that 86 per cent of the juvenile population were being instructed under it. Why not, then, make such grants to the schools already established in connection with different communities as would enable them to receive into the bosoms of their schools the outcasts of society, who were neglected under the present system? In spite of all the efforts already made, there was still a vast deficiency to be made up. He found by a return moved for by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) that in ten of the largest manufacturing towns, including Manchester, Oldham, Stockport, and Coventry, containing a population of 931,217, there was one in 11·85 persons at school; and that in ten others, each with a population of above 20,000, or 530,072 in all, including York and Portsmouth, there was one in 6·95 persons at school, showing a great disproportion in the opportunities of education. He could not understand why they should hesitate to carry out a system which had already worked so well. Voluntary exertions, he feared, would never overtake the rapid increase that was going on in the population. According to the Census Report of Mr. Horace Mann, no fewer than 965,000 children in a population of between 17,000,000 and 18,000,000 in England and Wales were uncared for and untaught. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox), who was a supporter of the secular system, had alluded to the uneducated state of the militia volunteers in the eastern counties. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member say that he looked more to the quality than to the quantity of the education, for in his opinion both quantity and quality should be regarded. He did not believe that the secular system could be carried out, because even the humblest classes demand to have religious blended with secular education. Even at Manchester, the headquarters of that party, he believed that the attendance at their two national schools was
982
not above one-half of the accommodation which they had provided. Except those schools—the William's School at Edinburgh, and ten or a dozen others—he did not believe that purely secular schools existed at all throughout the country. He had to thank the noble Lord the President of the Council for the letter which the Secretary to the Privy Council had written to the master of William's School, in answer to his demand for a grant of money; for it showed that the noble Lord still adhered to the principle that religion should be the basis of any system of national education. He hoped the noble Lord would turn his attention to one part of the question—ragged schools—because in a few years there would be a great increase of the number of convicts throughout the country, and an endeavour ought to be made to prevent juvenile offenders from becoming inveterate and hardened criminals. He should certainly not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Arian).
MR. COBDENsaid, though he hoped he was the most tolerant of men on the subject of education, and though he was one of the foremost to appreciate the difficulties under which any Government laboured with regard to a question so vast, yet he must say, that the noble Lord the President of the Council had put his charity during the last two or three years to a great trial, for he could not help thinking that not only was the noble Lord letting down this question, but that the House of Commons was going backward with respect to it. The course which the noble Lord had pursued for the last year or two, had greatly surprised him. Last year he brought forward a measure, in which he fully recognised the necessity for a total change in the present system of administering the funds devoted to the purposes of education. He brought forward his measure, preceded by a recommendation from the Crown, and he made a speech, in which he told them, not as he had done to-night, that this was not a matter which could be done by the Government, and that they must attend to the improvement of the quality, rather than the quantity, of education, but on the contrary that education was the all-important question, and that it must be taken up by the Government even as a preliminary to the extension of the political rights of the community. He declared, if there was any one in the House unkind and ill-natured enough

983
to produce the speech of the noble Lord last year, and to read it to the House, after the difference of tone to-night, he thought it would be exceedingly difficult for the noble Lord to recognise his own sentiments. [Lord J. RUSSELL: They are the same.] Yes, the sentiments might be the same, but they were not brought into action in the same way; they were not such as to induce them to think that the noble Lord was prepared to deal with this question as its magnitude demanded. They were now assuredly going back on this question. They had now, for the first time, a Motion made against this Vote by an hon. Member who was opposed to all systems of national education; and very recently the Bill for a system of Scotch national education was defeated by a combination of nine Gentlemen who had taken up the plan of opposing all national education. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Hear, hear.] The noble Lord said "Hear, hear;" but how had that arisen? He must say he could not altogether acquit the noble Lord himself of being in some degree responsible for this adverse state of things, because one circumstance which greatly encouraged the voluntary party, who were opposed to all national systems, was this:—They found in the present system much that was indefensible in principle—much that nobody could justify—much that would warrant hon. Members to take up with the voluntary system, in order to escape the injustice of the present system. Now, one of the ways in which they might hope to recover their lost ground was to do that which had been done by the noble Lord to-night—to introduce the subject with a view to its being freely and fairly discussed. If they had but this question discussed night after night, and Session after Session, as was done with other great questions, it was his belief that they would soon be in a better position with regard to it than they were now. He was willing to admit that the Government, sixteen or eighteen years ago, had done a considerable amount of good by their mode of administering this fund through the agency of the Privy Council; that they had improved the character of education; that they had raised the quality of tuition; that they had elevated the status of the teacher. But still, all that had been done was done, if he might so express it, clandestinely. It had been smuggled, if he might so say, by the Committee of Privy Council, because there was a constant apprehension of
984
bringing the subject forward in that House, as it was thought that discussion on the subject would be fatal to the cause of education. For sonic years after the system was begun, perhaps that might have been the case. But still, if they had had discussions upon the question—if it had been brought before that House Session after Session, giving rise to debates in which principles would have been advocated and the truth developed—it would have ended, after a few years, as other great questions have ended—one party or the other in the controversy would have given way, and they would have allowed the right principle to be carried out into practice. He was, therefore, glad that the noble Lord who was at the head of the department most interested in the progress of education had now introduced the system of prefacing the Educational Vote by a general statement of the policy of the Government upon the subject. He was of opinion that they would have to make up their minds that there must be a local rate for educational purposes, and that they could not otherwise carry out any system of national education that would be worthy of the name. After fifteen or sixteen years of very minute—he might almost say of trifling—dealing with this question, he thought it must be admitted that the time had come when they must do something decisive. As was said by a great warrior on another subject, this country could not afford to have a little national education. They had a population of 28,000,000 of people, and it was shown by the Census that there was at least 1,000,000 of children who ought to be at school, but who did not go to school. If they were to establish a system of education in this country that would compare with what was done in America, they must raise at least 3,500,000 l. a year. And England was rich enough to do that. It would be a much better investment than to spend 5,000,000 l. upon poor rates; and they must make up their minds that this great and momentous question could not be dealt with by the inadequate sum of 350,000 l. from the national Exchequer. They could not obtain an adequate sum from the Government, because the disbursement of it would involve an amount of centralisation which would be repugnant to the feelings of the people of this country. Would anybody deny that the present system placed this country in an invidious—he might say a disgraceful —plight before the eyes of the civilised

985
world? An American tourist of some eminence, who was lately in this country, said that England was the only country in Europe that had not made some provision for education that deserved the name of national. This was a disparagement of them in the face of Europe, unless they could show to the world that they were arriving at better things. He hoped that that was really the case. He was gratified to find the good feeling that was now prevailing on both sides of the House, and the degree of progress they were making—in spite of all that might be said of the little that was actually accomplished—still it was gratifying to look at the progress that had been made on the University question, on the limited liability question, on every question, in fact, that came before them respecting the social improvement or the education of the people. Why, the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) spoke on the question of education with as much unction and good-will as could be done by any Member on that side of the House. So that he thought no one could doubt, if they addressed themselves in earnest to the discussion of this question, that they would speedily arrive at a solution, as they had done in so many parts of Europe, and in America, where they had the same difficulties to contend with. In the Colonies also the same conflicts had been gone through, but all had come to some solution or other of the difficulty. That solution, he believed, would be found here through the medium of a local rate, without clogging that rate with the conditions that were sought to be attached to it either by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) on the one hand, or the hon. Member for East Somersetshire on the other. He did not think that either of these hon. Gentlemen had a right to dictate to the other. His own opinion was that they must not impose a restriction of any sort, but leave it to the people of the locality to decide for themselves. He would suggest to the noble Lord, whether it would not be worth his while to address himself to the question in this spirit; to see if he could not devise a permissive Bill, giving power to the different localities; let him begin with corporate bodies if he liked, giving power to the corporations to levy rates for the purposes of education. They had already taken the initiative in this matter, by allowing corporations to raise funds for
986
reading-rooms and museums. But let this be done in a liberal spirit, as if it was intended to carry it out; let it not be clogged and guarded with such jealous provisos as to make it necessary that a corporation which had the power to raise as large a sum as 100,000 l. for waterworks, gasworks, or similar purposes, by a simple majority, required a vote of two-thirds of its members, or a reference of the question to a primary assembly, to make a rate for the purposes of education. Let the corporations have the power to establish a plan of education which should be supplementary, if it was thought necessary, to the existing schools, as was proposed at Manchester; he would not throw out of use any existing school whatever; there would be room for them all. With regard to the Manchester and Salford system of education, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), that there was everything to commend and to admire in the spirit of the gentlemen who worked in that cause. There were many private meetings among the advocates of the secular and the denominational system, and there was every tendency to toleration and to compromise among them, and to this day he could hardly tell what it was they differed about at last. The difference between them was reduced to an infinitesimal quantity. In such a crisis a Minister of the Crown might be useful to the cause, but at that very time the noble Lord was throwing out sentiments which struck with despair many of the friends of education, by defining, in a more arbitrary sense than ever, what he understood by the religious education to be given in those schools. There was no occasion whatever to be afraid that the people of England wanted to do anything irreligious; there could not be got together a hundred decent and respectable men in any part of the country to discuss the subject of education into whose heads it would ever enter to do anything inimical to the cause of religion; and yet no sooner was the subject of secular education mentioned in that House than some hon. Member or other jumped up as if a plot was laid to undermine Christianity. For himself, he would candidly confess, so anxious was he for the spread of instruction, so little was he jealous of efforts of proselytism, and so anxious was he for education either on sectarian principles or without them, that he was perfectly willing to join at once either with the hon. Mem-

987
ber for East Somersetshire in his efforts for denominational education, or with the hon. Member for Oldham in his efforts for secular education, meaning separate education, as he would prefer to call it, because no one thought of excluding religion from education. He would join with either on this simple condition, that they should show him it was practicable to include the whole community in the provisions of their measure. Had they not had, he would ask, experience of the failure of the denominational system? Had they not had sufficient proof that a large portion of the religious bodies would neither accept of the funds, nor pay them if they could avoid it? They had proof in the fact of nine hon. Gentlemen in that House, who were opposed to all national education, though, to his own knowledge, there were no Gentlemen in the House, or in the country, more anxious for the spread of education than these hon. Gentlemen were; but their objection to the present was, that it violated religious principle, for the House coupled religion with education, and they were voluntaries on the subject of religion. But the hon. Member for East Somersetshire maintained, as a condition of his granting assistance, that religion of some kind should be taught in the schools. [Mr. MILES, Hear, hear!] Now, had the hon. Gentleman ever carried out this principle to its strict logical conclusion? He insisted that religion should be taught. What religion? He would not answer, the Church of England, for the House and the country were now both got beyond that; and the Church of England was no longer the religion of the whole people. He must, therefore, have paid teachers of the Church of England, Baptists, Independents, Unitarians, Roman Catholics, and Jews. Would the hon. Gentleman agree to that? [Mr. MILES: Certainly]. Well, then, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would settle that question with his neighbour on his right hand, Mr. Spooner. Did the hon. Member for North Warwickshire agree with the hon. Member for East Somersetshire in voting money to teach all religions? He had heard a great deal to the contrary of that from more than one of the hon. Members for Warwickshire. Well, again, there was the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball), whose speech had concluded with the sentiment that the Word of God must be taught—would he be willing to make an exception
988
in favour of Jews and Roman Catholics? He should be glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's views on that point, for it was most desirable that the subject should be fairly discussed. The question must be solved in one of two ways—either they must teach all religions or they must teach none at all. They could not stop between these two points. But it was just between these two points that they were stopping, because the present system was one by which voluntaries were altogether excluded; they were neither willing to pay nor to receive rates, and it was just because the present system involved over again all the difficulties of the church rates that it was impossible to rest content with it. He did not think that the question would be solved by insisting that nobody receiving rates should give religious instruction. Probably, then, some decision of this sort would be come to—to allow the different localities to choose for themselves the religion which should be taught in their schools. There was a large proportion of the thinly populated rural parishes in which all the inhabitants belonged to the Church of England, and he would never consent to be a party to passing a Bill which should prohibit the Catechism of the Church of England, and the religion of the Church from being taught in the schools of such parishes. But, then, in the large parishes where there was a mixed population, it would be impossible to insist upon the teaching of any one particular religion. If they did, those differing from that religion would not send their children, and other schools would have to be built for their accommodation. So that for the convenience of all parties, and in order to make the best use of existing school accommodation, they would have to resort to the plan of setting aside a particular time when the sectarian catechisms could be taught. It was not the Bible that was the difficulty. The reading of the standard edition of the Bible without comment would not stand in the way anywhere, perhaps, but in parishes where there was a large mixture of the Roman Catholic population. Now, if such a permissive measure as this were passed, he had sufficient faith in the good sense of the country that in all localities where it was adopted it would work well. He believed that this religious question was a mighty bugbear—a bubble which would burst the moment they touched it with their finger. He remembered speak-

989
ing on this subject with Mr. Henry Dunn, the highly respected secretary of the British and Foreign School Society, and he said—
"I hear a great deal of talk about the religious difficulty, but in the whole course of my long experience I never met with it in practice."
And so he was convinced it would be found everywhere if they would allow the country to try the experiments that best suited the different localities. He did not say that they would not have a great deal of strife in different places before parties accommodated themselves to this new policy. But they would soon find that the example of one town would stimulate another—that the people of one town would be ashamed a not being as tolerant and sensible as another, and the most suitable system for each locality would soon be adopted all over the country. He would remind the noble Lord that, instead of the languid tone and feeble hand with which he had been sorry to see the noble Lord the Lord President handle this question of late, he wanted to see him come down and declare boldly to the country that things could not go on as they were; that all parties were now agreed the present system was unworthy of the nation; and that, instead of flinching from the question because there were difficulties in the way, they must have the subject brought before them continually, and held up constantly before their eyes till it was settled one way or another; that we must cease to be the only nation in Europe which had not toleration enough to adopt a national system, and yet had the vanity to put ourselves forward as having adopted one. Let them consider what an advantage giving were giving by the present system to the friends of voluntary education, who were a rising power in that House, and whose power was still greater among his own constituents in Yorkshire, which, he believed, was the head-quarters of voluntaryism. He had read with astonishment, in the Report of the Committee of Privy Council, that a Resolution was agreed to in April, 1853, giving a capitation fee of 5s. or 6s. for each child attending school in districts where there were not more than 5,000 inhabitants. Now, he had no objection personally to that system, but he thought it gave great cause to the advocates of the voluntary system to complain. Here was the Committee of Privy Council, of its own accord, without consulting Par-
990
liament, granting public money, to which the voluntaries had contributed, for purposes in which they could not partake, for it must be borne in mind that the voluntaries were excluded altogether from these schools. It was impossible not to admit that this was unjust to the voluntaries, and contrary, too, to constitutional principles, for he really must say that it was going a little too far for the Privy Council to dispose of the public money in this manner. He did not wish to see anything undone that was now being done. He had no objection to the appointment of inspectors. On the contrary, he thought that very valuable information was derived from their labours. He was sorry, however, to see from the returns presented by these gentlemen that the working people seemed to have a great disinclination to send their children to school. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said that the working people had not the means of sending their children to school, that they were required to gain their own subsistence at a very early age, but he (Mr. Cobden) had been struck with the repeated observations of these inspectors, that it was not in bad times that children were withdrawn from school, but in times of prosperity, and at the present time, when the parents were earning high wages, the children of the working classes were undergoing that disadvantage to a great extent. The inspectors said, that children of only six and seven years of age were sent to earn their own living. Such a state of things was disgraceful to the working-classes—disgraceful to those parents who sent their children to work at that early age, instead of allowing them to attend school. But there was another party to such a practice, whose conduct was equally disgraceful, and that was the employers. Those who sanctioned such a proceeding ought to reflect that they were lending themselves to what was unnatural; they were taxing children's muscles and brains at an age when they could not be so taxed without injury to their health, and they were doing that which they would not do in the case of their own horses or dogs, for them they always allowed to grow up to maturity before setting them to work. Both parties ought to be put to shame, and the best way to place the working man in a proper position was to provide such a system of education that none could have an excuse for not sending his children to school. When he was engaged in business,

991
soon after he had built a school and provided a suitable teacher, he affixed a notice on his premises intimating that nobody would be employed who had not acquired a moderate degree of education, and the plan worked exceedingly well. If they did that throughout the country, the evil would soon cure itself, and they would have many magistrates of the turn of mind of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Biggs), who declared he would be really glad to send the vagabonds who neglected their children's education to prison. He feared that, for the present, our systems of education were not reaching the masses of the people at all; and this was the great difficulty of the question, which too frequently was overlooked. He believed, too, that there was great delusion in the public mind as to the extent to which our unskilled labourers were identified with any religious sect whatever. He had read the Reports of town missionaries, and he had consulted men who went round the country upon errands of temperance, and all their statements confirmed him in this conviction. Dr. Hook might also be cited in proof of what he was going to say, namely, that a very large majority of the working classes did not belong to any sect whatever, and that they were, habitually, connected with no religion whatever. The Census Returns established the same fact. The Report on Religious Worship proved that one-third of the population were not habitual frequenters of any place of worship whatever. All this proved that, whatever might have been done so far, education had not reached the mass of the people. On this subject he was greatly struck with a remark of Mr. Arnold's, the Inspector of the British and Wesleyan, and other denominational schools in the midland district of England and Wales. Mr. Arnold said—
"I remain in the opinion which I last year expressed, that in the schools which I visit, and, above all, in the Wesleyan schools which I visit, the children of the actually lowest, poorest classes in this country—of what are called the masses—are not, to speak generally, educated; that the children who are educated in them belong to a different class from these; and that, consequently, of the education of the masses, I, in the course of my official duty, see, strictly speaking, little or nothing."
Take the statistics of our mechanics' institutions—they proved precisely the same thing. Instead of serving mechanics, as their name expressed, they were serving warehousemen, clerks, shopkeepers; here
992
and there were a few foremen, and now and then might be seen a highly skilled mechanic, but of the mass and body of the people there were none. He ventured to say, therefore, that the unskilled labour of the country had not been sufficiently provided with the means of education; and he would venture to assert, further, that there was not one agricultural labourer in all England and Wales—and there were upwards of 1,000,000 of them—that subscribed to a mechanics' institution. We deceived ourselves on these subjects. It was the same with every other attempt hitherto made to educate the people. With regard to the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Lord Brougham, he believed, would be the first to admit that its efforts had not succeeded in reaching the parties who were first in his mind, and whom he was most anxious to serve. Let any hon. Member ask where the Penny Magazine, Chambers's Journal, and the other cheap literature of that useful class, most circulated; it was not among the people for whom it was primarily designed; it stopped short of the working classes, and was found only op drawing-room tables and shopkeepers' desks; it was not found in the cabins and cottages of our unskilled labourers. He contended, therefore, that it was not merely the quality of the education imparted that was most wanted, but the quantity of it; we wanted, in fact, the great mass and body of the people reached by the schoolmaster, for it was precisely those who had not been touched by any previous effort. This great work could not be accomplished through the religious denominations, because it was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the mass of the people did not belong to any; and he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox), with respect to the class who did not belong to any sect, that if they were not inspired with faith in the disinterestedness of the education offered to them, if they were driven to the school underneath the chapel, or at the gable end of the church, the result would be a failure. They must be taught that the school was open from a sincere desire to educate their children, and from no desire whatever to proselytise. What, he asked, had been the experience of such a system in America? Were we afraid of improving the intellect of the people of this country, to say nothing of their morals? Could it be supposed that, by

993
raising the intellectual standard, by accustoming the people to habits of thought and mental discipline, the interests of religion were not likely to be promoted? Let the experience of America be consulted; ask the people of the New England States. Had the progress of education there, where creeds and catechisms were banished, been found inimical to the extension of religion and Christianity? On the contrary, all the outward and visible signs of a religious temper prevailed. Judge of the people there by the number of their places of worship, by the observance of the Sabbath. How many Sunday newspapers had they? How many persons travelled on the railways on Sundays? In fact, test them by all the usual outward and visible signs of religious observance, and he was sure there would be found in all the free States of America and everywhere except in the Southern States, where there was an admixture of Spanish and French habits—more religious sentiment than in England. What, then, were we afraid of? We could not cure the evil by the present plan. Then let some other be adopted. At all events, let the question be discussed; let it not be kept back in the recesses of the Privy Council Office. He had seen questions almost as knotty as this unravelled and untied, and, in the end, very much to the satisfaction of all parties, who had been for years quarrelling with each other upon them, by virtue of discussion. The present debate, therefore, would be useful in that respect; and as it would be a fatal error to refuse a comparatively small sum of money for the purpose of educating the people while we were spending 10,000,000 l. on war, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I can hardly hesitate, after the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has last addressed us, to endeavour to set the Committee right with regard to what I really said in proposing this measure. The hon. Gentleman says that, although his charity is very large, he cannot carry it quite so far as to be at all satisfied with the representation I made to the House and the language I held. But then I must say he did not carry his charity very far, because he did not carry it so far as to state what I really said, and he was obliged to state something very different from what I said, in order to find fault with it. I said, that in my opinion, it was desirable in the present state of education to improve the quality of educa-
994
tion; I said the plan of distributing grants by the Privy Council was not equivalent to a system of education—that it was not a system—and that therefore I thought the good that could be effected was not so much by the extension of the quantity as by an improvement of the quality. I said, in a subsequent part of my speech, that I thought there was not at present that concurrence of opinion, especially with regard to the religious part of the question, which would authorise and justify the Government in bringing a plan forward this Session; but I never said—I never dreamt of saying—that the quality of education was the only thing to be looked to, or that any measure on the subject of education was not to be hoped for until a greater concurrence of opinion prevailed. Now, although the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, as he conceives, that this is a question not surrounded with so many difficulties as others suppose, yet in every step he has taken, he shows how great those difficulties are. He partly made a proposition, and then in a few minutes afterwards he showed how many obstacles that very proposition would encounter. The hon. Gentleman says—"Let there be continued reading of the Bible, and let there be the learning of the Catechism in those parishes where every inhabitant is of the Church of England." He went on to say, some time afterwards, that the voluntaries object to any teaching of religion by the State, and yet you are to possess an Act of Parliament which would authorise those parishes to which he refers to teach the Bible and the Catechism. But let me remark that there are not so many parishes as the hon. Gentleman supposes which are composed entirely of Churchmen, and that, at all events, there are a considerable number of parishes where, although Churchmen may be in a great majority, there are some five or ten (Efferent Dissenting families, who, when the parish was authorised to levy a local rate, and when they were told by a great majority that that local rate would be applied to a parish school where the Bible and Catechism would be taught, would, if they were voluntaries, of course protest against such a rate. In fact, there would be some danger of the objection made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) in 1852, that if we had schools established in such a manner, it might be raising a new church-rate difficulty and a new church-rate question.

995
The hon. Gentleman who proposed this scheme must see that this is only one of the difficulties to which it is liable. But these questions are not new either to Parliament or to the country, and it is a navigation somewhat like that of the Danube, described by a right hon. Friend of mine a short time ago—a navigation which is impeded by the wrecks which are on each side of the channel. The late Mr. Whitbread attempted to introduce a system of national education, and he failed. Mr. Brougham many years afterwards brought forward, with his usual ability, a great scheme of national education, and he was defeated, principally by the Protestant Dissenters. In the year 1839 I proposed, not a system of national education, but a normal school, which was thought to be so objectionable by many members of the Established Church, that I was obliged to withdraw it without even taking a vote upon it. My right hon. Friend who sits near me (Sir J. Graham) brought forward a plan of education some years afterwards with regard to factories. I gave him what support I could, but the Dissenting body raised such an opposition that my right hon. Friend was obliged to withdraw the scheme he had produced with so much care. And what has happened of late years? A noble Lord, a friend of mine, Lord Melbourne, brought forward a measure for Scotland which was exactly what the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden) proposes, and I thought it was a very good Bill. He proposed that every parish in Scotland should have the power of levying rates and settling all the terms and conditions on which those rates were to be applied to a school. He said, and I think truly—
"The people of Scotland are a religious people. You must have rules for the maintenance of religious teaching in these schools, and you ought to leave it entirely to those disagreeing in what manner they will make these provisions, or whether they will make them at all."
I voted for that Bill, but it was defeated. And what have we seen this very Session? My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate brought forward a Bill, and enforced it with great eloquence and ability. It appeared to me to be a most excellent Bill, and I think to this day it was a great misfortune that it was lost. It was lost, however, on account of the opposition of religious bodies of various kinds. It was in favour of religious teaching, and it did not admit that which many voluntaries, of
996
Scotland especially, required—namely, that if there was any religious teaching, it should be paid for by separate payments from the children taught. It did not contain that provision, but it enacted broadly and strongly that there should be religious teaching in the various schools. It was opposed by the voluntaries and by the Established Church also, and it was defeated. It is after all those attempts and those many failures, a few only of which I have recounted, that the hon. Gentleman conies forwards and represents me as the only obstacle to the establishment of a general system of national education, and attacks me for what I have done on the subject. And what has been done on the subject? In 1832 there was a grant proposed for education. In 1839 the Government to which I belonged—that of Lord Melbourne—made a proposition to Lord Lansdowne, who then held the office I have now the honour to hold, for the formation of a Committee of the Privy Council, which was to regulate the distribution of the grants, and to endeavour to improve the education of the country. The Vote on that subject was carried, in a very full House, by a majority of two, and, at all events, it showed that there was some difficulty in the subject. A year or two afterwards—I believe the following year—the heads of the Church, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, meeting Lord Lansdowne and myself, agreed to the terms upon which we should act, in concurrence with the National School Society, and one difficulty was thus got over. In 1846 we proposed by a further minute to extend and increase the grants for education, by which, I believe, a great deal of good has been done. I believe that if we had attempted in 1839 or in 1847 a great national system of education, we should have failed; but I believe that, proceeding in the way we have done, we have, to a certain degree, cleared the ground for the adoption of a system which could be accepted by the nation at large. But my belief is, that with regard to any general or national system that may be adopted, you must not omit a considerate and a careful regard to those denominational societies which, whether the National Society, or the British and Foreign Society, or the Wesleyan Society, have connected education with religion. I remember seeing a pamphlet—though I do not know whether it was written by a working man or not—which was addressed to the hon.

997
Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), and purported to be written by a working man, upon the subject of education. I don't think the question was treated very fairly in that letter; but the mode in which it was stated was this—
"We are in the enjoyment of a system of religious education; we, by our own efforts, are in possession of that system. Notwithstanding what is said of Prussia—notwithstanding what is said of America—we, the working men of England, are in possession of a regular system of education, and a system which has been productive of more thought and of more co-operation and independence than all those systems which are so highly vaunted. Will you, then, the Members for Yorkshire, interfere with this system, and, by the introduction of a secular system of education, overthrow that which is established?"
The argument was very ably put; but I don't think it was just as applied to the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden). At all events, I think any fears of that kind ought to be allayed, and I think you cannot establish a system of national education wisely or effectively in which you do not take into account the immense good which has been done and the immense good now doing by these various societies. I should be very glad if in a parish meeting, or if in a meeting of a town council, it could be agreed that a particular kind of school should be established, that such school should be resorted to by the inhabitants of the parish or town generally, and that it should work in harmony. But at the same time we must recollect that, in order to make any scheme work well, we must have the active zeal, not only of the schoolmaster, but of persons visiting and superintending the school. I am sorry to say that there is an immense mass of the population beyond all the efforts which have hitherto been used. What the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) said on this subject is quite true. There is in our large towns, and in a great part of the country, a mass of people who have not been educated at any school, whose children have not been educated at any school, and who are beyond the efforts of any of the Parliamentary Votes which have been given. These are the population to which I think any measure of education ought particularly to be directed. I believe that a measure which left, as much as possible, to the present existing schools of the several denominations the carrying on of education in the manner which the consciences of the parties concerned would direct would be the best, and, at the same
998
time, to provide for that great mass which is outside those efforts. I think that would be the only practical foundation for any future scheme of national education. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire has represented—following rather too much in this respect the representations of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall)—that this is an irresponsible power, and that the Houses of Parliament are not informed of the measures adopted. I think what I have stated is a testament to the contrary, and shows, at least, that I was willing, and that I intended, to have had a full discussion upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman says there was a plan adopted last year somewhat secretly—a capitation rate for certain parishes—and that the House was some time before it discovered it. Last year—on the 4th of April—I stated at great length the views of Government with regard to education, and I mentioned the measures proposed to be introduced into Parliament as well as those laid before the Committee of the Privy Council. I said then that—
"Seeing that such a plan could not be universally adopted in this country, and for this plain reason, that in many parishes in the country there could only be one school, we propose by a minute, which has been for some time under consideration, but which is not yet fully matured, to allow in certain instances to places which have not municipal corporations a certain suns per head for each child attending the school. It will be necessary, however, to confine any such grants to those schools where the schoolmaster has obtained a certificate of ability. That minute, when its provisions shall have been fully matured, will be laid upon the table, and the House, before coming to any vote upon it, will have ample opportunity afforded for duly considering it."—[3 Hansard, cxxv. 538.]
I produced soon afterwards that minute, and if any hon. Gentleman desired to make any observations upon it, it was fully open to him to do so. I cannot but think, therefore, whatever may be the defects of the system, that it was merely done in order to supply all that could be supplied without calling it a plan of education. The proceedings of the Committee of Council, like any other department of the State, is under the observation of Parliament. When these Estimates are framed, the rules on which the grants are given are laid before Parliament, and Parliament has an opportunity, on every occasion, of either objecting to the money proposed or to the mode of its appropriation. Under these circumstances, therefore, I cannot agree to the Amendment of the hon. Gen-

999
tleman (Mr. Miall), nor do I think it requisite to raise the difficult and perilous questions which would meet us were we to propose any general and national scheme at the present time. I should be glad if, by means of discussion, we could be enabled to arrive at anything like an agreement upon this subject. The hon. Member for the West Riding has used most laudable efforts himself to improve and extend the education of the country, but I do not believe, if we were to bring in a plan which took no notice of religion in the subject of education, we should be likely to succeed. I am supposing now a plan in conformity with the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, and to such a plan I do not think we should obtain the assent of this House or of the country. I believe a plan of that kind would be liable to all that feeling of opposition which was raised many years ago to the various plans I have referred to. But in any plan brought forward we must preserve that which has already been done. I do not believe, after all—though there is a great deal of ignorance in this country—I do not believe there is a country in which education has made such rapid progress as in this within the last five years. I trust that the result of that progress will be, that we shall come to a more general conviction that what remains to be done ought to be effected. I quite agree that there could be no work more worthy of Parliament than a national system of education —the extension of education to every poor child throughout the country. But I trust that whenever such a plan is brought forward it will be maturely considered, for after the failures that have taken place—after the failure this year of the Scotch Education Bill—the bringing forward of an immature general plan for England and Wales would very much tend to postpone the adoption of any plan for many years. I have endeavoured from 1839 to the present time to promote education. I was in hopes that, though not able to carry any system of national education, I had yet done something towards this object; and I can only say I am sorry to find, from what has fallen from the hon. Member for the West Riding, that he thinks I have been a great obstacle in the way of education.
MR. EWARTsaid, he thought the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding hardly called for the concluding observations of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had certainly done much for the pro-
1000
motion of popular education, and he also considered that great good had been done by the Committee of Council on Education, but he did not believe that the Committee of Council could be the means of affording a thorough system of education to the people of this country. He was of opinion that nothing less than a system of general rating would suffice for that object, and he thought that general rating ought to be carried out on the principle of self-government, which might be said to be indigenous to this country. In connection with this question, he wished to ask whether any reform was to take place in our public schools? It would be of little use reforming the Universities, unless there was also a complete reformation of our intermediate schools. Though he did not think a thorough national system of education could be carried out soon, or that immediate harmony on the subject was to be expected, yet he saw that there was an approximation to that end, and he hoped that from that evening they would be able to see their way to a complete national system of education.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, it was the voluntary principle that had accomplished the great object of which they heard so much in that House, and he was astonished that the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) should have any distrust and want of confidence in that principle. The hon. Member for the West Riding had himself been a great voluntary teacher when he instructed the country from one end to the other in the principles of free trade, and he, of all others, ought to put implicit confidence in the voluntary principle. Improve the position of the people, and they would soon everywhere establish schools for themselves; and the only way to improve the position of the people was to follow up the course they had been pure suing, to open up to the utmost the channels of trade and commerce, and remove I taxation from every article of commerce, and from everything that could promote the comfort and well-being of the people. Of all the systems of education that had been in operation that of Sunday Schools had been the most effective, and they were entirely upheld by voluntary effort. The proof of a people being well educated was the moral propriety of their conduct, and he asked if in any country on the Continent they could find a people who conducted themselves, on the whole, better than those of England? The system of

1001
ragged schools also was supported on the voluntary principle, for here, as in many other respects, the interference of the Government would be found impossible.
MR. MIALLsaid, if he understood the noble Lord as consenting to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the results of the system of education adopted under the Minutes of Privy Council, he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) 193,040 l., Public Education, Ireland.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Committee to the necessity for rendering national education in Ireland more comprehensive and complete —first, by means of industrial instruction adapted to the wants and circumstances of the several districts of Ireland; and, secondly, by securing the most efficient teachers by an adequate scale of salaries commensurate with their important and engrossing duties. The returns showed how highly the privilege of attending an industrial school was estimated in Ireland. The average attendance of scholars in the Irish national schools was 111, but the average attendance at the industrial schools was 433. If the House would promote industrial instruction in schools, it was certain that the children would largely avail themselves of it. The Commissioners of National Education in Ireland had upon their rolls about 544,000 children, but if the proportion were what it ought to be, there would be 1,285,000 children receiving instruction in Ireland, and, if a system of education adapted to the wants and circumstances of Ireland were introduced, there would be that number of children on the rolls of the schools. In England every tall chimney they saw was all index that an industrial school was in operation beneath it; but there was no industrial training for the children of the poor in the greater parts of Ireland. If their object was to educate, instruct, and to elevate the condition of the people, then every national school ought also to be an industrial one in some branch or the other. They had an ignorant population in Ireland, but an industrious one, if an opportunity were allowed them to exercise their powers. He was not begging money for this object, he only asked the Government that the sum devoted to Ireland should be distributed wisely and according to the wants of the country. In order that the
1002
instruction given might be of a good and sound character, they must have suitable teachers reasonably remunerated, but in many parts of Ireland there were great complaints as to the rate of remuneration. The rate of payment varied, he believed, from 18 l. to 36 l. per annum, though on averaging the sum in the Estimate devoted to teachers he could only make the average a little more than 15 l. each per annum. [The hon. Member then read a letter from a teacher, in which the writer said that he was starving, that his salary and income from all sources was only 22 l., and he entreated the hon. Member to call attention to the small salaries received by teachers in comparison even with the sums received by policemen and labourers.] He did not on the present occasion intend to move any Amendment, yet he still trusted that the Government would take the matter into consideration; if they did not, he would next Session move an Address for a Commission of Inquiry on this subject.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that no subject could be of more importance to all classes of society than that of a judicious union, within certain limits, of an industrious and literary education. The industrial education had been introduced into the national schools of Ireland to such an extent that many well-informed persons thought that they had better for the present not proceed further until they had ascertained how far they could safely carry on this without interfering with a literary education. Industrial education was encouraged in Ireland by the National Board more, he believed, than in any other country in the world, and those who had visited the model schools in various parts of Ireland had hail the satisfaction of seeing the number of pauper children who had, through the means of these schools, been enabled to gain a honest livelihood. They had in Ireland thirty-two model schools, in which both not only the practice but the theory also of agriculture were taught. There were also fifty-six agricultural schools connected with the Poor Law Union, in which the same system as in the model schools was carried on. He considered that the hon. Member (Mr. Kennedy) had understated the salaries of the teachers, as lately there had been a great demand for them, and he believed that the salaries varied from 30 l. to 40 l. No person certainly was better entitled to bring forward this question that the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee,

1003
for he had, in a remote district of Ireland, established schools which had conferred a great benefit on a neighbourhood which, from its unfortunate situation, could not through other means have received it. He thought, however, that the hon. Member would allow that a system which in the hands of an individual was successful might not be equally so in the hands of the State. It was very doubtful whether the attempt to engraft the industrial system as a general rule upon the educational would be successful; but, however that might be, the Board of National Education and the Government were fully impressed with the advantages of spreading among the poorer classes in Ireland an education in industry as well as in literature. Both in the gaols and the workhouses the plan had been carried out to a very great extent, and much had been done under the national system. In addition to this, a plan for the management of local institutions for practical science and the fine arts was about to be extended to Ireland, and the Government were pushing it forward as much as they possibly could. He gave the hon. Gentleman great credit for his zeal and earnestness upon the subject, but he thought that all that could be desired was now being done. The Government fully appreciated its importance, and they were endeavouring to carry it out as far as practicable.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet that it might not be practical for the Government or State to undertake, in that complete sense which some persons had desired, a perfect and organised system for industrial employment of the poor of Ireland. He believed that the system which had been commenced in Ireland had not reached the point it might attain. He would beg to suggest to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland a point for consideration, namely, whether the teachers were properly qualified for giving instruction in industrial pursuits. It appeared to him (Mr. Ball) that the defects of an early education prevented them from being so useful as they might be to the youthful poor of Ireland. There were some branches of industry which were connected with the fine arts which were especially congenial to the minds of the Irish poor, and in which the boys attained rapidly a great success. One branch he would mention was carving in wood and stone. He hoped the Government would exert themselves to encourage these branches of industrial education.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he must express a hope that the Commissioners of Education would encourage the instruction of children in the making of fishing-nets. The fisheries of Ireland were formerly carried on with great vigour and success. The county which he represented (Wexford) was particularly remarkable for the great fishery trade which it carried on. Lord Morpeth, in 1826, had obtained a Committee of Inquiry into the fisheries of Ireland, which had been nearly destroyed by the legislation of the British Parliament; and that Committee expressed a desire that attention should be paid to the necessity of instructing the children in the schools in the art of making nets.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 79,845 l., Departments of Science and Art, &c.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he wished to urge the claims of Glasgow to have an industrial museum established there, regard being had to its connection with the commercial, manufacturing, and mining enterprise of Scotland. He had no objection to the proposed establishment of such an institution at Edinburgh, but he hoped that Glasgow would not be forgotten, for the strongest possible testimony had been given that a museum there would be productive of great public advantage.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the claims of Glasgow, as the centre of industrial enterprise in Scotland, could never be overlooked by the Legislature, but it must be borne in mind that the establishment of museums involved considerable expense. At present there were none of the kind except in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, and it must be borne in mind that there was a broad distinction between these and all other towns. What Parliament might do hereafter it was of course impossible to say.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he thought they should have more experience of these museums before they extended them to the, other towns of the country. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to some of the items of the Vote, and particularly to the fact of there being two secretaries at Marlborough House, each at 1,000 l. a year. He also wished for some explanation to be given with regard to the Vote of 8,500 l., for the Industrial Museum, Scotland.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was very much inclined to think that at a future time, when the institution at Marlborough

1005
House should have become consolidated, in the event of one of the secretaryships becoming vacant, it would be worth while to consider whether it would be necessary to fill it up. But it was quite a different thing when the department was first established. With respect to the Vote of 8,500 l. for the Industrial Museum in Edinburgh, it would be seen that by far the greater part of it (7,000 l.) was for the purchase of a site.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he also must urge the claims of Glasgow; he trusted that the privilege would be extended before long to other large towns, both in England and Ireland.
MR. HUTCHINSsaid, that the Committee upon Accidents in Coal Mines, of which he was the Chairman, found that many of those accidents arose from a want of scientific knowledge among the people, and he therefore recommended that mining schools, supported by grants from Government, should be established throughout the country. He would also suggest that persons should be placed in the different museums to give explanations of their contents to the visitors.
COLONEL BLAIRsaid, that the observations of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Macgregor) appeared to be that of a conscience-stricken man; for it was only two nights ago when that hon. Gentleman was the only Scotch Member that was found voting in favour of a proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take away the Snell exhibition from the Scotch University. He (Colonel Blair) would, however, admit that when a museum was to be established for the first time, it should be established in the capital of the country.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member had made a charge against him of an extraordinary character. He was prepared to defend the vote he gave the other night with regard to the Snell exhibition, in connection with the other proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In giving that vote he felt that he was doing the best for the University of Glasgow.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he willingly admitted the utility of this department, but he must call attention to the large amount which was expended on salaries, and particularly to the employment of two secretaries, one of whom he hoped, after the observations made by the noble Lord
1006
(Lord Seymour) would be dispensed with when an opportunity occurred.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the duties of the two secretaries were at the time extremely different, and the establishment had been carefully considered by the recent Treasury Commission.
MR. HEYWOODbegged to express his satisfaction at the Vote of 3,200 l. for meteorological observations at sea. The American Government had for many years had a department at Washington for carrying on those observations, which had led to the shortening of several voyages, that from New York to South America having been shortened, he believed, by a fortnight.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he trusted that the Vote would be increased in future years, as no branch of science had of late years, progressed so rapidly as that of meteorology. He hoped that the observations made by different persons upon land as well as at sea would be collected, as, if that were done, he anticipated that in a few years, notwithstanding the variable climate of this country, we might know in this metropolis the condition of the weather twenty-four hours beforehand. [Laughter.] Science had in modern times achieved even more astonishing things than this, and therefore his anticipation was not so ridiculous as some hon. Gentlemen appeared to suppose. He hoped the right hon. President of the Board of Trade would not allow any trifling economical considerations to stand in the way of making a collection of all the valuable observations that were now being accumulated.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman's prediction regarding the progress of meteorological science would prove true, as it would be exceedingly useful for the farmer to know when he would be able to begin cutting his hay. Hon. Gentlemen spoke as if art and science were one and the same thing, but he certainly could see no connection whatever between them. He had not the least doubt that science was making rapid advances in this country; but as to the progress of art, he begged leave to question that extremely. In the first place, not knowing for themselves very much about the matter, people took hold of a French expression which they were unable to translate. They saw the phrase "école de dessein," and they translated it "a school of design." Now, école de dessein meant a drawing school,

1007
and not a school of design; but what was worse, these people limited this French word dessein to mere pattern drawing in artificial flowers and muslins, and this was what they called their école de dessein. Well, then, but they bought a picture, and when they had given an enormous price for it they set to work upon it with a piece of pumice-stone, and spoilt it by rubbing the best touches of the painter all out. It was not so much this that he thought remarkable, but what most surprised him was that it should be seriously debated among people who professed themselves connoisseurs of the fine arts whether a painting was or was not really improved by this pumice-stone vandalism. It showed an intense amount of narrow ignorance on all such subjects that deluded the people with the idea that they could have any real taste for the highest art. Why, they might just as well try to force the Italians to like beef-steaks and porter, instead of light wine and maccaroni. The thing was perfectly absurd. He would not divide the Committee on this Vote, but it was a piece of rank imposture; and he thought very little better of the previous grant for education, which was, like this senseless rage about art, a mere monomania of the day—but vogue la galère.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 2,006 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries and Allowances to certain Professors in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, though he objected to many Votes, he had never offered any opposition to those for the promotion of science and the arts except this, which he certainly objected to in the strongest manner, on the ground of the vast revenues of the Universities, amounting, he believed, to upwards of 300,000 l. a year. He thought it was too bad for them to come to the House of Commons for a Vote of 2,006 l. for lecturers in the University, and he should divide the Committee on it.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, this charge was originally on the civil list, but was removed, in 1831, to the Estimates. There was a clause in the Bill recently passed in that House which induced him to hope that the University of Oxford would take these charges on itself in future, in return
1008
for Parliament undertaking to repeal certain stamp duties in such a case.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he objected to the Vote, even although it had been a charge that formerly appeared in the civil list; but he would recommend the hon. Member (Mr. Williams) not go to a division now, as he (Mr. Heywood) hoped that the whole subject of the University revenues would be made the matter of an inquiry before a Select Committee next year.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should be glad to see the Universities take this charge. upon themselves at once. He should, however, persist in his intention of dividing the Committee.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that much dissatisfaction had been felt and expressed at the charge for the professor of civil law, which was only 100 l. a year, being put upon the Estimates. Moreover, he understood that the Chair had been vacant for the last twelve months.
Question put.
The Committee divided. The numbers reported by the Tellers were:—Ayes 154; Noes 25: Majority 129.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he wished to state, in consequence of the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr, that the professor of civil law held his office against his own inclination, but at the particular desire of the University, and that his deputy, who discharged all the duties, received all the emoluments of the office.
Notice taken, that the Honourable Member for Ayr had given his voice with the Noes, and had voted with the Ayes:—Whereupon the Chairman directed his vote to be reckoned with the Noes:—Ayes 153; Noes 26: Majority 127.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Oxford University; Dublin Carriage; Bankruptcy.
2a Bleaching, &c., Works.
Reported—Gaming-Houses.
3a legislative Council (Canada).

PUBLIC REVENUE AND CONSOLIDATED FUND CHARGES BILL—
THE MASTERS OF THE COURTS OF COMMON LAW—QUESTION.
LORD CAMPBELLwished to put a question to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack upon a subject of some importance. He was informed on very good authority that there was a proposal on the part of the Government, which was to be carried into effect by the Consolidated Fund Charges Bill, that certain officers who were employed in the administra-
932
tion of justice, and who had high judicial functions assigned to them—he meant the —Masters of the Courts of Common Law—instead of having their annual salaries appointed and secured by Act of Parliament, should be placed upon the annual Votes of the House of Commons—that their salaries should be included among those Votes by time Government, and be subject to variations, from time to time, according to the prevailing notion of that House with respect to liberality or economy. Now, so far as the present holders of those offices were concerned—considering the tenure by wince they held their appointments—a clause might as well be introduced into the Bill to deprive their Lordships of the estates which they had inherited from their ancestors; and he could hardly suppose that anything so atrocious—for so he would venture to describe a provision of that kind —could be in contemplation. He was told, however, that it was in contemplation, with respect to all future appointments, that whenever the present incumbents should resign or die, their successors should be placed upon this footing. He thought that this would be a most imprudent course, and entirely opposed to the principles which had Hitherto guided both Houses of Parliament with respect to the payment of judicial officers. It was proposed that these persons, holding judicial offices, should depend on the proposal of the Government, year by year, and on the manner in which that proposal might be received by the House of Commons. These offices were now filled by men of great learning, of great integrity, and of high honour; but he would venture to say that if this arrangement should be carried out, no man, who could earn his daily bread in any other way, would deign to accept them. At present, although the remuneration was extremely moderate, barristers and solicitors of large practice, of great learning, and of great experience, were willing to accept them, because they knew that the remuneration, although small, was certain. But if they could not know but that in the following session of Parliament, instead of receiving 1,000 l. a year, their salaries might be reduced to 500 l. or 50 l., they would not accept office, and it would be impossible to find men of adequate learning or adequate character for the discharge of the important duties which devolved upon them. He was the more snrprised to be told that this was in contemplation, because a noble

933
Friend of his, whom he did not now see in his place (the Marquess of Clanricarde), having put a question the other night with respect to the Irish officers, he had understood his noble and learned Friend to say, that it was not in the contemplation of the Government to touch those officers, because, being in the nature of judicial officers, they ought to have fixed salaries, independent of the Government, and during their incumbencies independent of Parliament. Now, however, they were told that the Masters of the Courts of Common Law in England were to be degraded from their present position of holding their offices at fixed salaries, during good behaviour, to be placed on an entieely new footing, and to be dependent on an annual Vote of the House of Commons. He thought that such a course would be very reprehensible. It might be a very sound principle to proceed on, that the whole of the public revenue should be paid into the Exchequer, and that any expenses or allowances for collecting it should be paid out of the Exchequer; but it had been held by successive Governments that the administration of justice was not a fit subject for taxation, mid that the fees which were now imposed ought to go, and only to go, to pay the expenses of the officers of the respective courts; and although, if there was any surplus, it was paid into the Consolidated Fund, it was only for the purpose of indemnifying that fund, which was liable for any deficiency. He denied, therefore, that these fees were obtained by way of revenue, or that the officers of the courts of justice were at all like officers of Customs or Excise, or came at all within the scope of the measure. He trusted, therefore, that his noble and learned Friend, who took so warm an interest in all that concerned the administration of justice, would be able to assure him that no such thing was intended.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, with respect to the present holders of offices, there was an express exception introduced into the Bill to prevent all possible controversy, and to make it perfectly clear that the Bill did not apply to them, nor affect their vested interests. With respect to the future holders of office, the way in which the Masters of the Courts of Common Law were at present paid was by fees, which were collected, and any surplus was paid into the Exchequer, while any deficiency was made good from the Consolidated Fund. He had been asked
934
a question the other night, by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), with respect to the Masters of the Court of Chancery in Ireland. It never was intended to include those officers in the Bill, and he so answered. With respect to the Masters of the Courts of Common Law in England and Ireland, the provision was, that they should be paid by Votes of Parliament, and not out of the Consolidated Fund; but it was not intended to include in that provision any officers exercising a judical function.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, the Masters of the superior courts of Common Law did exercise judicial functions; and if the principle laid clown by his noble and learned Friend was that upon which this Bill had been framed, they ought most undoubtedly to be excepted from its operation. But he was not at all satisfied with the statement of his noble and learned Friend, that there was a clause excepting the present holders of those offices; because he was perfectly satisfied that if they placed those functionaries upon the chances of such annual provision as might be made for them from year to year, at the proposal of the Government by a Vote of the House of Commons, they would not have men of such distinction, and learning, and character, as they had now.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the principle involved was one of great importance, and one to which their Lordships' attention might he very properly directed, although the Bill which had been alluded to was not yet before the House. The Bill contained a schedule, which had been so carelessly prepared that not only were the salaries of the Masters in Chancery and of the other judicial persons to whom his noble and learned Friend had alluded included in it, and made dependent, for all time to come, upon the annual Vote of Parliament, but even the salary of the Master of the Rolls, himself one of the highest judicial functionaries in the land, was put upon the same footing. This was a proposal so extraordinary, that he could only account for it as having been a mistake. It would behove their Lordships to look very carefully at the schedule of this Bill, when it should be brought before them, and to consider seriously the principle upon which they ought to act. If they were to preserve any remains of fees in connection with the administration of justice, there was no reason why they should continue to do an objectionable

935
thing in the most objectionable way. He trusted that they should not find put into this schedule any one officer of a judicial character. If it were otherwise, it would not be enough to say that they did not affect existing interests, because the principle would be permanent—and the principle was most objectionable, which made judicial officers dependent on the annual Vote of Parliament.
LORD BROUGHAMentirely agreed with his noble Friends, and would never cease to condemn the impropriety of any judicial or quasi-judicial functionary being dependent upon fees, or upon the Executive Government, or even upon the Executive Government together with the Commons House of Parliament. It went against their independence, and struck at the very root of our judicial system, which required that those who administered the law should be entirely independent—independent of the Crown upon the one hand, and of the House of Commons and the will of the people on the other. He knew it might be an unpopular doctrine that any class of public officers should be independent of the people; but it was for the benefit of the people themselves that the independence of the Judges should be maintained; and even with respect to officers whose functions were not judicial, but merely ministerial—he thought they ought to be so paid as that there should be a certainty with respect to their salaries, because it was of the greatest moment that such offices should be filled by competent and respectable persons; and they could not get such persons if their salaries were subjected to an annual Vote of Parliament.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Re-commitment) read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that either on the report or third reading of the Bill he should move the omission of the clauses relating to divorce a vincu1o, as he wished that question to be debated separately from this Bill, which treated the subject as if founding a new court for the administration of the existing law, whereas divorce a vinculo never was the law of this country from the earliest period down to the present day. He hoped their Lordships would solemnly consider that, al-
936
though under the existing law the morals of the country with regard to the sanctity of the marriage tie had been spoken of as an example for other countries, they were about to introduce a complete change, and make divorce, for the first time, a common remedy which any one could seek and obtain. At the present moment divorces a vinculo were treated as exceptional cases, two or three only occurring in each year, and were in no way recognised by the law of the land.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he would be perfectly prepared to discuss the question raised by his noble Friend in any shape, or at any time he might think most convenient to introduce the discussion. It might be their course hitherto had been wrong—they might be bound to retrace their steps, or to advance in another direction, and make some modifications in the present practice. At all events, he hoped his noble Friend would consider, before he finally made up his mind on the subject, that the present system could not possibly be continued, unless they were prepared to say that it should be competent only to one class of the community to obtain the remedy in these cases—namely, that class which could afford to pay for it.
LORD REDESDALEbegged to remind the noble and learned Lord that he had always said he thought that the remedy ought to be got rid of altogether. It was not the law of the land. An exceptional law was made in each case to get rid of the existing law, leaving the law as it stood, and under Which this country had prospered in morality for thousands of years.
LORD CAMPBELLhoped that adultery on the part of the wife would be considered ground for dissolving marriage, as was accordant with reason and Scripture.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that this question was one of too great importance to be disposed of in a merely cursory debate. He had given notice of his intention to move in the Committee on this Bill certain Amendments; but before their Lordships went into Committee, he proposed to state what his views were of the machinery of the Bill. Their Lordships were aware that it was deemed necessary that there should be an alteration with regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts generally; and that the question of testamentary jurisdiction was referred to one Commission, divorce causes to another, whilst ecclesiastical discipline remained for de-

937
cision. The Commissioners who considered the great question of testamentary jurisdiction reported that, in their opinion, a new court should be established for all testamentary matters. His noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor so far departed from that Report as to propose in the Bill which had gone down to the other House to transfer to the Court of Chancery the whole testamentary jurisdiction. Considering the importance of those questions being taken before one court, with complete jurisdiction, instead of before several judges, he concurred in that view; but he should not have concurred if he had known that it was proposed to transfer to the Court of Chancery divorce causes also. The Commissioners to whom was submitted the question of divorce, in their Report expressed an opinion in favour of one court, but that not the Court of Chancery; yet in this matter also his noble and learned Friend had departed from the recommendation of the Commissioners. He did not find fault with him for not following exactly the Reports of the several Commissioners, but their resolutions certainly must have great weight, and be necessarily received with great respect. His noble and learned Friend, however, proposed to transfer all causes matrimonial, except divorce a vinculo, to the Court of Chancery bodily, and to constitute a new court, consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Roils, and three persons appointed by the Crown, for the consideration of divorces a vinculo. He agreed that divorces a vinculo required some higher authority than ordinary matrimonial causes; but he ventured to suggest that, instead of creating a new court, a simple clause should be inserted, directing that those cases should be heard by the Lord Chancellor in his own court, with the assistance, pointed out by the Commissioners, of a common-law Judge, and an Ecclesiastical Court Judge; while other branches of the Court of Chancery should administer the law in all other matrimonial Causes. He hoped, if his noble and learned Friend persisted in transferring these causes to the Court of Chancery, he would adopt that suggestion. But, for himself, he objected to their going to the Court of Chancery at all. There was a tendency, inevitable, perhaps, in many cases—and if not inevitable, not avoided—to delay, of which the suitors deeply complained; but if testamentary jurisdiction and jurisdiction in cases of divorce were to be transferred to the Court of Chancery, the
938
machinery of that Court would become so clogged as absolutely to render it powerless, deprive the public of the benefits of recent alterations, and render nearly nugatory the advantages which had been gained at so great a price and after so much trouble. It was quite impossible that Court, though charged with deciding rights to a greater amount of property than all the other courts put together, could continue to exercise its functions, if from day to day, and from hour to hour, it was to be burdened with new labours and onerous jurisdictions. The Court of Chancery had never decided questions of divorce. It had nothing to do with the subject. his noble and learned Friend would say that it had jurisdiction over children. Nothing could be more distinct than the whole subject of marriage and the jurisdiction over children, which amounted only to jurisdiction over children where property was involved. If a new court were created, that court could more properly take the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery as to the care of infants than the Court of Chancery could take jurisdiction over matrimonial causes. Jurisdiction over children was not often exercised, and it afforded no reason why the great business of divorce should be transferred to the Court of Chancery. His noble and learned Friend Seemed to think the business would be of a trifling nature, and would not greatly add to the labours of the Court of Chancery. He (Lord St. Leonards) believed, on the contrary, that there were no cases which occupied more time, or were more expensive, than those which by this Bill would be transferred; and he felt perfectly confident that, if testamentary jurisdiction and matrimonial causes were both transferred to the Court of Chancery, a weight of labour would be added to the duties of that Court which it would not be able to discharge. The noble and learned Lord might be prepared to say that if such should prove to be the case, they could create a new Vice Chancellor. He wholly objected to the appointment of a new Vice Chancellor, because it would be the same thing as establishing a new court, which must have a separate bar, a separate place of sitting, and separate officers to attend it, and the addition of so many Vice Chancellors to the Court of Chancery would lead to serious inconvenience. He had already called the attention of the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government to the advantage of keeping together

939
a bar for matrimonial causes and testamentary jurisdiction. In the Ecclesiastical Courts the gentlemen who now practised there were disciplined and learned in international law—men of independence, honour, and high character, whose opinions not only guided the Government in the most difficult cases, but carried a weight with them in Europe; for foreign Governments were satisfied when they found that this Government was acting not merely upon its own will and feelings, but was guided by the learning and opinions of persons who were amenable to the profession and the country for the opinions which they gave. If the whole of these matters were transferred to the Court of Chancery, no such advice or assistance could in future be obtained. The question of ecclesiastical discipline had not vet been touched, although in no respect did these courts require more remodelling. Nothing, for example, could be more disgraceful to a great country like this than to throw upon the Bishops, whose incomes were limited and not thought too much, either the odium of not prosecuting in cases where it was their duty to prosecute, or the risk of having to pay all the expenses. Those were matters which must meet with relief, and he sup- posed next Session his noble and learned Friend would introduce a special Bill, in order to provide for that jurisdiction. It was not with the view of obstructing this measure, but with the view of rendering it effective, that be stated his opinion that the whole subject of the Ecclesiastical Courts, including testamentary jurisdiction, together, matrimonial causes, and ecclesiastical discipline, ought to be considered together, and he strongly inclined to the belief that a separate court must still exist, which would admit of great improvements over those which now existed, for the management of all these difficult matters. A Bill of last Session put an end to the fashion of treating the funds of the Court of Chancery as open funds, and appropriated all the surplus funds to their proper object—the relief of the suitors as much as possible from law taxes. In the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill his noble and learned Friend took the proper course, and created a particular fund into which fees were to be paid, and out of which were to be paid the expenses and compensations under that Bill. In this Bill a different course was adopted, and all compensations to officers were thrown upon the suitors' fee fund
of the Court of Chancery. Nothing could be more unjust, or more in contravention
940
of the Act of last Session, and therefore upon that point he should certainly divide the House. He had repeatedly asked what would be the amount of compensation under the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, but he could never get any answer. If they might judge from the past, it would be an amount so enormous as very much to alarm the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was no account given of the compensation under this Bill; but, be it great or small, he should object to its being thrown on the suitors' fund as a matter of principle. He sincerely wished to see a new jurisdiction created for all these matters. He should, therefore, cordially concur in every measure for creating a perfect tribunal to which all these subjects could be referred, giving to that tribunal all such powers as were necessary; and he trusted he should not be supposed to be offering any obstruction by drawing the attention of the House and of the country to what he considered to be a very important question—the constitution of the court to which all those cases were to be referred.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was not from any disrespect to the noble and learned Lord that he must express his intention not to occupy time by discussing the clauses of this Bill before they went into Committee. The noble and learned Lord made the same objection as he had just urged upon the second reading of the Bill. He made some trifling alterations, but very trifling indeed, because he did not think the noble and learned Lord's suggestions would have effected any improvement. Having done that, the Bill had now arrived at the stage when their Lordships were to go into Committee upon it; and he thought it would be most inconvenient for him to answer now the observations of his noble and learned Friend, as it would probably give rise to a second discussion when the clauses came to be considered. The noble and learned Lord objected to the constitution of the court and to the amount of compensation. With regard to compensation, as he had not alluded to it before, he might say his only reason for charging it on the suitors' fund was that he apprehended that the compensation under this Bill would be extremely small indeed. No courts were abolished by this measure; the jurisdiction in matrimonial causes now existing was to cease, and compensation would only be in respect of what the officers derived from those causes. They were very few. The

941
great bulk of these causes were here in London, and they were only eleven a year. In the country they were hardly ever heard of; but in order to do justice they must provide compensation. He thought, therefore, that, in such a case, it was not fit to create complicated machinery, and therefore proposed to pay the compensation out of the suitors' fund. The Lord Chancellor would impose such fees as seemed to him reasonable to meet the expenses incurred in these causes, and the question of compensation. Under the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill there was a great extent of machinery, and a new head of accounts in the Accountant General's Office was necessary for payment of salaries and fees; but that was entirely unnecessary in the case of this Bill, where both fees and compensation were extremely small. With regard to the constitution of the court, he could only repeat what he had stated before, that the Divorce Commissioners recommended the constitution of a new court, to consist of a Vice Chancellor, a common law Judge, and an ecclesiastical Judge. It appeared to him, that for the transaction of ordinary matrimonial business that was a very inconvenient mode of constituting a court, for he thought such business ought to be referred to a court that was constantly sitting. The question was, to what court should that business be confided? The Divorce Commissioners said that the Court of Chancery would be eminently adapted for that purpose were it not that they thought a single Judge was not competent to decide such difficult cases. So far, however, as the ordinary jurisdiction was concerned, he did not see why a single Judge in the Court of Chancery should not be as able to transact such business as a single Judge in the existing Eccesiastical Courts. In his opinion, for all ordinary purposes, a single Judge would be even better than what had been called a many-headed tribunal. But he thought the same observation did not apply to the new jurisdiction which was proposed by this Bill, namely, the jurisdiction which was now vested exclusively in the House of Lords, to grant by means of private Bills divorces a vinculo matrimonii. He thought it would not be in conformity with the feelings and opinions of this country to transfer that jurisdiction at once to a tribunal consisting of a single Judge, or to any but a tribunal which should command, as far as possible, all the influence which the judicature of the country could supply.
942
For that reason he thought it better that the tribunal to decide upon divorces a vinculo matrimonii should be a distinct and separate court, consisting of the highest legal functionaries in the land. He proposed, therefore, that the tribunal in question should be composed of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and two other persons to be nominated by the Crown. The Lord Chief Justice, however, objected that the duties of his office were such that it would very often be inconvenient for him to attend the new court; and therefore it was proposed that three other persons should be appointed, of whom one should always be a common law Judge. It appeared to him that by that means they secured that the public would be satisfied with the tribunal. He remembered it was stated, as an objection upon a former occasion, that he proposed a tribunal having jurisdiction over nothing but divorces a vinculo matrimonii, but who, if they refused such a divorce, could not give any minor relief. Certainly not, because there was no other minor relief which could be given, inasmuch as the reasons for refusing a divorce a vinculo matrimonii would always be reasons for refusing a divorce a Mensâ et thoro, except in the extremely improbable case of a wife suing for a divorce on account of the incestuous adultery of the husband, and proving that the husband had been guilty of adultery, but not with the aggravation of incest. In such a case the wife might be entitled to a divorce a mensâ et thoro, but not to a divorce a vinculo. That was a case, however, which would not occur oftener than once in a century, and the objection founded upon it was one in theory only, and not one that would ever be practically realised. It appeared to him, therefore, that the tribunal created by this Bill was the best that could be constituted. The noble and learned Lord who spoke last suggested what was, in truth, exactly the same thing. He was prepared to give the jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, but he would impose upon the Lord Chancellor the necessity of hearing the causes alone, assisted by the Lord Chief Justice or some other legal functionary. If, however, the Lord Chief Justice and that other functionary were to be merely the assessors of the Lord Chancellor, the proposed tribunal would be highly objectionable, and lie must protest against it. [Lord ST. LEONARDS: That is not what I mean.] Then, he asked, what was it but a new court? If

943
the Lord Chancellor was to sit with the Lord Chief Justice, or some other legal functionary, that, to all intents and purposes, would be a new tribunal. He did not propose in the Bill to have a single new officer, or to have a single shilling of payment. Not only, therefore, must there be a new tribunal, but in every respect it must differ from the ordinary functions of the Court of Chancery. There must be an entirely new code of procedure. Evidence was to he taken vivâ voce, and there must be a mode laid down for serving parties out of the country. There must also be an appeal, and that appeal must be limited in a very different way from that in which ordinary appeals from the Court of Chancery were limited. He proposed in the Bill that an appeal should be made in the course of three months after the decision of the Court. The constitution of the new tribunal, from the beginning to the end, was totally different from anything else, and its functions were in no way similar to those which the Court of Chancery could exercise. It appeared to him, upon the whole, that the Bill, as at present framed, placed the matter upon a satisfactory footing, and he could not help thinking that it would be regarded in the same light by their Lordships when they had considered it in Committee.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that, although he did not approve of the Bill in its present shape, he did not propose to offer any Amendment to it, nor did he concur in the Amendment which his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had suggested; but the advantage of getting rid of the scandalous proceeding of passing Bills of divorce by the two Houses of Parliament, and of getting rid also of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the multiplied courts all over England in matrimonial causes, would so far transcend any injurious effect which the measure, as it now stood, would have, that he was ready to pay a very considerable price for the attainment of that benefit. He thought the machinery of the Bill was defective, and therefore he could not approve it; but let them get rid of the existing system of Parliamentary divorces a vinculo matrimonii, and of the present system of matrimonial causes being carried to these multiplied ecclesiastical jurisdictions, and there would be not only a great immediate improvement, but what would lead before long to a still greater improvement. He entirely approved the principle upon which the Bill was founded, that
944
adultery on the part of the wife should be a sufficient ground for dissolving the marriage if the conduct of the husband had been unexceptionable; and he thought his noble and learned Friend had wisely abstained from proposing to do what was now done in Scotland and some other countries—give a latitude to the wife to have the marriage dissolved on account of the adultery of the husband. Reprehensible as the conduct of die husband must be if he was guilty of adultery, still in most cases it might be condoned; and it did not necessarily and inevitably render the marriage tie no longer tolerable to the wife. Unless, therefore, the adultery of the husband was accompanied with such aggravations as were specified in the Bill—incest, bigamy, or other offences to which he would not now particularly allude—he thought the wife ought not to be entitled to a divorce a vinculo, because she might still pardon what had happened and again live happily with her husband. This, then, was a principle of the Bill which he highly approved, and he trusted it would pass into law. Still he could not approve the machinery of the Bill. He concurred in the recommendation of the Commission, to which he had had the honour to belong, and which was composed of gentlemen of the highest eminence, that a tribunal should be created for this express purpose, in which divorces a vinculo and all matrimonial causes should be decided. He could not understand the observation of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that it was desirable to have one tribunal for divorces a vinculo, and another for divorces a mensâ et thoro. There were more cases than his noble and learned Friend contemplated, in which, having made an attempt to obtain a divorce a vinculo, the party seeking relief might be entitled, upon the evidence given, to a divorce a mensâ et thoro. For example, it might turn out that the husband had been guilty of great cruelty, although the more heinous offence of aggravated adultery might not be proved, and that on that account the wife should be entitled to a divorce a mensâ et thoro. Under such circumstances, it would be necessary for her, under the present Bill, having wasted much time, and perhaps the means of herself and friends, in vainly attempting to obtain a divorce a vinculo, to begin de novo in the Court of Chancery seeking a divorce a mensâ et thoro. He trusted, therefore, that if the matrimonial jurisdiction of

945
the Ecclesiastical Courts was to be transferred to the Court of Chancery at all, it would at least be confided to only one branch of that Court. The investigation and decision of such causes would require much study and extensive knowledge on the part of the Judges. Every Chancery Judge did not possess such knowledge as was now possessed by Dr. Lushington, the President of the Consistorial Court in London, or by Sir Herbert Jenner Fast, the head of the Court of Arches, and yet he did not hesitate to say that a Judge who did not possess that knowledge would not be competent to give a satisfactory decision in matrimonial causes. For that reason, in addition to what his noble and learned Friend opposite had said with respect to the overloading of the Court of Chancery, he could not approve some of the provisions of the present Bill. At the same time, he could not vote for the Amendments proposed by his noble and learned Friend, and he was prepared to support the Bill, even in its present shape, rather than consent to allow the law to remain in its existing state.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTYentertained serious objections to the principle of the Bill, and hoped that his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) would be able to effect some improvement in it before it passed into law. He thought the necessity for such a measure had not been proved, and although it was impossible to gainsay the proposition, that there should be the same law for the poor as for the rich, and that the present system of passing Acts of Parliament, involving a large outlay and great delay in each particular case, should be changed, he contended that a more serious question was involved in this Bill, namely, whether marriage was to be regarded as a civil contract, and therefore voidable at pleasure, or as a divine ordinance, and therefore indissoluble. He believed that the passing of the Bill would be injurious to the morality of the country by increasing the number of divorces that would be applied for, and he earnestly hoped that if the Bill passed, an alteration would at any rate be made in that clause which assigned what should be a sufficient ground for the granting of a divorce. The case of Ireland seemed to have been overlooked, for in examining the Bill he could not find that any provision had been made for the trial of divorce cases in that country.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) had so
946
completely expressed his (Lord Beaumont's) opinions on the subject that he felt it unnecessary to do more than state his concurrence in all that had fallen from the noble and learned Lord. The defect of the measure was, that it did not embody the recommendation of the Commissioners to refer all matters matrimonial to one court. It, however, was no slight advantage to get rid of the disgusting and demoralising examinations in divorce cases at the bar of that House.
LORD BROUGHAM, having had the honour to preside over a Committee to which this important subject was referred some years ago, begged to express his great gratification at the propect of the present Bill being passed into a law. The Committee over which he presided, and which comprised a right rev. Prelate, as well as lay and law Lords, came to the unanimous opinion that the course of procedure which had hitherto prevailed in respect to matrimonial cases should be abolished, and a regular court appointed for determining all these matters. Among other reasons which the Committee assigned in support of their recommendation was the triple procedure formerly necessary to obtain a divorce—namely, first, the action at common law against one party, then the proceeding in the ecclesiastical court against another, and, last, the Bill of divorce in their Lordships' House. The public was under a great obligation to the Commissioners for their able and learned Report, and, he might add, the Commissioners themselves were under great obligation to their learned and able secretary for his valuable and gratuitous services.
On Question, agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
Amendments made.
On Clause 38,
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDmoved the insertion of words which would have the effect of preventing the guilty wife marrying again after her divorce, during the lifetime of her husband, as was proposed by the present Bill. It had always been the law of the Church that the woman could not marry again, and this prohibition was very properly founded on the words of our Lord, "Whosoever marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery." It would he exceedingly improper, and tend greatly to the encouragement of vice, if during the husband's lifetime the wife should not still remain under the ban of being prevented from marrying again. If the sin

947
of the wife were to be allowed to set her free, the sanctity of marriage, which had hitherto been one of the special blessings of this country, would be threatened and destroyed. He trusted most earnestly that their Lordships would not sanction this innovation upon the old law of the Church and of the land.
LORD BEAUMONTthought that by making it illegal for the woman to marry again they would prevent, in many instances, the only reparation which it was possible for the not less guilty party to make.
Their Lordships divided:—Content 10; Not Content 25: Majority 15.

List of the CONTENT.

EARLS.

BISHOPS.

Clancarty

Ossory

Mayo

Oxford

Nelson

St. Davids

Powis

BARONS.

Waldegrave

Berners

Redesdale

Amendment negatived.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.