Sitting of 25 June 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Divorce and Matrimonial Causes; Attornies and Solicitors (Colonial Courts); Assessments (Scotland); Constabulary Force (Ireland); Revising Barristers (Dublin); Banking; Justices and Police Force (Dublin); Adulteration of Food or Drink.
3° Charitable Uses.

PASSING TOLLS ON SHIPPING.

  QUESTION.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for the abolition of Passing Tolls on Shipping.
  MR. LOWEsaid, in the early part of the Session he had stated that as soon as the business of the House would permit he would introduce a Bill to abolish Passing Tolls and relieve shipping from other burdens to which it was subject. He was sorry, however, to say that that period had not yet arrived; and in the present state of the Session and of the business of the House he could not conceal from himself that it would be quite impossible to carry through such a measure in the course of the present year, involving, as it must do, very considerable discussion. Therefore, with very great regret, he must defer till another Session the attempt to relieve shipping from these most unjust burdens.
  MR. HUDSONsaid, he wished to know whether it would not be possible this Session to carry through a Bill for abolishing Passing Tolls, leaving the question of the local charges on shipping to another occasion.
  MR. LOWEsaid, it was his opinion that it was not possible.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE VICTORIA CROSS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he wished to inquire whether, as the soldiers of the Line and the Guards were to be allowed to attend the award of the Victoria Cross to their comrades on the following day the same privilege ought not to be extended to the seamen of the Royal Navy? Generals and Lord Lieutenants of counties were to be admitted to the park on horseback, in order to take part in the ceremony. He wished to know why Admirals should not be permitted to do the same?
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I am informed, Sir, that a great body of the Greenwich Pensioners will be present on the occasion, as well as those sailors to whom the Victoria Cross is to be distributed. With reference to the cavalry part of the question, I can only say that if the
  344
  gallant Admiral presents himself in Hyde Park, mounted and in uniform, I am sure a fitting place will be given to him.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to be informed by the Under Secretary for War whether it was true that the 79th Regiment of Highlanders, which had only sixty killed and wounded in the late war, was to be present at the distribution of the Victoria Cross, while the Connaught Rangers, who had 476 killed and wounded, were to be excluded?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDEN: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member did not give me notice of his question till two minutes ago. At present I am unable to answer it.
  COLONEL FRENCH: I shall renew the question on the adjournment of the House to-morrow.

  GUNPOWDER STORES—QUESTION.
  MAJOR SIBTHORPsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War whether it is true that large quantities of gunpowder are stored in various places in the immediate neighbourhood and town of Waltham Abbey, and, if so, whether they are to remain there; also, if it is true that any parties connected with the Government have threatened with instant dismissal any of the workmen or others at the mills if they divulged anything relative to the quantity of gunpowder stored there?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member that there was now no gunpowder stored in the town or immediate neighbourhood of Waltham Abbey; and that it was entirely untrue that any Government official had been threatened with instant dismissal for divulging anything connected with the subject.

  CANADIAN BISHOPS—QUESTION.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Royal Assent has been given to the Bill passed by the Parliament of Canada, "to enable the Members of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada to meet in Synod, in order that the members thereof may be permitted to exercise the same rights of self-government that are enjoyed by other religious communities?" and, if so, whether such Act does not place the appointment of Bishops in

  345
  that Church in the Synod as therein constituted, any prerogative of the Crown to the contrary notwithstanding.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was happy to be able to state in reply to the first question of the hon. Member, that the Royal Assent had been given to the Bill of the Canadian Parliament, In answering the second question now put to him he should be very sorry to give in an authoritative manner, any opinion on a point of law beset with many difficulties, and respecting which the greatest lawyers constantly differed. He, of course, alluded to the status of the Church of England in the Colonies and the condition of the Royal Prerogative in reference to that Church. He might, however, state that in passing this Bill the Assembly of Canada conceived they were vesting the appointment of Colonial Bishops in this Synod; and also that in advising the Crown to assent to the measure he had done so under the distinct impression, which he still retained, that the power of appointing those Bishops was vested by the Act in the Synod, as constituted under its provisions.

  SAVINGS BANKS—QUESTION.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what manner he proposes to deal with the existing Auditors of such Savings Banks as may become Government Security Savings Banks, in the event of the Savings Banks Bill, as amended, becoming law.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it would be premature to give any answer to the question of the hon. Member until the Bill had made further progress.

  EDUCATION—QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to inquire of the Vice President of the Board of Education, whether it is intended to make any statement this year on the progress and prospects of Education, as agreed on and begun in former years.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that on proposing the Education Vote he would explain the results of the expenditure already made by the nation on behalf of Education, and the grounds on which the Estimate for the present year had been prepared, and would also endeavour to state what might be expected from the Vote.

POOR LAW MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Sir JOHN TROLLOPE,
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which some time since inquired into the subject, an order had recently been issued by the Poor Law Board directing that the appointments of Medical Officers to Poor Law Unions should be made permanent. Their salaries were fixed by the Poor Law Guardians, and the funds from which they were paid were partly the rates levied in their districts, and partly from a Vote of that House. In those cases in which the remuneration was extremely low the Poor Law Board endeavoured to procure an addition to it, but he was sorry to say that, generally speaking, the Poor Law Guardians were not disposed to agree with the Poor Law Board as to the propriety of such addition. Unless the Poor Law Board entered into a violent contest with the Boards of Guardians on that subject—which he was not at all prepared to do—it would be very difficult to obtain an increase of the salaries. He ought at the same time to state that, in a great number of Unions, the medical officers were sufficiently remunerated. There could be no doubt that the great body of them discharged their duties with fidelity and diligence. Any one acquainted with the present operation of the Poor Law must admit that a great improvement had been effected in the administration of medical relief to the poor. He could not, however, hold out any hopes to the medical officers that their salaries would be increased by means of an increased Vote of that House, because the House had been reluctant to grant even the usual Vote under the head of Poor Law Medical Relief. As occasion permitted, the area within which the medical officers had to discharge their duties would be diminished.

GROWTH OF COTTON IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he wished to be informed by the hon. Member for Devonport of the day on which he proposed to resume the adjourned debate on the growth of Cotton in India?
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, the adjourned debate was fixed for Tuesday next, but the Business Paper for that night was already so full of Notices and Motions on other subjects that it was impossible

  347
  to hope that the adjourned debate could be then resumed. The first open Tuesday was the 23rd of July. The only other day open to private Members was Wednesday; but Wednesdays were so occupied by the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd), that it was impossible to resume the debate on a Wednesday. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give up a Government night for the discussion of the cotton-growing question, he was afraid that nothing more could be said upon it during the present Session.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he was prepared to set apart a day for the resumption of the debate?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I feel great interest in that debate, and am anxious that those hon. Gentlemen who have not spoken should have an opportunity of expressing their sentiments and discussing the whole question. But I am afraid that at this period of the Session it will be quite impossible to give a day for that purpose. Indeed, any promise that I could make of that sort is already mortgaged to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) on the subject of Education.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid: Are we, then, to understand that the adjournment of the debate was a mere mockery?
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to know whether, as Her Majesty's Ministers will be at Manchester on Tuesday next, there will be a sitting of the House that day?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The Secretary of State for the Home Department will be in attendance upon her Majesty at Manchester on Tuesday, and I have received a very kind invitation from Manchester, of which I will avail myself; but we shall be the only Members absent, and that will not, I apprehend, prevent the House from going on with the business on Tuesday.

OATHS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
  THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORD: * Sir, in rising to oppose the further progress
  348
  of this Measure through the House, I feel that it will not be necessary for me to enter generally upon the subject of the admission of the Jews to Parliament. That subject has already been well and ably discussed; it has engaged to the Fullest possible extent the attention of the House, and therefore it will only be necessary for me to make a few brief remarks on this occasion. I can only say with reference to that subject, that there is one consideration above every other which makes me feel that the admission of Jews to Parliament is a measure to which this House ought not to agree. That consideration is, as we should never forget, and as it is expressed in all our public acts and documents, that the Crown of this realm is held "by the grace of God." Now this expression does not mean a mere abstract notion of the Divine being, but the Christian idea of God in and through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We meet in Parliament and in this House by the authority of the Crown, to pass those acts which are necessary for the government of the country. That Crown is not held independently, but dependently—dependently upon that Holy Being whose name I have mentioned; therefore Parliament ought, in like manner, to possess the same character and attribute of Christianity as the Crown. It has been said that we are infringing the doctrine of charity by not allowing the Jew to sit in Parliament, and I remember that some years ago, the noble Lord the Member for London drew attention to the beautiful parable of the good Samaritan, as an illustration of charity, and an example which we should follow. It was indeed the highest illustration that could be given of a virtue so divine. But is there not a fallacy in the use of this illustration? The divine rule is, that charity worketh no ill to one's neighbour, and can it be said that in asserting and maintaining the Christian character of this assembly we are "working any ill" to our neighbour? Charity is in truth a divine virtue. It is a virtue, let us never forget, which proceeds from that very Being whose name it is now proposed to ignore in order to the exercise of that virtue. My object then in rising to oppose this Bill is, that the true character of the Measure should be known and clearly understood before it is sent up to receive judgment in another House. Sir, the Bill on its second reading was not opposed, and I think so far justly. There are

  349
  acknowledged inconveniences in the existing oath. Nobody denies that there are some portions of it which might well be omitted; but I regret to say that under the colour of such objections, the attempt has been made to destroy the Christian character of the legislature. It is said, "Here is an oath, the great bulk of which is nonsense; therefore let us do away with the nonsense." Upon that point we are all agreed; but, at the same time, whilst doing away with the nonsense, yon have been doing away with the sense, and also with that which, to the consciences of vast numbers of people in the country is an essential element in the constitution. The object of the Bill is said to be the admission of the Jews to Parliament, but before it proceeds to the other House, let us maturely consider what is its true character—what is its real nature. In the first place, it proposes to abolish the existing oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and abjuration, and to substitute another oath in their stead. Now, we have an instance on record within a very recent date, of the substitution of one oath for another; I allude to the Roman Catholic oath; and I will ask the House to go with me for a few moments into a comparison of the Roman Catholic oath, with the oath which it is now proposed to substitute for the three old oaths. When the Roman Catholic oath was framed, those three points of supremacy, allegiance, and protestation to maintain the established religion of the country were condensed into it. The words of the oath are these—
  "I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant government of the United Kingdom.
  The first part of the Roman Catholic oath is an avowal of allegiance to the Sovereign; then comes an acknowledgment of the temporal supremacy of the Sovereign; and lastly, there is the delaration to maintain the national religion of the country. Now, what do we find in the oath proposed by the Bill? There is only one point introduced into the oath; it is that of allegiance or supremacy, for they are much about the same. There is not one word about the maintenance of the national religion. In the former oath, which was taken by Protestants, there are certainly
  350
  no express words to be used binding them to maintain the Christian religion; but when every person who came to that table to be sworn, was obliged in your presence, Sir, to declare that he took the oath "upon the true faith of a Christian," did he not thereby, whatever might be his own feelings—whether he took the oath in sincerity or not, or with contention and insincerity—make public profession that he was a Christian? and what Christian is there that would wish to overturn the Christian religion? Therefore, I say that the old oath did maintain the essential print; the declaration that a national religion exists in the country. And in saying this, I do not speak of the Established Church alone. Far be it from me to suppose for one moment that the religion of the country is confined to that church. Attached as I am to the Established Church, I thank God that the religion of the land is not confined to it. There are varieties of opinion; there are different conformations of the human mind; and it is not to be supposed that in a day of intelligence like the present, every man's mind can be brought to agree to one uniform model in religion, or that one scheme of ecclesiastical government would suit every person. But, independently of that, the established religion is not the only religion of the country. [A cheer from the Roman Catholic benches.] I quite understand that cheer. Still, I believe that the established religion of this country is the most noble, the most ancient, the most estimable institution in the land. But the religion of the country is seated in the hearts of the people, and in their convictions of the truth: it is to that, then, we must look for the maintenance of the national religion. Now, that national religion, though deep-rooted in the hearts of the people, may have its foundations weakened: and how are those foundations most likely to be weakened? It is, first, by abolishing your forms. The abolition of your forms produces forgetfulness of the things for which those forms were instituted. There is every likelihood that in the engagements of every-day life, varied and complicated as they are, the national faith and piety may grow cold if these symbols cease to exist. Is not a form useful? To what do we owe the solemnity of our own proceedings, if not to forms? I remember, Sir, when your predecessor in that chair made a speech which came home to the hearts and feelings of all who

  351
  heard it; he said that he had endeavoured to maintain the dignity and the privileges of the House, and at the same time to preserve those forms which he felt were essential to the character and conduct of the proceedings and business of the House. Why is the mace placed upon that table? Is it not as a symbol of the power of the House? And so there resides in these forms a power and a virtue which perhaps may not at first be perceived or apprehended, but which are not the less permanent and important. I say, therefore, that although the religion of the country may be deeply seated in the hearts of the people, it is still essential to maintain certain forms; and when should those forms be maintained if it be not when a Member comes to be sworn at the table, and enters for the first time upon the performance of those important duties upon the proper and efficient discharge of which the prosperity of the country rests. Should he not at such a moment be called upon to say, that the national religion of the country is an important element in its prosperity, and that, in order to secure that prosperity, he will faithfully maintain the religion upon which it depends? My first objection to the Bill then is that, professing as it does to concentrate into one all former oaths, it omits all reference to religion; and that any infidel, any Mahomedan, any person who acknowledges the bare abstract idea of a Supreme Governor of the Universe, might take the new oath with impunity. My second objection to the Bill is, that it differs from every other Bill, with one exception, that has ever been introduced to this House upon the authority of Her Majesty's Government, the exception being the Bill of 1854, which was very properly rejected by the House. If the House will allow me, then, I will briefly remind it of the nature of the Bills which have been introduced since the year 1847. In that year the noble Lord the Member for the city of London brought in a Bill to admit Jews to Parliament; but did he propose to alter the oath as taken by Christians? No. It was only in the case of the Jews that he proposed to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." In 1849 the noble Lord brought in another Bill, by which he proposed to alter the oath as regarded Peers and Members of Parliament only; but he retained the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," except in the case of the Jews. In the Bill of 1850 the noble Lord simply
  352
  omitted the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" in the case of a Jew. In the Bill of 1851, the same provision was proposed. In the Bill of 1853 the noble Lord proposed to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" in the case of Jews, and the Jews were by that Bill excluded from holding certain offices. But in 1854, the noble Lord, fatigued probably by his numerous and ineffectual attempts, thought that the best plan would be to make a dash at the subject at once. He proposed, therefore, to abolish all existing oaths, and introduce a merely secular, and if I may so term it, an infidel oath. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, that is a strong expression, I admit; but I am sure hon. Members will give me credit for not wishing to say anything offensive as to the intentions of the introducer. I merely state that, as the effect of the oath. The noble Lord, however, in that year, proposed to introduce an oath of that nature, and we find that the House of Commons rejected it by a majority of 251 to 247. The House of Commons, which had triumphantly carried the noble Lord through all his previous measures, and which measures had only been stopped by the House of Lords, perceived at once what was the nature of that Bill, itself put a stop to the proceeding, and thereby declared that it would not be deprived of that symbol by which the national religion had been maintained. Now, I believe, that I can ask the noble Lord the Member for London for his support on the present occasion. The noble Lord is anxious for the admission of Jews to Parliament; indeed, it seems to be his main idea. He wishes to see a civil disability done away with in the case of the Jew; but I feel sure he does not desire to reduce this House to a mere secular assembly. He does not wish to do away with all the glorious traditions of English history which show that the prosperity of the nation is indissolubly bound up with the preservation of its religion, and place us upon the footing of an infidel assembly in a continental country. I should weary the House if I were to enumerate all the Acts of the Legislature which would illustrate the fact that the maintenance of Christianity is an essential element in the laws of this country; but it has been said that the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," are accidentally the cause of excluding the Jews from Parliament.
  I shall not, however, go into that subject at the present moment. I feel that this

  353
  is not the time again to enter upon that long-exhausted question. What I want to show is this, and what I wish the House to believe is this—that there never was a period when some Christian symbols were not required to be exhibited by Members of the Legislature. Long before the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" were introduced, the Act of Elizabeth required oaths to be taken corporally on the Gospels. An Act of James the First did the same thing. And then, coming to the Republican Parliament, when a monarch had lost his throne and his life, this House resolved that every Member should take an oath that he would maintain the true Protestant—ay, and not only true Protestant, inasmuch as there might have been a cause for that, for we were then at daggers drawn with Popery—but the "true Protestant Christian religion of the country." Why was the word "Christian" put in that oath? Because upon the true Protestant Christian religion, "in the purity thereof," depended the welfare and prosperity of the nation. Than this there can be no more impregnable evidence that Christianity—and not Protestantism alone—was that which was meant to be maintained. Next we come to the declaration which was instituted against Transubstantiation. It may be said that that was a mere feud between Protestantism and Popery; but by whom was that declaration to be taken? By those who could say, "I do solemnly declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is no Transubstantiation." It was an affirmation; a declaration of belief that there is no Transubstantiation. That is to say, that the person making it believed in the Sacrament, but not in Transubstantiation. We then come to the 12th & 13th Will. III., enacting the Oath of Abjuration; and from that time to the present, words have been inserted in the Parliamentary Oaths which maintain the Christianity of the Legislature. Now, let us consider for a moment the position in which we are placed, and I readily acquit the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government of being aware of the extreme gravity of their proceedings. I believe that they have been actuated by the desire to see the Jews admitted to this House, and that they believe the easiest and readiest mode of doing so is to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." But what have they done? They seem to forget that they change those constitutional
  354
  forms which are of immense weight and inconceivable importance to the destiny and prosperity of the country; and, indeed, I doubt very much whether they are acting constitutionally in what they are doing. We are bound by the Act of Succession, the 12th & 13th Will. III., to maintain a Protestant King or Queen upon the throne of this country; and we are so bound for no other purpose than that the religion of England may be secured. It is in times of danger and the extremity of suffering that our best and noblest nature shines forth. Those who have been brought face to face with danger know well the securities which are needed to protect them from its recurrence, and it was not without reason that the men of those days, who had seen their prosperity falling from under them, who had engaged in mortal strife in order to maintain their religion and their Protestantism, and been brought in direct antagonism and conflict with the Crown, imposed those securities for the abolition of which the noble Lord at the head of the Government is paving the way. I will now read to the House the 4th section of the 12 & 13 Will. III., the Act of Succession, which runs in these terms:—
  "And whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof, and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the Government of the same according to the said laws, and all their Ministers and officers ought to serve them respectively according to the same; the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do therefore further humbly pray that all the laws and statutes of this realm for securing the established religion and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are confirmed accordingly."
  By what mode could we more efficiently secure the maintenance of the established religion in this country than the taking of an oath to maintain it by every Member who enters the walls of Parliament. Yet the noble Lord proposes to abandon that oath altogether. The preamble to the Act by which the oath of abjuration is enacted, the 12 & 13 of Will. III., c. 6, shows the importance which was attached in those days to the securities that then existed; for after reciting that the French King had violated the Acts of Succession, it declared that upon these Acts the safety of the King's royal person and government, the continuance of the monarchy of England, the preservation of the Protestant religion, the maintenance of the Church of England, and the security of the ancient and undoubted

  355
  rights and liberties, and the future peace and tranquillity of the kingdom, did under God entirely depend. That was the sense entertained in those times by the men who drew up the statute of what was necessary for the maintenance of the prosperity and liberties of the kingdom. It was thought that that prosperity and those liberties did depend on the Acts then in existence, one essential feature of which was that an oath should be taken, binding the person taking it to maintain the established religion of the country, and at the same time prohibiting by a statute, which is still unrepealed, any Minister of the Crown from proposing any alterations in those Acts. I would now make a few remarks with respect to the last clauses contained in the Bill, and which have been introduced upon the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Horsham. Whatever its character, the Bill was, at any rate, before the adoption of those clauses, a unique piece of legislation; but by accepting those clauses, the noble Lord has himself placed a condemnation on the Bill. It is now declared that the Bill shall not extend to enable any person or persons professing the Jewish religion to hold or exercise certain high offices. And why not? Why are persons who profess the Jewish religion not to exercise those offices?
  Let me have an answer to that question. I shall be told, that it is because the Roman Catholics do not hold them. Well, they do not. And why? Because it is supposed that they might exercise in those offices an influence adverse to the Protestant character of the State. Then there is this inconsistency involved; that you will allow persons to fill a legislative position, and make the laws which are necessary for the government of the country, but will not allow them to execute or administer those laws.
  When it was formerly objected that Jews should be allowed to fill posts in corporations, Sir Robert Peel said that the Jews would have therein only an executive position, that they would only have to execute the laws, and would be confined within the limits of those laws. But the present Bill reverses that system, for whilst it excludes the Jews from an executive position, it gives them a seat in the Legislature. Inconsistency, I say, is stamped on the very face of this proposition; but there is yet a further inconsistency. The Roman Catholic is excluded from these offices, and at the same time holds a seat in the Legislature;
  356
  there is no inconsistency, however, in giving him a seat in the Legislature, because his oath binds him not to do anything to subvert the established religion of the country. But this is not to be the case with the Jew. By your Bill you say to the Jew, "You are not fit to hold these offices; your religion incapacitates you from doing so; yet we will give you a seat in the Legislative Assembly, and we will bind you by no oath, no tie, no obligation, to maintain in that assembly the established religion of the country. Sir, I cannot conceive a greater inconsistency than that. The religion of this country is, that which has brought it through mighty and terrible struggles. The Parliament of this country has achieved great and glorious triumphs. It has curbed the disposition of the Crown at a time when it might have been prejudicial to the State. It has recovered itself from a line of monarchy and republicanism. It has maintained that established religion which was torn out, as it were, from the centre of an adverse creed. It has done all this as a Christian Parliament, with the recognition of the great and holy name of Him who is the Prince of the kings of the earth. And now if it rejects that name, if it repudiates that profession, and if it forsakes that covenant, it will be forsaking, repudiating, and rejecting the fountain of its wisdom, and of the strength and prosperity of the nation. I beg to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time on this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
  MR. DRUMMOND* said, he was so sensible of the deference which ought to be paid to the decided opinion of that Assembly, that he felt an apology to be due for offering at the last stage of this extraordinary Bill his utmost opposition to it. He did not think there ever was a Bill attended by more extraordinary circumstances, for it was a Bill which had no other object than that of admitting Baron Rothschild to a seat in that House, and it contained not a single word respecting, or the most distant allusion to, the Jews. He did not know what meaning the House might extract from the Bill, but in itself there was no proposition of the sort. Two collateral issues had been raised in the course of the discussion on the Bill, one of which was the respect due to the expression

  357
  of opinion by the citizens of London, to which, however, he confessed he paid no respect at all, because, in the first instance, this Jew was returned as an intentional insult to this House and to Christianity. Whether he was right or wrong in this opinion, he admitted that it was not a motive which should influence the decision of that House. The other issue which had been raised was the personal character of the individual concerned. He had not the honour of his acquaintance, but he had received many acts of kindness from members of his family in various parts of Europe, and should be most happy to requite the favours received by doing any service in his power to him. He did not think, however, that this was a reason why he should give his vote for the present Bill. He differed, also, from those who opposed the third reading of the Bill on the ground that it would unchristianize this House, because he did not think that any such Bill would have been brought in or entertained had not the House been already unchristianized. That expression, no doubt, required explanation. He opposed the Bill as an effect and not a cause. They had by their liberalism completely obliterated all the essential principles which had hitherto guided this country in ecclesiastical and political matters. He would only take the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Kinglake); when the Amendment was introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he very properly said, "If you want a religious test, why not appeal to your Bishops in the other House? What is the use of having Bishops in the Legislature, if it be not to give you right directions on Christian principles? Why do you not appeal to them?'' The answer to that was, that if they were appealed to they would be sure to have six on one side and six on the other. The whole system of ecclesiastical authority was come to an end, so much so, indeed, that there were even differences of episcopal opinion with regard to the validity of the sacraments upon which the Church rested. What else did they see? Whilst the enormous Cathedral of St. Paul's was empty, and the Abbey at Westminster was empty, the Bishops were conducting worship in an unconsecrated concert room, and afterwards had the impudence to go down to the country and fight with Dissenters about consecrated and unconsecrated burial grounds. Why, that very night, a notice of Motion had
  358
  been given for the issue of a Commission to inquire respecting the adaptation of the Liturgy to present circumstances—as if the rites of God's worship changed with every variation of man's fancies. He knew nothing equal to that, except what had been put into his hand yesterday by a gentleman, and that was a prayer in verse, addressed to our Lord, begging him to intercede for the Devil. Could liberalism go beyond that? That he supposed was tearing off the last rag of intolerance. He wished to God that they were as true to their faith as the Jews were to theirs; but they had ceased to know, and ceased to believe, that "there is but one name given under heaven whereby any man can be saved."
  With respect to the present Bill, he would do with the Jews precisely what they would do with him; and again he said, he wished that we "who profess and call ourselves Christians" were as true to our faith as the Jews were to theirs. They had faith in the destiny of their nation. They believed that they should yet have all the promises which had been made to them fulfilled. They believed that they should yet trample the nations like ashes under their feet, and that not one jot or tittle of all that had been promised to them should fail till all be fulfilled. They knew full well that the circumcised cannot mingle with the baptized. They would not admit one of the baptized into their Sanhedrim. Neither ought we, in his opinion, to admit one of the circumcised into our Sanhedrim. The baptized could not rise till the circumcised fell. And now, mark! mark the historical fact! The Founder of our religion was a Jew—a circumcised Jew. He had the same attachment to His land and to His people that we have to our country. He "lived by faith," it is said, and He watched the "signs of the times," in order to be instructed by them. There came one day to a follower of His a certain Heathen, who said he wanted to speak to his Master. The follower, astonished, went and told another follower, and they two went to the Saviour. What did He say? Did he say, as on every other occasion, "What does this man want? How can I serve him?—Is he sick? I will heal him!—Is he hungry? I will feed him! Send him to me, and in some way I will bless him!" No; he took no notice of them. But He said, "Father, the hour is come!" What was that hour? The hour when the circumcised were to be utterly destroyed—nation, temple,

  359
  worship, and all; and when He himself, as a Jew, was also to be put to death. If the circumcised were to become members of that Government which was the purest—and by purest he meant the most in accordance with the mind and purpose, rule, and kingdom of God—which had ever been established on the earth, he would say, "Take care; look you sharply about you; for the Jews are going to arise, and I will not venture to prophesy what may happen to you."
  THE O'DONAGHOEwished to make a few observations upon a measure in which his constituents as well as the people of Ireland generally were greatly interested. He would vote against the third reading of the Bill because he regarded it as partial and unjust, inasmuch as it denied to Roman Catholics the rights which would be extended to Jews. The ostensible object of the measure was the advancement of civil and religious liberty; its covert, although paramount object was the admission of a few Jews to Parliament. In considering the construction of the forms of oath hitherto established it had occurred to him that their framers must have laboured under an infatuation that by a jumble of sounding but superfluous phrases the devil might be outwitted. When this Bill was introduced he (the O'Donaghoe) indulged the hope that henceforth common sense was to supersede prejudice, but that expectation was at once disappointed when he came down to the last clause, which by depriving the measure of a liberal and comprehensive character transformed it into a mere Ministerial job. The Government justified the introduction of this Bill on the ground that it would promote the interests of civil and religious liberty. Jews could not sit in that House because the Legislature required them to utter the words "on the true faith of a Christian." The Government had very properly resolved to remove this difficulty, arguing, he supposed, that it was not right to deprive Jews of the benefit of representation when the only impediment to their enjoyment of the privilege was a formula which could be dispensed with without any material evils resulting either religiously or politically. The words "on the true faith of a Christian" were to be omitted from the oath because they were considered unnecessary. This was a Christian country, with a Christian Legislature, and the House had been reminded that the Jews did not belong to a sect which was indifferent on religious questions, but that they
  360
  believed their creed was the only true faith, and they held that their race and religion would one day be in the ascendant, and would triumph over the institutions which were based upon Christianity. Notwithstanding these considerations, however, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had devised a scheme by which the doors of that House would be thrown open to the Jews, and he placed them on a footing of perfect equality with the great majority of the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. To that he (the O'Donaghoe) did not object—he called the country and all Europe to witness the homage which was paid to the conscientious convictions of the Jew—but he complained of the measure because it refused equal rights to the Roman Catholics. The Government was perfectly aware that the Roman Catholics protested against that portion of the Act of 1829 which related to the form of oath to be taken by them, and all they asked was to be placed upon a footing of equality with the rest of the community. He wished, therefore, to hear from the Government—they had not given it yet—some sound and sufficient reason for making an exception in the case of Roman Catholics. It was said that the Act of 1829 was a final settlement, and that no attempt ought to be made to disturb it; but he submitted that the framers of that Act did not entertain quite perfect ideas of civil and religious liberty, to judge from the changes which it had been found necessary to make in the provisions of the measure. In 1829 the Roman Catholics might very properly accept the proposition offered by the spirit of intolerance, which said, "Agree to this proposal or you shall have no political existence;" but it was in his opinion a very different thing for Roman Catholic Members of that House to sanction by their votes a measure which endeavoured to stain the sanctity of their religion by false and unseemly imputations. In 1829 it was felt that a dangerous experiment was about to be made. It was predicted that from the moment when the first Roman Catholic representative set his face within that House the constitution was doomed. Since the passing of the Emancipation Act nearly thirty years had elapsed, and a great number of Roman Catholics had sat in that House. What had been the general tenor of their conduct? Had they not been the constant friends of progress, whether it was political, civil, or religious? Were they found in the ranks of those who opposed the removal of the

  361
  restrictions on trade, or the removal of the Jewish disabilities? Had they done anything which proved they were unworthy to sit in that House, or not entitled to a full and equal share in all the blessings of its enlightened legislation? [Cries of "Divide!"] He perceived the House was extremely impatient to go to a division, and he should merely say further that if the noble Lord at the head of the Government could be held to what he said—which, of course, he could not—it would be imperative on him to include the Roman Catholics at once in this Bill. The noble Lord the other night, when replying to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), said that the House was not a religious but a political assembly, and that sentiment was loudly cheered by an overwhelming majority of that House. He would admit that he had himself cheered the sentiment, though he doubted the noble Lord's sincerity; but the inference he (the O'Donaghoe) drew from it was, that religion had nothing to do with a man's politics. Let the House mark the inconsistency of the noble Lord. In the same breath in which the noble Lord gave utterance to that opinion he called on the House to exclude the Roman Catholics from the benefits of the Bill because of their religion. He would add, that unless the noble Lord or some Member of the Government, gave a promise that next Session he would bring in a Bill to remedy the defects of this measure, and thus put the Roman Catholic subjects on a footing of perfect equality with the rest of the community, he should deem it his duty to vote against the third reading of the Bill. He was aware it was said that any one who opposed this Bill voted against the admission of Jews to Parliament, and therefore violated the principle of civil and religious liberty. His answer was, that if by voting against the Bill he violated the principle of civil and religious liberty that principle, as the Bill stood, was violated in his own person and in the persons of his co-religionists, and that if he supported such a measure he would be unworthy of the confidence reposed in him by his constituents, whose religion, he might say, was the glory and characteristic of their nation.
  MR. BALL, who spoke amid continued cries for a division, was understood to say that he had endured for a great portion of his life a very considerable degree of unkindness from those connected with him on account of his religious opinions, and
  362
  he had therefore determined never to inflict on any man any disqualification or censure because he held opinions different from his. On that ground he came forward to the rescue of his brethren, the Jews. Since the real question before them was how they might frame an oath that should be obligatory on the conscience of the man who was to take it, common sense would dictate that it should be framed in accordance with the man's belief and conscience; but the Jews showed that they were conscientious by the scruples they felt in taking the existing oath, and why should an oath not be framed such as would be binding on them? It was said that the Jews wore so peculiar a race and so dissociated from us, and his creed so opposed to ours, that we had nothing in common with him. But he thought that they had very much in common with the Jew; he thought that they owed very much to the Jew. The Commandments, which we regarded as obligatory on us, we received through the Jews, and were equally binding on them; and when we praised our Maker, it was in the language of the Jewish temple. We had, therefore, great affinity and fellowship with the Jews. There were two classes of persons who might be conceived as using the argument that this Bill would unchristianize the assembly. He could conceive of religious persons with a tender conscience fearing the change which they expected from this Bill. But there were many that used this objection to the Bill who knew nothing of Christianity whatever. He would tell such that it was impossible for any man to make or to unmake a Christian; that was a character which came from above. But if the admission of Jews into the House were to unchristianize it, was not the evil already done? Were there not Jewish subjects and Jewish magistrates—those who obeyed the law and those who administered it—and might not such be admitted to consider of the making of the law? The objection seemed to him to be absurd. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He felt that in delivering his sentiments he was offending many of his constituents, and it was with much hesitation that he addressed the House; and he therefore thought the House should not refuse him the opportunity of explaining the reasons which had influenced him in the vote he was about to give. But, for his own part, there was One above all constituencies, whom he thought it is duty to obey. He reminded the House that other nations had

  363
  admitted the Jews to the highest offices in the State, and that, so far from being displeasing to the Almighty, seemed to be the occasion of his blessing those nations. [Renewed confusion.] He admitted the sincerity of his Friends on the right (the Conservative opposition) in opposing this Bill; he asked them to believe that he also was sincere in supporting it.
  MR. DILLWYN, who also spoke amid much confusion, supported the Bill on the principle that religious opinion should no longer be a disqualification for a seat in that House. He did not believe it was a measure to meet a particular case, but a protest against the intolerance he had mentioned. He objected, however, to the clauses which had been introduced since the introduction into that House, as being entirely antagonistic to what he understood to be the principle of the Bill, and he was very much disappointed to find that the Government had accepted them. He could very well understand why the Roman Catholics should be excluded from certain high offices in the State; but there was no relativeness between the exclusion of the Jews and the Roman Catholics. The first was excluded on account of religion; the second, not because of his religion alone, but because he owed a divided allegiance; for, while they held the Queen to be supreme in civil matters, they owned another head in respect of spiritual matters. Much as he regretted the introduction of the clauses to which he had alluded, he still did not think that a reason sufficient for voting against the third reading of the Bill.
  MR. COLLINSshould have been content with giving a silent vote, but having supported in Committee to no purpose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, and also to no purpose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford, he had a double reason to be dissatisfied with the Bill as it stood. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) while repealing three oaths, retained a fourth upon the Statute-book, and against this separate oath for Roman Catholics he protested. ["Divide! Divide!"]. [The hon. Gentleman proceeded to comment on various parts of the oaths, but the indescribable uproar which prevailed in the House, and which was most perseveringly kept up by a body of Members below the bar, rendered it impossible to gather with any certainty the general purport of his remarks.] He was, however, understood
  364
  to say that to strike out the passage directed against treason and regicide, as being offensive to Protestants, and yet to retain it in the oath administered to Roman Catholics, was an insult to the latter, and about as just a proceeding as it would be to require one set of Members to swear that they would never steal or purloin, while everybody else was exempted from such a degrading ceremony. He felt the most profound pity for the Liberal who had such bowels of mercy for the Jew, but none for his fellow Christian.
  MR. BOWYER MR. BOWYER rose to address the House, but the cries for a division were so incessant that the beginning of his speech was inaudible. The hon. and learned Member was understood to say, that as he knew the House was impatient for a division, he would not detain it more than a few minutes. He intended to vote against this Bill, and felt bound to state the grounds of his opposition. The Roman Catholic Members were accused of illiberality for resisting this measure. What occurred in the year 1829, when Catholic Emancipation was passed? Not one Catholic sat in either House of Parliament at that time, or was a party to the settlement—if settlement it was—which was then made. The Roman Catholics were obliged to accept what the Legislature had done without their having any voice in the matter. But they were now, for the first time, called upon by their votes to say that the oath forced upon them in 1829 was right and necessary. That he was not prepared to admit. Hence his opposition to this Bill. The measure did not merely leave the Catholics where they now stood. The fifth clause of the Bill expressly enacted that the Roman Catholic oath should be retained unaltered; they were, therefore, to vote that the Catholic oath should remain unchanged, and if they did so, they would be re-affirming and re-enacting that oath. The Catholic oath was absurd and nugatory—far more absurd and nugatory than Protestants supposed. It did not even fulfil the purpose for which it was intended. It did not deny the doctrines which they intended that Catholics should deny. It was a mockery and a profanation—[Here the hon. Gentleman was again interrupted by cries and confusion: Mr. SPEAKER ordered the bar to be cleared, and order was gradually restored.] Mr. Bowyer was then heard to ask whether any Roman Catholic could in honesty, or on his honour, as a gentleman who believed in the religion

  365
  he professed, be a party to imposing on members of his own or of other persuasions an oath which denied the spiritual jurisdiction of the Vicar of Christ in this country—one of the most fundamental doctrines of his church? and concluded by expressing his determination to vote against the Bill.
  MR. DEASY, amid continued interruption, said, that the course which he intended to take differed to a considerable extent from that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. It was with the deepest regret that he said he could not vote for the third reading of the Bill. He regretted to withhold his support from it, because its immediate effect would be the removal of disabilities which had been unjustly imposed upon a class of his fellow-subjects, and because he knew it was approved by Liberal Members of that House with whom it was his most anxious desire to co-operate on all occasions. But he regarded this as a measure which would create for the first time a new and invidious distinction between the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty and those belonging to other persuasions. And that distinction was rendered so clear and pointed by the speech of the noble Lord on the introduction of the Bill that it was impossible to overlook it. As such, he (Mr. Deasy) knew it was regarded by many persons in Ireland, for whose opinions he entertained the greatest respect. But he could not bring himself to the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, namely, that of voting against the Bill, because he did not wish to offer the slightest obstacle to the removal of unjust restrictions. He would, therefore, neither support nor oppose the Bill.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 291; Noes 168: Majority 123.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

  List of the AYES.

  Akroyd, E.

  Barnard, T.

  Anderson, Sir J.

  Bernard, T. T.

  Antrobus, E.

  Bass, M. T.

  Ashley, Lord

  Baxter, W. E.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Beale, S.

  Bagwell, J.

  Beamish, F. B.

  Bailey, Sir J.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Bailey, C.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

  Bethell, Sir R.

  Ball, E.

  Biggs, J.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

  Bland, L. H.

  Baring, T.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Baring, T. G.

  Botfield, B.

  366

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Foster, W. O.

  Bouverie, hon. P. P.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Fortescue, C. S.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Franklyn, G. W.

  Brocklehurst, J.

  Freestun, Col.

  Brown, J.

  French, Col.

  Brown, W.

  Garnett, W. J.

  Bruce, Lord E.

  Gaskell, J. M.

  Bruce, H. A.

  Gifford, Earl of

  Buchanan, W.

  Gilpin, C.

  Buckley, Gen.

  Glover, E. A.

  Buller, J. W.

  Glyn, G. C.

  Bury, Visct.

  Glyn, G. G.

  Butler, C. S.

  Goderich, Visct.

  Byng, hon. G.

  Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Caird, J.

  Greene, J.

  Campbell, R. J. R.

  Greer, S. M'C.

  Cavendish, Lord

  Gregson, S.

  Cavendish, hon. C. C.

  Grenfell, C. P.

  Cayley, E. S.

  Grenfell, C. W.

  Cheetham, J.

  Gray, Capt.

  Cholmeley, Sir M. J.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Clay, J.

  Grey, R. W.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Clifford, H. M.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Clive, G.

  Gurdon, B.

  Codrington, Gen.

  Gurney, J. H.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Hackblock, W.

  Collier, R. P.

  Hadfield, G.

  Colvile, C. R.

  Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.

  Coningham, W.

  Hanbury, R.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Handley, J.

  Coote, Sir C. H.

  Hankey, T.

  Cotterell, Sir H. G.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Cowan, C.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Cox, W.

  Harris, J. D.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Hay, Lord J.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Henniker, Lord

  Crook, J.

  Herbert, H. A.

  Cubitt, Mr. Ald.

  Hindley, C.

  Dalgleish, R.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Davey, R.

  Holland, E.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Horsman, rt. hon. E.

  Denison, hon. W. H. F.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Denison, E.

  Hudson, G.

  Dering, Sir E.

  Hutt, W.

  De Vere, S. E.

  Ingram, H.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Jackson, W.

  Divett, E.

  Jermyn, Earl

  Dodson, J. G.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Duff, G. S.

  Johnstone, J. J. H.

  Duke, Sir J.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Duncan, Visct.

  Keating, Sir H. S.

  Duncombe, T.

  Kershaw, J.

  Dundas, F.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Dunlop, A. M.

  King, E. B.

  Ebrington, Visct.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  Elcho, Lord

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Ellice, rt. hon. E.

  Kingscote, R. N. F.

  Ellice, E.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Elphinstone, Sir J.

  Kirk, W.

  Elton, Sir A. H.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E

  Evans, T. W.

  Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

  Ewart, W.

  Langston, J. H.

  Ewart, J. C.

  Langton, H. G.

  Fergus, J.

  Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

  Ferguson, Col.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Ferguson, Sir R.

  Locke, Jos.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Locke, Jno.

  FitzGerald. rt. hon. J. D.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Foley, J. H.

  Luce, T.

  Foley, H. J. W.

  Mackinnon, W. A.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  M'Cullagh, W. T.

  Forster, C.

  Mangles, R. D.

  367

  Mangles, C. E.

  Scrope, G. P.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

  Shafto, R. D.

  Marsh, M. H.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Martin, C. W.

  Sibthorp, Maj.

  Martin, P. W.

  Slaney, R. A.

  Martin, J.

  Smith, J. A.

  Massey, W. N.

  Smith, J. B.

  Matheson, A.

  Smith, M. T.

  Matheson, Sir J.

  Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

  Melgund, Visct.

  Smith, A.

  Merry, J.

  Smith, Sir F.

  Mills, T.

  Somers, J. P.

  Milnes, R. M.

  Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Stafford, Marq. of

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Stanley, Lord

  Morris, D.

  Stapleton, J.

  Mostyn, hn. T. E. M. L.

  Steel, J.

  Napier, Sir C.

  Stuart, Lord J.

  Nicoll, D.

  Stuart, Col.

  Norreys, Sir D. J.

  Sykes, Col. W. H.

  Norris, J. T.

  Tancred, H. W.

  North, F.

  Thompson, Gen.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Thornely, T.

  Osborne, R.

  Tite, W.

  Owen, Sir J.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Paget, C.

  Townsend, J.

  Paget, Lord A.

  Traill, G.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Trueman, C.

  Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Turner, J. A.

  Palmerston, Visct.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Paxton, Sir J.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Pease, H.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Pechell, Sir G. B.

  Vivian, hon. J. C. W.

  Perry, Sir T. E.

  Walter, J.

  Philips, R. N.

  Warburton, G. D.

  Pigott, F.

  Watkins, Col. L.

  Pilkington, J.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Pinney, Col.

  Western, S.

  Platt, J.

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  Price, W. P.

  Whatman, J.

  Pryse, E. L.

  White, J.

  Puller, C. W.

  White, H.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W.

  Wickham, H. W.

  Ramsay, Sir A.

  Willcox, B. M'G.

  Raynham, Visct.

  Williams, M.

  Rebow, J. G.

  Williams, W.

  Ricardo, J. L.

  Williams, Sir W. F.

  Ricardo, O.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Rich, H.

  Wilson, J.

  Ridley, G.

  Wingfield, R. B.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Roebuck, J. A.

  Wise, J. A.

  Roupell, W.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Russell, Lord J.

  Woods, H.

  Russell, H.

  Wyld, J.

  Russell, F. W.

  Windham, Gen.

  Russell, Sir W.

  Wyvill, M.

  Schneider, H. W.

  TELLERS.

  Scholefield, W.

  Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

  Scott, Capt. E.

  Mulgrave, Earl of

  List of the NOES.

  Adams, W. H.

  Boldero, Col.

  Adderley, C. B.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Annesley, hon. H.

  Bovill, W.

  Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.

  Bowyer, G.

  Baillie, H. J.

  Bramley-Moore, J.

  Bernard, hon. W. S.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Barrow, W. H

  Buller, Sir J. Y.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Burghley, Lord

  Bective, Earl of

  Cairns, H. M'C.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Carden, Sir R. W.

  Beresford, rt. hon. W.

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Blackburn, P.

  Charlesworth, J. C. D.

  368

  Child, S.

  Mackie, J.

  Christy, S.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Clark, J. J.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Clive, hon. R. W.

  Malins, R.

  Close, M. C.

  Manners, Lord J.

  Cobbett, J. M.

  March, Earl of

  Cole, hon. H. A.

  Miles, W.

  Collins, T.

  Miller, T. J.

  Cooper, E. J.

  Miller, S. B.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Cross, R. A.

  Moody, C. A.

  Curzon, Visct.

  Moore, G. H.

  Davison, R.

  Morgan, O.

  Dobbs, W. C.

  Mowbray, J. R.

  Dod, J. W.

  Naas, Lord

  Du Cane, C.

  Napier, rt. hon. J.

  Duncombe, hon. A.

  Newark, Visct.

  Dundas, G.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Nisbet, R. P.

  Dutton, hon. R. H.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  East, Sir J. B.

  North, Col.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  O'Donaghoe, The

  Egerton, W. T.

  Ossulston, Lord

  Egerton, E. C.

  Packe, C. W.

  Farnham, E. B.

  Pakenham, Col.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Palk, L.

  Forde, Col.

  Palmer, R. W.

  Forester, rt. hon. Col.

  Paull, H.

  Forster, Sir G.

  Peel, Gen.

  Fraser, Sir W. A.

  Pennant, hon. Col.

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Pevensey, Visct.

  Galway, Visct.

  Pugh, D.

  Gard, R. S.

  Repton, G. W. J.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Robertson, P. F.

  Greenwood, J.

  Rolt, J.

  Grogan, E.

  Sclater, G.

  Haddo, Lord

  Scott, hon. F.

  Hall, Gen.

  Seymer, H. K.

  Hamilton, G. A.

  Spooner, R.

  Hamilton, J. H.

  Stafford, A.

  Hassard, M.

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Hayes, Sir E.

  Steuart, A.

  Heathcote, Sir W.

  Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Herbert, Col

  Sturt, C. N.

  Hildyard, R. C.

  Taylor, Col.

  Hill, Lord E.

  Taylor, S.W.

  Hodgson, W. N.

  Tempest, Lord A. V.

  Holford, R. S.

  Thesiger, Sir F.

  Hopwood, J. T.

  Tollemache, J.

  Hotham, Lord

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Hume, W. F.

  Trollops, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Ingestre, Visct.

  Vance, J.

  Johnstons, hon. H. B.

  Vansittart, W.

  Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

  Verner, Sir W.

  Jones, D.

  Waddington, H. S.

  Kendall, N.

  Walcott, Adm.

  King, J. K.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Knight, F. W.

  Warren, S.

  Knightley, R.

  Welby, W. E.

  Knox, Col.

  Whitmore, H.

  Knox, hon. W. S.

  Wigram, L. T.

  Langton, W. G.

  Williams, Col.

  Lennox, Lord A. F.

  Willoughby, J. P.

  Leslie, C. P.

  Willson, A.

  Lisburne, Earl of

  Woodd, B. T.

  Lockhart, A. E.

  Wyndham, Gen.

  Long, W.

  Wynn, Col.

  Lovaine, Lord

  Wynne, W. W. E.

  Lowther, Capt.

  Yorke, hon. E. T.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Lytton, Sir G. E. L. B.

  TELLERS.

  Macaulay, K.

  Blandford, Marq. of

  MacEvoy, E.

  Drummond, H.

  Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

DISTRIBUTION OF THE VICTORIA CROSS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTobserved that as he saw the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, he desired to call his attention to an omission in the programme for the spectacle of to-morrow; he meant the absence of any adequate representation of the navy. No feeling of envy existed between the navy and the army, but the same courage, zeal, heroism, and true contempt of danger had been exhibited by the blue jackets as by the soldiers, and for the first time the seamen would feel regret at being debarred from co-operation with his brethren in the red jackets on the occasion of the interesting ceremony to which he alluded, and this feeling would be, he was convinced, shared in and reciprocated by the army. There had never been less dissimilarity in the nature and character of operations of the sister services than had occurred in the Crimean war. What were the arrangements proposed for representing the navy? Fifty pensioners had, it was true, been ordered up from Greenwich, but they had not shared in the dangers and glories of the late war. He had been told that this afternoon an order had been sent to Portsmouth for 100 seamen to come up, but they were not the recognised parties who ought to appear in the Park, taken promiscuously from men not in the aggregate employed in the Crimean war. Thank Heaven, the jolly marines would be there. Eight hundred of them were coming up from Woolwich and Chatham. But he was now speaking of the seamen and naval officers who so highly distinguished themselves both afloat and in the trenches before Sebastopol. He did not charge the authorities with anything but oversight on the occasion, but it was an omission of a grave nature which had inflicted great pain on the members of his profession, and one which he trusted would never be permitted to occur again. If 100 seamen could not have been obtained, it was with case that fifty might have been collected, but if there was any difficulty in the case he would undertake to bring forward 100 officers as the representatives of the navy.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, there would be on the ground to-morrow the representatives of the navy, past, present, and future—namely, a body of Greenwich pensioners, another body of men who served in the Baltic and in the Black Sea during the late war, and a large number of incipient sailors from the Greenwich school. It was not an easy thing to collect together to take part in the ceremony sailors who had served in the Russian war, many of whom were now paid off, or were dispersed in other parts of the world. There would be present, however, the men he had referred to, in addition to a large body of marines, and those seamen and marines who were to receive decorations.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, there was to be some sort of springling of sailors at the ceremony to-morrow; but he wished to know how many? The Greenwich pensioners would hardly be able to walk, and would want carriages to take them to the Park. Surely, without even sending so far off as Plymouth, 400 or 500 men who had served in the late war might have been found at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Sheerness, wherewith to make a show on the field. He would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Baronet whether the gratuity for good conduct usually granted to petty officers on being paid off had been discontinued.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that some years ago a regulation was adopted which gave the seaman additional pay with a good-conduct badge. That boon was not extended to the petty officers, but, in lieu of it, that which was considered at the time a much smaller boon—namely, a gratuity on their discharge—was given. The whole subject had lately been reconsidered, and in the navy seamen who were promoted to the rank of petty officers, as well as privates who in the army were made non-commissioned officers, were allowed now to carry with them into the higher rank the additional pay consequent on their good conduct. This larger boon having been extended to the petty officers, the gratuity formerly granted to them on being paid off had been necessarily discontinued.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONregretted that arrangements had not been made for a rather more complete representation of both the services at the distribution. Probably, on no former occasion had the two services of the navy and army been more identified than at the siege of Sebastopol.

  371
  There wore between 2,000 and 3,000 seamen who had worked the guns on the shore batteries, and who had been exposed to all the dangers and hardships that the army had experienced, and perhaps even in a greater degree. Their services had been continued throughout the whole of the siege; and there was therefore a more thorough identification of the army and navy upon that occasion than had ever taken place before; and he was sure if there were to be a large preponderance of the army present at the distribution that they would all feel the greatest disappointment at not being accompanied by as many as possible of the sister service. So much for the navy; but he regretted also that several regiments were to be absent which might very easily have been brought up either wholly or in detachments, and which would have added distinction to the proceedings. He knew, for example, that there was one battalion at Alder hot which had lost eight officers at Inkerman. The 88th was at Aldershot yesterday; the 19th was there; the 97th, which headed the storming party at the Redan, was there, and the 3rd battalion of Grenadier Guards, which served throughout the whole campaign, was at Windsor. He thought that these regiments, or, at all events, the medal and clasp men, might have been brought up to share in that magnificent spectacle, which would probably never be repeated in this country. The House, perhaps, might not be aware that by the terms of the Victoria Warrant the Commander in Chief on the spot in future would give the cross on the field where it was won, and consequently it could rarely if ever be given personally by the Sovereign again. This, therefore, was a most peculiar occasion, and if it could possibly have been managed, he should have been very anxious that all the regiments not too far removed from London should have participated in the brilliant spectacle.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEexpressed his gratification at the remarks of the gallant General who had just sat down, and his regret that the arrangements on behalf of the navy were so mean.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he was glad the hon. and gallant Member had taken up the subject. Her Majesty's Government were without excuse, for the hon. and gallant officer had pointed out that the regiments near town could readily have been brought up: he understood that it was proposed to bring up the 79th Highlanders from Shorncliffe
  372
  to be present—the regiment in which the present Minister for War had served—for, although the noble Lord had not much experience as a soldier, he had, he believed, been a captain in the 79th. The casualties of that regiment in the Crimea, however, had been very small. Of course the gallantry of that regiment was too well known for him to say anything, for a moment, depreciatory of its high character; but it so happened that in the Crimea only one officer and eight rank and file belonging to it had been killed, and two officers, seven sergeants, and fifty-two rank and file wounded; while the 88th Connaught Rangers, which was not to be present at the distribution, had had killed in action six officers, seven sergeants, and sixty-two rank and file; and eighteen officers, twenty-seven sergeants, two drummers, and 332 rank and file severely wounded. That regiment had been suddenly ordered to Portsmouth, but there was no necessity for such a sudden removal of the 88th, and they might very easily, and at a small expense, have been brought to London. As for the 79th, he saw no reason why they should be present at the distribution, unless it were that the attractive nature of their dress entitled them to a prominent place in the spectacle. He thought that this was a piece of favouritism which the House ought to discountenance.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, it appeared to him that, whenever these great national reviews took place, they seemed to create more jealousy and dissatisfaction than if they were not to occur at all. The naval review of last year gave very little satisfaction, he believed, to the Members of the House of Commons; but he thought that the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Admiral Walcott) had been a little hard upon the Admiralty with regard to their arrangements. Having any great body of sailors present at a review would be, in his opinion, as much out of place as an Admiral on horseback, or a body of infantry at a naval review. How were they to manage a large body of sailors there? [Admiral WALCOTT: I did not ask for a large body.] The thing was impossible. One hundred men had been ordered up to represent the navy, and the gallant Admiral must know the serious inconvenience to the fleet of having a large body of sailors in Hyde Park, independently of the difficulty of providing for them in a city like London. The hon. and gallant Member opposite

  373
  (Colonel French), who was a very old militia officer, but a very young soldier, had drawn the attention of the House to what he called a piece of favouritism shown to the 79th regiment. He was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman allude to that, for he knew that the 79th had been under orders for some time to proceed to Dublin, and it was owing to their being on their way there, and not on account of their dress—a reason which no one but a militia officer would have dreamt of—that they would be present at the display. The Quartermaster General had had the distribution of the tickets—the Admiralty had been subsidiary to the Horse Guards on this occasion, and he believed that the arrangements would be admirably carried out. The Admiralty would be efficiently represented. The gallant Admiral, the Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier), would be there on horseback; the Marines would be present, and a fine body of Greenwich pensioners would attend, to represent the past services of that gallant body of which the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Christchurch was so distinguished a representative. He thought, therefore, that there was no occasion for the jealousy and irritation of feeling which some hon. Gentlemen had thought proper to exhibit.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was certainly not calculated to allay any irritation of feeling that might by possibility have been felt by any one upon this subject. Many hon. and gallant Members did, he knew, feel somewhat sore upon it, but he thought that their objections had been very judiciously met by those who had preceded the hon. Member. When, however, the hon. Member gave, as a reason for not bringing up a few sailors, that there would be a difficulty in providing for them in this metropolis with 2,500,000 inhabitants, it appeared to him to be one of the most extraordinary reasons he had ever heard, and it certainly was an admission of administrative incapacity for which he was not prepared. He was, however, glad to hear such a commendation of the Horse Guards from the hon. Gentleman, who, only a few months ago proposed, if he remembered right, to turn the ornamental water from St. James's Park right through that establishment. He could not see what difficulty there could be in placing these gallant men side by side with the troops in Hyde Park. They did land service
  374
  in the Crimea; and, according to the testimony of the gallant General, performed their part gloriously in the struggle.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

METROPOLITAN WORKHOUSES.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAM VISCOUNT RAYNHAM rose to move an Amendment, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition and administration of Metropolitan Workhouses, and into the arrangements made and carried out by the parochial authorities of the Metropolis for giving relief to the poor." The noble Lord said, he had been led to consider the condition of these workhouses by circumstances which were as well known to most Members of that House as to himself; but, since the attention of the public was last drawn to it, matters appeared to have become worse and worse in most of the metropolitan workhouses. He thought the mismanagement of the metropolitan workhouses a subject deserving the consideration of the House. Though the enormities to which he intended to refer were matters of notoriety, he would, nevertheless, support his Motion by instancing certain cases from a return which had recently been made by the Poor Law Board, in the shape of a large blue-book, which contained nothing but details of the mismanagement in the workhouses of St. Pancras and Marylebone. Dr. Henry Bence Jones, who was appointed to inquire into the state of the workhouse of St. Pancras, after entering into various matters of detail connected with the condition in which he found the workhouse, went on to state that he could use no other term to describe what he had seen than the word "horrible." He had no doubt that the condition of that workhouse had materially improved, but it would not be disputed that that improvement had been the result of inquiry, and he had no doubt that, were inquiries made respecting other workhouses, much good would ensue. It seemed that these metropolitan workhouses were mismanaged not with respect to two or three matters only, but in regard to almost every circumstance connected with the administration of those establishments. The want of classification was universal throughout them; and the consequence was that decent persons, whom misfortune had reduced to take refuge in the workhouse, were compelled to associate

  375
  with some of the worst characters, whose conduct and language were deservedly offensive to them. It was notorious, moreover, that the guardians screwed down the salaries of the officials to the lowest point; their great object appeared to be to get persons for little or nothing—in many respects it was nothing—and the result of this was that many of the officers were quite unfit for the situations which they filled. In some cases the guardians exercised a power which did not legally belong to them by giving orders to the porter of the workhouse to refuse relief, while in others they did not enforce the test imposed by law, of making every pauper who had a night's lodging and a breakfast perform four hours' work. Therefore they broke the law at both extremes. Another matter which required alteration was the system of employing paupers as nurses in the sick wards, and these persons were generally so advanced in years as to be wholly incapable of performing the services required of them. He was informed that in the parish of St. Pancras this practice had been discontinued, but in other workhouses it still prevailed. In most of these workhouses, too, the wards were overcrowded, and no proper measures were taken for their ventilation. The result of this was the production of a great amount of disease and death. The excuse given was want of room; but surely the remedy could be found in making it imperative upon guardians to remove their pauper children into the country. Such a regulation would prevent overcrowding in many cases, while in others the evil might be still further reduced by abandoning the too parsimonious principles which so strictly regulated the action and conduct of the guardians. In St. Pancras a ladies' visiting committee had been appointed which was attended with very beneficial results, and these committees could be so arranged as not to interfere at all with the general regulations for the management of the workhouses. A material alteration was required in the constitution of the boards of guardians. It was utterly at variance with the interests of the inmates that persons should be elected merely because they were pledged to reduce the expenditure. It would be of great advantage if clergymen and other persons of respectable position in the district were made guardians as a matter of course. There ought, too, to be more efficient control over the officers of the unions in the discharge of their
  376
  duties. He could next refer to several cases in which the conduct of the officials had been such as that some punishment ought to have been inflicted on them. A case occurred last year which showed an utter want of proper feeling for the discharge of his duties on the part of a medical officer at Hampstead. A widow woman, fifty-nine years of age, committed suicide while in a state of insanity produced by the neglect of the officer. The coroner's jury in their verdict passed a severe censure on the conduct of the two relieving officers. The next point to which he would refer was the state of the lunatic wards; in 1856 the commissioner, Mr. Gaskell, reported that at St. Pancras none of the recommendations of the former report had been carried out. He would not further detain the House, although he had many cases in which the inhumanity of the officers had led to suffering and death. A more strict inspection was requisite, and more duties should not be imposed on the officers than they were able to discharge.
  MR. D. NICOLLseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition and administration of Metropolitan Workhouses, and into the arrangements made and carried out by the parochial authorities of the Metropolis for giving relief to the poor," instead thereof.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSmust say that the new President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Bouverie) was most assiduous in the discharge of his duties, although his action with regard to some of the metropolitan workhouses was not very palatable to the local authorities. He had no objection to the appointment of a Committee, but he thought it could not give the House more information than it already possessed in the Reports of the Poor Law Board. With respect to the Marylebone board of guardians, to whom the noble Lord had referred, he (Mr. Williams) begged to say that they were elected by the vestry, the clergy being ex-officio members of the board, and their conduct towards the poor had, in his opinion, been distinguished by great humanity. The Lunacy Commissioners had certainly reported that the workhouse of that parish did not afford sufficient accommodation for pauper lunatics; but the guardians and the vestry immediately set about carrying into effect the suggestions of the Commissioners, and they also intended to erect a school, which would afford ample means for the education

  377
  of pauper children. The noble Lord had referred to the employment of workhouse officials who were totally incompetent to the discharge of their duties; but that certainly was not the case in the parish of Marylebone, where the officials were most efficient, and received ample salaries.
  MR. BOUVERIEhoped his noble Friend would not think he was guilty of any personal disrespect to him, if, being anxious that the House should go into Committee of Supply, he did not follow the noble Lord through the details into which he had entered. He thought the noble Lord had entirely failed to establish a case which would justify the appointment of a Committee. There were between forty and fifty workhouses in the metropolitan district, and, if a Committee were appointed to investigate their management with any care, the inquiry would necessarily extend over two or three Sessions. The noble Lord arraigned the conduct of the parochial authorities generally, and it would be necessary that before a Committee he should prefer regular charges against them, and that an opportunity should be afforded them of offering a full defence. The inquiry would, therefore, be almost interminable. The cases upon which the noble Lord mainly relied as justifying his Motion were those of St. Pancras and Marylebone; but he (Mr. Bouverie) did not think they afforded grounds for the appointment of a Committee. He could not say that he considered the administration of the Poor Law in those parishes perfectly satisfactory. They were governed under separate local acts, and he could not say there was no reason to complain of the manner in which the law had been carried out. Entertaining that opinion, he had thought it his duty last year to institute an inquiry with reference to the proceedings in St. Pancras. The result of that inquiry was laid before Parliament, and in consequence of the measures adopted by the Poor Law Board the evils pointed out had either already been remedied, or were in course of correction by the parochial authorities. The administration of the law in Marylebone had not been perfectly satisfactory; but occurrences which were represented to have occurred in the workhouse had been the subject of inquiry, and steps had been taken by the parochial authorities to prevent their repetition. The Poor Law Board were empowered by Parliament to
  378
  superintend the administration of the Poor Law throughout the country, and, so far as his power went, he had investigated all alleged cases of abuse which had been brought under his notice, and had endeavoured to apply a remedy where any maladministration was proved to exist. If, however, the Motion of his noble Friend were adopted, the effect would be that, so long as the sitting of the Committee continued, the Poor Law Board would be unable to exercise the powers vested in them by law, and their action would be entirely paralyzed. The Poor Law Board did what it considered just and right towards the poor; but at the same time it was matter of gratification that gentlemen were found who, without any remuneration, attended locally to the wants of the poor, and that with great zeal and success; and although the noble Lord appeared anxious to invest the Poor Law Board with greater powers, yet he (Mr. Bouverie) must say that, for his own part, he should shrink from the idea of having large centralized administrative powers placed in his hands. No doubt cases of hardship and maladministration might arise, but these hardly afforded grounds for the appointment of a Committee. If, however, his noble Friend had any particular cases of hardship which he was able to substantiate by evidence, let him place them in his (Mr. Bouverie's) hands, and he would endeavour to see that justice was done.
  MR. P. W. MARTIN, in supporting the Motion, said, that he was acquainted with the state of affairs in the parish of St. Pancras, and considered inquiry urgently called for. The inquiry to which the right hon. Gentleman referred took place in January, 1856, and no doubt the regulation which the Board had laid down in consequence of the Report were excellent. Nevertheless, the state of things had not improved, and in October last Mr. Hall reported that they were disregarded wherever they differed from the former practice. Dr. Bence Jones reported that the workhouse was overcrowded, the inmates of the infirmary suffered from a poisonous atmosphere, and much disease was the consequence; while in the lunatics' ward great abuses prevailed, such as compelling a cleanly and a filthy patient to sleep together. This was the state of things on the 20th of December last. But, bad as matters were in the house, the management of the out-door relief was still worse; and he contended, therefore, that there

  379
  was a loud call for inquiry. He did not, however, wish to give power to a Committee of that House to make inquiry into the state of the workhouses all over the country, because he thought that was unnecessary. It was only in the metropolis, where nobody could be said to know his neighbour's business, and where, consequently, much suffering among the poor went unrelieved, that inquiry was called for; and having discovered the condition of one metropolitan workhouse, he wished to know what was the condition of the others. He should, therefore, strengthen the hands of the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) by supporting his Motion for a Committee.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he thought the statement made to the House by the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Bouverie) made the case for inquiry much stronger than it was before. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had abundant power placed at his disposal. If he had that abundant power, why did he not exercise it? He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the poor in the metropolis, in consequence of their isolation, were much worse treated than in the country. There was one question he should like to ask, why, if the right hon. Gentleman had such full power in his hands, how he came to suffer the flogging of women in the Marylebone workhouse? Not many years ago Barclay and Perkins's draymen took it into their heads to insult and maltreat General Haynau, when he came to London, for flogging women—a thing, by the way, which he never did. No one, however, could expect the draymen of Barclay and Perkins to be very conversant with foreign politics. But there, in the Marylebone workhouse, were women flogged. Besides, when the Poor Law Board proposed to institute inquiry into the matter, that inquiry was resisted by most of the poor law guardians in the parish, and they were backed by the clergyman of the parish, who had since been made a bishop. But it was perfectly clear that the poor in these London unions were most shamefully treated. He did not choose to go into any details. He was, however, conversant with the treatment of pauper lunatics. In the rural districts the country gentlemen tried to get those poor lunatics into proper asylums, because they knew that there the unfortunate creatures would be kindly and skilfully treated by persons who really devoted themselves to
  380
  the care of such people. In the country asylums, too, the condition of the lunatics was inquired into by the county magistrates periodically; but here in the metropolis there was no one who knew anything about such matters, and the result was, that the poor lunatics were most cruelly treated; they were huddled together in the most wretched manner, and had no one to look after them who understood the nature of their ailments. Was this, he would ask, a state of things to be allowed to go on under their very noses, and they were not to interfere? He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) exercised his power. The right hon. Gentleman, it might be from modesty on his part, had not enlightened the House on that point; but he (Mr. Drummond) did not care in whom power was vested; what he wanted was, to see those poor people protected, and if he could not get that done through the intervention of the Poor Law Board, he would support the Motion for a Committee of inquiry.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, he would cordially support the Motion before the House, believing that the noble Lord, in bringing it forward, had shown ample cause for investigation, and in so doing deserved the thanks of the House. He was, indeed, surprised that the Government should oppose the Motion, especially as they were told that there were eight other workhouses in the same, or nearly as bad a condition as those of St. Pancras and Marylebone.
  MR. BOUVERIE, in explanation, said the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin) had referred to the state of St. Pancras workhouse on the 25th December last. He (Mr. Bouverie) had been informed, on competent authority, that the parish of St. Pancras was now laying out a very large sum of money in making improvements which had been recommended by Dr. Bence Jones, and that all the material suggestions which that Gentleman had made had been either actually effected or were in the course of being effected. The hon. Member, therefore, was not justified in basing his Motion on statements made six months ago.
  Mr. ALDERMAN COPELANDsaid, his experience as a citizen of London and a magistrate had long convinced him that here poverty was regarded as a crime and treated as a crime. He felt bound to support the Motion of the noble Lord; but, considering the period of the Session, and

  381
  the vast number of election petitions which stood for consideration by Select Committees, he thought it would not be advisable to add another Committee to the number, and that the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) would do well to leave the matter in the hands of the President of the Poor Law Board for the present.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the hon. Member who last addressed the House had made a startling and alarming statement—namely, that in this metropolis poverty was treated as a crime; but he trusted that statement was rather the result of the hon. Member's warmth of feeling than of his deliberate conviction. On the other hand, however, he could not but admit that, within the last few years, circumstances had transpired to show that the administration of the poor law in this great metropolis was not in a satisfactory state. He must say that, when the shocking revelations were made in the St. Pancras Report became public, he received a private communication from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), in which he manifested as much interest in the matter as any one could; but the complaints were not confined to St. Pancras, and he must congratulate the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) on having found an opportunity of bringing forward a subject to which attention had been long directed; for, in the course he had taken, the noble Lord had done a public, service; but, considering the period of the Session—and, what was of more importance, namely, the spirit in which the Motion had been met by the President of the Poor Law Board—he thought the object of the noble Lord would be best attained by leaving the matter in the hands of that right hon. Gentleman for the present. He (Sir J. Pakington) understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) had promised to give his attention to the subject, and with that assurance the noble Lord might be satisfied. He (Sir J. Pakington) believed that much irregularity prevailed in the workhouses of the metropolis, and, unless the state of things there became more satisfactory, he thought the noble Lord, at the commencement of the next Session, would have abundant ground for repeating his Motion.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, unless he received an assurance from the President of the Poor Law Board, that some steps would be taken in this matter, he should divide the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 52: Majority 21.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee of Supply; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
  The following Votes were agreed to.

  (1.) £426,670, Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home.

  (2.) £183,523, Maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols, &c.

  (3.) £43,815, Transportation of Convicts, &c.

  (4.) £259,405, Convict Establishments (Colonies).

  (5.) £11,504, Inspection and General Superintendence over Prisons.

  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £361,233, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge for Public Education in Great Britain, to the 31st day of March, 1858."

  MR. HADFIELDrose to call attention to the great increase which had taken place in this Vote within the last few years. So recently as 1852 it was only £150,000, whereas for the last year it was £451,000, and for the present year £541,233, being an increase of £90,000 as compared with last year. The annual increase was now about £100,000, and Sir John Kay Shuttle worth had predicted that in a few years the rate would amount to £1,000,000, estimating the capitation fund for the rural districts alone at £800,000. According to the present rate of progression the Government would soon be in possession of the education of the entire people, and voluntary effort, which had accomplished such wonders in past times, would have no chance against the national Exchequer. It certainly was not fitting that the Committee should vote such a sum as half a million of money to be placed at the disposal of an irresponsible body. He complained that the duties of the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education were not so well defined as they ought to be. The whole system, in fact, appeared to him to be going wrong, and he thought it exceedingly desirable that before agreeing to the Vote the House should discuss fully and deliberately the question of national grants for education—grants voted without consideration, and distributed without responsibility—which they could

  383
  not do at such a late hour of the night as half-past nine o'clock. He therefore moved,—
  "That the proposed Vote of £361,233 for public education in Great Britain, in addition to £180,000 already voted, and making together £541,233, for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1858, be postponed for consideration, and be the last on the Estimates of Civil Services."
  THE CHAIRMANstated, that he could not put the question which the hon. Gentleman had proposed. It was competent to the hon. Member to negative the Vote, but, according to the rules of the House, he could not move its postponement.
  MR. COWPERsaid, it appeared as if the appeal of the hon. Gentleman for the postponement of the Vote must have been prepared under the supposition that the Estimates would not be taken so early. It was very unusual to postpone a Vote at half-past nine o'clock, and if the question could not be discussed at that hour, he despaired of securing a more suitable time. The Estimates now in the hands of the Chairman had been prepared upon a calculation of the payments that would become due in the current year, in accordance with the conditional grants made under Minutes of the Committee of Council. The increase over last year, amounting to £129,000, was owing to the increasing outlay on the part of local and voluntary contributors towards the building and management of schools, and was therefore not only a measure of the increased exertions of the benevolent and of those interested in education, but also an indication that the terms on which the votes of Parliament were administered were suited to the wants and acceptable to the feelings of a large portion of the community. The general acceptance of the terms was the best proof that could be got of their propriety. The necessity of this expenditure was tested not only by a careful examination of the circumstances of each case and by official inspection, but still further by the sacrifice of their own money by persons most conversant with the locality and best able to watch constantly over the proceedings of the school. They had also the best security for the economical application of the grant. They had not only the supervision of the Committee of Council but also the personal interest of those who were spending their own money, and who could not spend the public money without spending a proportionate sum of
  384
  their own, and could not economise their own money without saving the public purse, for the public grants were so made as to be in proportion to the contributions from local and voluntary sources.
  The position which the State occupied in relation to education depended not only on a correct view of the duties of the State but also on the position assumed by the instructors. Popular education in many parts of Europe had been directed by the Government. In England the efforts for spreading knowledge among the poorer classes had originated in times of religious zeal. The earliest epoch of our ancient schools dated from a time when the pious zeal of the people led to the foundation of schools in connection with conventional establishments. Many of the endowed schools—in which, however, much improvement was required—dated from the period of the Reformation, when there was a great desire that the new opinion on religious subjects should be widely disseminated, and the poor enabled to read the Scriptures and see for themselves the basis of the Reformation. The third epoch at which efforts were made for the extension of education among the children of the poor with permanent results was the commencement of the present century, when a great revival of religious zeal gave rise to the Evangelical movement. On the Continent popular education had been diffused from a different source. In Prussia, the present admirable system was framed at a time of disaster and discouragement. At a time when the Prussian armies had succumbed before the French invaders and their lands had been spoiled by the conquering foe, the statesmen of Prussia felt the necessity of making some resolute effort to awaken the intelligence, to revive the exhausted vigour, and to rouse the relaxed energies of the people; and in that moment of difficulty and depression they commenced the present system, which had since been extended through the Prussian dominions. In Germany and France state policy dictated schools. In England popular education originated with no statesmen, and was nurtured for no political end. It sprung from the action of the Church and the philanthropy of individuals. They traced it from the school of Mr. Raikes at Gloucester, who at the close of the last century established Sunday schools, and from the untiring exertions of Boll and Lancaster, who devoted their lives to the establishment of the monitorial system.

  385
  When, therefore, in the year 1833, the governing bodies of this country at last awakened to a sense of the duty of the State with reference to the moral and intellectual state of the people, and perceived that the State was bound to take measures to prevent ignorance and immorality, and to remedy the neglect of the education of the children of the poor—when, for the first time, a grant of public money, though only amounting to £20,000, was voted by this House—it was not possible for any State education to be framed in the way in which it had been established in continental countries. The field, being already occupied by persons associated together by an agreement of religious views, and philanthropic motives, the State naturally turned to directing and improving the schools which already existed; so that the present arrangement, which would not have been adopted as a system, was developed naturally from the circumstances, the march of events, and the state of opinion at the time it was introduced. The method to which Parliament was almost compelled to resort, when first it began to vote money in aid of schools, was the supplementing and completing the imperfect exertions already directed to give adequate education to the labouring classes. That system had developed itself and assumed a great variety of ramifications; but the present mode of administering the grant was exactly the same as was adopted in 1833. Now, the principle of that aid was this—the co-operation of the State with the exertions of individuals, and societies in the promotion of education. In some respects it was defective, but it was an exemplification of the French axiom, Aide toi et le ciel t'aidera. Upon the same principle the world was governed by Divine Providence, for they saw that the prizes of life were not given to those who most needed them, but to those who most exerted themselves to obtain them. It had been admitted that the man who made a gift to another, benefited him less than the man who enabled him to help himself; and he was sure, with regard to schools, the State did more by stimulating managers and teachers to make a good school than they would by merely supplying the funds. The efforts of the Committee of Council on Education had been directed not merely to aid the schools by grants of money, but by giving them information, guidance, and help, and those suggestions which could best be given by a
  386
  central authority viewing the whole education of the country, and being accurately informed of all that was going on by means of its inspectors. It was not centralization in an improper sense—for he presumed centralization in that sense was an attempt to do something which the locality could do better, while the right centralization was to do that which the central could do better than the local authority. It was local action under central supervision. In all matters of guidance and direction it was acknowledged that the Committee of Council had greatly benefited the local schools.
  In considering the Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education he would ask what were the great impediments which prevented the spread of education among the children of the poorer classes? Those impediments were—1. Deficiency of school buildings. 2. Deficiency of funds for the maintenance of schools. 3. Inefficiency of education and imperfect mode of teaching. 4. Irregular attendance of children. 5. Early age at which children leave school. 6. Total absence of many children from the schools.
  With regard to the deficiency of school buildings, the grants of the Committee of Council had done much to supply it. In the last year the sum spent on building and enlarging elementary schools was £74,000: 242 schools had been built and 262 enlarged during the year; 127 teachers' residences had been built, and an increase of accommodation had been provided for 34,000 children; From the year 1839 to the present year the sum of £580,000 had been spent in building, enlarging, and improving schools, and accommodation had been provided for 495,000 children. These grants had been made on conditions, under which they had been met by an expenditure of £1,512,000 in voluntary contributions; so that, on an average, the Parliamentary grant was met by three times the amount of the public contribution. If the Committee looked to the amounts awarded for building schools, there would be seen to be a rapid increase in the applications for aid which were entertained. In 1852 awards were made for building 285 schools; in 1853, 318; in 1854, 450; in 1855, 470; and in 1856, 575. At present there were liable to inspection 7,588 schools considered as institutions, not as school-rooms, many of them containing boys, and girls, and infants, in the same building. These having

  387
  been partly built by public money, were liable, by their trust deeds, to inspection; though the actual inspection was usually restricted to those in the receipt of annual grants. Out of 7,588 separate institutions, 4,120 were last year in the receipt of annual grants and were actually inspected. In 1854, the number of school institutions liable to inspection was 4,788, of which 3,825 were actually inspected, and in two years the increase of schools liable to inspection had risen from 4,788 to 7,580 in the present year. These, it would be observed, were school-houses, not school-rooms. It thus appeared that under the present system the erection of schools was proceeding at a very rapid rate. It was true that this increase would be much more rapid if the public money were given on easier terms. Applications were constantly made to the Privy Council to make grants without exacting the usual proportion of local contributions, and in peculiar cases, where poor and populous communities were concerned, exceptions were made to the rule, and the Committee did not tie down the applicants too rigorously to the letter of the rule. He now came to the second point—the want of funds for the ordinary maintenance of the schools. This expenditure was met from the other grants of the Privy Council. It was found, from the average expenditure of elementary schools, that the annual cost of a child was estimated at 30 s., and that the amount contributed by the public was 11 s. 4d. The public funds, therefore, speaking generally, provided more than one-third of the ordinary expenditure of those schools receiving annual grants, and which came up to the requirements of the Committee of Privy Council. The third point—the inefficiency of the education given in the schools, had long been a great source of complaint, and a great impediment in the way of education. Many of the Minutes of the Privy Council dealt with this evil, but mainly those of 1846, which provided for the establishment of normal schools, the augmentation of teachers' salaries, and the adoption of the system of pupil teachers. The rapidity and extent to which normal schools had increased was most remarkable. Foreign educationists have great difficulty in believing that within ten years thirty-two normal training institutions had been established in this country, mainly by voluntary contributions, for such an achievement could only have occurred in this country. These normal schools were
  388
  not only well provided with suitable houses and good teachers, but great care was being taken to adapt them to their proper object. They were becoming more practical, and were now producing the proper class of teachers that were required. Mr. Temple, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, said, in his last Report:—
  "The work done in the training colleges appears to me, with one exception, to be improving as steadily and as rapidly as could be desired. The definiteness given to the examinations by Mr. Moseley's programme has had the best effect both on the students and the lecturers. There is always a tendency in the infancy of such institutions to attempt more than can be accomplished, and the training colleges have not been free from this mistake. Year by year, however, they seem to see more clearly what they ought to do, what they can do, and how they can do it best, and the more definite character of the annual examinations contributes much to this result. The answers of the students are less superficial and less inaccurate than they used to be."
  The attention of the inspectors and of the Committee of Privy Council had been specially directed to secure that the education given in these establishments should suit the young men who were trained to be the teachers in these schools, and should avoid the charge of "flying too high." It was, no doubt, extremely difficult to provide a master who would patiently and willingly teach children of from seven to ten years of age, and who was at the same time competent to instruct a pupil-teacher in those matters which would fit him in his turn to be a master. If, therefore, hon. Members were sometimes disposed to complain that too highly qualified a master was sent to a village school, it must be remembered that, besides the instruction of the class, the master must be capable of teaching a teacher. To reach the minds, sustain the attention, and influence the hearts of very young children was as difficult, perhaps, as teaching older pupils, and required a degree of skill and patience which could not easily be found. Some of the faults laid to the charge of the school-masters were to be traced only to the youthful age at which they had to take charge of the schools. This disadvantage, however, was in process of correction; and the average age of the trained masters was gradually rising. The training schools, also, could not give experience which must be acquired in after life, and experience was as necessary in teaching as in any other profession. The augmentation of the salaries of masters

  389
  had been successful. Before the Minutes of 1846, it used to be remarked, that the schoolmasters of villages and country towns were generally men who had failed in some other occupation—that keeping a school was the resource of those who did not succeed in other pursuits—and that teaching was supposed to be so easy a matter that any one could undertake it without previous training or experience. They were often the discarded ushers of middle schools, incapable of exercising the lowest strata of the reasoning faculty. But this class of persons had disappeared from the inspected schools. The position of master had been invested with a respect more commensurate with its real importance, and was a coveted object of rustic ambition. There was no deficiency of candidates for masterships in schools where the payment was adequate and the opportunity of exercising their vocation was satisfactory. But the institution of pupil-teachers had most conduced to the efficiency of the schools. The monitorial system, which it superseded, had been bringing elementary education into disrepute, particularly with the parents who were dissatisfied that their children should learn of, or teach other children. The pupil-teachers were found to be really valuable as aids to the masters; and they offered this great advantage, that we had preparing for the normal schools young men who had a taste for educating, and who voluntarily entered into it, and were prepared during a five years' apprenticeship for that which would be their profession in after life. It was objected that the smallness of the remuneration produced some difficulty in obtaining pupil-teachers, and that a considerable proportion of their number did not afterwards become masters. But as to the allegation that the pupil-teachers were not adequately paid, it was doubtful whether any strong pecuniary inducement ought to be held out to tempt young men into the field of education. It was much better that lads should be left to embrace this profession from a peculiar aptitude and natural bent for it, than that they should be drawn away by increased emoluments from other occupations. And by affording to those pupil-teachers who discovered that they had no taste for the work of instruction a ready means of escape into other employments, there was a better chance that those who remained would be adapted for educational pursuits. Experience showed that no man succeeded
  390
  in this occupation who did not take an interest in it, and had not a warm sympathy with children; and the success of a school-master depended more on the zeal he felt for his profession than on intellectual ability. This explained the success of ragged schools. The Ragged School Union had made no demand for Government aid; probably because the intellectual attainments of their teachers would not enable them to pass the examination for Government certificates. But the deficiency of special learning was compensated by zeal, aptitude, and by that lively sympathy with the children under their care, which was the real source of moral power over the tender mind. The great aim, however, ought to be to combine both of these qualifications in the teacher, and the training institutions to which he had referred afforded facilities for attaining that result. They supplied to the future instructors of the young the requisite intellectual acquirements and practical experience; while for those whose hearts were not in the work an easy outlet was provided to some more congenial occupation, and the training they had received was useful in other walks of life. The pupil teacher system had been commenced at a school at Norwood by Sir James Kay Shuttleworth; it was subsequently tried in the Admiralty School at Greenwich, and was now adopted in all the best schools in England. In the important matter of pupil-teachers we surpassed the nations of the Continent, however efficient their systems of education were in other respects. In France there was nothing that corresponded to this feature of our institutions, and the want of it was felt. Another valuable provision was that the augmentations made to the salaries of schoolmasters and pupil-teachers were made to depend on their passing through examinations before the inspectors, and also on a rigid scrutiny of their paper-work in the Council Office. Every security was thus taken that the sums paid in increasing their remuneration should not be uselessly or carelessly spent. The irregular attendance of the scholars was, perhaps, the greatest impediments to the success of our elementary schools. From a return, including all the schools at present under inspection, it appeared that 42 per cent of the scholars had attended the dayschools for less than one year; that 25 per cent had attended for one year and less than two years; that 13 per cent had attended for two years

  391
  and less than three; that 8 per cent had attended for three years and less than four; that 5 per cent had attended for four years and less than five; and that 4 per cent had attended for five years and upwards. In many of the schools, especially in Yorkshire, one-half of the children to be found there at one time were not in the habit of attending for more than six months in the year, and in the rural districts generally many of the children were taken away from school during the summer months. This irregular attendance above all other things tended to prevent a good result, for in the case of young children the impressions produced on the mind must he continuous, if they are to have any lasting effect. He had heard schoolmasters say that nothing was more distressing than to see the same boy who bad left them at the age of eleven an intelligent, active lad, with all his wits about him, and able to use all the faculties he then possessed, returning to them at seventeen, after he had been at the plough, a heavy, dull, stupid, loutish sort of fellow, who, so far from being able to describe all those beautiful flourishes of the pen at which he used to be an adept when at school, hardly knew how to write his own name, and had nearly forgotten all that he had learnt. The capitation grant aided the school-fund in the way most calculated to stimulate frequent and regular attendance; and the reports from the schools showed that it had operated beneficially. It induced the managers and masters to exert themselves to get the children to attend regularly; and, it suggested to persons of influence to visit the parents in their respective neighbourhoods and to point out to them the absolute necessity of a continuous and consecutive course of instruction for any really beneficial and enduring result. At present the capitation grant was not paid upon more than 36 per cent of the whole number of scholars in attendance. So that only one-third were attending as they ought. To give the right to a share of the grant the child must have been at school for 176 days during the year preceding the inspection. It acted, therefore, as a direct stimulus to the masters and managers to increase the number of their scholars, and also, when they got them to school to keep them there. The early age at which the school-education ceased, could hardly be prolonged by any operation of a public grant. If a child earned money you could hardly ask his
  392
  parents to consent to his abandoning work in order to go to school, unless you compensated them for the loss which they would thereby sustain; and of course no one would propose in that House a Vote to compensate parents in such cases. But much was being done to make it worth while for the parents to let their children remain longer at school, and efforts were being made to improve the education given in the primary schools aided by the State. Parents could appreciate that improvement more readily than was generally supposed. In his opinion the indifference shown by many of the working classes with regard to sending their children to school was not so much owing to their prejudice against education itself, as to their low opinion of the character of the education given to their children. They did not see that that education had a very obvious or practical effect upon their children's progress in life. To some extent he thought the parents were wrong, but he did not deny that the schools might and ought to be more efficient and furnish a more practical and special preparation for the future occupations of the children. In the best of schools there were some children who would not learn. He had known boys who exercised their ingenuity and cleverness in getting their lessons without study, and who could pass through even Eton and Westminster without carrying away with them anything that they could remember in after life. The reports of the school inspectors showed the pains they took to make the instruction more thorough, efficient and practical. Where industrial training could be given to advantage it was given; but if children, particularly boys, remained in the schools, on an average, only a year or a year and a half, it was clear that there was not time for them to learn more than the mere elements of intellectual teaching, and the withdrawing of their time to teach handicrafts would not be wise when their age was below ten or eleven. He believed that all the friends of education were now inclined to press upon schoolmasters the importance of making their teaching as special and suited to the children's future position in life as possible. In the girl's schools there was more opportunity of doing so, because girls generally remained longer at school than boys. Any one who read the report of Mr. Cooke, who inspected the female training schools, would see that he was continually repeating his

  393
  exhortations to the teachers to bestow more pains on teaching the girls needlework and household work, and, where it could be done, household economy. In fact, some of the inspectors had become excellent judges of needlework. They had from the commencement impressed the teachers with the desirableness of making the education given to the girls as practical as possible. He believed that the more the quality of the education was improved, the more visible its results, the more it would be valued, and the more likely was it that the children would remain longer at school. Parents in the long run were not bad judges of what sort of education their children ought to have. He often found that a parent knew much better what progress his child was making in education than the visitors who questioned him and the managers who frequented the school.
  With regard to the total absence of children from school, he thought the number of such children not so large as was generally assumed. It appeared, from the returns of the Registrar General, that out of nearly 5,000,000 children about 2,000,000 attended school; but assuming that children between the ages of three and fifteen remained in school on an average not more than five years, it would be quite compatible with those figures that every child in the country should have passed through a school. It was found, however, that children did not remain on an average five years at school. The children of the working classes remained at school, on an average, no longer than from a year to a year and three-quarters. He did not mean to assert that every child in the country had passed through a school, but the returns of the Registrar General were not inconsistent with that assertion. He believed that the number of children who never went to school was comparatively small indeed. Several inquiries had been made on that subject, and the results tended to show, that if you excluded the lowest class of children who swarmed in the courts and alleys of great towns, in which the most demoralized portion of the community dwelt, the number of those children who did not at one time or other attend school was not large. When he had had opportunites of questioning children who were grossly ignorant, he generally found that they had been at school, though they had forgotten what they had learnt. That fact showed, that even among the
  394
  working classes there was an opinion that their children ought to attend school, although they were very careless about keeping them there. Many children, also, played truant, and disregarded the wishes of their parents that they should attend school. The scanty attendance at several of the schools was owing to the indifference and demoralization of parents, and the extensive employment of young children. Nevertheless, when he regarded what was being done in the primary schools, he found that amid much to distress there was also much to encourage. Those schools which had been brought under the operation of the Minutes of Council were rapidly improving; abler masters were employed, there was greater energy and talent in the management of the schools, and more practical knowledge was imparted. He saw day by day greater numbers of persons devoting their attention to this great cause, and the progress, though slow, was certain. Education was spreading its roots deeper and wider in a prolific soil. Benevolence, compassion, and charity were engaged in this work. They felt that it was not so much upon mere donations, as upon a sense of duty and noble emulation on the part of those engaged in our schools that the advance of education depended. The last objection to which he would advert was one which had been frequently urged against the system. It had been said that the Government withheld their aid from the poor, while they gave it to the rich. But that was not a fair way of stating the matter. They did not give to the rich as rich, nor withhold from the poor as poor— they gave their aid to those districts in which the people interested themselves about education, and were ready to make sacrifices for it, while they withheld it from other districts, not because those districts were poor, but because they were indifferent to the education of their children. Aid was withheld from certain parishes, not because they were poor, but because no persons lived within them who took a sufficient interest in the promotion of education among the inhabitants, or who were willing to make the necessary exertions for that purpose. There was, after all, no security for the proper expenditure of the public money so good as that of the voluntary exertions of self-denying zeal, and he, for one, should he the more satisfied that that money had been advantageously laid out if its expenditure were

  395
  made dependent on contributions being made for the advancement of education by those who were acquainted with the wants of a particular locality, and who had proved the earnestness of their convictions by carrying out their views with the aid of funds drawn from their own resources. He did not think it was necessary he should enter into any further explanation of the Vote, as hon. Members had a sheet in their hands which fully explained all the details, but he should be ready to answer any question which might be put to him with reference to them.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had listened with very great pleasure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat; and although he was unable to concur with him in many of the conclusions at which he seemed to have arrived, the Committee he felt assured could not fail to appreciate the calm and judicious tone by which the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had been pervaded, and he ventured to express a hope that the same tone would be found to animate any discussion which might take place upon the very interesting and important matter to which that statement related. He must also state that he derived great pleasure from the fact that the vote for educational purposes had been submitted to the notice of the Committee by a Minister directly connected with the department of education in this country, and who must be held responsible for the various items which the Vote contained. Having said thus much, he should not trespass upon the time of the Committee by entering into a discussion of the question generally; because it was his intention, after the conferences upon the subject which had just taken place, to take that course when he brought forward his Motion with respect to the general subject of education, for the introduction of which to the notice of the House the noble Lord at the head of the Government had, with his usual courtesy, been good enough to say that he would place a day at his disposal. The only object which he had in view upon the present occasion was to invite the serious attention of the Committee to the financial position of the question under discussion, to the growing amount of the Estimate for educational purposes, and to the manner in which the money voted for those purposes was expended. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the origin of this Vote, and he was very glad to have
  396
  heard the right hon. Gentleman make the important admission that the present system of education was one which could not be defended if it had originated systematically. Whatever might be its faults or defects, much good had, no doubt, been effected under its auspices; but he (Sir J. Pakington) felt convinced that the time must soon arrive when Parliament would be obliged to direct its attention to the question whether that system was one which ought to be allowed to go on permanently, and whether they were to vote an annually increasing grant for the promotion of education without taking some greater security than now existed for the beneficial expenditure of the money which they so liberally advanced. The right hon. Gentleman had observed that the present system was one under the operation of which the State assisted and co-operated with the efforts of individuals; but he (Sir J. Pakington) should contend that the result was to afford that assistance to the richer which was withheld from the poorer localities. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, foreseeing that objection, had adverted to it at the close of his speech, and had endeavoured to meet it by saying that aid was not withheld from the poorer localities because they were poor, but because no desire was exhibited upon their parts that assistance should be extended towards them. The practical consequence, however, was that the richer districts, which were in a position to help themselves, got a very large share of the grant, while the poorer, which were unable to do anything for their own advantage, got nothing. Now, that was a great evil lying at the very root of the existing system. There was also another important question connected with the subject—namely, whether the working of the present system was such as to render It certain that the country received a full equivalent for the money which was voted by the Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated centralization—he said, that centralization in an evil sense was when the State undertook to do what localities could best do for themselves. Now, his (Sir J. Pakington's) objection to the scheme of education as it now stood was that it tended to promote centralization to an undue extent; he was strongly of opinion that, in granting a large sum of money to be administered by a central department located here in London, Parliament was doing that for the country districts which they could more efficiently

  397
  perform for themselves. It was absolutely impossible, for instance, that any department in the metropolis, however well conducted, could dispense money for the maintenance of schools in Devonshire or Norfolk with a due confidence that the money so expended had been laid out to the best advantage. He was of opinion, indeed, that education throughout the country could not be satisfactorily promoted unless the aid of the respective localities were obtained, and a scheme of local organization established to provide that the public money was laid out only on schools which, owing to the nature of the education which they furnished, were deserving of assistance. Before the dissolution of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) complained of the growing amount of this grant. He (Sir John Pakington) did not complain of the amount; but he did think that it had now reached a sum which made it incumbent upon them, not in the capacity alone of friends of education, but as stewards of the public purse, to see that it was properly administered. They must also specially note the annual increase. That increase he was glad to say was mainly caused by an increased attention to the subject of education throughout the country, and mainly by the efficiency of the capitation system. That system had at the outset been limited to the rural districts, but it had by a Minute of last year been extended to the whole of England, and he had no hesitation in saying that the House of Commons would, if the system were permitted to continue, be called upon before long to vote £1,000,000 sterling yearly for the purposes of education. Now, he, for one, had no objection to see a large amount of money expended in connection with that most important subject, and that it should be the subject of an annual Vote. He might add, that certain localities ought, in his opinion, to be aided out of the general funds of the country, but then he must repeat that steps should be taken to secure the beneficial expenditure of the money thus laid out. While dealing with that question he should, with the permission of the House, read a few passages from the Report upon the state of education which had just been issued, in order to show the Government what their own inspectors stated upon the working of the present system. The Rev. Mr. Stewart, who was inspector of schools for Cambridgeshire,
  398
  Bedfordshire, and Buckinghamshire, in alluding to the working of the present system, said,—
  "The necessary consequence of these features is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a satisfactory standard of instruction in the schools which are aided by Parliamentary funds."
  Again, the Rev. Mr. Mitchell, who was inspector of the Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex district, said,—
  "Of the 205 schools inspected (in 1856) 41 may be reported as being really efficient, and many of them excellent, offering not merely an ordinary education, but as good an education as I conceive to be possible, taking all the circumstances into consideration-—i.e., the age and social position of the scholars; but of 35 I am obliged to add an opinion that they are so defective in every respect—teachers, fittings, books, apparatus, and general morale—that it would be better if they were entirely closed, as they only impede progress to a better state of things. On the whole, it is almost better to have no school than a very bad one. The remaining 129 schools are more or less efficient; some are progressing, others remaining stationary, and some, I fear, retrograding."
  Now, it was worthy of grave consideration, whether Parliament should continue to vote large sums of public money for the support of a system on which the official inspectors pronounced no higher an opinion than this. He now invited the attention of the Committee to a table which appeared in the Report of 1854 and 1855. It was a tabulated statement of the quality of all the inspected schools, and the general result was that of those schools (the best in England, it should be remembered), only 50 per cent were in a satisfactory state. Another table, taken out of the Report for the present year, and to which he had referred yesterday at the Educational Conference, would bring pointedly before the Committee the necessity of some greater return for the expenditure of this public money. The table showed the merits of the schools under some seven or eight different heads of instruction, but he would only refer to one. He found with, reference to the simple rules of arithmetic that 4,698 schools were reported upon, and at 3,085, or two-thirds, these simple rules were described as being well or fairly taught, at 1,202 they were moderately taught, and at 411, or 10 per cent, they were imperfectly or badly taught. There were, therefore, no fewer than 1,600 schools of which the inspectors were unable to say that this essential element of instruction, was even fairly taught. Now, he was not prepared to record his vote in opposition

  399
  to the present grant; on the contrary, he should be very sorry to take such a course; but he thought he had stated enough to prove that some further consideration was necessary before the House of Commons should go on from year to year making these grants without better security for their employment. Within the last few days there had been an interesting conference on the subject of education, and he could not refrain from expressing his great satisfaction that the Prince Consort should have come forward and exhibited such interest in this subject. That his Royal Highness had displayed his usual ability it was unnecessary for him to say, but it was a great and signal fact that the Prince Consort should have come forward in this way, and it was also most gratifying to see gentlemen assembled from all parts of England to discuss this question. Whether any great or immediate results would ensue from this conference he might be allowed to doubt. He did not wish to be misunderstood. These results would, at all events, he believed, follow from it— namely, an extension of public interest in the question, and a useful extension of information respecting it; and if only these two points were gained there would be much to rejoice at. The main object of the conference was to discuss that unfortunate fact which his right hon. Friend had spoken of as at present the greatest impediment to education—namely, the irregular attendance of children, and the early age at which they left the schools. Now, he had ventured to point out yesterday that one cause of this irregular attendance was the badness of the schools. He was glad to hear this to a great degree admitted by his right hon. Friend; and the fact really was that the schools were to a considerable extent so deficient that the working classes could not be expected to sacrifice the wages of their children for the sake of such imperfect instruction as was imparted there. His right hon. Friend had observed that it was impossible to give the parents any money compensation for the loss of their children's services. This was quite true—they could not give compensation in money; but there was a compensation which they could give and to which the poor man who gave up the wages of his children was entitled—and that was an adequate education. His belief of the working classes was, that if they saw their children properly taught at the schools, and learning there what would
  400
  be useful to them in after life, they would have no objection to make those sacrifices which otherwise could not be expected from them. In one-third of the best schools of England, as he had shown, the common rules of arithmetic were not adequately taught, if taught at all. Now, those rules entered into nearly all the transactions of life—into the relations of working men with their employers, their landlords, their tradesmen; and how could they be expected to sacrifice those wages which contributed so much to their material comfort, for the sake of sending their children to school where they could not acquire even such elementary though essential knowledge? His object was now answered. He had stated at the outset that it was not his intention to enter generally into the state of education in this country, and that if he felt it necessary he would take another opportunity of doing so. No one would suspect him of being desirous of withholding pecuniary assistance for the advancement of education, but he had thought it his duty to make to the Committee this statement (confined as it had been entirely and completely to the estimate now before them), to show that the time had come for the reconsideration of the present system. As Sir John Kaye Shuttleworth had yesterday remarked at the conference, the people ought to be educated, and they must be educated. We might shirk it as we liked, but the real question at issue before Parliament and the country was, "Will you pay the price?" When, however, the country did pay the price, he thought it was their duty to see that they got the full value for their money.
  MR. ALCOCKcalled the attention of the Committee to the expediency of doubling the present rate of the capitation grant, and of reducing the number of days of attendance from 176 days to 160 days, in order to be entitled to capitation money, and of increasing the grant to masters and mistresses, on account of pupil teachers, from £5 to £10 for the first pupil teachers. The hon. Member said that the number of days at present required for attendance in order to give a claim to the capitation grant was excessive, and ought to be reduced; and the capitation grant itself was too small. With regard to the number of days, when they took off the Christmas week, the Easter week, and the Whit sun week—when they remembered the distance at which children frequently

  401
  lived in country places from the school, and the consequent difficulty they had in attending in certain states of the weather—when, finally, they recollected how often children were kept at home by the illness of themselves or their parents, he thought that the reduction of the number of days would be no more than reasonable. With regard to the pupil teachers, it was not worth while for any master or mistress to accept the very small pittance of £5, which was now allowed them on account of pupil teachers. It was a miserly and beggarly sum, unworthy of the House, and of the country. For the first pupil teacher, £10 ought to be given, and then, for subsequent ones, even so low as £3 might be given; but, to give but £5 where there was only one pupil teacher was niggardly in the extreme, and did not at all remunerate the master or mistress for his or her trouble and loss of time.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he hoped the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alcock) would be ultimately adopted, but he believed that it could not be brought forward as an Amendment on the present occasion, because the forms of the House prevented any hon. Gentleman from moving an increase of a Vote proposed by Government. He fully concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) in the satisfaction he had expressed with regard to the educational statement which had been laid before the House that night; and also in his approval of that admirable Educational Conference, which bad been so happily inaugurated during the past week, and from which he agreed that much advantage must be derived; but he trusted that the duties of the Vice President of the Educational Board would be extended, and that all the educational institutions in the country — the National Gallery, the British Museum, and everything connected with science and art, or that threw, even indirectly, a light upon the educational progress of the country—would come within his duty, so that he should be able to give to Parliament accurate information of the progress of science and art in this country. As to the present system of education, he was one who thought that it could not last. Undoubtedly it was an excellent substitute for a more permanent system, and had done signal good service to the State; but he could not regard it as anything more than a parenthesis in the history of our national education. He
  402
  must say, on the part of the people of this country, that eventually they must take the charge of education into their own hands, and that a popular system of rating, after the manner of the Scotch or Americans, was the real basis upon which an English educational system ought to rest. What was wanted in the existing system was, the extension of industrial training in schools. It was the just judgment of the people of this country that, if their children were to have any education at all, it should be that which fitted them best to discharge the duties of their daily life; that it was not enough to give them that "little learning," which was said to be "a dangerous thing," but that it should be brought to their hearths and homes, or as Lord Bacon had said, to their ''business and bosoms;" and, until that was done, be believed they would find their educational system to be practically deficient. One most important point in connection with the subject was, the education which was given to women. He deeply lamented to say that, in the homely arts of life, and in those things which made them good wives and mothers, the women of the poorer classes in this country were wofully deficient. He hoped, therefore, that whilst attending to the general education of the people, this particular branch of it would not be lost sight of; and that means would be taken for imparting an industrial and household education to the women. He hailed the introduction of the subject of education by his right hon. Friend that night, as the Minister of Education, as a happy augury of its progress hereafter, and he trusted to see the example which had been set that evening extended in future years.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he could very cordially agree with the right hon. Baronet and those who had followed him in bearing testimony to the ability with which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had brought forward his statement that night, and with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) that unless the hearts as well as the heads of the people were instructed little real and permanent good would be accomplished. But he could not agree with him that the women in the poorer classes were unable to perform their domestic duties. On the contrary, he believed that it was not that they could not cook, but that very often they had nothing to cook, and taking the length and breadth of the land he believed there

  403
  would be found in the houses of the poor no deficiency in those comforts which were the result of intelligent management; he believed that there was as much intelligence naturally displayed in the management of the scanty income of a cottager's family as could be taught by any school system. It had been said, and truly said, that the great difficulty which at present existed did not arise from the want of schools, but from the want of scholars, and the statement of the right hon. President of the Board of Education did not, in point of fact, apply to more than one-fourth part of the children who were receiving education from the country; for it had been calculated that of about 2,000,000 children who were receiving instruction in this country, only 500,000 of those children were receiving an education under the control of the Committee of Council. And it was not a little remarkable that the outcry about the difficulty of getting children to attend had proceeded chiefly from those schools—in fact, as he had before stated, the great difficulty to deal with arose, not from the want of schools, but from the want of scholars. He held in his hand a Report from one of the most skilled of our school inspectors, Mr. Canon Moseley. Now, what did that gentleman say? He said that all their efforts had had for their object the perfecting of the elementary school, and that they entertained a hope that when the children derived more good than heretofore from their attendance at school the parents would desire to send them longer, and by degrees public opinion would become so favourable that they would willingly sacrifice for a time the wages which the children could earn; "but," added Mr. Canon Moseley, "I will not conceal from your Lordships that hitherto that hope has been disappointed, because the parents have thought, owing to the schools being now so good, that the children can get all the learning that they consider necessary earlier than they could before, and they therefore take them away sooner." That statement of Mr. Canon Moseley had received a remarkable confirmation in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who stated that the schoolmaster complained that he kept his boys till they were ten or eleven, and that they were excellent boys, wrote a good hand, and so on; and that they then went out to work, and returning again at sixteen, or thereabouts, were no better than clods.
  404
  The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to tell them what sort of capacity for earning a living these boys had acquired when they left school in the first instance; but that was really at the very root of the question—what sort of instruction had the boy received; was it intellectual only, or had they been trained to do their duty in that state of life in which it had pleased God to call them? He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman express a hope that the present system would combine the earnest moral training of the ragged school with the more intellectual training of the Privy Council, because he thought that the system hitherto had been rather to exalt intellect at the expense of everything else. He looked upon this as a mistake, and he suggested that they should take care in their examinations that no children took away the prizes of intellect unless they exhibited also a fair knowledge of matters of practical utility. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking of the absence of so many children from the schools, described them in a great measure as the children who swarmed in our courts and alleys. Now, that was just the class that we wanted to get hold of, and however capable the right hon. Gentleman might be of directing science and art and those higher branches of cultivation which grew out of education, he trusted that he would not be led away to neglect those destitute children, who, as the right hon. Gentleman emphatically expressed it, "swarmed in our courts and alleys." It must be remembered that when we spoke of the criminal population as resulting from want of education, it was from that last mentioned class that the criminal population was recruited. He was afraid that we had overlooked that class too long, and that we had been striving too much to improve the quality of the education instead of teaching the people what they wanted to know. The people of this country—in the rural districts, at least—were quite alive to the advantage of education, if the children could be taught what would be useful to them and what would enable them to get through the world better. They always admitted it, and they would tell you that they kept their children at school as long as they could afford it. Another subject for consideration was the state of some of the present Government schools stated to be inefficient. His right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich had read some reports which were not very flattering to the districts

  405
  to which they related; and he (Mr. Henley) should like to be informed whether the Government withheld the grant from those schools which did not come up to the conditions that were required of them—whether those schools which were reported on as so inefficient got any share of the grant? That was a point which he should like to hear explained. With respect to the grant now proposed he did not at all object to its amount, and he did not see how they could take a better security for the proper application of the money than by allowing those who contributed two-thirds to one-third by the Government to look, after the expenditure. Whatever system they might adopt, there were likely to be some failures, and he certainly preferred this plan of two-thirds' voluntary subscription and one-third contributed by the Government to that which was proposed two years ago by his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, which would have done away with voluntary subscription, and raised half by local rates, while the Government were to contribute the other half. [Sir J. PAKINGTON denied that this was his plan.] That would certainly have been the result of the proposal of his right hon. Friend two years ago; and he should like to know in what way that offered a better security for the efficient expenditure of the money than the plan at present in use. One reason for the shortcomings of the present schools might be that the master devoted too much time to his pupil teachers and too little to his boys; because the pupil teachers were profitable to him, and it was no doubt, more agreeable to an intellectual man to teach the higher branches of learning than to be instructing those who were less advanced. But this was a question for the vigilance of the Government, and their attention being called to it, he had no doubt that they would guard against any inconvenience in that direction. He was very glad to hear that the inspectors were now supposed to be competent—he was going to say needlewomen, but he supposed needlemen was the proper title—it was a very useful accomplishment. What we had heard of Prussia was not calculated to make us too anxious for the system of education pursued in that country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was not until after Prussia was overrun by the French that school teaching was established in that country; but what the Prussians did in 1814, when they rose as one man to
  406
  drive out the French, did not contrast very unfavourably with their conduct in 1848. For his (Mr. Henley's) part, had he been a Prussian, he would a hundred to one sooner have owned his country in 1814 than in 1848. Chevalier Bunsen had published a work in which he had contrasted the Prussian State education and its effects upon the population, with the voluntary system adopted in this country, and its effects, and his statements were not such as should induce us to abandon our imperfect system, if you were pleased to call it so, for that of Prussia. He (Mr. Henley) gave his cordial support to this Vote. He hoped that the efforts of the Government would be directed to those unfortunate children who swarmed in the courts and lanes of our large towns. By getting them into ragged, and, if need were, subsequently into higher schools, we should do away with the chief nurseries of sin and wickedness and consequent crime. It had at different times been urged, with some truth, that we had not yet reached to the lowest depth, and he thought that those poor districts that bad hitherto received no advantage from the grant, had reason to complain. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would deal specially with those districts in which really special cases existed; but he could not understand the advantage of that remedy which proposed, that because certain districts had hitherto derived no advantage from the funds of the State, the system of aid from the State should be given up altogether, and that these districts should be called upon to tax themselves for their own education. That was a logic he could not comprehend: the country would never grudge the money which might be needed to deal specially with these cases. There was, indeed, no general objection to the amount of this grant. Those who objected to the grant at all, indeed, only did so because they wanted to supply the means of education in some other manner. He was glad to see in the recent Minutes of Council a decreased inclination to interfere, and he hoped that, ultimately, the Government would make the grant so elastic as to include within its four corners all the odds and ends to which he had referred, and thus completely to fill up the ground.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONexplained that, in the Bill to which his right hon. Friend had referred, he did not contemplate the abolition of voluntary contributions for educational purposes. On the

  407
  contrary, he had always dissented from that most erroneous opinion, that the establishment of a sound system of education which would reach all classes, and all parts of the country, would do away with voluntary contributions.
  MR. BUXTONentirely approved the principle on which the Government acted, of helping only those who helped themselves, and thought that, in the ease of neglected districts, it was hotter to wait a few years until the clergyman or some other active person originated a movement for the establishment of schools, than to erect and support them entirely out of State funds.
  MR. LIDDELLasked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, why, if he attached so much importance to the education of children who swarmed about the lanes and alleys of our large towns, he, on a recent Wednesday, employed his acute intellect, his industry, and his sagacity, to defeat a humble measure which had for its object the training of these very children? It was erroneous to suppose that the establishment of schools and the expenditure of money would educate the people. You never could educate the people until they found out that it was worth their while to be educated. All the changes which were going on around us went to increase the value of skilled labour, and, by consequence, the inducement to parents to send their children to school. So long as a child was learning an industrial employment, however, it was not entirely without education. He contended that, in a great producing country like England, the knowledge of his trade was of the greatest importance to a child. The main point to be ascertained as far as possible, and it was to be hoped that it would be a result attained by that Conference which had just been held under high auspices, was, whether they were receiving that for which they were to pay.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he could not but feel that the speech of the right hon. Member for Droitwich had been, in some degree, an impeachment of the existing system. He did not complain of anything unfair in the extracts read from the Reports of the Government Inspectors, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman should have drawn attention to the fact that, as the present system had been in existence but a few years, it was only during the last two or three years that they had a
  408
  right to look for any extensive fruits from it. When the Minutes of 1846 were published there were only some three or four training schools for preparing teachers, there were now no less than forty, and, in a short time, they might expect satisfactory results from the teachers who would be sent out from those training schools. It was not by making grants for building schools that they could look for real improvement in education; it was to the master and mistress they must look. The present system was in an advancing state, but the supply of duly qualified teachers was not as yet nearly equal to the demand, and therefore the inspectors, whilst dissatisfied in many cases with the present teachers, did not always think fit at once to displace them, or by withholding their certificate to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. So also, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government helped the rich parishes more than the poor ones, did the right hon. Gentleman wish the Government to begin with the smaller parishes, and advance to the more populous ones? The Government, no doubt, were bound to see whether their rules were not confined within too narrow limits, and if they thought they were, they were bound to consider how they could most wisely relax them. For instance, in ascertaining the amount of the capitation grant to any parish, there was a rule of the Privy Council which excluded all children except those who had attended a full year before the visit of the Inspector. If the child had attended continuously for any number of months and was still attending, those months ought to be included in the computation. Then he objected to the rule of the Privy Council, which did not allow the capitation grant to a mixed school with a certificated mistress, where the population was over 600. That was too low a limit, and prevented the schools in many small parishes from obtaining the benefit of the capitation grant.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he objected to the present system of national education, on the ground that it did not combine religious with secular instruction. The difficulty, he thought, might be thus met. Supposing a general rate for education; the grant voted to each religious denomination might be proportioned to its numbers, which could be readily ascertained from the census. The whole sum allotted to educational purposes might be divided pro

  409
  ratâ amongst the various denominations, and thus each would educate their children according to their own views, and imbue them with their own principles; and thus they would cheerfully combine religious with secular instruction. No doubt there were difficulties in this plan; because in some parts of the country a particular religious community might be so weak as not to be able to support a school; but all difficulties would be met by persevering energy. Education was not the mere teaching a child to read, write, and cast up accounts; it was the implanting in the mind the powers of comparison and deduction by a careful observation of the affairs of life, with a view to the regulation of self-conduct.
  MR. HARDYsaid, that those who were opposed to the present system were unable to point to any other system which they could substitute for it. The compulsory system which existed in Prussia could not be applied to this country. He would remind the Committee that in a town of Prussia, containing only 14,000 inhabitants, 10,000 were summarily convicted for not sending their children to school. Now, if such a state of things existed in Prussia, what might be expected in this country under a similar system, where there was perfect freedom of religious and political opinions, and where the people would never tolerate any such interference with them? He had no difficulty in supporting the Vote, because, while it acknowledged the supervision of the State, it also acknowledged the voluntary efforts and tended to encourage the moral and religious energy of the people, without which all educational schemes would be nought. Educational machinery might be set up in every part of the country, but inasmuch as men were of a different material from that on which machines were meant to work, and inasmuch as men could not be cut all into exactly the same shape, or drilled to present the same uniform appearance as a Russian regiment, such machinery by itself would be useless. With regard to the schools for the poorer population which had been alluded to, what he should wish would be that the inspectors should look carefully after them to see whether they were conducted by men who gave their whole minds and their moral and religious feelings to the work, and, if they were, that they should then be aided liberally by the State. The hon. Member for Dumfries
  410
  (Mr. Ewart) seemed to accuse the clergy of slackness in the work of educating the people, but this opinion was very different from that of Mr. Kennedy, who, in his Report said,—
  "That he could not but attribute the main educational work effected in England (since 1843) to their zeal and labour, aided by the more wise and religiously-disposed members of their flock, but still essentially their work—theirs in scheme and design, in the collection of the funds, in careful supervision, and in many cases in actual teaching.''
  He admitted that the laity had not aided this work by their exertions and their funds so energetically as they ought to have done; for, after all, the great point was to foster this voluntary spirit, which was daily gaining more advocates in that House, and therefore in the country. The great difficulty seemed to be the early age at which the children left the school, but it was quite a mistake to think that difficulty could be got over by an educational rate or by compulsory attendance; so long as children could begin at thirteen years of age to earn as good wages as were given to pupil teachers, it was quite impossible to insure their whole attendance at school. And, after all, the industrial teaching which they got in the work-shops, in the mill, or on the farm, was quite as important a part of their education to them as reading and writing. If this industrial education could be combined with the elementary instruction of reading, writing, and arithmetic, without attempting to carry them to the higher branches, which it was more for themselves to attain, the chief difficulty would be solved, for that difficulty was how to give the child instruction without withdrawing him from profitable employment. Young people were applying their industry to the best possible object when they were applying it to getting their own living, and the point was to add to that moral and religious education. On a future occasion he hoped to be able to explain at length the grounds of his objection to an educational rate, to which he believed the best friends of education would be found uniformly opposed. From what he had read of the Reports of the inspectors, he was convinced that there was a steady uniform educational progress, and he thought that might be best furthered by a system which fostered the voluntary energy of the people under a close and efficient Government supervision.
  MR. W. EWARTexplained that he had not meant in the least to undervalue the labours of the clergy. What he had said was that it would be fortunate if they would attend to the moral instruction of the women, and more particularly the younger class of females, so as to prepare them for other education.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought it extremely inconvenient to include the elementary education and the scientific education under one class of Votes. The administration of the elementary educational Votes would soon be as much as the present department could manage, and the Votes for scientific and art education and schools of design would come far more legitimately under a department of public works, fine arts, and science, than it would under the organization of the Committee of Council.
  MR. COWPER, in reply, acknowledged that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock) had shown good reason why these capitation grants and payments to pupil teachers might be increased with advantage to the schools. It was not possible for him, however, to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, as it was contrary to the general principle on which the Committee of Council acted, which was to get the maximum advantage at the minimum expenditure. That seemed to be attained by the present arrangement. The suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Herts was well worthy of consideration, but the ground on which the pupil teachers only received payment for twelve months was because the time was arranged from one inspection to another. The right hon. Member for Droitwich had complained that the education afforded in district schools was exceedingly imperfect. He (Mr. Cowper) found, however, in the Report of Mr. Tufnell, a comparison between the acquirements of the children educated in those schools and the acquirements of persons who were candidates for appointments in the civil service. Mr. Tufnell adopted as his test the words that had been misspelt by candidates for Government appointments, and he stated that in two of the district schools, containing seventy children, sixteen spelt the words correctly, nineteen committed one error each, eleven committed two errors each, and only one boy committed nine errors. It appeared therefore, that these children, who were below twelve years of age, were better
  412
  able to spell than many persons who had been educated in middle or upper class schools, and whose ages ranged between seventeen and forty years. He (Mr. Cowper) must say he believed that much better elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic was afforded in the district schools than in many of the middle and upper class schools. It was quite true, is the right hon. Member for Droitwich had stated, that schools of which a favourable report was not given by the inspectors did not receive any grants.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, it was well the Committee should know that the fault lay less with the parents than with the culpable indifference of the class that called itself foremost. Mr. Kennedy, in reporting upon the educational state of Lancashire and the Isle of Man, said that comparatively few persons in Lancashire felt any real concern to see the people at large educated; that a few persons made a good deal of noise on the subject, but a still smaller number carried on the work liberally and zealously; and that the mass of persons were still hostile, or at best indifferent, on the matter. "A public feeling in Lancashire for education," said Mr. Kennedy, ''has yet to be created." He (Mr. Maguire) asked what answer hon. Gentlemen connected with Lancashire could give to this damning indictment against them. It had been stated the other day by Prince Albert that out of 5,000,000 children in this country, between the ages of eight and fifteen, only 2,800,000 in England and Wales received any education whatever. He (Mr. Maguire) thought such a state of things was most disgraceful, and ought to make Englishmen pause before they indulged in taunts with regard to the system of education adopted in other countries. He considered that the statement of Mr. Kennedy as to the state of things in Lancashire was a complete answer to the advocates of the voluntary system of education, and that nothing could be better than the plan now in operation under Government supervision, which afforded ample room for voluntary efforts in particular localities.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, he thought the only portion of the estimate to which any well-founded objection could be made was the capitation allowance. He took deep interest in this subject, and believed that any measures which tended to raise the

  413
  standard or pupil teachers would be attended with most beneficial results.
  MR. CHEETHAMdenied the accuracy of the statement quoted by the hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Maguire) from Mr. Kennedy's Report, and observed that there were few places in the kingdom which could boast of more public institutions devoted to educational purposes than Manchester and the other large manufacturing towns of Lancashire. He was convinced that the general establishment of Sunday schools had been attended with the utmost advantage to the mass of the manufacturing population, and if he had to choose between conflicting methods of instruction, he should prefer the method adopted in those schools.
  MR. GARNETTalso defended Lancashire from the imputation cast upon it in the extract read by the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire). In the county town which he (Mr. Garnett) represented there was a national school which Mr. Kennedy himself said was a model school for England. The extraordinary assemblage of 80,000 children to greet Her Majesty when on a visit to Lancashire testified that the people of that county were not so insensible to the cause of education as had been attempted to be shown.
  VISCOUNT MELGUNDsaid, they had heard nothing as to the feeling with respect to this Vote in Scotland. He was convinced that the system now in operation would never have received the sanction of the people of Scotland if it had been introduced by a Bill before that House; and he did not see why this important matter should be provided for by annual Vote when other things of less importance were settled by Act of Parliament. The system was sectarian in its character and productive of many evils in that respect In the county with which he was connected (Roxburgh) the United Presbyterians who were more numerous than the Free Church and the Established Church, did not take advantage of this grant. Believing that the Vote ought not to be increased, he moved as an Amendment that it be reduced by the sum of £90,020, being the increase as compared with 1856.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £271,213, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for Public Education in Great Britain to the 31st day of March 1858."
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON rose to address the Committee, but being met by loud cries for
  414
  division, moved, That the Chairman do report progress.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhoped, after the interesting discussion that had taken place, that the hon. Member would not press his Motion, but allow the Committee to come to a conclusion upon the Vote.
  MR. HADFIELDhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) would not withdraw his Motion. Those who opposed the Vote had had no opportunity of expressing their opinions. It was impossible to do justice to such a subject after half-past Nine o'clock, the hour at which the discussion began. ["Divide, divide!"]
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. HADFIELDrepeated that no opportunity had been given to those opposed to the Vote to express their opinions, and moved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhoped his hon. Friend would not press that Motion, which, if carried, would close altogether that Committee of Supply.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he had been driven to make the Motion. It was a case of necessity. ["Divide!"]
  MR. DILLWYNcomplained that by the hasty way in which the Chairman had decided the Motion to report progress of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) to have been negatived, the hon. Member, he (Mr. Dillwyn), and others on that side of the House, who would have supported him, had been precluded from going to a division. When the Chairman, after putting the question, said the "Noes had it," he (Mr. Dillwyn) and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) cried out that the "Ayes had it," but in the confusion of the moment the Chairman did not appear to have beard them, and decided against them.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSwas understood to say that he distinctly heard the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) say the "Ayes had it" after the question was put.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he supposed he should be now in order if he moved that the Chairman report progress, and he moved accordingly.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the

  415
  Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £271,213, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for Public Education in Great Britain, to the 31st day of March 1858."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 163: Majority 156.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  The House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE—COMMITTEE.
  MR. WILSON MR. WILSON moved the nomination of the Select Committee to inquire into this subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. WILSON be one of the Members of the Select Committee on Harbours of Refuge."
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrews)opposed it. If the Committee were appointed at all it should be referred to the Committee of Selection for nomination. He would move that the nomination be deferred for six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the nomination of the Select Committee on Harbours of Refuge be postponed," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. KINNAIRDalso opposed the nomination of the Committee at present, and seconded the Amendment.
  MR. CHEETHAMconcurred in desiring postponement.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE, as it was now a quarter to Two o'clock, moved that the debate be adjourned,
  MR. PEASEhoped that no unnecessary delay would take place in the appointment of the Committee.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTalso supported the appointment of the Committee.
  LORD NAASrecommended the postponement of the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Mr. WILSON be one of the Members of the Select Committee on Harbours of Refuge.
  Mr. LOWE, Mr. BARING, Lord NAAS, Lord ADOL-PHUS VANE-TEMPEST, Mr. KENDALL, Mr. LIDDELL, Sir FREDERICK SMITH, Mr. PHILIPS, Mr. HASSARD, Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH, Sir ROBERT FERGUSON, Mr. JOHN HENRY GURNEY, Mr. TRAILL, and Lord JOHN HAY, nominated other Members of the said Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records:—Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Earl of Aylesford.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Adulterers Marriages; Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance; Alehouse Licensing.
2a Sale of Obscene Books, &c. Prevention; County Cess (Ireland); Grand Juries (Ireland) Act (1836) Amendment.

THE PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION AND DIVORCE BILLS—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he wished to ask a question with reference to the Probate and Administration and the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bills, which had been lately passed by that House. Neither of them extended to Ireland; and as regarded the latter, he wished to ask his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack if the action for damages in cases of criminal conversation, and all the other proceedings which had hitherto been necessary for the procuring a divorce, were to continue in force in Ireland. He should very likely be told that it was the intention of Government to introduce similar measures for Ireland; but such intentions were often not carried out, and as an instance of it he might mention that some years ago an Act was passed making it lawful to issue licences for the sale of game in England. He asked if the principle was not to be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom, and he was told that there was a technical difficulty in passing a Bill for the two countries together, but that it was intended to bring in a Bill for Ireland. However, from that day to this no measure had been passed on the subject; and while in England it was lawful to sell game, it could not be done in Ireland without a violation of the law. He trusted, therefore, that his noble and learned Friend could assure him that steps had already been taken to extend to Ireland the operation of Bills having a similar object with those which had passed that House in relation to probates of wills and the granting of divorces.
THE LORD CHANCELLORcould only say, in reply, that it was not only the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce similar Bills for Ireland to those which had just passed their Lordships House, but a Bill for remodelling the Court of Probate had been prepared (he did not
326
say it was ready to be introduced), and the Attorney General for Ireland entertained a confident expectation of being able to pass it this Session. It was impossible to make the present Bills applicable to the two countries, because it would be necessary to create two new tribunals.

MINISTERS' MONEY.

  THE DEBATE. EXPLANTATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHclaimed their Lordships' attention in regard to a personal matter which had arisen out of the debate which took place the other night upon the Ministers' Money (Ireland) Bill. The noble Duke the Postmaster General had expressed himself to the effect that the Government had introduced the measure for the purpose of protecting, in some degree, the Established Church in Ireland. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) rose and said that if the noble Duke thought that the Bill would have that effect he was quite mistaken, because he stated that the Roman Catholic clergy would, he was confident, agitate the country so long as they were permitted to do so, and that they would seek every opportunity of striking at the very existence of that Church. Now, a highly-respectable newspaper, a journal of the greatest and the largest circulation in the kingdom, stated in the Report which it gave the following day, that he said the Roman Catholics were seeking to strike down the Established Church. If such had been his sentiments he should not be backward in avowing them. But he added this, which he believed no one listening to him could have mistaken or misapprehended, that he was certain the Roman Catholic laity were not of that way of thinking, and that they would live peaceably with their Protestant fellow-subjects if they were permitted to do so. On looking at the paper in question the next day, he observed the principal limbs of what he said had been cut off, and what were the most odious were retained. He wrote a letter to the editor of The Times requesting that a correction might take place; for he had always observed that the newspapers generally had shown a generosity and a desire to correct any misconception or misinterpretation that occurred in their reports. The newspaper in question, however, had not had the common courtesy to take notice of the statement on his part. He

  327
  had no vindictive feeling about the matter, but he did not wish to have it represented that he uttered sentiments the very opposite to those he had really expressed; or that opinions respecting the feelings of the Roman Catholic laity towards the Established Church should be put into his mouth which he never entertained, and that such opinions should be circulated there and in the sister country to his prejudice. While thanking their Lordships for their attention while he made that explanation, he would only repeat that he had never uttered the sentiments that had been attributed to him by the paper to which he referred.

SALE OF OBSCENE BOOKS, &c., PREVENTION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in moving the second reading of the Bill said, that the object of it was to prevent the spread of those obscene prints and publications which had become of late most alarming. Their Lordships could scarcely conceive the extent to which the trade in those infamous works was carried. From information which he had recently received, he was led to believe that a considerable capital was engaged in the trade; that there were warehouses where those abominations were stored; that there were persons actually employed to travel about the country for the purpose of distributing circulars of the most exciting description. These were also sent under a penny postage stamp, inviting the people to come, and see, and purchase. It was easy to imagine the great evils that must arise from this detestable traffic. He believed that there was no country in Europe in which the circulation of such articles was permitted with the same facilities as existed in this country; because, in every other country the police had a more summary power in respect to them than the police had here. The principle upon which the Bill was founded was a simple one. As the law now stood, the only remedy that existed was an indictment against the publisher of obscene publications, which must be set on foot by private information. But there was still great; difficulty in enforcing the law, because the publishers were generally on their guard. In order to obtain the required evidence, it was necessary to employ a class of men
  328
  that could not be looked on with much respect—that class known as spies and informers. The individual employed on this duty must enter the place where those prints or publications were supposed to be, under the pretence that he was an admirer of such productions, and that he wished to purchase some of them. Having succeeded in obtaining them, he comes into a court as a witness, for the purpose of giving evidence on the matter. In order to render his evidence acceptable, and free from all suspicion, the informer must be searched by a policeman immediately before he enters the house or shop in question, with a view of showing that he could not have had any of those infamous works about him at the time; and immediately after he leaves the premises, in order to prove that he could only have obtained them at the place he had just visited. And, after all, from the doubtful character of such witnesses, it was difficult to obtain a conviction. Well, then, when the conviction took place, the criminal himself was sent to prison; but that did not put a stop to the trade, for the business was carried on as briskly as ever, in the name of the wife or son of the convicted party, and the poison was circulated, probably, more industriously and effectually than before. Therefore he contended that at present they had no effectual remedy against the evil. Now, he proposed that they should do something similar to that which they they had done in respect to gaming-houses. There was a power given by a recent Act against gaming-houses, which, however, was greater than what he asked for the present measure. Upon applications founded on affidavit before a magistrate, stating that there was gaming going on in a certain place, contrary to law, a warrant was granted, under which the police might enter the house and use all reasonable force that was necessary to enable them to search every corner of the house, from the cellar to the garret, and to carry away all cards, balls, dice, and other instruments of gaming, and might also arrest all persons they found on the premises, and have them summarily convicted before the magistrates. That power had been found most beneficial, and as had been found in recent cases, was attended with the most satisfactory results. He, however, did not ask the House to go so far in regard to the present Bill. He merely asked their Lordships to treat those obscene prints and publications in the way they treated commercial goods that had

  329
  not paid the duty. He proposed that the magistrates should have the power of issuing their warrants upon affidavits being made of the existence of those indecent publications in certain places, and that the police should have the power of entering those places and seizing upon all such property as they found there. The noble Lord having recited the heads of the clauses of the Bill, moved that their Lordships now read it the second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was sure that no one was more competent to judge of the extent of the evil for which he proposed to legislate than the noble and learned Lord himself. It was astounding to read the accounts which had gone through the papers lately of one or two cases of an infamous character tried before his noble and learned Friend. He was sure that there was but one which pervaded the country generally upon this subject—that everything that could be safely and properly done should be done to suppress this great and crying evil. He was, however, of opinion, that his noble and learned Friend would find some difficulties in the details of his measure. For example, how did he propose to define what was an "obscene publication?" He did not wish to treat the measure with any kind of disrespect, but he thought that unless the details were greatly altered, the Bill would fail to remedy the evil complained of. He would remind his noble and learned Friend, that in the works of some of their most eminent poets there were some objectionable passages which, under this measure, might cause them to be considered obscene publications.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had not the most distant contemplation of including in the Bill the class of works to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The measure was intended to apply exclusively to works written for the single purpose of corrupting the morals of youth, and of a nature calculated to shock the common feelings of decency in any well regulated mind. Bales of publications of that description were manufactured in Paris, and imported into this country. He was ready to make what was indictable under the present law a test of obscenity.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he shared in that reluctance which every one must entertain in appearing for the moment to be opposed to a measure having the very laudable object which the noble
  330
  and learned Lord had in view; particularly when it would be admitted by all that the measure which was proposed as a remedy for the evil complained of came with peculiar fitness from his noble and learned Friend, not only on account of his position as a distinguished Member of that House, but also in regard to the elevated position he occupied in the highest court of law. But, however zealous his intentions might be to abolish a vile and immoral traffic, he (the Lord Chancellor) thought that he would find it impossible to frame any clause that might not enable a person inclined to be vexatious to interfere with what his noble and learned Friend himself believed should not be meddled with under the provisions of his Bill. Who could tell but that the superintendent of police or the magistrates before whom the application came would take a different view of what were obscene or indecent publications from the noble and learned Lord? It appeared to him (the Lord Chancellor) that the definition of the first clause would rest with the magistrate; and that of the second with the superintendent of police. But even supposing that the police had seized upon those publications, what were they to do with them?
  LORD CAMPBELL: There is no property in those publications. Let them do as they liked with them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he did not like to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but unless it could be very materially altered in its progress, he did not think the measure could fitly become the law of the land.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONaddressed a few observations to the House, which were inaudible.
  LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, while giving full credit to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice for the feelings which have prompted him to bring forward this Bill, I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack that it will wholly fail in its object, and that it is unwise and imprudent to poke into these question and agitate the public mind in respect to them. My noble and learned Friend's aim is to put down the sale of obscene books and prints; but what is the interpretation which is to be put on the word "obscene?" I can easily conceive that two men will come to entirely different conclusions as to its meaning. I have looked into Johnson to see what definition he gives of the word, and I find

  331
  that he says it is something "immodest; not agreeable to chastity of mind; causing lewd ideas." These are the definitions which he gives of the word. Suppose now a man following the trade of an informer, or a policeman, sees in a window something which he conceives to be a licentious print. He goes to the magistrate, and describes, according to his ideas, what he saw; the magistrate thereupon issues his warrant for the seizure of the disgusting print. The officer then goes to the shop, and says to the shopkeeper, "Let me look at that picture of Jupiter and Antiope." "Jupiter and what?" says the shopkeeper. "Jupiter and Antiope," repeats the man. "Oh! Jupiter and Ant i ope, you mean," says the shopkeeper; and hands him down the print. He sees the picture of a woman stark naked, lying down, and a satyr standing by her with an expression on his face which shows most distinctly what his feelings are and what is his object. The informer tells the man he is going to seize the print, and to take him before a magistrate. "Under what authority?" he asks; and he is told—"Under the authority of Lord Campbell's Act." "But," says the man, "don't you know that it is a copy from a picture of one of the most celebrated masters in Europe?" That does not matter; the informer seizes it as an obscene print. He asks if the shopkeeper has got any more prints like it? "Oh, Yes, I have got several others," is the answer. Whereupon he searches the shop, and in so doing perhaps he stumbles upon a print of the story of Danae. There he sees a naked woman lifting her eyes to heaven, but standing in a very strange attitude, the shower of gold descending upon her, a little Cupid peeping over her shoulder pointing with his dart, and other circumstances which I will not describe. Well, is this print also to be brought before the magistrate? These prints come within the description in this Bill as much as any work you can conceive. And yet they are both celebrated pictures; the first is a copy of a famous Correggio which hangs in the large square room of the Louvre, right opposite an ottoman, on which are seated daily ladies of the first rank from all countries of Europe, who resort there for the purpose of studying the works of art in that great gallery. But this is not all. Our informant leaves the print shop and goes into the studio of a sculptor or some statuary and sees there figures of nymphs,
  332
  fauns, and satyrs, all perfectly naked, some of them in attitudes which I do not choose to describe. According to this Bill they may every one be seized,—
  "Nympharumque leves cum satyris chori."
  Well, I will now go to a third class—the poets—for the informant next proceeds to the circulating libraries. I do not know whether my noble and learned Friend's extensive reading has made him familiar with the poems of Rochester, but I think they would come under the description of this Bill. "The freedom of ancient satirists," says Hume, the historian, "no more resembles the licentiousness of Rochester than the nakedness of an Indian does that of a common prostitute." Suppose that book is in a certain library lent out for hire; under my noble and learned Friend's Bill it may be seized at once—in fact, under the Bill a circulating library may be searched from one end to the other. In the same way the dramatists of the Restoration, Wycherley, Congreve, and the rest of them,—there is not a page in any one of them which might not be seized under this Bill. One of the principal characters in one of Congreve's plays is Lady Wishfor't. Dryden, too, is as bad as any of them. He has translated the worst parts of Ovid—his Art of Love—works for which Ovid vas exiled, and died, I believe, on the shores of the Euxine. There is not a single volume of that great poet which would not come under the definition of my noble and learned Friend's Bill. I need scarcely recall to your Lordships' remembrance that poem—"Sigismonda and Guiscardo"—I think it is, beginning—
  "While Norman Tancred in Salerno reigned,"
  in which occurs the description of the secret wedding, the scenes that preceded it, and the scenes that were immediately consequent upon it. I will not repeat to your Lordships more of it than this passage:—
  "The holy man, amazed at what he saw,
  Made haste to sanctify the bliss by law;
  And muttered fast the matrimony o'cr,
  For fear committed sin should get before."
  But I think your Lordships will see from this specimen that Dryden's poems must be placed in my noble and learned Friend's Index Expurgatorius. Take, too, the whole flight of French novelists, from Crebillon, fils, down to Paul de Kock; nothing can be more unchaste, nothing more immodest, than they are; and when my noble and learned Friend's Bill is passed, every copy of them may be committed to the bonfire with as little mercy as Don Quixote's chivalry books were.

  333
  But, my Lords, I contend that this Bill will be entirely inoperative. The books and prints at which it is aimed are small in bulk, they may be kept in a retired part of the shop, and only be produced when a customer comes in for them, so that, in fact, you will not always be able to lay your hands upon them. I feel as strongly as any one can the infamy of the sale of these books, but, so far from agreeing with my noble and learned Friend that a Bill of this description is necessary to put it down, I am satisfied that the law as it stands is abundantly strong enough. All that is needed is additional vigour in the administration of the existing law. I am satisfied that nothing can be easier than to arrange means for detecting persons engaged in this trade; and when persons are found guilty of the offence of publishing and selling these books, instead of getting merely a nominal punishment, let them be sentenced to such a punishment as the infamy of their guilt merits, and as will effectually deter others from following in their steps. My Lords, I see such objections to the Bill of my noble and learned Friend that I move it be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this Day Six Months."
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that there was no analogy whatever between the cases mentioned by the noble and learned Lord and the publications aimed at by the Bill. On the principle laid down by the noble and learned Lord, not only could there be no new remedy for this evil provided, but the old remedy must be taken away also. The noble and learned Lord said there was no definition of obscenity.
  LORD LYNDHURST LORD LYNDHURST rose to order.
  LORD CAMPBELL: I have a right to be heard. ["Order!"]
  LORD LYNDHURSTspoke to order. His noble and learned Friend, having made a speech and concluded with a Motion, was not entitled to rise and make another speech till all the noble Lords who wished to address the House had expressed their sentiments. That was the rule of the House.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, an Amendment had been moved to the Motion which he had made, and he had a right to make another speech on that Amendment. His noble and learned Friend rose to order, but he was himself out of order. In his zeal for these filthy publications, his noble and learned Friend had gone entirely wrong
  334
  as to what was the rule of the House—an error which certainly surprised him in one who had so long held the office of Lord Chancellor. ["Order!"]
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS rose to order. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had made a Motion; to that Motion an Amendment had been moved, but the Amendment had not yet been proposed to the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Motion before the House was, that this Bill be now read a second time; since which it had been moved as an Amendment that it be read a second time that day six months.
  LORD CAMPBELL: And on that Amendment I have an undoubted right to address the House. ["Order, order!"] With regard to what has been said by my noble and learned Friend—
  LORD REDESDALEagain rose to order. He thought his noble and learned Friend was under a mistake as to his right. The object of the Amendment was to meet the Question, that the Bill be "now" read a second time, and it was not competent for the Mover to speak to such an Amendment, so long as there were other noble Lords who wished to address the House.
  LORD CAMPBELLrepeated that he had the right which he claimed to address the House.
  LORD BROUGHAM, who said that, according to his experience of the rules of the other House, the noble and learned Lord had no right to address their Lordships. In the other House, they had in the Speaker an officer who kept order and controlled the proceedings; in their Lordships' House, however, the office of Speaker was as it were in commission, and the duty of preserving order devolved upon the whole House. Now, according to the rules of the other House—and he thought in this House also—the maker of a Motion had—he would not say a right, for there was none—but a privilege, through the courtesy of the House, to make a general reply; but it was a mere mockery to say that, upon such an occasion as the present, he was entitled to make a second speech.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWcontended that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) was entitled to speak to the Amendment. In point of fact, the debate did not begin till an Amendment was moved.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when his noble and learned Friend moved the Amendment, he (the Lord Chancellor) ought in strictness to have proposed it to the House, but to do so was not the practice of their Lordships' House. His idea of the rule distinctly was, that his noble and learned Friend had a right to speak to the Amendment that had been moved, and such, he believed, was the invariable rule in the other House of Parliament. In point of fact, a distinct question was raised by the Amendment.
  LORD CAMPBELL, claiming his right to address the House, was perfectly willing to waive that right till he had heard such of their Lordships as wished to speak upon the question.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, having had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament, must declare against the right of the noble and learned Lord to make a second speech.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid that, after all, everything must depend upon the nature of the Amendment. It might be substantially a different Motion altogether, in which case the maker of the original Motion might have a right to be heard upon it; but in this instance, it was only another way of saying "no" to the original Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLEwished to speak with great diffidence on a question which had elicited so much difference of opinion. He believed that even in the case of a substantive Motion there was no right of reply, though the House generally allowed one to be made; but, if an Amendment, such as had been brought forward that evening was made, then, he believed, the rule of the House was that a right to reply existed.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had the misfortune to be a very old Member of their Lordships' House; he had also been a Member of the other House of Parliament; he was ready to maintain, therefore, that, according to the rules of Parliament, every Member who made a Motion had a right to reply; but it did not necessarily follow that he should have the last word in the debate. If he chose to make his reply immediately after the Amendment moved, he had no right to speak again last in the debate.
  LORD BELPERsaid, according to the practice of the other House, any Member who had spoken on the original Motion had a right to speak on an Amendment.
  336
  The strict rule was, that there was no right to speak twice on a Motion; but if an Amendment was moved, that Amendment was substantially a new Motion, and on that Motion, though a Member had already spoken, he would have a right to speak again. If their Lordships, however, were about to make a distinction, and to say that on a second Motion of a particular kind there should not be a right of reply, they would introduce eternal confusion into their debates.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he understood the rule to be, that no one had a right to speak twice upon the same subject; but that if an Amendment was moved which was substantially another Motion, the person who made the original Motion was entitled to speak again.
  LORD CAMPBELL, still maintaining his right, repeated that he was willing upon this occasion to forego it.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, there was no doubt but that the noble and learned Lord was animated by a very proper desire to put an end to the nefarious traffic in indecent publications; but, at the same time, he (Lord Wensleydale) was of opinion with his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Lyndhurst) that the common law, as it stood, was quite strong enough to deal with such offences. Any person exposing indecent prints was liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour. The extensive powers sought to be conferred upon the police by the Bill required grave consideration, and the definition of what was obscene was very uncertain. There was not a library in which books could not be found containing passages which a strict-dealing magistrate might consider to bring them within the operation of this Bill. The classic authors might be held to be obscene, and the possession of Lucian, Lucullus, or Juvenal, might expose the owners to the penalties which the Bill prescribed.
  LORD WYNFORDadmitted that in works of merit to which reference had been made, there might be found some objectionable passages; but it would be absurd to suppose, that the possession of such books would render the possessors liable to punishment. Those works, including those of the immortal Shakspeare, were preserved, not on account of the exceptional passages which were objectionable, but for the noble and elevating sentiments which they inculcated.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he thought that the particular street to which he had

  337
  referred, but not named, would rejoice greatly upon learning that the cause of free trade in obscene publications had been upheld by such distinguished authorities. Notwithstanding the arguments of his noble and learned Friends opposite, he trusted their Lordships would not reject the Bill. He could not see why there should be any objection to allow the same means to be used to repress the abominable traffic in obscenity as were allowed to put down gaming-houses and for the seizure of smuggled goods. The noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment had objected that the Bill, if passed, could permit interference with private picture-galleries. When the law was made stricter in order to put down gambling-houses, there might as well have been an outcry, "What will become of St. James's-street, of Brookes's, of White's, of Boodle's—there may be gambling in those respectable establishments, they may be complained of by the police, and Members of either House of Parliament may be taken before a magistrate and sent to the House of Correction." Another argument of the noble and learned Lord would, if correct, prevent any indictment being laid, for he said, "Who was to define what was obscene?" The language of the indictment was for selling or exposing obscene prints or books, and the question whether the pictures or books impugned were obscene or not was left to the jury to decide. The noble and learned Lord appeared to think that under the Bill private collections might be interfered with, but that was not so. The pictures in such collections were not intended for sale, but were kept for the owners' contemplation. There was a broad and marked distinction between such pictures as the noble and learned Lord had so graphically described, and the abominable prints which could only disgust him, which possessed no artistic merits, and which could only be regarded with aversion by every right-minded person. It was not against the masterpieces of Correggio that the Bill was levelled, but against the mass of impure publications which was poured forth on London, to the great injury of the youth of this country. If their Lordships would read the Bill a second time, he thought there could be no difficulty in introducing words in Committee to guard against any abuse which might be apprehended; but he cautioned their Lordships against a proceeding which
  338
  could not fail to shock the public feeling of the country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no doubt that the evil of which the noble and learned Lord had complained was a very serious one, and that steps ought to be taken to put an end to it; but it was no less clear, after the statements made by other noble and learned Lords, that the Bill in its present shape would not effect the object in view—at least not without producing considerable inconvenience. The noble and learned Lord, however, had just stated that words might be introduced in Committee to put down the evil, but at the same time to obviate the difficulties which had been pointed out. Under those circumstances, he, for one, was inclined to vote for the second reading, reserving his right to consider the Amendments which might be proposed in Committee.
  LORD BROUGHAMsuggested the propriety, after the statement of the Lord Chief Justice, whose opinion upon such a subject was entitled to great weight, of withdrawing the Amendment and allowing the Bill to go to the second reading.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn, and Bill read 2a.

VEXATIOUS LITIGATION PREVENTION BILL.

  SECOND READING. BILL POSTPONED.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he did not at present propose to press this Bill to a second reading, but, as he had given a notice of his intention to call the notice of their Lordships to the subject of vexatious suits, he would take this opportunity of making his statement; but he would not detain their Lordships long. This was a Bill which he had twice before presented to their Lordships, for preventing vexatious litigation by the establishment of courts of reconcilement. He had the misfortune to differ from the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack and from other noble and learned Friends upon that subject; they were, at least, not so sanguine as he was of the benefits to be derived from the establishment of courts of reconcilement. His own opinion was a very strong one, and was founded upon what took place in other countries. In France more than two-thirds of all the causes brought into court were stopped by the court of reconcilement, including one-third of the greater causes. In Denmark the result was still

  339
  more striking; for there, out of 30,000 causes brought into court, no more than 3,000, or one-tenth of the whole, ever came to be tried, nine-tenths being stopped by the court of reconcilement. In Germany and Switzerland the experience was precisely the same. In all these countries the system had been found to answer better than in France, because it was under better regulation. Of the value of the principle there could be no doubt; but knowing the great indisposition of his noble and learned Friends to adopt this plan, he could hope for no more than that they might be induced to approve those parts of the Bill for preventing vexatious litigation. Since the Bill was last before their Lordships, he had made one material change in it. It originally stood that the parties were to go before the Judge without their counsel or their attorneys; but he had been induced to alter it, and to enable them to go there, if they were so minded, with their professional advisers. He now begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the experience of the Examiners' Office of the Court of Chancery since the recent change in its constitution and practice. The present Examiners had had before them somewhere about 600 causes, and they had found the intermediary process of examination most successful. One-seventh of the whole had been stopped in the office through their kindly intervention, and allowed to go no further. No doubt, as the Master of the Rolls, the head of that office, suggested, much of this was owing to the parties becoming aware of each other's feelings. One advantage of the plan, indeed, was that the parties at an early stage, before any expense had been incurred, were brought together, and, discussing their several cases, each knew what chance he had of meeting a formidable array of evidence against him, the result being that many hopeless actions and defences—hopeless suits for one party or the other, which would have been attended to one of the parties with great—perhaps ruinous—expense were stopped. But in what he proposed there was also the great benefit of the parties coming before a respected individual of sagacity and experience, wholly uninterested, and giving his advice from no possible motive except that of kindness towards the intending litigants. The effect of that with respect to the Examiners had been, that in almost all cases in which they had recommended the plaintiff
  340
  to give up his suit because he had no chance of success, or advised the defendant to abandon his defence because he was sure to be defeated, their advice had been Followed. The Examiners had told him that attorney's actions, either in inception, or what became attorney's actions during the suit, formed a very large proportion of all actions. The defect in the Examiners' Office, valuable as it had proved, was this, that when the parties got there, a good deal of expense had been already incurred. Were there a court of reconcilement in the first instance, those expenses might not be incurred. It was a melancholy fact, known to all who had lived as long in the profession as he had, that great suffering occurred to poor and deserving persons through unhappy litigations. How many instances had he known of the ruin of men's fortunes?—cases which were distinctly traceable to their having engaged in suits, for the success of which there was no reasonable hope. Were there courts of reconcilement to which they might apply in the first instance, their ruin might have been prevented. He proposed that, in order to prevent vexatious suits, the litigation of claims for which there was no just foundation, by persons in insolvent circumstances, he would give power to a Judge to require security for the costs to be incurred in such action. Actions the most desperate and untenable were brought; subscriptions were obtained for carrying them on, at the instigation of some pettifogging practitioner of the law; and, when they failed, the plaintiff was found to be utterly incapable of paying a farthing. There was the well-known case of Smyth (Provis) v, Smith, in which a man utterly reckless, wholly unprincipled, as dishonest as any man who ever entered a court of justice, brought an action of ejectment against the proprietor of an hereditary estate, and put that proprietor not only to great expense but to great anxiety for months and years. The claim on his property was defeated. Smyth himself was examined, and a person seeing in the London papers an account of the examination was enabled to send down a telegraphic message which convicted him of the fabrication of a ring and of the forgery of a document. He was tried for forgery. He might also have been tried for perjury, but he was tried and convicted of forgery and sentenced to transportation for life. The defendant in the action

  341
  brought by that man had to pay between £7,000 and £8,000. It might be asked how were the funds for carrying on the proceedings provided? He grieved to say they were provided by the subscriptions of persons in London and Bristol, who, on the promise of 150 per cent, were ready to speculate on the chance of success; but those persons would not have been willing to run the risk of having to pay the whole costs in the suit. He would answer for it that if there had existed such a provision as he proposed, Provis would never have found any person to give security for costs. Provis broke down under his own examination under the admirable operation of the new law of evidence: but this was but one remarkable case. He might cite to their Lordships hundreds of cases of smaller amount in which the defendants were put to an expense of £400 or £500 by these vexations proceedings. The only other provision of this Bill was to cure a defect in the insolvency law. The Insolvency Court did not possess the power of visiting parties to vexatious suits with punishment, unless they happened to be defendants. He proposed to make the power of punishment apply equally to the plaintiffs. He would not at present trouble their Lordships further, but would move the second reading of the Bill, in order that further proceedings might be adjourned.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was, to a certain extent, opposed to courts of reconcilement, because he believed they would be only sinks for adding to the expense of ordinary litigation. When it was said that the Examiners in the Court of Chancery found they could often put an end to suits, it was no doubt perfectly true, because it should be remembered that the parties had been in violent hostility to each other for some time, and, the truth having all come out, they had the means of knowing what the chances of success or failure were. It seemed to him that to force persons to appear before a tribunal amicably to settle their differences, would only lead, ultimately, to further litigation. With respect to the proposal to call upon the plaintiff to give security before entering upon a suit, he could only say that it was one which, in his opinion, was open to grave objection, because the Judge who was to fix the amount of security could know nothing about the merits of
  342
  the case without having the whole matter investigated before him. The object which his noble and learned Friend sought to accomplish was no doubt one of great importance, and its attainment would be productive of considerable advantage if it could only be made consistent with a due regard to the interest of the poorer class of plaintiffs. He must confess that he entertained great doubts upon that point, but he should abstain—as his noble Friend proposed to move the adjournment of the debate—from offering any further comment upon the subject on that occasion.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had not the slightest doubt that a court such as his noble and learned Friend sought to establish had been productive of great benefit in Denmark and other continental countries; but he must at the same time contend that it would be found to be totally irreconcilable with the form of procedure in England; that it would add to the amount of vexatious litigation, and would increase the costs of particular suits. Out of the causes which came on for trial in this country eighty per cent were of a nature in which the question involved admitted of no doubt, in which the defendant had not a shadow of a chance of succeeding, and in which his only object was to seek some means by which a good defence might be got up. In ten out of the remaining twenty per cent, to bring the parties face to face before entering upon a suit would, instead of leading to a reconcilement between them, be, in his opinion, productive only of exasperation. He was quite as much alive as his noble and learned Friend could be to the evils resulting from the prosecution of vexatious claims to estates, but the inconvenience was one which he despaired of seeing removed by the operation of any general Law.
  Further debate on the said Motion adjourned sine die.
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.