Sitting of 17 July 1860

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Brighton, James White, esquire.

EDUCATION BILL—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. ADDERLEYmoved the second reading of this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."
MR. PEASEmoved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. The chief clause in the Bill was the first, which provided that no children under twelve years of age should be employed in any continuous labour unless a certificate was produced from a competent master that they were able to read and write, or unless an undertaking was given that they should receive education for at least twenty hours in the month. He admitted the humane intentions of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, but, at the same time, he believed that it would operate most unkindly and harshly towards the poor. The children who were to be brought under the operation of the Bill were not in circumstances to be dealt with as children employed in factories and mines were. Many of them were employed as errand boys, and in other such ways, and brought in their little earnings to assist their parents, though from no fault of theirs they had received no education. To come down upon these poor children and compel them to desist from their employments, and from helping their parents, would be a great hardship. He objected to the Bill on this ground, but he might add that no system of education was laid down in the Bill, and there was no machinery by which its object was to be carried out. For these reasons he hoped the House would not agree to the second reading, but that it would agree with him that its provisions were wholly uncalled for.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Bill had in its origin a close connection with the Bill for the regulation of Mines, lately under the consideration of the House. The right hon. Gentleman who had brought in the Bill took a different view of the education clause in the Mines Inspection Bill from the view taken by the Government. The first instance of an exceptional legislation of the kind in regard to compulsory education was the prohibition of the employment of children in factories without a certificate of their attendance at school. There was a special interference of Parliament with regard to that class of children, because it was thought the children employed in factories were in a peculiar position. Parliament saw an existing evil, which could not be disputed, and applied a remedy for it in the case of a certain li-

2023
mited class by the Factory Act, without caring for any logical objections that might be made as to the inconsistency of legislating for one class alone. Some years ago, a Bill was likewise passed for the regulation of mines; and by that measure the employment of women and of children under a certain age was altogether prohibited. That Act had to be renewed this Session, and it was thought desirable to introduce a clause providing that no child should be employed in any mine who could not read or write, and that, when so employed, he should attend school. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) contended, however, that this was very inconsistent, and asked why that legislation should be applied to mines and factories alone, and why it should not be extended to all classes of the community. Now he (Sir George Lewis) was not prepared to say that that argument might not gradually force its way into the minds of the community; indeed he himself concurred in the justice of it in the abstract, and he wished they were in a condition to enforce such a rule with regard to children generally. But they must look at the inherent difficulties of the case. In this country we did not in general make our laws according to the rules of great logicians; we did not act upon abstract principles, but took' up particular cases as they occurred, and endeavoured to feel our way from one case to another. By this experimental mode of proceeding we were much more successful in our legislation than if we pursued a more rapid and, perhaps, more logical course. For these reasons, though he gave his right hon. Friend credit for the very best intentions in introducing this Bill, he was not prepared to vote for the second reading.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was to be expected that a Bill on education would call forth considerable differences of opinion; but he was not prepared for the sort of opposition now offered to the measure. It was admitted that the principle of the Bill was on the whole right, but it was not thought expedient to attempt to carry that principle into effect. He did not think that was a kind of opposition which should induce his right hon. Friend to withdraw the Bill. If the question involved was one of principle, let them fight the question of principle; if, on the other hand, it was a question of detail, let them go on to discuss the details. It had long been generally admitted that our system of education, and the centralized establish-
2024
ment of Government aid in support of schools all over this country, did not produce an amount of benefit commensurate with their cost. The cause of this inadequate result was alleged by the school inspectors to be the fact that children did not attend or remain long enough at the schools to acquire the needful instruction. Now he heartily disapproved of all the schemes which had been propounded for compelling the parent to send his child to school. The relation between parent and child was one with which the State had no right to interfere, but the relation between the employer and the child was a public relation, by means of which the parent might he stimulated to do his duty. The schemes for tempting the child to remain at school, by offering prize grants and capitation grants, were all objectionable, resulting only in the education of a few dozen pupils to a high standard. If, however, children had a right to education, it was the duty of the State to see that their education was not neglected. That would be done if care was taken, as provided by the Bill, that no employer should employ a child without seeing that he was to some extent educated. The effect of this would be to impress on parents the duty of educating their children, as it would be more profitable for themselves, and he did not believe that it would at all interfere with employment of children. Under the measure children would be employed at an age not much later than at present, but for a year or two before they went to work they would go to school instead of running about idle. To meet such cases as that of a farmer or other employer in a district where there might be no school, a provision would be inserted that the master should not be subject to the penalty, unless it could be shown that he had the means of sending the child to school, and that he refused to do so. The Bill was an attempt to promote voluntary education, and decentralisation as regarded educational efforts, and on that account he thought it entitled to the consideration of the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sure that those Members who were not now present would be in no small degree surprised, when they found that the House had been engaged in the discussion of a measure quite as difficult as a Bill for Parliamentary Reform. The benches of the House were nearly empty, and why? It was not because no interest was felt in this question; for he

2025
believed if it had been made known that a matter of such vast importance was to be seriously urged upon their attention, the House would have been crowded, and at least five nights' debate would have been required before the Bill could have been disposed of. There was no want of interest in the question; but it was felt that the debate would be nothing but a simple exercitation—an occasion on which they could make abstract speeches, but that the passing of the Bill at the present moment was as much out of the question as a Bill to abolish the House of Commons. His right hon. Friend had raised most prematurely a discussion on this question. No doubt, much could be said in favour of the abstract duty of giving education to these children; so much, indeed, that many Members would be loth to be compelled to give an adverse vote on the subject. This was a difficult question that would in due time force itself upon the attention of the House. Such were the difficulties of the case; such were the threatening circumstances arising from the heavy expenditure for education that had been going on for some years, that he was not willing to interfere with, or prejudge, the right consideration of the subject by premature discussions like the present. The public mind was absolutely unprepared to deal with this question. He did not say that the subject was one which might not, with advantage, be the theme of excellent speeches at the Statistical Society, or the Social Science Association; and he was inclined to suggest that to these places the present discussion should be adjourned. But it was not the practice of that House to make its floor the floor of a debating society. It was their habit, in the course of their legislation, to proceed with reference to practical duties. They were bound to rest on this question for the results of experience. The working of the Factory Act had, no doubt, been satisfactory, but they ought to take time to ascertain the result, in the case of mines, before they proceeded to make the education of children spread over the whole community compulsory. It was utterly impossible that any practical result could flow from the Bill being pressed at the present moment; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not compel Members to take the painful course of voting against a measure, the discussion of which could only have the effect of prejudging a great and important question.
MR. HENLEYargued that the House had great reason to complain of being called upon to discuss such a Bill at that time, the Bill having been brought in on the 26th of April. He had heard the speech of his right hon. Friend below (Sir Stafford Northcote) with much astonishment. The people of the country were not to be hoodwinked by a fine distinction; and when the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not consent to impose any compulsory education, they would ask him what could be more compulsory than to pass a law, declaring that those who did not acquire an education should not work, and consequently that they should not eat. He (Mr. Henley) believed that in many instances a child, when employed, and taking home his little earnings to his parents, was learning more than one who merely went to school to learn to read and write under the compulsion of the State. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire had carried his speculations rather too far in this Bill. The effect of such a measure would be to dry up the sources of voluntary effort, and to interfere most injuriously with the combined system of voluntary and State education that at present existed.
MR. BUXTON: The scope of this Bill, Sir, is to put a dead stop throughout the kingdom to the employment of any child who cannot produce a certificate from a competent master of his being able to read and write. Now, Sir, every one familiar with schools knows that there are tens of thousands of children who, either from their dulness, idleness, or obstinacy, never could obtain such a certificate from any competent schoolmaster. There are tens of thousands of children whose parents, from drunkenness, or poverty, or other causes, never could and never would give them the necessary schooling. Are all those children to starve? Are all those children to be cut off from employment? Again, great numbers of children would be certain to lose their certificates. Are those children to starve? Again, the schoolmaster is to certify to the child's acquirements. Who will certify the schoolmaster's competence to judge? These difficulties are on the surface. Furthermore, this measure is needless. Education is steadily making way. There is no need to hurry it forward by dint of legal penalties. And, if you impose penalties at all, at least impose them justly. Do not lay them on the employer whose tie

2027
with the child is artificial, lay them on the parent who is naturally responsible for the child's well-being. But depend upon it, by thus cracking legal penalties about the ears of employers, you will chill the warm interest which most of them are now beginning to feel in the education of the children around them. Sir, it may be said that all this is theoretical, while practically such legislation has answered well. But it is not on the ground of our legislation of that kind having answered well—it is expressly on the ground that it is answering ill that we are called upon to extend it. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that the motive for carrying this Bill is that our legislation so far has been unjust and mischievous. In the circular that has been sent round to us in favour of the Bill the same phrase is used. Mr. Norris, in his memorial, which gave rise to this Bill, states, "that our proceedings hitherto have been impolitic as regards the children, because at the cost of much vexatious interference little or no educational benefit is obtained." He has seen a great deal of the working of that legislation in the case of print works and coal mines. With regard to the print works, he tells us "that there is little or no educational value in the result." With regard to coal mines, he says it has no effect in Bending the children to school. No condemnation of our compulsory legislation can be stronger than these statements from the lips of those who plead for this extension. Sir, if the promoters of this measure had argued on its behalf that similar legislation with regard to factories had been successful, as I believe it has, that argument might have seemed plausible. It would not, however, have been valid, because factories are under most exceptional conditions. In factories it is possible to have relays of children. In factories it is easy to maintain a minute system of inspection. Our success, therefore, in that peculiar case, would give small promise of success elsewhere, as, indeed, we see in the case of print works and coal mines. However, that is not the plea of the right hon. Gentleman. His plea is not that our legislation has succeeded, but that our legislation has failed. It puts one in mind of the surgeon in Gil Blas, who, when he had bled his patient to death, said that what was wanted was a little more bleeding. I doubt the soundness of that logic. No doubt its meaning is, that where your legislation is partial, it
2028
merely throws the untaught children into other channels of employment; but that if all were closed, the children would be driven from all employment into school. Sir, that is a vast enterprise. To dam up every channel of employment throughout the kingdom to every child that cannot bring a certificate of education from a competent schoolmaster is a huge undertaking. One naturally asks what is the machinery by which it is to be carried out. Sir, the Bill provides no machinery at all. What success this species of legislation has had has been mainly owing to a system of minute supervision by inspectors with annual Reports, and so forth; but the promoters of this Bill, in the memorial to the Home Office, openly acknowledge that, "to cover the country with a system of inspection, such as now prevails over the small area of the factory districts, is out of the question." And, accordingly they sit down content with the strange illusion that the bare existence of such a law would be enough to induce employers every where to reject uncertified children out of simple reverence for the law of the land. Sir, I put it to the good sense of the House whether the people of this country are fools enough to look upon us or our decrees with such awful devotion as to put themselves to serious loss and inconvenience, simply because we had desired them to do so. The plain truth is, that in 999 cases of 1,000, this law would be a dead letter. In the thousandth case' it might be enforced. It might be enforced where some informer had a spite against an employer. It would only be enforced so rarely, so capriciously, that it would do nothing towards promoting education. But, then, it may be said, if it does no good it will do no harm. Sir, it will do great harm; no legislation is more hurtful than penal legislation, which can only be executed rarely and capriciously. It lulls men into false security, and then, at the instigation of some spiteful informer, it makes a criminal of an individual who is no worse than his neighbours. Again, those more scrupulous men who subject themselves to the law, because it is the law, are put at a disadvantage as compared with those who disregard the law. But further, I look with alarm at the increasing tendency of the House to extend legislation beyond its natural province. We seem, step by step, to be introducing a system of minute surveillance over the private interests of the people, for which

2029
our only precedents are those afforded by the police restrictions of other lands. Hitherto, no doubt, we have confined ourselves to legislating on behalf of children. What guarantee have we that legislation will stop there? We are often told that some day the House will be far more under the hand of the working class, and especially of the Trades Unions, than it is now. Will it not then be asserted, plausibly asserted, that if you may interfere to protect the child from his employer, you may interfere to protect the adult. The working class will surely think that the principle of such interference has been sanctioned by such measures as the one before us. Just look at the principle upon which it is advocated. Mr. Norris, in his memorial, expressly bases it on the principle that "it is just as much the proper business of Government to maintain the security of persons, as to maintain the security of property." "Now," he says, "the former of these require protection from every Act which tends to impair the physical, moral, or intellectual happiness of any class in the community." Sir, if that principle be conceded by this House, as embodied in the Bill before us, it will be impossible at any future time to refuse to the trades unions any legislative interference between master and man which they may demand, on the ground that it would advance their moral or intellectual welfare. I shall vote against the Bill, because it would be practically useless, because its principle is false, and the precedent thus set would be full of danger.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to overwhelm him upon that occasion by one of those torrents of exaggerated eloquence which, whatever might be the question at issue, the opponents of the right hon. Gentleman had reason to dread. But neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Member who had taken part in the discussion had said one word against the principle on which the Bill was founded. The measure would merely apply generally a provision which the House has already adopted in a number of isolated cases. They had been told by various speakers to await the results of experience; but the truth was the experiment had been going on for twenty years. The principle of the Bill was that no very young children should be employed for their whole time without receiving at least the rudiments of education. That
2030
was a principle which had already been sanctioned by the House, and it was somewhat strange to see the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who a few weeks ago got a partial Bill passed through the House, now stand up and oppose a general measure of the very same nature. He denied that the principle was compulsory; at the utmost it was prohibitory of the absolute prevention of education. It was said to be a vicious interference with the rights of employers; but the Bill simply provided that an employer should not take a child into his service if he found him wholly uneducated without giving him the means of obtaining elementary instruction for at least five hours in the week. No employer would object to giving a child such facilities for instruction unless he was determined resolutely and of malice to oppose the education of children. The principle embodied in the Bill had been sanctioned in the case of factories and mines, and he could not see why any objection should be raised to the general application of the principle.
MR. W. EWARTsupported the second reading on the ground that it was a case in which the State had a right to interfere. He maintained that if in the case of factories and mines the State was entitled to step in, so it was entitled in any case of the continuous employment of children. He approved of the Scotch and American as opposed to the Continental system of education.
MR. HARDYsaid, he objected to the very principle of the Bill, inasmuch as it was essentially one of a compulsory character. If it were adopted by the House they ought to have for the future a State education instead of the present denominational education; they ought to have an education supported by a rate instead of an education supported upon the voluntarily principle. He was entirely opposed to such a change. He believed that by the present free system they were doing their best to educate the people for the duties they had to discharge in life; and if they were to overthrow that system they would have to provide in every portion of the country schools to which parents could have no objection to send their children. Their factory legislation had been founded on the belief that factory children were exposed to special disadvantages; that they were employed for an excessive length of time in heated rooms; and that their health was in consequence permanently in-

2031
jured and their growth stunted. It was true that the principle of the Factory Act had recently been extended to the case of children employed in mines and collieries; but that measure also had been supported upon special grounds, and they had not yet had an opportunity of ascertaining what would be result of the experiment. He would add that he believed it to be a case in which it would be most unwise to adopt a mathematical rule to be enforced with unchanging severity.
MR. BAZLEYsaid, he could testify to the great practical benefits derived from the operation of the Factory Act in Lancashire—benefits to the employers, as well as to workpeople. In his own business, he had a more skilful and more dutiful race of workers now than formerly. More than 2,000 children had received elementary instruction in his schools, and he believed they had become excellent members of society; from amongst them he had been able to select overlookers, clerks, and efficient assistants in various responsible situations. The good which had been done could not be denied, and he believed the working people were less necessitous, better capable of earning their own bread, and certainly less criminal than they used to be. Among the thousands of people he had employed, he did not know a single instance in which an individual had been taken before a magistrate, and he would distinctly state that in no one case had any individual been convicted of crime. They were intelligent, they were dutiful, and he believed they would be less disposed to combine or conspire against their employers now than when they were in a state of comparative ignorance. The defect of the present system, however, was, that it did not provide for the neglected children wandering in our streets. He hoped a Select Committee on the whole subject would be moved for next Session.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he represented a district in which a portion of the population were suffering considerable distress from the effects of the recent legislation; and he hoped the House would not aggravate that evil by the adoption of the present measure. It would be nothing less than an insult to the starving people of Coventry to tell them that they could not obtain employment for their children unless those children were educated. The Bill was an extravagant exaggeration of the principle on which the Factory Act
2032
was founded; and he was afraid that if it were to receive the sanction of Parliament it would endanger the permanence of that Act.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the effect of the Bill had been greatly misunderstood. The Bill would not prevent the employment of a boy because he could not read or write, but only enact that in such a case the employer should be compelled to see that he learned. He must express the interest and pleasure with which he had listened to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, whose valuable testimony on the practical success of the Factory Act was of more weight than twenty speeches founded on mere theory. He did not agree with the opponents of this Bill, who would leave the education of the people to mere chance and charity, nor could he see any reason why they should not extend to other employments the principle they had adopted in the case of children employed in factories and in mines and collieries. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill if the Motion were pressed to a division, but he believed that there would be no use in attempting to proceed beyond that stage with it in the course of the present Session. As a friend to education, however, he would rather wait for the Report of the Royal Commission, which, he hoped, would not be long delayed.
MR. H. A. BRUCEobserved that in the mining districts education was far more general, and crime less common than in the other parts of the Empire. He believed, however, the effect, as in the case of the Factory Act, would be to diminish the number of children employed. Under the Factory Act one-half of the children formerly employed were thrown out of employment altogether. By the last reports it was shown that before the Factory Act came into operation 58,000 children were employed in factories. Three years afterwards less than one-half of that number were employed, and in 1857, notwithstanding the great increase of factories that had taken place, the numbers were still within 10,000 of what they had been before the passing of the Act. He believed that a like effect would be produced under the Mines Inspection Bill, and that many children would be thrown out of employment. At Merthyr Tydvil, where he was interested in iron works, there were 2,400 children employed, and being educated; and he had been informed by an intelli-

2033
gent agent that a visible improvement had taken place in the district, and that there was not one-tenth of the drunkenness that formerly prevailed. He had himself when in the district found the people better able to understand and appreciate arguments than formerly, and altogether a great improvement had been effected. Believing that the Bill before the House was based on a right principle, he should vote for the second reading.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could see no objection to the Bill; on the contrary he believed that it proceeded upon a right principle; and he trusted that that principle would yet receive the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of other Members who had that day opposed the measure. The money and the labour of the State were employed in punishing crime; and there could surely be no reason why the State should not endeavour to secure for children that education by which crime might be prevented. When at Vevay he had been informed by a Swiss gentleman that in Switzerland when a parent neglected to educate a child they took the child from him—nolens volens—and instructed him against the parent's will. The gentleman added that they could not exist as republicans in Switzerland with an ignorant people. He cordially supported the Bill of his right hon. Friend.
MR. BAINESsaid, he believed the Bill to be perfectly unnecessary. It was compulsory and not needed, and was contrary to the spirit of the free constitution of the country. The course of education was great and rapid, and people were doing voluntarily what many benevolent persons sought to compel them to do. In the course of that debate they had heard what great things were being done for education in the rural districts, in the Potteries, and in the mining and manufacturing districts. All classes were alive to the value of education, including both employers and the employed; and such were the agencies at work, that he believed they could not prevent the people from being educated if they desired to do so. He maintained, then, that compulsion was not required, and it was a nobler thing to be educated in accordance with the spirit of freedom than according to a system of universal compulsion. Religion was the best thing of all, but they did not make religion compulsory. Sunday schools had done a great deal of good, but they did not compel the
2034
children to attend. To carry out the principle of compulsory education they must have recourse to compulsory religion, and to compulsory attendance at places of worship. He believed the people would be educated, and that there was a universal feeling in favour of it, but let the right hon. Gentleman take care that while he was endeavouring to bring in a law to his aid that could not be executed, he did not make the people disregard the law. On that account the right hon. Gentleman should check his zeal, and by leaving the people to themselves the great end he had in view would be accomplished.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 122: Majority 71.
Words added.
Main Question, as Amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill put off for three months.

THE TENPENNY INCOME TAX.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, with reference to the Grant to Her Majesty of tenpence in the pound on Property and Incomes, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how he proposes to carry out the financial arrangement submitted by Her Majesty's Government to this House, and on the faith of which such Grant of ten-pence in the pound was made? In the absence of the noble Lord, perhaps some other Member of the Government will answer the question.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, the only answer I can give to the question of the hon. Member is that the Act for the provision of the Income Tax of tenpence in the pound, having been passed by both branches of the Legislature and received the assent of the Crown, has become the law of the land, and it is the duty of the Commission of Inland Revenue to carry it into effect in the same manner as previous Acts for the same purpose.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, his question did not refer to the Income Tax, but to the financial arrangements (of which the Income Tax formed part) that had been submitted to the House by the Government.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I do not know how I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question more directly than I have done, but he heard the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exche-

  2035
  quer the other night, who gave a full exposition of the views of the Government with respect to the supplementary Ways and Means necessary for the rest of the year. I have nothing whatever to add to that exposition, and I apprehend that if the hon. Member repeats this question as to the financial arrangements of the year, either to the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they can only adhere to that statement. I understood the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Income Tax. If that was not the subject of his inquiry, then I apprehend the full and very clear statement of my right hon. Friend would furnish a complete answer to his question.

PAPER DUTIES REPEAL BILL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he wished to ask a question which involved a point of order. He was anxious to know whether the Motion he had put upon the Paper would entitle him to precedence. That Motion was to the effect—"That the rejection by the House of Lords of the Bill for the repeal of the Paper Duties is an encroachment on the Rights and Privileges of the House of Commons, and it is therefore incumbent upon this House to adopt a practical measure for the vindication of its Rights and Privileges."
  MR. SPEAKER: A question of privilege to be entitled to precedence must refer to some matter that has recently arisen, and which calls for the present interposition of the House. Now, it cannot be said that the subject-matter of the noble Lord's Resolution has recently arisen, because twelve days ago the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury proposed Resolutions to this House on the same subject, which were adopted by a large majority. While the House reserves to itself on every occasion the power of at once proceeding with any matter which may appear urgent, still it does not admit the claim of hon. Members to precedence, unless the prescribed requirements are all fulfilled. It certainly seems to me that in the present instance those requirements have not been fulfilled, and I do not think the noble Lord is entitled to precedence.

HOSTILITIES IN NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the
  2036
  Colonies, Whether any accounts have been received of the people of the provinces of New Zealand, not immediately threatened by Maori hostilities, volunteering for the assistance of their fellow-colonists at Taranaki; whether any intimation has been received from the Colonial Govenment of its intention to propose to the Colonial Parliament any Vote for the purpose of contributing to the expense of the Civil War; or whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the whole expense should be defrayed from the Imperial Treasury?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he also would beg to ask whether any offers of assistance in suppressing the insurrection in New Zealand has been made by the people of the Australian Colonies, and particularly by those of Victoria?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in answer to the last question he could state that the Government were aware that very liberal and gallant offers had been made by the Australian Colonies, and particularly from Melbourne, whence the volunteers were ready to proceed if necessary to New Zealand to assist their fellow-countrymen in their struggle. He was not, however, aware that any of these offers had been accepted, or that any of those volunteers had actually gone to New Zealand. With respect to New Zealand itself, they knew that the inhabitants of Auckland had been active in regard to the raising of volunteer militia for the defence of their own neighbourhood should it unfortunately be attacked; but, as far as the Government were aware, they had not proceeded, and were not likely to proceed to Taranaki. The Government had not heard of any proposition on the part of the Governor to submit such a Vote as his right hon. Friend's question referred to the Colonial Parliament, which had not yet met; but they had no reason to believe that it was the intention of the New Zealand Government to call upon the Imperial Government to defray the expense of the efforts made by the colonists in the way of raising volunteers and militia. It would be premature now to announce what would be the arrangements of Her Majesty's Government in respect to defraying the cost of the hostilities still in progress.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).

  ADDEESS MOVED.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he rose to move that an humble address be presented to Her

  2037
  Majesty, representing that the House had learned with regret that many of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland were prevented by conscientious objections from availing themselves of the benefit of the funds voted by the House for the promotion of national education in Ireland; and praying Her Majesty to direct inquiries to be made whether such changes might not be made in the rules under which that grant was distributed as would enable all classes in Ireland to enjoy the advantages which that grant was intended to secure to the Irish people. The question involved was whether Ireland was to be treated in the same manner as this country, and whether an educational system which had grown up to gigantic dimensions was to be administered in deference to or in disregard of the feelings of a large portion of the population of that country. Towards the support of the system inaugurated by the Earl of Derby the grant in 1831 had been £30,000, in 1851 it had increased to £100,000, and in 1858 it had reached £270,000, and for this year it stood at the same amount. £30,000 was spent upon what were called model schools; nearly £20,000 upon agricultural schools; and the sum spent upon education generally throughout the country was £131,000. Here was a Board appointed by the Crown administering a revenue gradually approaching in amount the aggregate of the stipends received by the parochial clergy of the Establishment. The Board possessed great power, and controlled absolutely the education of the lower classes in Ireland. He was sure that such a system was not within the spirit of a free Government; and that if it were introduced into England it would be strongly protested against. But what he wished to call attention to was, that in Ireland a considerable number of the Roman Catholic population refused, from conscientious motives, to avail themselves of the assistance offered them by the State for the education of their children. Almost the whole of the Protestant population repudiated any connection with the system also from conscientious motives. Was that, then, he asked, a state of things that ought to be encouraged? About five years ago the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) brought forward the case of the Protestant population of Ireland in reference to the system of national education in a speech marked by much eloquence and argument. He (Mr. Butt) cordially subscribed to that
  2038
  admirable sentiment with which the right hon. Gentleman opened his speech on that occasion—namely, that when the State voted large sums of money for the education of the people, they had no right to exclude any one class from its benefit. The Roman Catholic prelates however alleged that system was not adapted to the Roman Catholic population, and every Protestant clergyman who partook of the grant said he only accepted of the system in the absence of any other—that it was simply a choice of evils, either to accept the system of education that was offered, or to leave the children under his charge without any education at all. The system was based upon toleration, but in its action it was most intolerant. Unless a person submitted to the rules of the Commissioners he could not be permitted to share in the advantages. A system was called national, to which the whole nation was opposed.
  In 1831, when the system was introduced into Parliament by the present Earl of Derby, it was stated that its main object was to protect parental authority, and to give every opportunity for the education of children without requiring the sacrifice of the slightest principle of conscience or the cherished convictions of the heart. It was also established as one of united education; and upon that ground alone could the rules which had been established by the Board, and the sacrifice of religious action which was required from the various denominations, be justified. Had the system, then, succeeded as one of united education, under which the children of parents of different religious denominations should be educated in the same school? Quite the reverse. He might be told that it educated so many Protestant and Roman Catholic children; but that fact did not prove it to have succeeded as a combined system of education. Now, he had not been able to obtain a statement showing how many Protestant and Roman Catholic children were mixed together in those schools in Ireland. He knew, however, that in more than 2,000 schools or more than one-half there was no admixture of children whatever; that those schools were administered by Roman Catholics, and the pupils were all Roman Catholics; and in the few schools that were administered by Protestant clergymen there were no Roman Catholic children. The returns obtained by Lord Clancarty in a Committee of the House of Lords, moreover

  2039
  showed that in the few schools in which there was an admixture of Roman Catholic and Protestant children the proportions of the former were immense as compared with the latter. It was, then, generally admitted that as a mixed system of education it had utterly failed. In Youghal, the borough which he had the honour to represent, there was a large population of Roman Catholics; there was also a considerable Protestant population, consisting principally of artisans, who would be glad to avail themselves of any system of education for their children which they could conscientiously share in. There was a large number of zealous clergymen in that part of the country, and yet there was not in Youghal a single school receiving sixpence out of this large grant of public money. The Protestant clergymen said that the national system called upon them to exclude the Scriptures from their schools, and they would not consent to such a condition. The Roman Catholic clergymen said that the system of education in these schools was inconsistent with their conscientious feelings, and they could not accept it. So that both parties raised voluntary funds from the population for the support of their respective schools. The same principle was adopted in many other parts of Ireland. There was a large number of the Government schools connected with convents and monasteries. Surely it never could be supposed that in such schools there could be anything like a mixed education. He had before him the evidence of officers of the Board in reference to these convent schools. The secretary of the Board said that those schools, like all others under the national system, must be bonâ fide opened to children of all denominations, but that, on account of the peculiar and distinctive character of those particular schools, no Protestant children attended them. The secretary further observed that he had always considered those schools as exceptional, and that none but Roman Catholic children attended them. It was his (Mr. Butt's) opinion that no Protestant could conscientiously send his children to them. Now, in making these observations, he must say he should consider it a great misfortune if the aid were withdrawn from those convent schools. He would confess, that when he made inquiries into these institutions he approached them, like many other persons, with some degree of prejudice; but, like others, he had soon sa-
  2040
  tisfied himself of the extreme value of the services which the nuns rendered to the cause of female education and was highly gratified by the neatness, efficiency, and order that prevailed in their schools. He was anxious, therefore, to bear his unbiassed testimony to their value. At the same time he should contend that they proved a departure from the principle of the system administered by the Board. He might mention one fact as illustrative of the inequality and injustice of the system. In the town of Youghal there was a convent school in which nearly 400 Roman Catholic girls received education. An English Protestant woman, who happened to be residing there whilst her husband was in the Baltic during the war, sent her two children to this school, where, unfortunately, they learned how to bless themselves. The mother was astonished at finding that they were receiving a Catholic education, and made a formal complaint upon the matter. An inquiry was instituted, and it was discovered that in the school, intended exclusively for Roman Catholics, the teachers were in the habit of reading during work hours some religious book. Thereupon, for no other reason than because two Protestant children had accidentally found their way into the school the Board put a stop to the reading of religious works, except during the hours set apart for religious instruction, and thereby, as he thought, interfered with the right of Roman Catholics to a free education. Similar incidents were occurring day after day in Ireland, and they were far from being calculated to promote goodwill among Protestants and Roman Catholics. Under the care of religious ladies observances were mixed up with what he would call the poetry of children's existence, which gave birth to the most sacred feelings. But if by accident a little "heretic" should find its way into such a school, suspicion and mistrust were sure to follow, and ladies who devoted themselves to the education of their poorer brethren were alarmed and vexed by the visits of Government officials asking them why they dared to commit the abominable crime of having the Ave Maria inscribed upon their walls.
  The condition on which the Board gave assistance was that religion should not be mixed up with the education of the children. The Protestants objected to that exclusion. It was not so much the Pro-

  2041
  testant clergyman that objected to it as the parents who now asked him (Mr. Butt) to claim for them the aid of the State in the education of their children without being called upon to sacrifice their religious convictions. They had been taught to venerate the Bible, and they wished it to be interwoven with every moment of their children's education. Was that a feeling so unreasonable that they must be called on to give it up? That was the case of the Protestants of Ireland. The Roman Catholics said exactly the same thing in other words. They did not regard religion as a thing that ought to be relegated to a particular hour of the day, but they wished it to be mixed up with every portion of the education of their children. Both the great religious denominations in Ireland were dissatisfied with the policy pursued by the National Board in granting aid to schools. The Earl of Derby, then Lord Stanley, in a speech delivered in the House of Commons in 1839, contended that religion should be mixed up with the whole system of education; and upon that principle assistance was given to schools in England. Every denomination in this country was allowed the privilege of educating their children in their own faith; why, then, should such a privilege be denied to the people of Ireland? The Roman Catholics, as well as Protestants, were placed in a worse position in this respect in Ireland than they were placed in England. The Roman Catholic in Ireland had not less regard for his faith than the Roman Catholic in England, nor did the Irish Protestant venerate his Bible less than his English co-religionist. The National system in Ireland was not a united but a separate education. In the county of Cork 80,000 Roman Catholic children received education in the National schools, and only 740 Protestant children. For the sake of those 740 Protestants the Board interfered with the religious rights and free education of the 80,000 Catholics. What reason was there for that? Could not the Board protect the Protestant children without interfering with the right of the Roman Catholics to a free education? Again, when a Protestant parent said he conscientiously objected to send his child to a school in which the Bible was not interwoven with the whole education of his child, why did the Government seek to coerce his conscience? The present Earl of Derby, when Mr. Stanley, in 1831, wrote a celebrated
  2042
  letter, in which he announced the formation of the National Board in Ireland, and the principles by which it was to be guided. The language of the writer was decisive upon this point. He would ask his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he might not write an exact paraphrase of the letter in respect of the present system of National education? Ought less to be done now to meet the conscientious objections of Protestants than was done at the time the letter was written to meet those of the Roman Catholics?
  He was entitled to assume that which every witness before the Lords' Committee testified to—namely, the entire failure of this system as combined education—that is, as combined education in one school; and what he would suggest was that in every place where the people themselves wished for a school based on purely Roman Catholic or purely Protestant principles aid should be given to such school, provided that the managers were willing to submit it to the inspection of the National Board. He did not wish to compromise on matters of such moment as religious principles. He believed they would make men better Christians by sending them out in the world with a deep conviction of the truths of Christianity brought home to their hearts, by instruction in their own religion, than they would by sending them out after an education conducted on the principle of a false conciliation. Protestantism, if true, as he believed it to be, would then have a far better chance than by educating the child according to a method of compromise. Let a child be educated in the religion in which the parent desired the child to be educated. However, the Motion he should submit to the House did not pledge any one to any particular view of the question, but merely declared that many persons in Ireland were prevented by their religious convictions from availing themselves of the funds voted for the promotion of National education. He asked the House to state that truth, and to address the Queen to institute an inquiry on the subject. He trusted that a Royal Commission, which might devise some means for removing the objections of the Roman Catholic Prelates and of the Protestant people, would be issued, and that a system would be founded which, conciliating the feelings of all classes, might be called a National system. The Irish people of every class and section were not in favour of the present combined

  2043
  system of education, and such being the case, he asked whether it was consistent with the free spirit of the institutions of this kingdom, or fair to the population of Ireland, that there should be this power of interfering with the prejudices find feelings of the nation. It was by letting the feelings of individuals freely develope themselves that every nation became great, but by imposing restrictions on persons, and by binding them down to peculiar plans, their energies were deadened, and that was the system applied to Ireland. In the name of freedom and of truth, he desired that such rules in respect to education in Ireland might be adopted as would enable every one in that country to enjoy the advantages of education without doing violence to their conscientious convictions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that this House has learned with regret that many of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland are prevented by conscientious objections from availing themselves of the benefit of the funds voted by this House for the promotion of National Education in Ireland; and praying Her Majesty to direct inquiries to be made whether such changes might not be made in the Rules under which that Grant is distributed as would enable all classes in Ireland to enjoy the advantages which that Grant is intended to secure to the Irish people."
  MR. WHITESIDE: I have the honour to represent a very different constituency than that which returns the hon. and learned Member, and yet I find it my duty to give him my cordial support. Of course, it will not be necessary for me now to trouble the House by proposing the Motion on the same subject of which I had given notice, or to trespass on the attention of the House when the Irish Education Vote may be brought forward, as the question, as far as I am concerned, may be disposed of on the present occasion. About this time last year the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was called on to express his opinion on this important subject, and he fairly stated that his then brief tenure of office and comparative un-acquaintance with Ireland at that time disabled him from giving any opinion on the most critical part of the question, but he undertook to consider it, and to be prepared on a future occasion to state to the House what course the Government meant to pursue. The first question is whether the objection to the existing system is taken by the Church. Now, I avow frankly that while the hon. and learned
  2044
  Gentleman (Mr. Butt) has spoken for the nation, I set forward mainly the objections of the Protestant clergy and laity to the system as it stands. Well, the first question to consider is, are those conscientious objections? The other day we heard the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) say that against a particular measure of the Government he, and the respectable party with which he acted, had an instinctive feeling and a conscientious scruple. That scruple was attended to. In spite of the sarcasms of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the intended legislation was altered, and the conscientious objections of the English Dissenters were respected. I claim, then, for a body of persons equally respectable and equally conscientious, the same tender consideration. An hon. Member of this House (Mr. Buxton), who was examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, was asked whether he believed that the scruples of the Irish clergy were conscientious scruples. He stated that he had gone to Ireland rather prejudiced in favour of what is called, but miscalled, the National system, but after the inquiries he had instituted he said his conclusion was that the objections to the system were conscientious ones. Another witness, Mr. Stapleton, being asked the same question, replied, that in his judgment clergymen of the Church of England had adopted a very wise and right resolution, and that, in fact, they could hardly conscientiously have adopted any other. Other witnesses who were examined stated that they did not give their adherence to the rules of the system, because if so they felt that they would be departing from the principles of the Reformation. An illustration is sometimes worth more than a great deal of argument, and here is one:—The Rev. Mr. Campbell, one of the witnesses, was asked his opinion on the subject, and he mentioned that in his school on a certain occasion he rebuked a child who had committed a theft, and he gave admonition and instruction suitable to the occasion. But, he said, had his school been under the National system, he could not have given the instruction then, because it was not the hour in which to give it. This gentleman objected to being bound by the law to keep his mouth closed for any portion of the day; he would not allow himself to be prevented from imparting religious instruction in obedience to the command "in season and out of season." On a former

  2045
  occasion I stated on the authority of the Bishop of Ossory that a clergyman who referred to one of the Commandments in the school was corrected by the schoolmaster, who said he had no right to remark on the Commandments of God, except at particular hours. This question was considered by the Bishops of the Church, and I can answer for it that in their celebrated manifesto they spoke not only the sense of the Episcopate, but that of four-fifths of the clergy of the Reformed Church. The House may remember that a petition was presented to the House of Lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by 4,514 of the parochial clergy of England, in which they stated that in their opinion the clergy of the Reformed Church in Ireland discharged their duty in resting on the Scriptures as a part of education, and further that they only acted up to the letter and the spirit of their ordination vows. Now, this is not a question of whether the Irish Secretary is of a different opinion. He would, perhaps, recommend them to adopt the advice of our sarcastic and incomparable Dean Swift, who, in pointing out to the clergy of his time how to rise, observed that a man's conscience was of no manner of use unless it stretched with the occasion. The conscientious clergy of Ireland will not support the National system, and, although a deanery or a bishopric might be the reward of their adherence, yet the highest reward which Ministries can bestow has made not the slightest impression on the bulk of the working clergy of Ireland. Such as they have been they are, and such as they are they will continue to be. Every one will admit that the rules of such a system ought to be few, simple, intelligible, and just; but, on the contrary, all the witnesses whose evidence fill the two large volumes now on the table of the House admit that they are evasive, lax, unintelligible—some say unintelligible—liable to be interpreted in every way, in order if possible to meet every case, and to be fixed by no principle whatever. At one time, when the National Board are asked whether religious education can be given in the schools, they reply "Oh yes!" At another time they say, "Not at all; no allusion must be made to religion, or to morality if blended with religion, from ten till three, but before or after school, if you can catch a lad"—and he can't be much like an Irish lad if you do catch him at such a time—"you may talk to
  2046
  him then of religion and morality." The other day a curious correspondence appeared between the Rev. Canon Dalton and the National Board. The Rev. Mr. Dalton wrote the following letter to the Board:—
  "For seven years I have had the charge of the parish of Kilbryan, diocese of Elphin, as vicar.
  "The gross tithe amounted, per annum, to £14. Lately the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland were enabled to grant a slight augmentation, which raised the annual income of that vicarage to the net value of £70 a year.
  "I have maintained a school in that parish. The struggle to pay a teacher, supply requisites, and repair the school-house with so small an income, and the scant aid which the Diocesan Church Education Society could give, may well be imagined.
  "The re-opening of the education question by The Daily Express, especially the statement of the editor in this day's paper, induces me to apply at once to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for decisive information.
  "Will you, then, favour me with a distinct and direct reply to my query on one point on which I really cannot form a clear conclusion from the 'Rules, &c.,' as now propounded in The Daily Express.
  "It is simply this:—
  "If I place this school in connection with the Board as a non-vested school, may I make use of any reference, remark, observation, elucidation, example, enforcement, precept, quotation, rebuke, or comment out of the Holy Scriptures during the existence of the school in its integrity in 'school hours.'
  "In plain terms, may I, then, as patron of that school, walk into my school-room at any time during school instruction, and, if I deem it needful, use the Word of God, the Holy Scripture, in any manner ancillary to the subject-lesson at the time being taught?
  "I earnestly beg a clear, candid reply, whether I may or may not take up one of the school Bibles, or my pocket Bible, quote from it, and thus refer to it, and make use of it, unfettered by conditions; or, if not, by what conditions binding my free use of it, as a minister of the Gospel—the Word of the Lord which endureth for ever.'"
  In reply to that letter, Mr. Dalton received the following reply from the Secretaries:—
  "We have laid before the Commissioners of National Education your letter of the 11th ultimo, in which you request a distinct and direct answer to your query on one point—namely:—
  "'If I place this school in connection with the Board as a non-vested school, may I make use of any reference, remark, observation, elucidation, example, enforcement, precept, quotation, rebuke, or comment out of the Holy Scriptures during the existence of the school in its integrity in 'school hours?'
  "In reply, we are directed to state that the Commissioners have found it necessary to decline answering questions of a hypothetical nature regarding the rules, but that they will always be ready to afford full explanation of the principles

  2047
  and rules of the National system, should a difficulty arise in their application in the case of any particular National school.
  "We are also directed to forward to you a copy of the rules and regulations of the National Board, and to call attention to the fourth section of part the first, containing the regulations respecting religious instruction.
  "We are further to observe that there are various National schools in Dublin, and its vicinity, open to you as a visitor, in which the Commissioners' rules will be found practically exemplified.
  "Should you, on consideration, resolve to place the school to which you allude in your letter in connection with the National Board, we shall be happy to send you the forms of application, with the necessary instructions for filling them up, &c."
  The writer of that letter is somewhat skilled, I think, in the science of evasion, for certainly the question put to him is a very plain and distinct one, and his answer is no answer at all. Mr. Dalton then wrote to the Secretaries as follows:—
  "Sirs,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, in reply to mine of the 11th ultimo, enclosing a copy of the rules, &c., and calling my 'attention to the fourth section of part first, containing the regulations respecting religious instruction.'
  "I have carefully read the same, and my interpretation of them is, that if I subscribe these rules I consider that I could not honestly make any use of the Holy Scriptures, under any circumstances, while all the school is in attendance during school hours.
  "Indeed I am informed, upon excellent authority, that this is the interpretation put upon these rules by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland themselves.
  "If I am correct in this my interpretation, I cannot place the school referred to in connection with the Board. Should I not be correct in this interpretation, I shall thank you to forward to me the 'terms of application,' &c, to fill up.
  "In case I do not hear from you I shall take it that this interpretation of these rules is the correct one."
  The Secretaries replied thus:—
  "Sir,—Having laid before the Commissioners of National Education your letter of the 3rd inst., we are directed to inform you in reply, that the use of the Holy Scriptures during the hours of secular instruction, when children of the different denominations attending the school are required to be present, is incompatible with the rules of the Board of National Education, and that religious instruction can take place only at the times and under the conditions laid down in those rules."
  Now, it is impossible for a body of clergy who conscientiously believed that they ought to instruct their children out of the Scriptures, to give their adherence to such a system which acts on the principle contained in this correspondence. It is said that the clergy of this country are not so
  2048
  unreasonable, and would feel no difficulty in comprehending the rules. Now, I have shown that correspondence to a friend of mine, well known as a learned man, Mr. Grirdlestone, the rector of Stourbridge, and a Fellow of the University of Oxford, and I asked him to say without any prejudice or leaning in favour of the Church or clergy of Ireland, what he, as a gentleman, himself engaged in the work of education, thought of these rules laid down by the Irish Education Board? The rev. gentleman replied as follows:—
  "You ask me what I think of the rule laid down by your Irish Education Board, as recently stated in the letter of the Secretaries to the Rev. George Dalton (February 20). I have no hesitation in replying that no amount of Government aid would induce me to comply with any such condition, however great the difficulty of finding funds to maintain efficient schools in this populous parish. In debarring the schools, of which I am manager (above 600 children in all), from the free use of the Bible in school hours, not only should I deprive them of the only infallible text-book in moral and religious training, but I should do violence at once to my own conscientious convictions, and to those of my parishioners in general. The subscribers to the schools, the parents of the children—nay, the very scholars themselves—would be apt to think meanly of a compromise which, for money's sake, or even for peace sake, would put a ban upon the Scriptures, and tie the tongue of the teacher from so much as, even in school time, quoting the Word of God as an authority in faith or practice. And in thinking meanly of such a compromise, they would cease to respect their pastor if a party to it. Indeed, unless my standard of morality were lower than theirs, I should, in such a case, despise myself."
  That letter contains a representation of the convictions of the great bulk of the parochial clergy of Ireland. It has been said that the rules are not what they have been represented to be, but even Mr. Cross, the Secretary to the Commissioners, stated to the House of Lords that the rules were vague and difficult of interpretation, constantly leading to conflicting judgments, and he recommended that their Lordships should prepare or suggest a mode of preparing a code to make the matter clear and certain.
  Let me now draw the attention of the House to what was stated by one or two witnesses about these rules. Mr. O'Hagan was asked whether he understood these rules; and he replied that he thought there ought to be some fixed principles laid down for the guidance of the Commissioners. At present the National system was without a fixed system; with a central school that was a shifting model? Mr. Stapleton was asked the same question,

  2049
  and he said he could not say that he did understand the rules. He had tried, but found it was an impossible task to make himself master of them. He understood a few of the most important, but only a few. The right hon. Gentleman may say that such is not the opinion of the inspectors and the paid officials; but I find that Mr. Macready, the head inspector, and therefore one who it is natural to suppose would comprehend them, if comprehension be possible, states that there are rules which admit of some latitude of interpretation, and about which there are sometimes difficulties. There is a rule as to religious instruction, as to what parties shall be present, and circumstances which may render their attendance proper, and the wording of that rule sometimes gives rise to misunderstanding, and it is difficult to say when it is observed, and when it is not. The Board laid down a rule, and said that they would consider it violated if any influence, either direct or indirect, were exercised over a child to induce him to remain during the period of religious instruction. There arose a controversy as to what was indirect influence. The Roman Catholic clergy not unnaturally said that you must not give any religious education in a school where there were any Roman Catholic children, because, if you put them out, the exclusion was a sort of indirect compulsion. I may be told that lawyers may understand the rules. Now, there is Master Murphy, a friend of my own, a very able gentleman, one of the Commissioners, and he says:—
  "Every day, I may say, we are pressed to violate some rule or other, or to explain or interpret a rule. If the rules were made clear and plain, and it were understood that we could not modify or relax them, it would be simply necessary in such cases to call attention to the particular rule."
  In addition to these witnesses I may quote the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Whately, who is one of the competent judges of the meaning of words. He had a dispute with the other Commissioners as to the meaning of the rule under which he said certain books, the Evidences of Christianity, and Lessons on the Subject of Christianity, might be made part of the combined religious education. A majority of the Board held another view, and were of opinion that, if any one child out of 500 objected, the books must be put aside. "That," said the Archbishop, "is not the interpretation upon which you have been acting for many years." There was a long corres-
  2050
  pondence, debate, and argument, and the books were got rid of, but the Archbishop, feeling that faith had been broken with the public, communicated his opinion to the Lord Lieutenant, and getting no redress in that quarter he withdrew from the Board, an example which was followed by several of the gentlemen. I submit, upon the evidence I have quoted, that the rules are in a condition which makes it impossible to administer satisfactorily this system.
  I admit there is a question, when you talk about education which must be dreaded, and although you may attempt year after year to evade it, must at last be decided by this House. That question is, can you have education without any religion? There are few men who are more clear in their views than the Archbishop of Dublin, and he says in his own forcible style:—
  "We might have an anti-Christian system; we might go against Mahomedanism, Hindooism, and against Christianity altogether; we might try instruction out of 'Æsop's Fables.' But one thing is clear, that Education without religion is impossible. Because, supposing a boy were to ask his teacher whether Jupiter was a real god, or was there any other God, or to tell him who was the true God to worship, what would be the result? Therefore it is absurd to suppose that ever education can exist apart from religion."
  The Archbishop was the first man to support the Board; he stayed with it as long as he could conscientiously, and then when it departed from its principles he left it. There are some things about it which I do understand. I understand they have three or four great fundamental rules. The first is that united education is to be regarded. When I look to the evidence I find that nothing can inspire the Commissioners with more alarm than an application from persons who differ in religion to establish a school. There happen to be about thirty schools out of 5,400 which are managed by patrons of opposite opinions, and they give more trouble than 3,000 other schools. The witnesses say you cannot get the priest and the parson to agree, and that fact is to the credit of both, because, if both are sincere and conscientious, they of course take opposite views. Now, one of the rules is, that every school under the national system shall be open to inspection, and when Mr. Stapleton visited Ireland he went to a convent school with that object. On his presenting himself at the gate somebody came and, opening a little wicket, asked him what he wanted? "To inspect your schools" was the reply. "Do

  2051
  you mean the Roman Catholic school?" "Yes."—Then I must tell you that we never admit anybody to inspect it without a letter from the Roman Catholic clergyman." "But," said Mr. Stapleton, "I was under the impression that all the schools under the National system were open to inspection." "Well, then," was the answer, "if you come back in three-quarters of an hour you will be let in." Mr. Stapleton, however, thought it better to decline the offer, conceiving that in three-quarters of an hour any little arrangements that might be thought expedient could be made, and walked away.
  I would now beg to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the fact that when the National system of education was originally instituted it was not intended that it should apply to the parochial schools of the Church of England at all. The attention of the Chief Commissioner, Mr. M'Donnell, than whom there could be no better authority on the subject, was drawn to this point, and he was asked what be thought of the passage in the Report of the Commissioners of 1812, from which it appeared that the parochial schools were regarded as institutions which were to be permitted to exist as they stood, save so far as related to the improvement of the secular education which they administered. Mr. M'Donnell's reply was that, in his opinion, the Commissioners must have meant that the parochial schools should remain very much in the same position as that which the schools of the Church Education Society occupied at the present day, and that the supplementary schools should be looked upon somewhat in the light of the existing schools connected with the National Board. Now, this is a point which appears to me to be of considerable moment in the prosecution of the inquiry in which we are engaged; for, while one of the modes in which justice may be done to Ireland on this question may be to allow the patron of each school to have such religious instruction communicated to the children who attend it as he may deem right, something may be done also in the same direction by leaving the old parish schools attached to the old parish churches to give instruction in the Scriptures to all who enter them, as has been the practice from time immemorial. The Scripture schools, I may add, are attended by 80,000 children, of whom 14,000 are Dissenters, and 8,000 Roman Catholics, the
  2052
  rest being Episcopalians; and I am perfectly ready to admit that the rule is that a portion of the Scriptures should every day be read in those schools without note or comment.
  I now come to consider how the great principle of the National system—that the schools under its operation should be equally open to all classes—is carried out in practice. In dealing with that point it is necessary that I should draw a distinction between vested and non-vested schools, and my argument is, that in the latter the principle which I have mentioned is at an end. So long as the Board kept schools vested in itself or in trustees they were its own property, and it had, perhaps, a right to prescribe the course of education which should be carried out in them, but the moment it established the distinction between vested and non-vested schools the principle of an united National system of education was overthrown. Moreover, it is in evidence on the authority of the secretary to the Board, that when the Presbyterian body gave in their allegiance to that system they did so on the express condition that the distinction which I have mentioned should be observed. His words were—
  "This is, perhaps, a suitable opportunity of stating that when the Presbyterian body gave in their adhesion to the National system it was made an express stipulation as to the distinction between vested and non-vested schools. I am persuaded that neither clergymen of the Established Church nor Presbyterians would accept aid from the Board unless on the condition that they should not be required to permit any religious instruction of which they disapproved to be given in the school."
  I may further observe that I feel assured very few clergymen of the Established Church, or belonging to the Presbyterian body, would accept aid from the Board on the condition that they should permit any religious instruction to be given in the schools under their superintendence of which they disapproved. The late hon. Member for Newry used to argue in this House with great force and clearness—and in my opinion the argument was never answered—that the moment the Board established non-vested schools it put an end to the National system. I may and that our sturdy friends in the north of Ireland—for whom I have a profound respect—when they saw the rules of the National Board said, "We will never join you on those terms," and sent a deputation to Lord Stanley stating what their own rules prescribed. His answer was

  2053
  that he never could recommend the adoption of rules that were calculated to strike so completely at the principle of his system. Lord Ebrington, however, went over as Lord Lieutenant to Ireland, and took occasion to mediate between the Presbyterian body and the National Board. The Presbyterians were firm, energetic men, wedded to their belief; and when earnest conscientious men are opposed to yielding Commissioners who are depending merely upon rules of lax construction, if they press hard they will squeeze their own terms out of them; and they did so in this case. Then, how can you, after conceding the demands of the Presbyterians, refuse to grant what we ask for? The Presbyterians plainly and boldly stated the objections which they entertained, going, as it seems to me, to the root of the whole principle of the National system. The Synod of Ulster, after much debating, ultimately adopted resolutions declaring that the Ministers and people of that Church, without the necessary concurrence of the ministers or the members of any other Church, should enjoy the right of applying to the Board for aid to their schools. This disposes at once of the fundamental principle of the Board that the application shall proceed jointly from members of different religious persuasions. They further declared that it should be the right of parents to require the patrons to set apart a convenient portion of the study and school-hours for the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and that these should be daily read, but that no compulsion should be resorted to to make children remain during that period. The Presbyterians, moreover, said, "our schools shall begin with prayer, and we will have the catechism taught when we think proper; we will not inflict a penalty for non-attendance at these religious exercises, but we will not undertake that the children whose parents may object to them shall leave the school, nor will we provide a place for them to retire to." The result has been, and I rejoice at it, that the children do remain in school to hear the Scriptures read; naturally, in a moist climate they do not like to go out; they have nowhere to retire to, and therefore they stay where they are. As to the rules of the National Board, they no more put them up in Presbyterian schools than they do the rules of the Divan. Dr. Cooke, in his own racy style, denies that they are bound to put up "a show-
  2054
  board" signifying that religious instruction is about to commence, that order having been issued years after the arrangement with the Presbyterians was made, and he states that "he would not put up a showboard for all the Archbishops and Lords that compose the National Board." You have no right, he maintains, to warn children off the premises when the word of God is about to be read. Yet, every Roman Catholic or Protestant clergyman who may join the Board is obliged to define the period of religious instruction by a notice publicly hung up in the school. What is the use of asserting, contrary to the fact and to the evidence, that this is a system of mixed education? Dr. Henry, in his evidence, says the present system is a loose one, which leads to abuses, and he distinctly states that he should prefer a system which should allow religious education to be given in accordance with the wishes of the people.
  I come now to the Roman Catholic schools, and I will take first the schools of the nuns. Now, Dr. Kiernan states that what reconciled the Roman Catholics to the system was the admission of the nuns' schools into the system of the National Board. The rule of the Board, however, is that schools are to be open to children of all religions, but it is notorious that these schools are entirely exclusive. It is a rule of the Board that there shall be no emblems in the school, and nothing in the outward appearance of the teacher to mark any distinctive religious faith. These rules are openly violated in the nuns' schools. The garb of the nun is a violation of them, the emblems in the school are violations, and the school itself is generally within the walls of a convent. All this, no doubt, is very proper, but still it is in violation of the rules of the Board. I am not asking you to take a penny away from these schools, which the witnesses state are very efficient; for, though I have my feelings as a Protestant, I hope I have some common-sense as a politician. One of the rules of the Board is that all the teachers shall be trained at your central establishment, but of course the ladies who teach at these schools are not trained there. Another rule is that the teacher shall be paid by an annual salary according to proficiency; that, of course, cannot be carried out in the nuns' school, and a new rule, or rather an exception, has been agreed on with regard to them, and the payment is regulated according to the

  2055
  number of pupils at each, school. These are all infractions of the rules of your Board, and are in direct violation of the principle of the National system. The object of paying the teachers is, that the teachers should be under the control of the Board. There are, however, no teachers under the control of the Board in these schools. The nuns walk into the schoolroom in the middle of the day, they find on the table all kinds of books—books which the rules of the Board exclude—and they use the books in teaching the children. If I am asked whether I consider they are right in doing this, I must answer that I think these ladies are quite right. They are acting according to their vows, under the direction of their superior; they are fulfilling the objects of their corporate existence, and they are quite right in paying no more attention to your rules than to the rules of the Grand Turk. In the monks' schools these rules are still more openly violated. There is a clause in the Emancipation Act with regard to these monks, the object of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary for Ireland, will probably understand much better than I, as he is the executor of the eminent person who proposed it. I suppose its object was that, while the parochial clergy got a good education, the "regulars" should be got rid of out of the country altogether. Theoretically, therefore, they have no right to be there, though I do not think they have much to fear practically. The rule of the Board, however, is in accordance with the statute law; and it says that "no clergyman of any denomination, and no members of any religious order, can be recognized as teachers of a National school." But it is notorious that, while clergymen of the Established Church are excluded, monks, who have taken the vows of a religious order, are openly employed in teaching these schools. From what I have said it is apparent that the cases of the Presbyterians, the nuns and the monks make it impossible to regard this as a united National system of education, and I should like to hear an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Parental authority is said to be the fundamental rule of your system; but that principle is respected when it excludes the Scriptures, and is set aside when the Scriptures are included. I will refer the House to the great model school in Gardiner Street, within fifty yards of which is the
  2056
  school of Archdeacon Gregg, and within a few more yards another school. The model school contains about 800 scholars; but the parents of 400 children send them on Sundays to the school of the Archdeacon, where the Scriptures are taught, and there are 250 scholars on week days in the same school. One single minister of my church has 400 children sent by their parents to his school, where they receive a secular education and hear the Scriptures also; and yet it is said that in the National schools we must succumb and conform to the opinions of those parents who wish to exclude the Scriptures, but that we must not attend to the opinions of those parents who are desirous of including the Scriptures in the course of education. How is this to be answered, according to your theory of yielding to parental authority? My case is this, that you should provide for the Roman Catholics fully, fairly, and freely, but that you should not press the clergy of the Reformed faith to proceed on principles which are odious to their faith and repugnant to their consciences. I know that the right hon. Gentleman may say that this reasoning is all very well in the case where the Protestants had schools, and the priests had schools too; but what is to be done in places where there is only one school? My own opinion is that every school should be open to every child, but upon the condition I have indicated.
  Let the House look at the absurd condition in which the schools are placed in regard to books. The Evidences of Christianity were passed by Archbishop Murray, and the book was received and read; but it was afterwards rejected, so that you bind people to the system of reading a particular book, though the system may be changed the next day. What, however, puts an end to all idea of this being a united system of education are the Statutes of Thurles. Mr. Cross, the Secretary to the Board, said he had read those statutes with very great pain—and, indeed, the truth is, that the statutes pronounced against the system formally and ecclesiastically, and that decision has been confirmed by the opinion of the Pope and of the Papal legate. Archbishop Cullen, in his Pastoral, states the opinion of the Church in these terms:—
  "As, therefore, the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church must be continually repeated and inculcated in order to make them productive of good fruit, you will easily perceive, dearly beloved, that your children cannot be properly educated under any system from which religion

  2057
  excluded, or by persons professing opinions hostile to the teaching of our holy Church. Hence, mixed education, which unites in the one school teachers and pupils of every creed, and professes to teach the religious doctrines of no Church, must be looked on as unfit for Catholics, and calculated to promote scepticism and infidelity; and you cannot with safety send your children to schools or colleges where the teaching is Protestant, and where the masters, oftentimes without knowing what they are doing, imbue the minds of their pupils with most fatal errors on religious subjects.
  "There is evident danger that Catholics, who in their youth have received this sort of mixed instruction—neither Catholic nor Protestant—or who have been brought up in Protestant Colleges or Universities, will frequently, in after life, betray the grossest ignorance of Catholic discipline, broach opinions contrary to Catholic doctrine, and scandalize the faithful by their want of respect for their holy Church. Protestant or infidel teaching cannot produce any other effect on the tender mind of Catholic youth. It may, indeed, be said that mixed education in Protestant Colleges and Universities will occasionally bring with it great temporal advantages; but recollect the words of our Divine Redeemer:—'What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?'—(Matt, xvi., 16.")
  That opinion is authoritative, and, I believe, sincere. That being so, I may be asked how could any schools patronized by Roman Catholics possibly have been put under the Board since? There are nearly 3,000 schools of which the priests are the patrons. The priest is subject to the Bishop, and the Bishop to the Legate, who is the Vice Pope, and subject to the Pope. The Statutes of Thurles now bind the Pope, the Legate, the Bishops, and the priests, and the priests must carry out the principle of the statutes, which is to put an end to mixed education. The evidence shows that wherever the patron is Roman Catholic the religion is exclusively Roman Catholic; and wherever the patron is Protestant the religion is Protestant. And all I say is that, under the Statutes of Thurles, it is impossible for any Roman Catholic priest to allow mixed education to exist if he can prevent it. It is a vain thing to proceed in the course you are pursuing. The wise and manly course is to do one of two things—either to grant the same practical exception which is allowed to Presbyterian schools, nuns' schools, and monks' schools, to the schools of parish ministers, or else to establish the broad principle that the State will give a good secular education under inspection, and by masters trained and qualified for the duties, and not interfere with the religious education which the patron
  2058
  may think fit to instil. I hold that it is impossible, after the Statutes of Thurles, to carry on mixed education in Ireland.
  A meeting of Protestants—at which I was present—recently addressed a letter to the Government, in which their views are temperately stated. The answer to that letter was that no concession could be made with reference to their conscientious objections; and therefore it is for the House now to say whether the decision of the right hon. Gentleman can be justified or not. If this Motion be carried, and the clergy of the Established Church be one and all induced to join the Board, your secular education will be carefully, sincerely, and usefully carried out in 1,600 or 1,700 schools, and you will put an end to disputes and dissensions on this subject in Ireland. If any one could have carried his point it was the Primate. But a great meeting was convened, a meeting of the laity. They held by their original opinions—namely, that religious instruction, the Bible was that by which they should abide; they separated, and they were more resolute now than they were before that letter was written. It comes, then, simply to this—a great principle is at stake. Let each patron carry out his own system of religious instruction while adopting your secular system. Roman Catholics ought not to object to this at our request, for they know that their Protestant brethren are sincere. There are no penal laws now on the Statute Book; if there be any penal law which is objectionable to them I abjure it; but they must be prepared to encounter discussion, the light of knowledge, and of truth. They must be prepared for the full current of education, and I have no fears of the result. I believe, as it has been said, that truth is strong, next to the Almighty. She requires no policies nor stratagems to make her victorious. These are the shafts that error uses against her power, therefore I am satisfied, if we can have free access to truth, and a right to spread the truth. But you must be mindful of this—and I say it in no spirit of bigotry—the question is whether the Protestants as a nation are to be allowed to read the Bible. Remember what was effected for you by those who restored the Bible to you. From that time to the present the unfettered use of the Scriptures has made you free, wise, religious, and happy. You send your missionaries to every clime to bring home the knowledge of the truth to those who have it not, and

  2059
  by what right do you then turn round upon those who desire to read the Scriptures in the parish schools, and say we will embarrass, annoy, and vex you, not for the purpose of conciliating Roman Catholics, but for the purpose of establishing some grand principle of centralizing authority, hoping thereby to control the feelings and affections of the human mind, which is an impossibility? While I am willing to make every concession which is reasonable and just to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, I will not consent, on the part of my own Church and the laity, of which I am a member, and whose opinions I speak, to give up that which is our birthright, and I commend the cause which I have but too feebly advocated, to the mind of every true Protestant in this House and country.
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, thirty years ago this House withdrew its support from the system of education then followed in Ireland in consequence of the total failure of the efforts which had been made in pursance of repeated inquiries instituted under the highest auspices and prosecuted with all the power and influence of the British Government. During the thirty years which have since elapsed there has grown up in Ireland a system which, as scarcely any one can be found to deny, has conferred upon the whole people of the country the greatest benefits that ever were bestowed by any system upon any country in the world. I say scarcely any one can be found to deny this, because, while many criticise the details of the system, while one objects to this provision, and another to that, yet the universal testimony of fact and of opinion coincides in this—that the most signal blessings have been conferred on Ireland by the system of education which has now been in successful operation for thirty years. The generation which has grown up under this system is different from any which has preceded it in the power it exercises for compassing its own material prosperity, and that of the country; but that is the least of its benefits, including, as they do, every social, every moral, every religious advantage which the population of a country can enjoy.
  Let me proceed, with the patience of the House, to trace out in some detail the progress of the system which has thus grown up. In 1806 there was a memorable Commission, which reported in 1812, and which laid down those broad principles of liberal
  2060
  education for Ireland which from that period to the present Parliament has been endeavouring to establish and promote. After the experience of twelve years the result of the first experiment proved unsatisfactory, and again a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the cause of its failure. That Commission reported in 1826, and a Committee of this House recommended in 1828 the adoption of the principles it enunciated. That recommendation was again confirmed by another Committee in 1830, and in 1831 issued that memorable letter with which the name of the Earl of Derby will be for ever honourably associated, and which constitutes the charter and foundation of the system of education in Ireland. During the time which has since elapsed the pro-press of that system has been as follows:—In 1833 there were 789 schools and 107,000 pupils; in 1843, ten years afterwards, the number rose to 2,912 schools and 355,000 pupils; and in 1853 to 5,023 schools and 550,000 pupils. Since 1853 we have been told it was impossible that the system could flourish and progress after the decree issued by the Synod of Thurles. But has it withered from that or any other cause? In the last Report of the Commission, at this time at which I speak, the number of schools in Ireland under the system of national education is 5,496; and the number of pupils, 570,000. But it may be said that the system is partial in its operation, that it is not fully extended through the country, that it showers its benefits here, while it withholds them there. Let us see, then, what is the distribution of the system through the four provinces of Ireland—provinces differing widely from one another in many of those respects which constitute the main features of a question of this kind. In Ulster there are now 189,000 pupils, in Leinster 142,000, in Munster 154,000, in Connaught 84,000. This shows, I think, that the benefits of the system are equally and generally distributed throughout the country. But any one who has listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) will not fail to conclude that in another respect at least the system is partial in its operation, and withholds its benefits from various classes of the community. Let us look at the facts of the case. If we take the pupils according to their religion, we find that the pupils belonging to the Church of the great majority of the people, the Church

  2061
  of those whose circumstances render it most necessary that the State should be solicitous for their benefit and carry education to their door—the pupils of that denomination numbered in the year just expired no fewer than 478,000. The pupils connected with the Established Church were 29,000, with the Presbyterian Church 59,000, and with other Dissenting bodies 2,500. The evidence contained in the blue-books of 1853, from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, is in some degree answered by the fact that conspicuous as were the growth and progress of the system before that time there has been nothing since which at all tends to discourage the confident expectations of those who advocated and sustained it. Compared with that period the increase in the number of Roman Catholic pupils has been 54,000; the increase in the Presbyterian pupils 19,000; and in the pupils of the Established Church 4,400. Well, I say, when you appeal from argument to fact, when I am told that this system is alien from the feelings of the nation, I answer by showing that there has been such a continuous history of progress, such a gradual advance in the popular acceptance and influence of the system, as is certainly unexampled in our records, or, I believe, in the records of any other country.
  But it will be said, "You can exhibit an increase in regard to other churches, but there has been a remarkable falling off in regard to the Established Church." I will examine that part of the case. What has been the progress of the system in respect to that body in behalf of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made his animated appeal? From 1852 to the close of last year the increase of Protestant pupils under the national system, has been from 67,000 to 91,000, being an increase of 36 per cent and of pupils belonging to the Established Church, from 24,684 to 29,105 being an increase of over 17 per cent. In the meantime the Church Education Society, which in 1854 had a total of 95,000, has now only a total of 78,000; while of Established Church pupils they had, in 1854, 60,000, and five years afterwards only 52,000. Then, if you take another test,—one of the most important and conclusive to which the popular acceptance of any system of education can be subjected—and ask, "Has the whole of this been attained by the expenditure of money generously given by this House, or has there been on the part
  2062
  of those who have enjoyed these advantages a growing desire to contribute to the maintenance of the system?"—in that respect, too, you will find equally remarkable and satisfactory evidence of the growing influence of this system over the popular mind in Ireland. In 1852 the local contributions raised towards the system amounted only to £26,000; whereas in the year just expired they nearly reached £44,000, being an increase of 62 per cent. Then, I say, whatever may be urged by those who criticise one part of the system or raise objections to another, the evidence of fact is clear and irresistible—and I believe that those who endeavour to ascertain for themselves by personal experience what the general feeling of all classes in Ireland is, will arrive at the same results—the evidence is clear and irresistible that it commands the respect and wins the affections of the community which it is destined to serve.
  But let us apply still wider and larger tests. Do you know any country in the world the education of which will bear a comparison like the one to which I am about to expose that of Ireland? Taking the whole population of Ireland at 6,000,000, you will find, according to the calculations usually made, that one-fourth of that entire number will consist of young persons between the ages of five and fifteen, or about 1,500,000 of the Irish population. If you take one-half of that number as the bonâ fide proportion of pupils attending school you will still keep close to the calculations commonly made in such cases. Now, notwithstanding the discouragement this system has had to encounter, not the least of which is the unfortunate opposition it has long experienced from those whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman has declared himself specially to represent, and who have had under their care a number of pupils not far short of, and sometimes even exceeding 100,000, you find that Ireland presents the remarkable fact that you have a population now under education nearly corresponding with that which you would expect by the ordinary calculation to be in attendance at school. Remembering, too, that all this is due to a system established only thirty years ago upon the failure of preceding systems, which for nearly an equal period had been striving with all the power and wisdom of the State to promote national education in Ireland, I think it cannot be—I believe it will not be—denied that it

  2063
  does present, upon the whole, one of the most gratifying instances of success to be found in the history of public instruction in Europe.
  But it is said—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman dwelt very earnestly on this part of the case, while the hon. and learned Mover even thought it too manifest to condescend to adduce proof in support of the assertion—it is said "You may have a widely distributed education, but you have totally failed in establishing a mixed system." Now, is it true that it has failed as a mixed system? In the first place, I differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who thinks you attain no important end if you offer to a people a system of instruction which is in its nature suited for a mixed assembly of pupils,—whether it be actually attended by a mixed assembly or not. For what is an exclusive system, but one in which the tendency of each individualized and particular opinion is to grow and develope in the particular school, whereas in a system like that established in Ireland there is a tendency, by giving the same education, from the same books, to enlarge the general nature of the whole, to expand its principles, and produce a disposition even in pupils who may have been trained in different schools to mix in after I life in the business and intercourse of society with greater facilities, greater freedom, and mutual adaptation, and with I greater advantage to the public. But the case does not stop there. The system is; actually that which it is intended to be, a system of mixed education. Where the population is not mixed of course the attendance at school is not mixed. And as in large parts of Ireland there is no mixture of the population, and as where there is there have been other schools maintained for the express benefit of the minority, who have naturally been attracted to them, of course it is not to be expected that the statistics should exhibit any great and favourable result in respect of mixed education. But if you examine the figures you will find that in Ulster, where the mixture of the population is greatest, 84 per cent of the schools are mixed schools; in Leinster the proportion is 41 per cent; in Munster 34 per cent; and in Connaught 49 per cent. Could anybody, then, looking to all the obstacles with which the system has had to contend, have anticipated a larger measure of success than that which has really been attained? Again, do you think a compari-
  2064
  son would be unfavourable to Ireland between the 570,000 pupils educated under the National Board there and the 820,000 last year educated under the Privy Council in this country? Looking to the population and wealth of the two countries, and comparing them with the means and the end to be obtained, can it be said that the result is unfavourable to the system of education in Ireland? What has that system been? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when we discussed this subject last year, invited me to abstain from drawing hasty conclusions from blue-books. He has not on this occasion entirely observed the advice he gave me, but since he gave me this advice I have endeavoured by personal inquiries, rather than by reference to a blue-book seven years old—and that is a generation in a system that has only been established thirty years—to ascertain the real state and circumstances of the system now in operation in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has extracted the answers to a number of inquiries made to witnesses who were subjected to an ingenious and searching cross-examination before a Committee of the other House, which answers appeared to him to furnish the best materials for the case he was endeavouring to establish. But, in examining a system like that under consideration, you must first draw a distinction between those rules which are essential and cardinal, and which cannot be departed from by the managers except by a breach of principle, and those other rules which are merely ancillary in their nature, and which any reasonable man would mould and modify to meet the varying circumstances of the country, and the particular case with which you have to deal.
  The system of national education that has been established in Ireland for thirty years has two cardinal rules—first, that the education given to pupils during ordinary school hours shall be of that—I will not say secular—but of that comprehensive character that it may be offered equally to the pupils of all the Christian Churches into which Ireland is divided. The second rule is, that the patron of any school may give religious instruction in other than school hours according to his own distinctive tenets, provided that no child shall be required to be present at any religious instruction which his parents and friends disapprove. Under great discouragement these principles have been

  2065
  and are still maintained, and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that these rules have been infringed for the benefit of the sturdy Presbyterians and in other cases, I must join issue with him, and say that neither in the one case nor the others are these cardinal rules set at nought, either by the managers of the system or by the Government. I wonder, indeed, it did not occur to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his complaint is an answer to itself, and that the rules that are applied to one are also applied to another. He says that no offer has been made to the Church body of an adaptation of these rules. Certainly no offer was made to the Church of a compromise of these cardinal principles, and no such offer will, I trust, ever be made with the sanction of this House. But in answer to the very friendly memorial of the Church Education Society a plain statement of the rules of the National Education system was returned, with an intimation of the desire felt both by the Government and the Commissioners that the system should, if possible, and without interfering with the integrity of its rules, enjoy the great advantage of the support of the Church Education Society.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has descended into details of such antiquity, that I cannot attempt to follow him, but at the same time I cannot avoid answering some of the points he has brought forward. He must surely have forgotten that the Presbyterians have now been included in the system for twenty years, and that the greater part of the growth of the system, during which it has comprehended more and more new pupils drawn from the whole population of Ireland, has taken place since the time of which he spoke. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that the rules are not binding, and that they are systematically infringed for the benefit of one class of the population in Ireland? If he says that, I must meet him with an express denial of the accuracy of his statement, and I invite him to bring instances before the notice of the Government in order that they may be redressed. He says there is one rule for Presbyterian schools under the Board, and another rule for missionary schools in remote parts of Ireland. Of course there must be one rule for schools in which the managers are bound not to make a proselyte, and in which it is not alleged that they ever made a proselyte, and another
  2066
  rule for schools established for another object in different parts of Ireland, and which are excluded from the aid of the State because they decline to submit to the rules of the Board. So it will be found that, where a school maintains itself with the aid of the Church Education Society, it retains its independence as a missionary school; while the increasing number that seek a connection with the Board derive the great advantages which this House so liberally offers through the Commissioners of Education. It is also charged that the managers in some cases allow these schools to be used as chapels. The rule on which the Government acts in such cases is broad and plain. Any services of a sacramental character are prohibited in the schools, but if ordinary meetings are proposed to be held the inspectors do not inquire into the objects of those meetings. From no quarter has any complaint reached me of any compromise of the rules for the benefit of the Presbyterians. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in terms of just and merited respect of the great value of nuns' schools to the rising population of Ireland, and said it would be a great calamity if anything should prevent the mothers of the future generation from receiving the education thereby given in many parts of Ireland; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been told that the rules to which I have referred have been violated in these schools, and that Protestants have declared that they would not intrust their children to nuns' schools. This statement of an unwillingness on the part of Protestant parents to intrust their children to these schools I do not dispute; but it is not that with which we are concerned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was that, as the rules were violated for the Presbyterian schools so also they were violated for the Roman Catholic schools. On the authority of the resident Commissioner I can state as a fact that in no instance have the Commissioners sanctioned a violation of the rules in the case of these schools. What does the hon. and learned Gentleman who made the Motion say? The right hon. and learned Gentleman complains that the rules of the Board are so slippery and elastic that he cannot describe them, but the hon. and learned Member who opened the debate said that they were of so rigid and Procrustean a character that they cramp the mind and character of Ireland. Both these complaints cannot be well founded, and my

  2067
  opinion is that the truth, as is usually the case, lies between them, and that the Board of National Education pursues a middle course, which, while requiring an adherence to cardinal rules and fixed principles, admits a certain amount of relaxation of minor regulations in order to meet the exigencies and requirements of the time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asserted that in respect to nuns' schools all rules and principles were abandoned; but in the case of the nunnery at Youghal the hon. and learned Member for that borough (Mr. Butt) stated that when there had been an infringement of the rules in the school connected with it the Commissioners sent down a Protestant inspector, who examined into and reported upon the circumstances. That is a conclusive answer to the charge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard to the monks I hope to give an explanation which will be satisfactory to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Commissioners have decided that the rule which prohibits Presbyterian and Roman Catholic clergymen and clergymen of the Church of England from being teachers in schools shall, by parity of reasoning and equality of principle, apply also to monks.
  MR. WHITESIDE: When was that decision come to?
  MR. CARDWELL: I cannot inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the exact date, but, although most of his information is seven years old, he will allow me to proceed upon that of a more recent date. The Commissioners have decided that although a monk is not necessarily a person in holy orders, he shall be held to be so for the purposes of this system; and, that although those already upon the establishment may be continued in their employments, no more monks shall be received as teachers. The system then is quite as much a system of mixed education as, under the circumstances, you can reasonably expect. And with regard to the quality of the education, I might call into court as a witness the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself who last year, in advocating the claims of the Church Society to a participation in the benefits of the National system, pronounced, in terms of just eulogium, his opinion upon the teachers and books of the National Board.
  I now come to the question what is the demand that is made upon the House, what is the practical step that you are
  2068
  called upon to take? The hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the Motion called upon you to extend to Ireland the system which he thinks works so well in England. I must remind him that among many differences between the circumstances of the two countries there is this great one—that, while in England the greater portion of the expense of education is paid by local contributors and the smaller portion by the State, in Ireland the reverse is the case, and education there is carried on almost entirely by means of the grant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman insists that the conscience of the giver shall be the rule according to which each gift shall be administered. What is that demand? Is it a demand for denominational education? Why, the Church Education Society very recently published a statement, in which, speaking of denominational education, they said,—
  "There is hardly any measure which the Church Education Society would contemplate with deeper regret than that which would partition off the responsible management of the public funds given for educational purposes to the several denominations of which the people are composed. They are convinced that the result of such a measure would be seriously to retard educational progress, to foment strife and the bitterness of party spirit, and to place the Church of the country in a grievously false position—that of being only one denomination among a number equally recognized by the State."
  That is the opionion of the constituents of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and last year, when I was daily assailed with arguments that what was good for England must be good for Ireland, and ought therefore to be extended to that country, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was abroad, nevertheless determined there should be no mistake as to his opinion, and wrote to the Irish newspapers to say that denominational education had in him no champion and no supporter. But if we do not have denominational education, what are we to have? The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to break the rule in favour of the Church Education Society, and to give to their schools State support, although the pupils therein are required to receive instruction which Roman Catholic children cannot receive without offence to their consciences. If the rule is broken in favour of the schools of the Church Education Society, can it be maintained with regard to those of any other denomination; and if it is not observed, do you not arrive at that very result which is condemned

  2069
  both by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by those whom he represents? The answer of the Government now will be the same as that given by Sir Henry Hardinge in 1834 after the accession to power of a Government which was supposed not to be favourable to this system, that the Imperial policy upon this subject was settled and fixed, and that, although there had been a change of Ministry there would be no change of policy. Again, in 1852, there was a change of Government. Did that change of Government afford to those who desire the overthrow of the National system any consolation or comfort? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Buxton), went over to Ireland prejudiced in favour of the system, and, with the candour which becomes an honest inquirer, he returned prejudiced against it. But Ireland was visited in 1852 by a more distinguished man even than my hon. Friend the Member for Newport: I mean the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under the Government of the Earl of Derby. He went over to Ireland prejudiced against the National system; but he frankly admitted in the House of Lords that he returned convinced of its inestimable benefits, and determined to take no step which should be adverse to it. [Lord NAASS: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord cheers me, and confirms with his high authority the statement I have made. Years rolled on, and there was another change of Government. The voluminous blue-book, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made so much reference, was not in the possession of the Government of 1852, but it was in the possession of the Government of 1858. If those long extracts which the right hon. and learned Gentleman read to us tell with such effect against the system of national education in Ireland, why did they fail to make a similar impression in 1858? I wish to be just to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I believe that as far as the personal convictions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were concerned, those extracts did produce the effect which he describes. It was stated in the debate last year that the Irish Government did propose a modification to the Cabinet of the Earl of Derby; but to the immortal honour of the distinguished nobleman who inaugurated the system, he has not left behind the fatal reminiscence that he was prepared to subvert and overthrow it.
  2070
  We are now in 1860, and what are the circumstances which in the present year should lead us to destroy the National system? If we have been firm and resolute during so many years of adversity, what is there in the circumstances of 1860 which should dispose us to yield to the pressure of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us last year that, though the sturdy Presbyterians had connected themselves with the National system, yet the Wesleyans and the Churchmen were excluded. Where are the Wesleyans now? Have they not joined the system? Have they not given to it all the sanction which their known adherence to Scriptural education must necessarily convey? Why is it to be argued that rules which are not too rigid to exclude Presbyterians and Wesleyans are yet too rigid for the consciences of those whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman represents? Who in the long years of adversity was the head and heart of the system of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the advocate if not the venerable Primate? But on the authority of one who so long and worthily represented the University which the right hon. and learned Gentleman now represents—I mean Mr. Napier—the venerable Primate, in the words of the Bishop of Ossory, has in his recent letter "surrendered the whole principle of the question." Do not let me be told, therefore, that the rules of the National Board are too rigid to exclude Churchmen when the venerable Primate himself has abandoned all opposition to them. I have said that the Wesleyans have joined us. Has nobody else joined us since the publication of the letter of the Primate? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard of no large proprietors, no men of the first rank and influence in Ireland, who have already placed their schools under the National Board? The Duke of Manchester told me recently that he had placed his schools, or was about to place them, in connection with the Board, and in the short period which has elapsed since the publication of the letter of the Primate no fewer than forty-eight Church schools have applied to be incorporated with the National system, the applications being made in twenty-eight cases by clergymen, and in the rest by laymen. I suspect the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that his firm phalanx of 1,600 schools will not long continue to fight a battle of which the people of Ireland are

  2071
  already weary, but will take refuge in a union which I think is consistent with their conscientious feelings, and tends largely to promote the great cause they have at heart. The silent, but very perceptible, very intelligible, and almost irresistible force of public opinion which was manifested in Ireland in 1859 has also tended to confirm and strengthen to a degree that can scarcely be appreciated the influence of the National system of education in Ireland. To every proposal for breaking down the cardinal principles of that system, to every proposal for establishing denominational education, to every proposal for giving a separate grant to those who insist upon instruction during school hours which is not available for pupils belonging to all Christian Churches, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to reply in the emphatic words used by Sir Robert Peel in 1845:—
  "I cannot, of course, question the perfect right of those who conscientiously dissent from a certain plan of public education to withhold their countenance from it, and establish another more in conformity with their own principles. But it is my duty to inform you that to that other plan so established Her Majesty's Government cannot lend their sanction… It would soon be discovered that we must take our choice between the upholding and encouraging of a single system of instruction, founded on the principles of that which is now receiving the sanction of Government, and the granting of public aid to at least three different societies in Ireland—by each of which secular instruction should be combined with religious instruction in the particular doctrine of each religion; one in connection with the Established Church, another with the Presbyterian, and another with the Roman Catholic religion. In such a case all hope of mixed education must be relinquished, and a line of demarcation would be drawn between the children of different religious persuasions, more marked than has hitherto existed at any period. Her Majesty's Government deprecate this result as a great public evil."
  Can you imagine a public evil more calculated to inflict permanent injury upon Ireland? What is the great aim and object of Her Majesty's Government and indeed of every one who labours for the good of Ireland? Not to diminish the sincere convictions of the members of any Church, but to secure that, while the private convictions of the Members of all Churches are allowed free play, in the intercourse of practical life, of business, of society, of pleasure, in duties public and in duties private, all classes of the community shall live together as one united people. Who can tell the effect, not merely upon the education, but upon the peace and pro-
  2072
  sperity of Ireland, which has been produced by the principles of Government which were inaugurated thirty years ago? If it be true, as Sir James Mackintosh and other writers tell us, that the great power of the British people is due to the freedom of their institutions, how much of that great development we have witnessed in Ireland during the last thirty years is due to the improved Government of which the national system of education has been often and truly called the greatest part?
  Let me ask a question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Upon what grounds is it that he of all persons comes forward to oppose the existing system of education? He filled with honour to himself the office of Attorney General for Ireland under the Government of the Earl of Derby. Is it in that capacity that he seeks to subvert a system with which the name of the Earl of Derby will be for ever associated? Does he make the attempt as the representative of the Church Education Society in Ireland? I find the very same men who as private individuals or dignitaries of the Church cannot reconcile it to their consciences to adopt the principles of the National Board, yet, as members of the Clare Street Board, are not only adopting the identical rules, but forcing them on remonstrant clergymen. Then, I ask, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman make the attempt as the representative of Trinity College? If so, has he ever read the pamphlets and letters in the newspapers by tutors and eminent members of the College, stating that the principle of the National Board has been for more than half a century the principle of Trinity College itself? This morning I received a pamphlet which the late Member for Dublin University, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was kind enough to send me, and in it there is the following passage:—
  "The case of Trinity College, though not at all parallel in degree, yet, as to this objection of complicity, seems to be decisive. After the Act of 1793 and the King's letter of 1794, the Board was bound to remove every impediment which stood in the way of a Roman Catholic taking his degree in Arts, and for this purpose to dispense in his favour with every rule of the system as to that part of the course of education in which it would be against his conscience to participate."
  And in another passage it it stated:—
  "Although there is no express rule subscribed, there is, under the statute, the Royal letter, and the system of the University, a restriction as morally binding upon every tutor as if it were set

  2073
  forth in the words of the rule of the National Board, and subscribed under hand and seal."
  I am glad to have on my side the Primate of Ireland and the late Lord Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has not paid his learned Friend, the late Chancellor of Ireland, the compliment of reading his pamphlet, because he said that so far was this reservation about interfering with religious instruction carried, that if a gentleman went into a school, he must not remonstrate with a child whom he found stealing, lest, by referring to the Eighth Commandment, he should infringe the rule of the Board. The House will not expect me to enter into such an argument, but in the Appendix to Mr. Napier's pamphlet, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find his observation answered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) says that he has taken pains to ascertain how far religious instruction is included by the rules of the National Board. This is the case with respect to that matter—
  "The school may be opened with prayer; there may be a daily Bible class for all children whose parents consent that they should attend, and none need be deprived of a careful daily instruction in the Word of God, except those whose parents object."
  With respect to religious instruction in the schools, it is supposed by many that the education is wholly of a non-religious character; but it is a great mistake to suppose that to be the case even in the schools which most completely reflect the system of the Board. I have before me a paper which has been furnished to me by the Bishop of Derry relative to the books provided by the National Board, and he says they are the best books to be found in any of the Irish schools. I am told that the books sanctioned by the Board are read in all the 5,500 schools connected with this system of education, and never was there a time when there was less of irreligious feeling among the growing youth of Ireland than at present; while not a single instance of proselytism in these schools during the last twenty years is alleged. Being desirous to learn what was going on under this system of education by personal experience rather than from books, I followed the advice of the right hon. and learned Member and attended, wholly unexpectedly, the examination at the model school in Belfast. Dr. Willock and Mr. Anderson were examining the Church of England children, under the superintendence of the Bishop. All I will
  2074
  say with respect to the examination is this, that if the examination had been at Oxford, I might have supposed that the book of examination was the Horœ Pauliœ. The Bishop was educated at Eton. I had a friend with me who had received his education at Rugby, I myself was educated at Winchester, and on comparing notes the observation we made was, "Well, this may be an education from which religion is excluded, but we cannot remember that at a much more mature age, when we were at the great public schools of England, we could have passed so stiff an examination in the "Horœ Paulinœ," as these little children in the Belfast school were passing under the examination of Dr. Willock and Mr. Anderson. Proceeding into another room, we saw the Roman Catholic pupils and the Presbyterian pupils, who I believe are in a majority, in all 1,000, guided by a Roman Catholic master, engaged in singing hymns together, exhibiting the most gratifying evidence of the merits of the mixed system, as the other case did of the separate system. After this I can well believe that the challenge of Dr. Willock would be verified, and that if those whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman represents will produce children from the Church Education schools to compete in Scriptural education with children educated by the National Board, the latter will not be afraid to sustain such a competition and abide by the comparison.
  Sir, the step which the House is now called upon to take is one of the most important, and, if taken, it would, in my opinion, be of the most destructive character. But I believe that as the House of Commons have been firm and steadfast in their adherence to the system of National education in times of difficulty, they will not fail to support it in the days of its comparative success. I believe that they will not allow its leading rules to be compromised. Though not at all unconscious that we have still great difficulties to contend with, I maintain that the system has proved succcessful in point of numbers and in point of results; that it has conferred the greatest benefits upon Ireland, morally, socially, and politically, as well as materially; that it has done more to raise the character of Ireland than any other institution or than any other system, and that it has, therefore, been of the greatest advantage, not to Ireland only, but also to this country. When

  2075
  the Primate has given his concurrence to this system, when the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland has become an advocate for it, when in the north of Ireland public opinion has been exhibited so markedly in its favour, and when throughout the whole country there exists, though not unanimously, the same irresistible feeling, I confidently believe that, while due concession may be made to reasonable objections and just suggestions, the cardinal principles of the system, which have been steadily upheld by successive Governments and by successive Parliaments, this House will not permit to be infringed.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he felt it his duty to express, as shortly and as clearly as he could, the opinions of those with whom, together with his right hon. and learned Friend below him (Mr. Whiteside), he fully concurred on this question. He regretted that the subject had not been discussed at an earlier period of the Session, and still more that it should then be discussed under the pressure of other equally important business. He had never shrunk to express his regret for the course pursued by the National Board. He had felt that it could not be satisfactory to Ireland, and still less satisfactory to the ministers of the Established Church in Ireland, whose views he particularly represented on this occasion. He had never, since he had the honour of a seat in that House, hesitated to express that opinion; nor had he, on the other hand, hesitated to say that the system recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Butt) would equally fail to give satisfaction. The ministers of the Established Church asked for no teaching but that which might be properly, and should be, taught in a Christian nation. They asked to have the Scriptures read in their schools, and they properly declined to take part in those schools where the Scriptures were practically excluded. If nuns' schools, if the schools of Presbyterians, if the schools of Wesleyans, were supported by National grants, surely the same advantage ought to be conceded to the Church of England. He therefore regretted that the Government had not taken steps to extend the National system in a manner which would enable all to partake in it, or that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could hold out no hope that such a modification in the system would be adopted.
  MR. HENNESSYmoved the adjourn-
  2076
  ment of the debate. There were many hon. Gentlemen who wished to speak, and as there was another important Motion on the paper he thought it was not right that the whole night should be occupied by Irish Members.
  THE O'DONOGHUEseconded the Motion.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he thought the hon. Member could hardly be serious in moving the adjournment. Here was a Member of an Irish, county, who was constantly making complaints that Irish business was not properly carried on, when a debate upon a most important Irish question had commenced in good earnest, absolutely moving its adjournment. He (Mr B. Osborne) had considerable interest in this question, perhaps more than the hon. Gentleman, as he contributed to more schools. He had come down to hear the debate, and he thought the people of Ireland and the constituents of the hon. Gentleman could hardly feel satisfied if it was adjourned. It had been well conducted on both sides, and the House ought to have the opportunity of arriving at a decision upon it.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he had not the least apprehension of meeting his constituents on this question; he hoped his hon. Friend would persevere with the Motion.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the House would not agree to the adjournment of the debate. The discussion had been well conducted on both sides and ought to be brought to a conclusion that evening. He would remind the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment that his Motion, if carried, would only be a mode of getting rid of the subject.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 177: Majority 111.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to a document transmitted to him by the Irish Bishops. As the subject of Irish education with special reference to the allegations in that document was to be brought under the notice of the House a few weeks hence, he should defer his remarks on the general question till that opportunity. All that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal asked for was inquiry into a system in support of which £270,000 were annually expended, and which did

  2077
  not accord with the consciences of the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), who, with so much ability and success, represented the Protestant party, had clearly showed that the National Board failed to conciliate the Protestants of Ireland; while the protests more than once forwarded by all the Catholic prelates sufficiently proved that they were equally dissatisfied. It was remarkable that the House of Commons, which refused to sanction educational Votes in England, unless they were granted in connection with some religious denomination, adopted a wholly different course in Ireland. The necessity of associating education with religion had been recognized and enforced by every English statesman. The principle had been extended to the Colonies, and, with the solitary exception of Ireland, it was maintained in every portion of Her Majesty's dominions. In that country, however, where the three religious bodies, Presbyterian, Protestant, and Catholic, equally dissented from the Government plan, a narrow-minded system of mixed education was forced upon them by those very Liberal Members who talked loudly in the House and elsewhere of toleration and the liberty of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, furnished, doubtless, with statistical fallacies from the portfolios of Dublin Castle, said that in these schools many thousands of Protestants and Catholics would be found, but he had altogether failed to show that those Protestants and Catholics were mixed. As an illustration of the fallacy of the argument thus put forward, he might mention in the county of Cork alone there were 67,000 children in attendance on the national schools, but of these 700 only were Protestants. He hoped the House, by the division that was about to take place, would mark its sense of the necessity existing for inquiry. It was not, however, a mere question of inquiry into statistical results. The people of Ireland came to Parliament asking for that which the wisdom of Parliament had repeatedly sanctioned. They asked for a system of public instruction in which religious teaching might be to erated. They declared that they had conscientious scruples which were outraged by the secular policy of the so-called National Board. A political party that boasted of its Liberal principles forced that secular instruction on the people. In these days it would seem that the definition of a Liberal was a man who en-
  2078
  deavoured to force his own particular opinions on those who differed from him. The Liberals will not tolerate real liberality. When they say, "We believe in mixed education, and insist upon having no other," the Irish people reply, "We are ready to accept that system for any persons who may prefer it; but we desire to have, in. addition, a system of religious instruction for any others who, in their consciences, deem such instruction advisable: in a word, we desire Freedom of Education."
  MR. BUTTin reply said, the national system had been forced upon the people of Ireland; but, in the Motion he had made, he did not wish to upset the National Board of Education, and it was merely for an address for inquiry. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland alleged that the Primate of Ireland had withdrawn his objections; but the fact was that his Lordship had been shamed into submission by the impossibility of getting education for the Protestant children on any other terms. If the mixed system was good in Ireland, why was it not adopted in England? There had been no justification offered for it by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland; and, as none of the arguments he had offered in support of his Motion had been answered, he must divide the House.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes 62; Noes 196: Majority 134.

PAPER DUTIES REPEAL BILL.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD FERMOY: Sir, I feel that I owe an apology to the House for introducing to its notice a subject of such importance at this late hour of the evening; but, perhaps, the best way in which I can show my gratitude to the House, if I am listened to, will be to make my statement as brief as possible. If this were to be the only occasion upon which this most important question was likely to be discussed in this House, I would not take on myself the responsibility of introducing it at this late hour; but my belief is, that so important is this question, that for the remainder of the Session you will find it springing up in almost every question, and at every stage of your proceedings—and, therefore, as I am performing what I believe to be a duty, namely, asking the House to give its opinion upon a question which I believe to be of very great importance, I am not

  2079
  shutting out other hon. Members, if they choose, from bringing forward, on subsequent occasions, other Motions in reference to this subject. In bringing this subject before the House, my vindication is this, that whatever may be the feeling of the House on this question, there is outside its walls a strong feeling of indignation at the conduct of the other House of Parliament. ["Oh, oh!" from the Opposition.] Of course, I do not expect that hon. Gentlemen opposite will acquiesce in that statement. But let me make this remark in answer to the indications of dissent shown by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that while we can point on our side to numerous meetings held all over the country, calling upon this House to vindicate its rights and privileges, the hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot point to one single meeting in which the opinion was pronounced that the Lords, in the course they took, were right. Now, in the first place, in support of the proposition which I have ventured to lay down, I evidence the meetings which have been held all over the country, and I evidence to you, also, the petitions which have been presented and laid upon the table, signed by over 100,000 persons, all praying that this House may take steps to vindicate its rights and privileges. We had besides that the other day, a meeting held in this Metropolis of delegates from all the large towns in England, at which resolutions were passed calling upon this House to vindicate its privileges. That meeting of delegates consisted of gentlemen from Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Warrington, Norwich, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Oxford, Ipswich, Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne, Leeds, and a number of others, amounting altogether to fifty of the principal towns. Now, what was the unanimous opinion expressed by those gentlemen in meeting assembled? Their first resolution is as follows:—
  "That the House of Commons having affirmed by Resolution that it rests with itself to impose or repeal taxes, in the opinion of this meeting that House would be degraded by giving assent to the base policy of inaction suggested by Lord Palmerston—a policy tending to the surrender of the dearest rights of the people, and one which ought to be denounced as an act of treason against the Constitution."
  The next resolution is to this effect:—
  "That no Government deserves the support of the Liberal party that is not prepared to vindicate the privileges of the Commons, and to secure the rights of the people; and that it is the duty of
  2080
  every Liberal Member of Parliament to urge upon the Government to act up to the spirit of its own Resolutions, and if defeated, to dissolve Parliament and appeal at once to the country."
  The next resolution is to the following effect:—
  "That this meeting tenders its thanks to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone for his able defence of the Constitutional rights of the House of Commons, and relies with confidence on his promise to do everything that is within his power to secure those rights unimpaired."
  The last resolution is to this effect:—
  "That this meeting calls upon every Member of the House of Commons to use any means that its forms allow to prevent the passing of Supplies, or Bills for the appropriation of Supply, until the aggression of the Lords has been defeated and their illegal Vote rescinded."
  Now, that is an indication of feeling, and no doubt a very strong feeling upon this subject, coming as it does from Gentlemen deputed from fifty of the principal towns of England. They have declared that to be their opinion, and as such we are bound to respect it. Then, again, if I refer to an event which has taken place within the last few days—I mean the election for Brighton; the only polling booth opened since the aggression of the Lords, I find the people have there, in a constitutional manner, evinced their opinion in regard to this question. If that be not sufficient vindication for my conduct upon the present occasion, I have only to refer to the declarations which have been made from the Treasury Bench, and made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. That being the case, I feel that whether I look to the feeling out of doors of the people generally, in public meeting assembled, or in sending delegates to meetings, or I look to the result of the only election that has taken place since the aggression of the Lords, I am warranted in saying that whatever may be the fate of the present Motion in this House, outside the House a large majority of the people will give it their sanction and support.
  Now, having made these few remarks in vindication of the course which I have thought proper to take, let me come directly to the point. What I propose to establish, if I can, are these two propositions—"That the rejection by the House of Lords of the Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duties is an infringement on the rights and privileges of the House of

  2081
  Commons—and that it is, therefore, incumbent upon the House to adopt a practical measure for the vindication of its rights and privileges." With regard to the first proposition, I can promise the House that I will not weary them with going into precedents. I think that has been already fully, amply, and satisfactorily settled in this House. We have had, first and foremost, a Committee chosen from among the most experienced men in this House, for the purpose of searching for precedents bearing on this subject, and that Committee having reported, three Resolutions framed upon their Report were submitted to the House by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury. Those Resolutions were unanimously adopted by the House, and I, for one, do not regret the step which I then took to procure their unanimous adoption. These Resolutions are based upon your investigations into the precedents, and I base my argument tonight upon the first and third of them. If I can prove my case by a reference to them, I shall have no necessity, nor is it my intention, to refer at all to the precedents. I take the first Resolution proposed by the noble Lord, which lays down clearly and comprehensively enough to satisfy me as to the extent of our rights and privileges. The first Resolution says:—
  "That the right of granting Aids and Supplies to the Crown is in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their constitution; and the limitation of all such Grants, as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, is only in them."
  Let us see what has been the history of the Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duties in this House, and of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that Budget there were introduced two questions, to which alone it is necessary that I should now refer. One was the repeal of the paper duties; the other the addition to the income tax. We assented in this House to the repeal of the paper duties. He proposed to us, and we adopted, to make up the gap in his Budget, an additional penny in the income tax. In that way we sent the Budget up to the Upper House. We repealed the paper duties because we considered them to be an impediment to trade and commerce, and a tax upon knowledge. But no matter on what reasons we did that, and in that way we sent the Budget up to the Upper House. What was done there? The Lords adopted the addition to the income tax, but rejected the Bill which was to relieve the
  2082
  consumers of paper of a million and a quarter of taxation. I say that was a manifest and a clear interference with our rights and privileges. Because I ask how it can be said now that the right to grant Supplies is in the Commons alone as an essential part of their constitution, and that the limitation of all such grants, as to matter, manner, measure, and time is also in them. How can that be said, when, not only as to the matter, but as to the manner and the time, the Lords have interfered and altered a measure referring to the taxation of the country?
  There is another point which ought not to be overlooked. Our proposition not only shifted the burthen of taxation from one set of shoulders to another, but altered the form and character of the tax, because for an excise duty on paper, which was a permanent tax, we substituted a penny income tax, which is a terminable tax. Therefore, in that respect, the Lords have interfered not only in the matter, but in the time and the specialty of the tax, as well as with the amount of the exemption. The Act of the House of Peers thus completely invaded and deranged our privileges and rights, even as laid down in the first Resolution which we passed unanimously within the last fortnight.
  The next question then—and a very reasonable and natural question—is as to the remedy which is to be proposed. To that question I do not shrink from giving the best answer I can. But before doing so, I may be allowed to repeat what I said last night, that a considerable, although not an insuperable difficulty, has been placed in our way by the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, since the aggression of the Lords, dealt with the taxation of the country. It is quite clear, however, that if the rejection of the Paper Duties Bill by the Lords is an aggression upon our rights and privileges, the best way, in my mind, if not the only way, to redress it is to send them back the Bill again. The third Resolution, to which I have already alluded, points out, although perhaps not very clearly, the proper manner of doing so. It is this:—
  "That, to guard for the future against an undue exercise of that power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over Taxation and Supply, this House has in its own hands the power so to impose and remit Taxes, and to frame Bills of Supply, that the right of the Commons as to the matter, man-

  2083
  ner, measure, and time, may be maintained inviolate."
  As I read that, it means that for the future,—for I admit that it only deals with the future while asserting a principle which can apply to the present—if you think the Lords are about to interfere unfairly or unjustly with your rights and privileges as regards taxation, you can so draw your Bills and frame them, that the Lords shall not be able to touch them. The meaning of that I take to be, that you can incorporate with a Money Bill the repeal of the paper duties. I may be unfortunately suspected of being rather disposed to propose strong measures upon a subject of the kind, but I am merely giving my own opinion, and the Resolution which I propose does not bind anybody as to the means to be adopted. If the Resolution were carried by the House, the proper persons to carry it out and to prepare the fitting measures to the House would be Her Majesty's Government. I merely give my own opinion because I do not wish to shirk the question. What I should do would be this. We know by experience that the Lords have not always been right upon other questions. It has been usual in the history of the country, when the two Houses differed upon any important political question—when this House adopted a particular line or a particular Bill, and the other House rejected it—to give the House of Lords a locus penitentiœ, and send up again the Bill they have rejected. One of the best features of the manner in which the Lords dealt with this question was, that when they rejected this Bill they believed the feeling of the country was with them. That, I repeat, is so far a very good and cheerful feature. Now, suppose we can show, after a full and fair discussion of the question in this House, and out of it, that the feeling of the country is strong against the Lords, not on the question of finance, but as respects their dealing and interfering with our rights and privileges in reference to taxation—why, then, I say, by sending back the Bill again pure and simple, you may give the Lords an opportunity of passing it, as they passed the Reform Bill, the Catholic Emancipation Bill, and the Jewish Relief Bill, after many previous rejections of those measures. That is the constitutional course, and I, for one, should feel disposed to adopt it.
  If it be said that the Lords would not pass it, we can then go, if needful, the
  2084
  further step, and incorporate the Bill with, some Money Bill which the Lords cannot touch. But I repeat that it is not my business to show what the Government ought to do; all I have to do is to show that I have a policy and opinion of my own. Unless something be done the three Resolutions, which are good enough for the future, as an assertion of our rights and privileges are perfectly useless on the present occasion. I hope, and indeed I assume, that I shall have the sanction and support of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Upon all subjects he has the happy gift of speaking forcibly and clearly, but if there was anybody through the whole length and breadth of the land who spoke clearly and boldly upon the subject it was the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told us, in words to which I cannot refer now, that it was the duty of this House to take action. He expressed a desire to know under what form of constitution we were living when we submitted to this aggression of the Lords. I repeat, then, that if we do not take action, we complicate the matter very much, for it will be a precedent against us hereafter. The Report of the Committee recounts the Paper Duties Bill as one of the very Bills which the Lords rejected, and unless we take active means to restore our position on the constitutional ground, this will be pointed at as a precedent hereafter.
  I may be told that the course I am taking is not a politic one. That is unfortunate, but I am not to blame for it. The question is, whether what I am proposing is clear, and a straightforward and a fair way of dealing with the question. I believe that on this, as on all other occasions in life, the best policy is honesty. Therefore, although I may not be successful to-night, or this Session, I hold that it is the duty of us who are the popular party in this country to take the course which we believe to be just to preserve and vindicate our rights, and if we fail, then let the responsibility be upon the shoulders of those who, although professing in principle the same views, will not go into the lobby, with us upon this question. If this policy be bad, I say that they have made it bad by their pusillanimity. Therefore I repudiate the language held as to the policy of the Motion which I, as a very humble individual, am bringing forward upon the present occasion. There is nothing so essential to the greatness of

  2085
  England and the durability of her representative institutions as that public men should keep faith with the public. I want to know, for one, whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the present state of things. I want to know from the Treasury benches whether, looking back to the occurrences of the last month or two, beginning with the aggression of the Lords, and the rejection of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill, and going down to the adoption of the three Resolutions, they are satisfied that the House, as regards their rights and privileges, are placed in as satisfactory a position as before the rejection of this Bill by the Lords. I say, for one, that my belief is that it is not. I say that your three Resolutions do nothing to redress our position. It is a great deal, I admit, to have got that first Resolution by a unanimous vote in this House. It was never my fate to be present before in this House at a unanimous vote on a great question, and, therefore, I voted on that occasion with great pleasure. But, to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "You must take action." Unless you do that, you will have done nothing as regards the present case. Now, Sir, I promised the House that I would he short in my address. Had I been fortunate enough to have got up earlier in the evening, I might have been more diffuse; but I say this, in concluding, that I believe out of doors you will find that the people every day are turning their attention more and more to this subject. My belief is, that every day it is gaining importance in the public mind. They will soon see that which is patent to the minds of, at least, every man near me, that the rights and privileges of the people of this country and of this House are identical. Our forefathers suffered to maintain the rights of this House against the aggressions of the Crown. Happily, we live now under a Monarch who will never make an aggression upon the rights of the people or of the Commons; but there is another aggression which has been made by the hereditary branch of the Legislature. It is our duty to walk in the steps of our forefathers, and, if necessary, to make sacrifices, as they made them, to vindicate the rights and privileges of the Commons of England.
  MR. WHITEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That the rejection by the House of Lords of the Bill for the repeal of the Paper Duties is an
  2086
  encroachment on the Rights and Privileges of the House of Commons; and it is therefore incumbent upon this House to adopt a practical measure for the vindication of its Rights and Privileges."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I hardly think that my noble Friend could seriously intend to call upon this House to enter upon the large and important question to which his Resolution relates,—beginning, as he did, at half-past eleven at night. My noble Friend, no doubt, was anxious, to record, in a manner more formal than he thought fit to do on the debate on the Resolutions I had the honour to propose, his opinions and sympathies on the question between the two Houses of Parliament. I do not quarrel with my noble Friend for taking this opportunity of recording his individual opinions; but I would humbly submit to the House that, after the grave and serious discussion which took place on this great and important question on a former occasion, it is not desirable to stir again in the matter at the present moment. The House, I think, may be well content to rest on the Resolutions it has adopted. Moreover, I would venture to submit that the first proposition of my noble Friend is little more than an echo of that which the House has already affirmed; while his second proposition points to a result which my noble Friend is not himself prepared to indicate. It is not enough for my noble Friend to say that if the House agrees to his Resolution, he throws on the Government the responsibility of discovering what he intended to suggest, and of carrying into effect his undefined and unexplained intentions. I beg to decline, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, the task which my noble Friend wishes to impose on them. As I stated on a former occasion, in answer to a question, I am well satisfied to rest on the Resolutions which the House has affirmed. I believe those Resolutions sufficiently record our opinions as to our own rights and privileges, and point out for the future the means to which we may have recourse, if necessary, to assert and make good those privileges and those rights. I shall not enter now into the subject, or detain the House longer from coming to a decision on the matter. I shall at once move the previous question, being of opinion that my noble Friend has not shown his usual judgment in introducing this subject on the present occasion; and that it is fitting the House should decline to enter further

  2087
  on the discussion of the question. Sir, I beg to move the Previous Question.
  Whereupon Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he could not compliment the noble Lord on the speech he had just addressed to the House. It seemed to him that in the crisis of a revolution which the Conservatives had originated, the noble Lord had not shown proper respect to the House in dismissing a grave and important subject like this in a few sentences, and condescending to use as an argument against the Resolutions the late hour at which they were introduced. He wanted to know whether it was come to this, that the head of the Government, the leader of the Liberal party, could afford to treat the gravest interests of the House of Commons in this jaunty manner, as if of no consequence whatever. They had passed Resolutions which had met with the cordial acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—the leader of the country gentlemen of England—and which manifestly conveyed a censure on the House of Lords in the course they had pursued. Yet no action had been taken to indicate the rights of the Commons, and to resist the imposition of a heavy tax against their will. He complained of almost everybody in the House. [Laughter.] That might sound very ridiculous, but such was his feeling. He complained of himself as well as of the rest. He blamed himself for having let the China Vote go two nights since. They were never told whether that money was for the first China war or for the second, or for the Persian war. The accounts had not been made up for some years, and the Government could not or would not reveal the object of the Vote. That was only another sample of the treatment the House received. He had often heard it said in private that the noble Viscount was a Tory, and he had done what he could to defend him from that accusation. But whether the noble Viscount were a Tory or a Radical, it was clear that a serious aggression had been perpetrated on the liberties of the country and the privileges of the Commons, with impunity as far as the noble Lord was concerned. He had a right, too, he thought, to complain of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At his instigation they voted a most unpopular tax—a 1d. of addition to the income tax, when their
  2088
  constituents expected a reduction of at least 3d. They consented to do that in the hope that they would at least effect the removal of an objectionable tax, which could not exist longer without giving rise to litigation. The noble Lords in "another place" rejected that measure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended, and they all heard the right hon. Gentleman come down to the House and denounce the proceedings of the House of Lords in language on the verge of revolutionary—language almost as strong as any that was used at Chartist meetings out of doors. Their feelings were aroused by his eloquent invective; they sympathized with his demand for "action." But to what a lame, impotent conclusion had the matter been brought, when the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House last night, and swallowing his indignation and putting his tail between his legs, accepted the act of the House of Lords? He entertained a sincere respect for the noble Lord the Member for London, but he regretted exceedingly that he was not out of office at this time. If the Conservatives had been on the Treasury bench, and the Liberals in Opposition, what an eloquent vindication of constitutional privileges and denunciations of the conduct of the Lords would they not have had! He could not possibly overrate the importance of the present crisis. He could not disguise from himself that something had gone out of them—that some privilege, some power had been lost, and yet this only roused the mirth of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Was it come to this, that the loss of a valuable right, which would influence the destinies of their country for all time, was only cause for laughter? He did not scruple to say, and he said it with premeditation, that he would rather the French occupied Yorkshire at that moment than that this had happened. If the French were in Yorkshire, they might look with confidence to their being very soon removed; but he had no hope that the precedent laid down by the House of Lords, and acquiesced in by the House of Commons, could be as readily got rid of. An eloquent writer on the Constitution of England said, that what to-day was a fact to-morrow was a precedent, and the next day a law. They had gravely set to work to make a law of this proceeding of the Lords, and he could not compliment them on their handiwork. Though little was said about this matter out of doors then, the day would come

  2089
  when they would hear more of it. He could not compliment hon. Gentlemen opposite on their logic when they cheered because it was mentioned that there was not much feeling in the country, as though the House of Lords must be right on that account. Suppose the House of Lords had many years ago by an Act abolished the corn laws as far as they were concerned, would that circumstance alone have induced hon. Gentlemen opposite to acquiesce in such a proceeding? It might be all very well for those who wished to make things pleasant to pass this question by; but that would not do for those who were not represented in that House. They were now very much in the position of France before the Revolution, when she had a narrow suffrage and general corruption. The people out of doors were aware of this, and believed there was scarcely a public contract which was not in some way dealt with as a job. Men asked whether things would be worse if they had a larger suffrage. And though, perhaps, no very definite mode of action was perceived, the day was not far off when there would be a great disturbance arising out of these affairs. He sincerely believed he was acting as a true Conservative in recommending the House of Lords as soon as possible to retrace their steps, for now they would stand responsible for every calamity of a financial character that might happen to this country. Yes—he repeated that by interfering as they had done with the management of the finances, the House of Lords had made themselves responsible for every disaster which might follow from their meddling. They ought, therefore, to come down in sackcloth and ashes to retract their unjustifiable proceeding.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that the hon. Baronet objected to the position of this question as furnishing a precedent for the course taken by the House of Lords. It was precisely on these grounds that he (Mr. Clay) deeply regretted the Motion of his noble Friend, not that he took a lower estimate than did the noble Lord of the importance of the subject with which that Motion dealt. It was the most important which had agitated the House since he had been a Member of it—not that he felt less keenly than the noble Lord, or than any man in the country, the position of humiliation in which the Commons rested under the attack and premeditated insult of the House of Lords; but because he was convinced that the blow aimed by the noble Lord would be
  2090
  weak and impotent, would fall short of the object he wished to strike, and would be the increase and the record of their shame. The traditionary power of the House of Commons depended on the support of the people whom they represented, and it was useless to conceal the fact that in this matter the people were not heartily with them. The majority out of doors believed that the refusal of the House of Lords to repeal the paper duty was financially wise. This was not his opinion. He gave his adhesion to the wisdom of that repeal; but it was the very general belief. Popular opinion never took nice distinctions, and in this case the people refused to separate the question of the financial sagacity of the House of Lords from that much more important question the violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Had his noble Friend never heard the Scotch motto which taught him to "bide his time"? He (Mr. Clay) was content to bide his in the confident assurance that no distant time would bring the opportunity, when, with the support of an enthusiastic people, the House of Commons might recover the position which for a time it had lost. Meanwhile, he considered the Motion of his noble Friend was in every way mischievous. It damaged the question of paper duty repeal, for repealers on the opposite benches would on this occasion naturally vote against his noble Friend, and the division list would be no accurate indication of the number of hon. Members who were in favour of the repeal of the Excise duty on paper. Still more did it damage the position of the House of Commons in its quarrel with the House of Lords. For what was this position? At present the Resolutions which they had passed were a protest—weak and insufficient it was true-—but a protest, more or less, that the House of Lords had violated the spirit of the Constitution, and, at least, there was no confession on their records that a majority in the Commons was not of this opinion. But the defeat of the Motion of the noble Lord—and its defeat was certain—made history and a precedent, and it would stand for ever and a day recorded on their Journals, that in 1860 a large majority of the House of Commons had decided that the House of Lords, in its rejection of the Bill for the repeal of the paper duty, had not "encroached on their rights and privileges." Was it not madness to invite such a record by this unhappy and ill-advised

  2091
  Motion. But there were other grounds on which also he objected to it. The most careless observer suspected that this unfortunate quarrel had caused difficulties—it might be differences in the Cabinet. Was it wise in hon. Gentleman below the gangway, by such a Motion as this, to increase those difficulties, probably most keenly felt by those Members of the Cabinet who more especially represented and sympathized with the opinions of the Radicals? If these difficulties were to become insuperable—which he, and many others on the same benches, would sincerely deplore—did not the Radical party owe to these right hon. Gentlemen to leave them the judges of the manner and the time when these differences should be insisted on, lather than to challenge them to a vote, which they might have some—though he hoped no invincible—scruple in avoiding, although they must feel it to be most inopportune. His noble Friend would perhaps say, what matter if the Government does break up. The fall of the Government might not very seriously matter to the Radical party; but it did matter seriously in what way the Government fell. Let hon. Members below the gangway remember for a moment the origin of the present Government. It was an experiment to try whether an administration, fulfilling the conditions of strength and permanence, which the country in the present state of Europe imperatively demanded, could be formed by a union of all sections of the Liberal party. It must be confessed that up to the present time that experiment had not been a very happy one. If he was asked where was the fault, he would say that which it is safe to state of all domestic quarrels, that there were faults on both sides. The Radicals complained that there was some want of the sympathy and consideration on the part of the Government for their position and opinions, which they had a right to expect. Should he give an instance? The Home Secretary, when he gave up the obnoxious clause in the Census Bill, might have done it with a better grace, and might have spared them a speech which, though clever and amusing, smacked too much of the lecture of a college Proctor to be very palatable to grown-up men. A few days before this, the first Minister, in answering a question on this same subject, might have conveyed his answer in some twenty courteous words, rather than in a dozen of very scant courtesy. But more than
  2092
  this, when the noble Viscount introduced his celebrated Resolutions, he might surely, out of consideration for the strong views entertained on the subject by his Radical supporters, have given to his speech some of the vigour which those Resolutions wanted. The effect of that speech, on the contrary, was most unhappy on the Liberal Members, and whatever little starch there was in the Resolutions was effectually washed out of them by the speech of the noble Lord. On the other hand, they, the Radicals, were much too ready, when the Government did not agree with them, to jump up with their denunciations that the Whigs—to use an Un-parliamentary phrase—were "throwing them over," and to remind them, somewhat ungenerously, that they kept their places solely by Radical support. These differences were small and undignified, therefore they were the more easily reconciled. The measures of the Government had been on the whole as liberal as they could fairly expect, and he must remind his Friends that if they believed that the compact between themselves and the Whigs was to be carried out by the Whigs turning Radicals, they looked to a one-sided bargain very little creditable to their sagacity to hope for—still less creditable to Whig honesty to have performed. The motto of their union should be, "Bear and forbear." If, then, the Government fell from the open attack of legitimate foes on the opposite benches, it would matter little to the interests of the Liberal party—they would be as united as ever—at least as ready to renew a league which would not have been proved to have failed. But if, on the other hand, the breaking up of the Cabinet arose from differences among the different sections of the Liberal party of which it was composed, it would be taken as a confession that the experiment of union had failed; that the Whigs and Radicals could not lie in the same bed, and the demand of the country for a strong and permanent Administration would be supplied by a new combination of parties, which would inevitably be unfavourable to the advance of Liberal opinions. For the reasons he had given he should upport the Previous Question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I entirely concur, Sir, in the propriety and wisdom of the course which has been proposed by my noble Friend near me (Viscount Palmerston), and I like-

  2093
  wise join in the regrets that have been expressed with regard to the conclusions to which the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone arrived when he thought it his duty to submit this Motion to this House, and to submit this Motion upon a subject of such gravity and importance, when the hand of the clock was approaching the hour of midnight. But, Sir, I cannot refuse to state the reasons why I shall support the Motion of my noble Friend, after the allusions which have been made to me by the noble Lord. When the noble Lord, feeling I dare say the difficulties of his position, which are not to be dissembled, was disposed to throw the responsibility for a portion of those difficulties, on the statement with respect to the financial demands of the public service which I made last night, I must say I think it would have been most improper on my part, both as respects the one side of the House and as respects the other, if I had not made it my sincere and honest purpose, in submitting that statement to the House, to leave the great constitutional question that has been opened within the last few weeks precisely as I found it. I do not think it my duty—I think, on the one hand, it was entirely at variance with my duty—to use that occasion for the purpose either of taunt or accusation against any man or body of men. I think, on the other hand, I should have been wrong if I had placed that statement in such a form as to weaken the position of the noble Lord and others with whom in principle I agree. I therefore think undoubtedly it was right to state, what I could not have avoided stating without absurdity, that a sum of money was in the Exchequer, in consequence of a vote of the House of Lords, and available for the services of the year—the estimate of which I made as nearly and as faithfully as I could. But, lest I should be unjustly accused of having receded from the opinions I had expressed, and which I conscientiously entertain, I spoke of that sum of money proceeding from the paper duties, and of the question of the repeal of the paper duties, as a matter dependent—which I believe it to be dependent—upon the pleasure of the British House of Commons. Now, Sir, that was the position in which I sincerely and humbly sought to leave the question without prejudice; and therefore, do not let the noble Lord state that he is placed in any difficulty because of expressions used or proposals made last night.
  2094
  With respect to the Motion of the noble Lord I concur entirely in the opinion that it is not fitting for this House to pronounce an opinion on the matter; and for these reasons. As has been stated by my noble Friend near me, the first portion of the Motion is but a repetition, in a form slightly more combative, of that which, as he thinks, and as I think, the House has in substance already assented to. With regard to the second part of the Motion, I confess I entertain to it more serious objections. The second part of that Motion suggests that it is incumbent upon the House to adopt a peculiar measure for the vindication of its rights and privileges. Now, Sir, to what does that declaration amount? It amounts to so many words and to nothing more than words. It does not advance the House one inch towards any practical solution of the question, but it goes to the country at large on the principle of being in earnest without any real pledge or guarantee for our sincerity or our Resolutions upon it. Sir, so far as words are concerned, it appears to me that upon this occasion we have used them in sufficiency. The words proposed by my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) in his third Besolution—words which were adopted unanimously by this House—were well adapted for the purpose, and being well adapted for the purpose ought not to be loaded with surplusage. It is no slight matter for this House to take new steps on a subject of this gravity. We ought not to proceed to accumulate Resolutions upon Resolutions. We have said all, in my opinion, that we can safely say. What remains is the question, whether we can safely proceed to action? If we can proceed to action by some measure for which we think the House is prepared, or on which we can induce it to act, then let that issue be raised; but do not let us give new promises of action which, after all, are mere declarations, and with respect to which I would even say they are scarcely honest promises so long as we speak of action vaguely in the abstract, instead of pointing—which would be difficult to do—to some positive and practical method of proceeding, whereby this House might bring to an issue the question on which its attention has been engaged. It is all very well for the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone—it sounds very well in the House; it will read very well to-morrow morning in the newspapers; and I have no doubt it will continue his

  2095
  popularity—for I have, indeed, no doubt of the public sentiments on this subject—in the important borough he represents, when it is found that, at all events, there was one chivalrous Gentleman who stood up in this House and said that, for his part, he thought, in difficulties in policy, honesty was the best policy:—
  "My voice is still for open war, Of wiles more inexpert I boast not."
  But still, Sir, the test to which every Motion made in this House, and every speech ought to be brought, is its tendency to advance the public interest according to the conviction of this House and of the hon. Members who make it. I cannot say that it appears to me that, to pass a further Resolution on the subject where we have already resolved everything that the subject requires, would in any degree advance the public interests. We have, as is well said by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, made a temperate but deliberate statement of what we conceive to be constitutional doctrine on this subject. I agree with him it is open for any one to put his own construction on Resolutions in which he has concurred. We have no authoritative expositor in this House who has a right to bind the rest. We have agreed to a constitutional protest against what has been done by the other House, and if that protest has been made in terms of which the noble Lord did not disapprove, it will not be desirable and will not maintain the real dignity of this House to multiply protests of that character. The only choice, in my judgment, that now remains to us is to choose between action on the one hand and silence upon the other. On that account, Sir, I entirely concur in the Motion of my noble Friend near me, which, not pronouncing any opinion on the abstract merits of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, relieves the House from the embarrassment in which it would be placed by being compelled to record a judgment on that proposition. I do not think it is an occasion upon which it is my duty to enter upon the merits of the question. On a recent occasion I expressed in warm and in strong language what I feel upon that subject. There is much more which upon a fitting occasion might be said, for all that has been said does not, in my opinion, express half of the difficulties, the dangers, and the practical embarrassments of the vote which, under the name and notion of financial wisdom, was lately passed by the
  2096
  House of Lords. It is not my duty to enter unnecessarily upon topics of an irritating character, at a period when it is impossible for us to discuss them with the hope of arriving at any practical result. Therefore, simply reserving my personal freedom to state again what I think to be the constitutional, and, as the hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny) has said, emphatically, the Conservative doctrine with regard to this matter, I think that our proper course now is to decline a multiplication of these verbal declarations, which, if multiplied out of place, degenerate into mere verbiage. The Motion of my noble Friend is excellently suited for that purpose, and I heartily concur in and shall cheerfully support it.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: If I understand the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer aright it amounts to this, that, after having excited the noble Lord to move this additional Resolution, after having called the proceedings of the House of Lords a gigantic innovation, he is willing when he finds himself pressed for money to put all this in his pocket and to defer all considerations of constitutional necessity. I am in this position—I concur neither with the right hon. Gentleman, nor with my noble Friend the Member for Marylebone. The right hon. Gentleman now defines the difference between silence and action; but who was it that, forgetting the silence that was imposed upon him, got up and urged the House to action? It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in a speech which we all remember, called for immediate action. If not for immediate action, at least for action; but now he adheres to silence. He is now, forsooth, performing that military movement which all hon. Gentlemen connected with the army know—marking time. How long that marking time is to continue he alone knows. At any rate, I know that I have been astonished at the speech he has made. I think it is a complete answer to the statement of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), that there are chances of differences in the Cabinet. I think my hon. Friend will be convinced that there are no such chances. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is content to remain in office and mark time, and wait until the occasion for action arrives. Having said so much, I must add that I never felt more satisfied at abstaining from any vote

  2097
  than I do at my abstinence from supporting the repeal of the paper duty after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, because I think he convincingly proved that at the time he moved the repeal of that duty he was totally ignorant how the finances of the country stood. I say so much in justice to my own views, which from the first were opposed to the repeal of the paper duty. I make this complaint against the right hon. Gentleman, that he has placed me in this awkward position, that, agreeing with those who opposed the repeal of that duty, I am against my own will placed in conflict with the action of the House of Lords upon this question. I think that the House of Lords acted correctly and prudently, but I think that they acted unconstitutionally. That is not a position in which any Member of this House ought to be placed by a Minister of the Crown. But—what is more—this House acted wrongly upon that occasion, because I am well aware that there was a great majority of its Members who were opposed to the repeal of the paper duty. And when hon. Members talk about lowering this House—what lowered it was the House abstaining from coming to a direct vote upon that question. Many hon. Members stayed away. They threw the responsibility upon the Lords, and now they come forward and abuse the Lords for accepting it. We have been told that "honesty is the best policy." I believe that a man most advances the character of this House by telling the truth upon all occasions, and by acting upon the proverb which has been so aptly quoted by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. So much for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I now come to the Resolution—it is nothing more than a Eesolution—of my noble Friend. On the same grounds on which I objected to the three Resolutions of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, I object to the fourth Resolution of my noble Friend. To be sure, I give my noble Friend this credit—that his Resolution is expressed in intelligible and grammatical language; but it is nothing more than a Resolution, and in moving it, at the same time that he talks of practical measures for the vindication of the rights and privileges of the House, he tells us that each Member may put any gloss that he pleases upon it. He has no more intention of acting upon this Resolution than the noble Lord the First Minister had of acting
  2098
  upon his. My noble Friend represents a highly important, wealthy, and intelligent constituency. I repeat it—there are few constituencies so noble, so informed, and so wealthy as Marylebone; and I have no doubt that the noble Lord is giving expression to the sentiments of many of his constituents; but, with great consideration for him and for them, I must say that his Motion is singularly ill-timed. For what was the course of the noble Lord upon a recent occasion, and I think the most proper occasion for the expression of his views—that on which these Resolutions were moved by the noble Lord at the head of the Government? The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had given notice of an Amendment in these terms:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased not to Prorogue the present Parliament until a Bill passed by this House for the Repeal of the Excise Duty on Paper has been submitted to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent."
  I do not know what the noble Lord's idea of a practical measure is, but if there could be a practical measure that was one. What, however, did the noble Lord do? He had been chairman of a meeting of what was called the great Liberal party, and I am informed by those who were there that the great Liberal party on that occasion amounted in number to twenty-two. He got up and asked the hon. Member for Finsbury to withdraw his Amendment. The hon. Member for Finsbury, with that good sense which always characterizes him, withdrew his Motion, under the impression that it was really at the request of the great Liberal party; but what happened then? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), in a speech which even those who differed from him must admit to have been one of great merit and ability, moved a most temperate Amendment—an Amendment which might, I think, have been supported with perfect consistency by the noble Lord and those who agree with him. He was requested to withdraw that Amendment. It was supposed that we must all be what the noble Lord called unanimous, and I do not see what we have gained by our unanimity. But there is another Member for Marylebone besides the noble Lord, and one who has as sound views upon the constitution of the country as any man in this House. He had placed upon the paper an Amendment in terms stronger than those of the Motion

  2099
  of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, but he was not allowed by the Chairman of this great Liberal party, which met in the tea-room, to move it. I was amazed at all this. I had come down to the House to support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, or that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Edwin James). But what do I find now? I find that after the lapse of ten days my noble Friend, actuated, no doubt, by the best and the most patriotic motives, moves this Resolution—moves it, I am ready to admit, in a temperate, well argued, and good speech; but why did not he make that speech on the former occasion? Has the distinction between silence and action appealed to his feelings too! Why did not he support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, or that of his hon. and learned Colleague? In what a position we are placed! We have got nothing but these four Resolutions,—those three miserable Resolutions which were agreed to the other night, and this fourth one, upon which its Mover tells us that we may put what gloss we like. Under these circumstances, having voted against the Resolutions of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, I cannot support that of my noble Friend. We who voted in the minority upon the previous occasion should, if we supported this Motion, place ourselves in a most miserable and contemptible position. I can well understand the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny). That goes to the point. I can understand it, although I cannot agree with the speech which he has made tonight. I think that he made a great mistake with regard to this House, and was unjust to the character of public men in this country, when he adduced the instance of the French Chamber. Whatever electoral corruption there may be in this country, I take it upon myself to say that the character of public men on both sides of this House is above impeachment and above the breath of slander. I much regret that my hon. Friend should have adduced that example, because I believe that, whatever may be the faults of our constitutional system, no man, either in or out of this House, can say that any breath of slander can attach to any public man in this country. To go back to the material question before the House, I must say that I am placed in a most awk-
  2100
  ward position. I have heard the speech of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. His action is deferred; he is evidently standing at case. I do not know what we are to look to from him, but I cannot vote for the proposition of my noble Friend the Member for Marylebone. I wish he had left things as they were or voted for the Amendment of his hon. and learned Colleague. As it is, I think, he is placing us in a ridiculous position, and to avoid that I am obliged to fly to that general refuge, the Previous Question.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that whatever might be the opinion of the House with reference to the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, he could not but think that in the opinion not only of the House, but of the country, attacks upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came with a bad grace from the part of the House in which he had the honour to sit. He was one of those who had deliberately recorded his vote in favour of the repeal of the paper duty, and he had seen nothing which induced him to change his opinion as to the expediency of that vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brought forward his great and comprehensive Budget—the soundness of which would be vindicated by time—brought it forward in a speech of unanswerable logic, and throughout loyally supported it. He could not say that the support which it received from the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues was equally cordial. If the two noble Lords who were well known to exercise a dominant influence in the Cabinet had as loyally supported their colleague as he had loyally vindicated his opinions, he ventured to say that the third reading of the Bill would have been carried by a quite sufficient majority to prevent the Whig followers of the noble Lords from encouraging the Tory party to reverse the decision of the Representatives of the people. He ventured to say that the repeal of the paper duty would have been an infinite benefit to the people of this country; that the Peers, acting as they had done, had excited a very angry feeling in the minds of the people, and, if the House ventured to interpose between the people and the privileges of the irresponsible part of the Legislature, they would incur the angry vengeance of their constituencies when they again looked to them for support.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the House is placed in a somewhat embarrassing position by the two Motions which have been made from the benches opposite. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) has given us an interesting account of the general state of feeling which pervades those benches. There is a proverb familiar to all of us, which I shall not quote, as to the locality where one should wash one's dirty linen. There might be a controversy whether that operation should take place in private or in public; but I think there can be no doubt that our political dirty linen should, if possible, not be washed in the House of Commons. I heard with great regret the causes of those misunderstandings between the two sections opposite, which hitherto have only been the subject of rumour. Now, that they have been mentioned I would suggest that instead of bringing them under our consideration, there should rather be some meeting held at some other place sufficiently public, where an arrangement might be made to the general satisfaction of the supporters of the Government. Let there be another meeting, for example, at Willis's Rooms. I did not myself expect that in the course of one short year a repetition of such an assemblage would have been necessary; but though annual Parliaments are out of fashion, these annual assemblies appear to be necessary to the maintenance of party discipline among the supporters of the Government. It is to be observed that it is not from questions of high political importance, which concern the public interest and which affect public opinion, that these unhappy misconceptions seem to arise. There is some diminished confidence on the part of the Gentlemen below the gangway, who always style themselves, and I suppose are entitled to be called, the "great Liberal party." There is some diminution of confidence on their part towards Her Majesty's Ministers, not because the question of Parliamentary reform has not been carried to a successful issue, not because church rates have not been abolished, not because that promising programme of administration which was held forth to the admiring gaze of the country a year ago has not been accomplished,—no, it is not in such great questions that these deplorable misunderstandings appear to have their origin, but rather in the absence of that interchange of courtesy, and that general blandness of demeanour to be ex-
  2102
  pected by those who support the Government from those whom they retain in office. In these days, Sir, when an Emperor has not been ashamed of confessing that he is a, parvenu, I am sure the "great Liberal party" will permit me to remind them, without offence, that they themselves are of a rather modern origin, and that, like all great Powers in similar circumstances, they are gifted with a peculiar sensitiveness and a prompt susceptibility which, with a view to success in life, it would be wise on their part to curb. But, whatever may be the cause of the position in which we are placed to-night, I must remind the House that the question before us is a very serious one, and that much depends upon the manner in which we encounter it. We are asked to decide upon the conduct of the House of Lords with respect to a recent transaction upon which I need not dwell, and we are invited to do so in no measured language, and in a Resolution which lays down a very distinct and definite policy. I have listened with great attention to the speeches of both the Ministers who have addressed us in this debate. The noble Viscount the Prime Minister only made a suggestion, by which he himself and his friends might be extricated from an awkward position; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave reason why we should support the suggestion which was made by his chief. The suggestion of the Prime Minister was, that the House should give no opinion upon the Motion made by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone; but the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in support of that suggestion was, in fact, a speech which offered a variety of reasons why we should oppose the Resolution before us. What is that Resolution? We are asked to declare in the most formal manner:—
  "That the rejection by the House of Lords of the Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duties is an encroachment on the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and it is therefore incumbent upon this House to adopt a practical measure for the vindication of its rights and privileges."
  That subject, Sir, has been already under the solemn consideration of the House. The leader of the House proposed three Resolutions upon it, which it is his pride and boast were unanimously supported. Why? Because this House must have thought that they were Resolutions which dealt adequately with the subject That, at least, was the impression that in-

  2103
  fluenced me in giving my vote, and I believe every hon. Gentleman on this side of the House. Those Resolutions asserted the privileges of the House in a manner so complete that even the noble Member for Marylebone says he is perfectly ready to rest his description of our privileges on the language of the first Resolution. Why, then, does he propose another? The Resolution of the Prime Minister asserted our right to originate Supply in this House. The Resolution of the noble Member for Marylebone asserts "That the rejection by the House of Lords of the Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duties is an encroachment on the rights and privileges of the House of Commons." But what was the second Resolution of the Prime Minister? It was an acknowledgment of the right of the Lords to reject such Bills. The Resolution of the noble Member for Marylebone proceeds to say that it is incumbent on us to adopt a practical measure to vindicate our rights and privileges. Sir, I maintain that we have taken adequate and proper measures to assert our rights and privileges, and, therefore, I cannot agree to the Resolution of the noble Member for Marylebone on either of these heads. What is the course we have been counselled to take under these circumstances? On a previous occasion I supported the noble Lord at the head of the Government in the line he recommended, after, of course, due consideration with his colleagues, the House to adopt; and if I were to support a Resolution like the one now before the House, I should stultify everything to which I agreed previously; for, were this Resolution carried it would counteract all the effect of the Resolutions we passed at the instance of the Prime Minister. But what is now recommended by the Government? I was here, and every Gentleman who sits on this side is here, to support the Government in the policy which they had themselves counselled the House to adopt, and which this House, in a generous and confiding spirit, unanimously adopted at their instance; but is that constitutional, and, as I think, adequate settlement of the question, and all that we have done, to be erased and blotted out because an intemperate Resolution is proposed by the noble Member for Marylebone, and because it may suit the convenience of some Member of the Cabinet not to meet the Resolution by a direct negative? Sir, I think that the honour and dignity of the House of Com-
  2104
  mons—I will say the honour and dignity of the Ministry—require that we should stand by the three Resolutions which we passed as an adequate and constitutional settlement of the question in controversy; and that we should not weaken the position we then assumed. If, indeed, the Government were acting on that unwise counsel given some days ago, and were prepared for "action," then we should have, of course, their proposition before us, and we should consider the measure they might recommend; but I thought, after what occurred last night—after the temperate and wise measures which the Government then brought forward—that the Government had felt on due counsel that it was not for them to reopen a controversy which at one moment was menacing, and that they were satisfied that they had taken that temperate and constitutional course which had recommended, and still recommends, I believe, their conduct to all men of moderate and sound opinions in the country. I think that there is no other course to take but a straightforward one in the present instance, and disapproving the Resolution moved by the noble Member for Marylebone, I feel bound to meet it with a direct and unhesitating negative. We occupy no ambiguous position, which may render it necessary or convenient to us to take refuge in the shabbiest of all Motions that can be made. There are, no doubt, occasions when the Motion of the "Previous Question" maybe convenient to the House; but when a question of constitutional interest, concerning the privileges and attributes of both Houses of Parliament, is before us—which question has been recently discussed in all its branches—I think we should be taking a course which the country would never approve, if on this occasion, influenced by none of those reasons which may exercise an influence on other individuals, we take refuge in tortuous conduct and ambiguous language, and did not now uphold that policy which we have hitherto maintained on this question, and offer to the Government, if they are willing to meet the Resolution of the noble Member for Marylebone, that direct support that we have extended to them throughout the whole of this controversy. We ought not to mix ourselves up with a course which, I am sure, the country will never approve, and which no man of spirit, who thoroughly disapproves of the Resolution of the Member for Marylebone, can in his calmer mo-

  2105
  ments look to with any feelings of satisfaction. I am far from wishing that any division should take place which should give anything like a party triumph to Gentlemen on this side on account of the unfortunate dissensions which I trust will now soon pass away, among Gentlemen opposite. There is no reason why the noble Lord at the head of the Government should persist in this Motion of the "Previous Question," which under the circumstances is unusual and unjustifiable, and which, on reflection, I think, he can hardly himself sanction. I feel persuaded that there is at present in the House an overwhelming majority which will support him, if with consistency and spirit he maintains the principles with respect to this question of privilege which he has himself appealed to the House of Commons to assist him in upholding. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will drop that unfortunate proposition of the "Previous Question," and meet the Resolution of the noble Member for Marylebone with a direct negative.
  SIR GEORGE GREYobserved that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had placed a construction on the Motion of his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) to which it was not justly liable. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that his noble Friend wished to evade the question, and leave in uncertainty the expression of the opinion of the House as to the course which had been taken by the House of Lords; but the motive which had actuated his noble Friend in moving the Previous Question was a desire to rest upon the Resolutions which had already been adopted by this House, and maintain the position in which the House then stood in regard to them.
  LORD FERMOY, in reply, denied that his Resolution went no further than those of the noble Lord. The Motion stated that the privileges of this House had been invaded, which the noble Lord had not set forth; and this was followed up by the declaration that the House ought to take some action which would compel the Ministry to propose a practical measure. He was placed in a position of some difficulty by the Amendment which had been moved, but he should, at all events, take the first step towards attaining his object by voting against the Previous Question.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEmoved the adjournment of the Debate.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthought the House had better come to a decision at once upon the Question.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
  Previous Question put, "That that Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 177: Majority 39.

  VOLUNTEERS (IRELAND).—LEAVE.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he felt that he should have to struggle against the opposition of Her Majesty's Government, backed by all the long-existing prejudices and groundless alarms of those English Members who, in the plenitude of their ignorance of Ireland, believed that any attempt to put Irishmen in possession of their national and political rights was fraught with danger to the Constitution, and that neither their loyalty nor their discretion would admit of any portion of them being trusted with arms. The question before the House was neither a religious nor a political one: the Government wished to render it both. It related solely to material Irish interests—possibly to Irish national existence. He did not attach blame to the Government, nor mean to accuse them of a slight to Ireland for not themselves bringing forward a Bill similar to that he was about to ask leave to introduce. It was well known that they were not favourable to the Volunteer movement in this country, and would, had they been able to do so, have crushed it in the bud. Public feeling as to the necessity of preparing for self-defence was too strong for them. They were not only forced to sanction, but compelled to assist in the movement. Rifle corps are now formed throughout Great Britain. With the sanction of the Executive Government, 140,000 are enrolled, and a sense of security has been created through the length and breadth of the land. The formation of a Rifle corps has been sanctioned in the Isle of Man; from Ireland alone is this privilege withheld. Up to the present time he did not consider Government was imperatively called on to take any direct step; the necessity for doing so did not arise until the subject was seriously taken up by the Irish people. The time, however, has arrived. The number of effectives who have already enrolled themselves with the Working Committee, at Dublin, up to Friday, the 13th of July, 1860, is five hundred men. This does not include a large number who are engaged in forming corps in the suburbs,

  2107
  estimated, on Saturday last, to amount to three hundred. Nor does it include the gentlemen of the Civil Service, who wished to form an exclusive corps in the first instance, but whom the working committee expect to enrol, to the number of about three hundred. And the University can turn out seven hundred. In addition to these figures, the Committee have received assurances from the heads of several monster houses in Dublin, that they will equip the young men in their employment, should the sanction of the Government be obtained, and allow a Saturday half-holiday for drill—the number estimated to be, at least, one thousand men. The banks of Dublin are not included in the foregoing estimate, but the committee have learned with certainty that their employés will join the movement, some twenty having been enrolled on Saturday.
  [The hon. Gentleman here read a letter from the Secretary of the Rifle Volunteers in Dublin, showing the numbers who have desired to enrol their names.]
  The offer made by the Civil Service in Dublin to enrol themselves, as has been done here and in Edinburgh, was refused to be accepted, in a letter signed by General Larcom, assigning as a reason that, though the Lord Lieutenant can sanction the embodiment of such corps, by the 42nd Geo. III., cap. 68, the Government have not the power to make rules and regulations for the enrolment and organization of Volunteers in Ireland. Such, however, he had from high legal authority was not the fact, as, by the common law of the land, Her Majesty could accept the services of her subjects under any conditions and legal forms it was her pleasure to adopt; but, as the opinion of the Irish Attorney General, given in reply to a question put by him (Colonel French), appeared to countenance the existence of a legal difficulty, his object in asking leave to introduce his Bill was to remove that impediment. He sought solely to assimilate the law in both countries, to render legal and allowable in Ireland what was now legal and allowable in Great Britain; and he could not see any just grounds on which Government could object to such a course. He sought not to pledge Ministers either to sanction or assist in the formation of Irish Volunteer Corps, but solely to enable them to form, with the sanction of Government, if that sanction was obtained. By hesitating to give their assent to a measure such as this, what were they doing? They were point-
  2108
  ing out to Europe that Ireland was the weakest and least to be depended on portion of the Empire, and doing all in their power, should hostilities arise between England and any of the Great Powers, to subject us to an invasion.
  What was the position in which Ireland would be placed by them, in the event of an invasion of England? As a matter of necessity, all the troops of the Line would be withdrawn from Ireland, and, probably, our 13,000 police force, as it is paid from the Consolidated Fund, would also be called for. Ireland would have to depend on about 40,000 disembodied Militia, if they could be got together. You tell the Continental nations you will neither defend us nor permit us to organize a force for our own defence; that Ireland is the country to invade—"Hit the Irish hard; they have no friends." Notwithstanding all this, my reliance on the loyalty and courage of our people is such, that I confidently assert an invading army will receive in Ireland nothing but hard blows, and that they would not bring away from their shores alive a single man of their force. Volunteer Corps in Ireland, from the expenses of the outfit and other causes, would necessarily only be capable of being formed in our large towns, and, in addition to the assistance they would afford in repelling an invading army, be of the utmost service in rendering those towns places of security for the lives and properties of persons resident in the counties. They would serve as an effectual check in cases of disturbances against bodies of ill-disposed persons, who, in all countries, in cases of invasion, congregate solely for plunder. But even this Her Majesty's Government are not disposed to allow us.
  The objections that have been made to the formation of a Volunteer force in Ireland are threefold:—1st. That the movement would be a sectarian one; that the regiments would be exclusively composed of Protestants. Such, however, would not be the case. Take the chief towns in each of the provinces, and see how it would stand. If Dublin turned out 10,000 men, one half, at least, would be Catholics. Belfast would, he admitted, have a force chiefly Presbyterians; but Cork and Galway would have a very large proportion of Catholics.
  The second objection was leaving arms in their possession—an objection which could not arise, as in Ireland, as it was in England, the arms would be retained in

  2109
  the depôts, and only used at the time of drill.
  The third objection was that, from religious differences, bloodshed must ensue, from bringing together masses of Protesttants and Catholics. His answer to this was, that the very reverse would be the case; that doing so would enable the people to know and esteem each other, as was the case in the embodiment of the Militia; and that it would tend to put an end to those party collisions which were a disgrace to any civilized country. Had it not been for the policy of the Government, so long and so pertinaciously continued, of dividing the Irish people, such a scene as that which has lately occurred at Lurgan would never have taken place. How long was this distrust of Ireland to continue? How long was this system of separating classes and religions to be fostered r By it you have long paralyzed the right arm of England; and he trusted his noble Friend at the head of the Government would not be influenced, by the weakness and want of political foresight of the Chief Governor of Ireland, to suffer it to continue. The loyalty, the determined courage, the physical strength of the Irish people, would enable them to repel any invader. They feared not the power of Prance; what they were apprehensive of was, the timidity of Government, who objected to allow them the means of preparation accorded to every other part of the kingdom; who were weakening the United 'Kingdom, and insulting the Irish Nation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend to Ireland all powers to make rules and regulations for the enrolment and organization of Volunteer Corps which are now by Law applicable to Great Britain."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if the Government had thought that on the whole the formation of Rifle Corps in Ireland was desirable they would themselves have brought in a Bill; but for various reasons which he had had the honour to state the other evening, they did not think it was expedient, and therefore they could not agree to the Motion. It was not from any distrust of the Irish people that they took this course; neither was it because the Government doubted the perfect readiness of Irish Volunteers to fight. The fear was rather that in the absence of an external enemy they might indulge themselves in encounters which would not be exactly sham fights.
  COLONEL DICKSONobserved that every Irishman must regret to hear his countrymen spoken of in the way they had been spoken of by the noble Lord. The noble Lord laboured under a great mistake in thinking there would be danger of their fighting amongst themselves.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he must beg leave to differ from the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French). He was not prepared to say that he would support a Motion which would only arm certain persons in the North of Ireland, and create a distinction he should not like to see.
  COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, the question was one of great importance; and as it was likely to lead to much discussion he would move that the House do adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 28: Majority 33.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Heytesbury—after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Postage (Army and Navy); Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention; Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853) Amendment; Crown Debts and Judgments: Inclosure (No. 2); Conjugal Rights (Scotland).
2a Annuity Tax Abolition (Edinburgh and Montrose), &c; Burial Grounds (Ireland) Act (1856) Amendment; Friendly Societies Act Amendment; Titles to Land (Scotland) Act (1858) Amendment.

ANNUITY TAX (EDINBURGH, MONTROSE, &c.) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he rose with great satisfaction to move that the Bill be read a second time. Five or six attempts had been made to settle by legislation the disputes arising out of this obnoxious tax; but until now none of these measures had reached their Lordships' House, although more than one had received the sanction of the House of Commons to the second reading, and although it had been the anxious desire of successive Governments to settle this disagreeable, and, as far as Edinburgh was concerned, obnoxious question. To such an extent had the ill-feeling occasioned by this tax been carried in Edinburgh that the officers of justice who endeavoured to enforce payment had been assaulted, and criminal prosecutions brought against the aggressors failed from the impossibility of getting a jury to convict them. The ministers of the Established Church in Edinburgh were not, as in England and other parts of Scotland, supported out of the ancient property of the Church, but entirely by a personal tax, upon the occupiers of houses, which was imposed by an Act of the reign of Charles II. It was analogous to ministers money in Ireland, which had recently been abolished. He was ready to admit the truth of the arguments upon the other side, that property was taken subject to the tax; but the impost was growing more and more obnoxious, and the necessity imposed upon clergymen of having recourse to law to enforce payment called for immediate legislation. The Bill satisfactorily accommodated the difficulty by providing from other means the stipend of £600 a year payable to all the existing ministers of Edinburgh and to their successors, whose number was, as vacancies occurred in certain churches, to be reduced by five. As at present levied the tax was very oppressive, and but a portion of the city of Edinburgh was liable to the demand. The whole College of Justice, moreover, was exempted; so that while the lawyers, who formed a very considerable, and by no means the least thriving portion of the population of the city, had nothing to pay, the poorer classes found themselves subject to a tax of 10 d. in the pound. To remedy this grievance, and to provide a substitute, the same sum of £2,000, at present de-
  2014
  rived from the revenues of the Leith Harbour Fund, would be retained; a new arrangement of the moneys received from pew-rents would be made, and the balance would be raised by a fixed rate of 4d. in the pound, which would be collected with the police tax, to obviate those conscientious scruples which certain persons might entertain. The security and permanence of the Established Church would thus be provided for, and a difficulty in the way of every successive Government would be got rid of. The magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh, from whom the noble Marquess opposite had just presented petitions, had been active in urging on various Administrations the necessity of effecting a settlement, but they wholly neglected to suggest a substitute for the tax. Every one of the principles embodied in this Bill had successively received their sanction, and it was with regret and surprise that the learned Lord Advocate learned their determination to oppose it. The Bill had passed the House of Commons by a considerable majority, and all the Scotch Members present, with the exception of two, voted in its favour. He hoped their Lordships would consent unanimously to its adoption, as any Amendments which might now be introduced would endanger its success in the present Session.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that having examined the provisions of the Bill, and watched the spirit in which it had been introduced, he was of opinion that it was an honest attempt to settle a very difficult question. For this reason, therefore, and considering the inexpediency of postponing the settlement of the question, he hoped their Lordships would not endanger the passing of the Bill by introducing any Amendments into it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had represented the city of Edinburgh for some years, and with great pleasure to himself, except for this question of the Annuity Tax, which was the bane of his life. He, along with others, had endeavoured to come to some accommodation on the question, but unsuccessfully; and it was with great pleasure, therefore, that he now saw a Bill introduced which was likely to pass with the approbation of both sides of the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

TITLES TO LAND (SCOTLAND) ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, the best mode of acquainting their Lordships with the previous history of this Bill would be to read a letter which he had received from the Lord Advocate on the subject.
  "The Titles to Land (Scotland) Bill never was discussed in the House of Commons in any of its stages. It is not a party Bill, but a Bill introducing certain legal reforms in conveyancing, on which both sides are substantially agreed, and the general scope of which was the same as one prepared by the Lord Advocate under Lord Derby's Government. Any difference of opinion which ever existed in regard to it, related to incidental details."
  He was glad to say that, whatever party had been in office, there was no diminution in the zeal for legal reform; and he could not but acknowledge that, in this respect, the noble Earl near him had been very fortunate in the selection of his law officers. The Lord Advocate proceeded to say:
  "It was introduced on the 8th of March; it was read a second time on the 20th of March without opposition or discussion of any kind. It met with warm approval and careful consideration from the profession in Scotland. On the 7th of May it was committed, pro forma, to have certain Amendments of my own introduced, without a single word of discussion. It was then reprinted, as amended in Committee; a form which every Member of the House of Commons is aware does not imply consideration or discussion. As reprinted it stood for Committee, and has so remained from that time to the present without a single step of progress. It was on three several morning sittings sent with five other Bills to the same Committee; but of these only two made any progress. The rest, including the Titles to Land Bill, have not yet had a single clause considered; and not one word has been said in the House of Commons on any one of its provisions. I thus found myself, on the 9th of July, with six or seven important Scotch measures, only two of which had even entered Committee. I therefore selected the two purely legal measures which might fitly commence in the Lords; stated in my place in the House of Commons that I withdrew them with the intention of having them introduced elsewhere, and placed them next day in your Lordships' hands. They arrive a fortnight sooner than they could have done, even had it been possible to overtake them in the Commons, and will come down when the overcrowding of the orders in that House has ceased. Before I took this step, I arranged all the clauses with the town-clerks and the superiors in a way which is satisfactory to them; and the question with the local registrars, which is a very subordinate one, is the only point on which, as far
  2016
  as I am aware, any difference of opinion exists in any quarter. I only endeavoured, in very difficult circumstances, to prevent two important measures, which would have met with no other obstruction than fair discussion of their details, from being defeated by want of time; nor can I see that any interest, public or private, has suffered by the course I have pursued. These are the facts, and I think it right that your Lordship should be in possession of them."
  With regard to the Bill itself, in the year 1858 an Act was passed for simplifying the forms and diminishing the expense of completing titles to land in Scotland; but it did not include burgage tenure; and the great object of this Bill was to extend the same legislation to that class of titles. There was a clause which gave advantages to the registration of deeds in Edinburgh, and the local registrars were afraid that it would abstract business from them; but he was happy to say that the Lord Advocate had come to a satisfactory arrangement with them.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he knew nothing of the merits of the Bill. He still thought that the course adopted by the Lord Advocate was not only unusual, but highly irregular, and one that should not be drawn into a precedent. Whatever that irregularity, however, it was nothing as compared with the irregularity of which the noble and learned Lord had just been guilty; because it certainly was the first time that, in reference to any proceedings in that House, a Member of the other House had been furnished, through the medium of a Member of this House, with an opportunity of making a speech to their Lordships, and by the voice of the Lord Chancellor explaining his reasons for adopting a particular course of proceeding. Such a complication of irregularities as bad been effected by the noble and learned Lord in this House, and by the Lord Advocate in the other House, he must say he never recollected in the whole of his Parliamentary experience. With that single observation he would dismiss the question of the Lord Advocate's letter. If the Bill had met with opposition at a particular stage in the House of Commons, it was solely owing to the course which had been pursued by the Lord Advocate himself. It was stated by that learned Lord that the Bill contained the same provisions as the measure of the late Lord Advocate, and which measure met with general approval, although circumstances prevented its passing last year, and it was understood that

  2017
  it would be reintroduced. If the Bill had undergone no discussion in the House of Commons, it was because the Scotch Members were in the habit of facilitating their business more by their action out of doors than in the House; and it was owing to the Lord Advocate having, without an understanding with the Scotch Members, introduced material alterations, that had led to the whole difficulty. Had these alterations and Amendments not been introduced, and had the Bill been carried on as it was originally introduced, no objection would have been raised on either side of the House, and it would long since have come up to their Lordships in the regular course. But the learned Lord chose to introduce a number of Amendments upon which great differences of opinion arose and objections were taken; so that at the time the Bill was withdrawn from the House of Commons, there were four-and-a-half pages of Amendments of which notice had been given. In these circumstances the Lord Advocate withdrew the measure from the House of Commons for the purpose of reintroducing it in this House, and sending it back to the Commons at a late period of the Session. He (the Earl of Derby) might have used the expression that it looked like smuggling a Bill through Parliament. The Lord Advocate rather indignantly repudiated any notion of such an intention, and he was bound to assume that no such intention was entertained; but all he could say was, that if it were desired to smuggle a Bill through Parliament, a more effectual plan could scarcely be devised than to withdraw it from the House of Commons when the Scotch Members were present, to introduce it into this House, and to send it back to the other House in the last few days of the Session, when most of the Scotch Members had left town. He was assured, however, that what had been done had been done in perfect good faith, and he did not hesitate to assume that that was the case. But the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) was very much mistaken and very much misled if he believed that the Bill now lying on the table was the Bill which was withdrawn in the House of Commons, because the Lord Advocate had withdrawn the greater portion of his Amendments and restored the Bill to a form in which it was perfectly satisfactory to the late Lord Advocate. If the same course had been pursued in the other House, there would have been no occasion for any irregularity at all. He acquitted
  2018
  the noble and learned Lord of any desire to obtain an undue advantage; but he could not acquit him of irregularity in the course which he had pursued, still less in the part which he had taken to-night. But, as the Bill was amended, he had no wish to impede its progress, although he hoped in the future more regularity would be observed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl complained very much of the irregularity of the course which the Lord Advocate and the Lord Chancellor had pursued. There might be a certain amount of irregularity, but the letter did not refer to anything which had passed in their Lordships' House. The noble Earl himself had not only been guilty of great irregularity in describing minutely what had passed in the other House, but he was sorry to say had given an impression which was not correct. The Amendments of the Lord Advocate had not been the cause of the delay: and as to the Bill being different now, it was a perfect proof of the good faith of the Lord Advocate, because he could not wish to take any advantage when he endeavoured to put the Bill in a shape which would be acceptable to the House of Commons. He held that the course which had been pursued in regard to this Bill was very desirable and necessary for the furtherance of the public business, the present state of which had attracted the attention of the noble Earl as well as of others.
  LORD CRANWORTHhoped the Lord Chancellor would consider the case of the local registrars, whose interests would be seriously affected by this Bill.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he would have been exceedingly sorry if the Lord Advocate had, from any motive whatever, even that of self-defence, written a letter to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, referring to any proceedings in their Lordships' House. He had listened carefully, however, to the letter of his right hon. and learned Friend, and did not catch a single allusion, even the most remote, to anything that had passed in this House. In considering the propriety of the course which had been taken, it should be remembered that, whoever objected to the introduction of Bills as now proposed, and contended that they should pass through the other House in regular course, knew very little of the manner in which business was carried on in that House. Whether it was owing to the superhuman eloquence that was now so abundant, or the

  2019
  deeply interesting character of the reasoning, the House of Commons was rapidly justifying its ancient etymology and becoming a Parliamentum, a Colloquium, a place of talk, and of nothing but talk. But, whether from this, or from whatever other cause, it was certainly the case that important measures were delayed in the other House not only for days or weeks but for months, without the possibility of a single step being taken in advance, and then hurried through or thrown over in the most wholesale manner. He understood that this Bill was hung up in the Commons from the 2nd of May to last week, without the least progress being made. He believed, therefore, that the transfer of the measure to their Lordships' House was the most convenient course that could be taken.
  THE EARL OF DERBYexplained that he did not impute to the Lord Advocate any irregularity in referring to the proceedings of their Lordships' House. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had avoided any such allusions, although, of course, the letter was written entirely on account of what had taken place in this House. The irregularity consisted in the Lord Advocate, by means of a letter, practically making a speech in their Lordships' House for the purpose of explaining the course he had pursued in the other branch of the Legislature.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had hoped that after hearing the letter of the Lord Advocate the noble Earl would have apologized for the mistake into which he had fallen. He thought the facts which had been stated must have convinced the noble Earl that there was no foundation for the suspicion that he (the Lord Chancellor) and the Lord Advocate had conspired to smuggle a Bill through Parliament, and now that he was undeceived, some expression of regret was to be expected. He could not see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had committed any irregularity whatever in writing the letter he had read to their Lordships. He had simply stated the facts, which it was indispensable should be made known for the vindication of his conduct.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had not charged the noble and learned Lord and the Lord Advocate with what he was pleased to term a conspiracy. He must say, however, that the facts of the case, as they came before them on the introduction of the measure, did justify him in calling the
  2020
  attention of their Lordships to the matter, and he should certainly make no appology for having commented upon what he believed to be a Parliamentary irregularity. He never had, and never would apologize for commenting publicly on public matters. If he had hurt the personal feelings of the noble and learned Lord or of the Lord Advocate no one would regret it more than himself; but he was not aware that he had done anything in the course of the discussion which required apology.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the propriety of making an apology was for the noble Earl himself to consider; but he trusted their Lordships would feel satisfied that the Lord Advocate was not open to the charge of having pursued any irregular or underhand course in regard to this Bill.
  THE EARL OF DERBYrepeated, that he disclaimed the idea of imputing such conduct to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday, the 26th instant.

CONJUGAL RIGHTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had to offer to their Lordships another Bill, which was the brother, if he might say so, of the one they had been discussing, and which he hoped would meet with a more gentle reception. It was a Bill to amend the Law of Scotland in regard to Conjugal Rights. Had this Bill remained in the other House it would certainly never have reached their Lordships' House during the present Session. The Scotch Courts of law had the power of dissolving marriages, and that power was often abused by collusive expedients being resorted to by Englishmen in order to obtain the advantages of the Scotch law. For instance, it was a common thing for persons to go from England to Scotland for a divorce who were not domiciled there. In consequence this state of things arose. A marriage contract in England could be dissolved in Scotland, and while the parties remained in that country they could marry again and their children would be legitimate; but if they crossed the Border, the English marriage still subsisting, if they married again, they would be guilty of bigamy and their children would be bastards. As English marriages were no longer in-

  2021
  dissoluble, the law of England and Scotland must be regarded as the same. The main object of this Bill was to prevent collusive divorces, by providing that no persons should be allowed to sue for divorce in Scotland unless domiciled there in such a manner that if they were to die their personal property would be administered according to the law of that country. It enacted further, that if a divorce had been regularly and solemnly pronounced by a Scotch Court it should be valid throughout the empire. The noble and learned Lord then laid the Bill on the table.
  LORD BROUGHAMbelieved that the Bill which he had unsuccessfully introduced into Parliament in 1835 and 1845, forbidding marriages without a very lengthened residence, would have been a better remedy for the evils of the marriage law of Scotland than the measure of his noble and learned Friend. Nothing could be more vexatious and unsatisfactory than the present state of that law, and he sincerely hoped some amendment would be made in it.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, it should he remembered that there was a very wide difference in the grounds upon which a divorce could be obtained in England and Scotland. If they extended the force of the Scotch decree to England without greatly altering the Scotch law they would be only giving a wider scope to the abuse which already prevailed.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, it would be better to reserve the discussion upon the Bill until the second reading.
  Bill read 1a.
  House adjourned at Half-past Six o'Clock to Thursday next, Half-past Ten o'Clock.