presented a petition from certain wool growers, praying for a reduction of the duty on the importation of wool, the petitioners conceiving that the tax on the importation of that article was injurious to their interests.

complained of the duty on the exportation of wool having been raised from ld. to 2d. at a late hour on Friday night, no opportunity having been afforded to those whose interests were affected by that alteration to petition the House against it.

said, the landed interest had been hardly dealt with by that measure. His constituents would certainly have petitioned against it, if sufficient time had been afforded them.

said, he had been no party to the alteration of the duty on exportation from 1d. to 2d. he still, however, considered the measure a boon, as the exportation of wool had been prohibited altogether. He thought the hon. member for Sussex had no reason to complain of the landed interest having been harshly treated by his majesty's government in this respect.

agreed with the hon. member for Sussex, that the landed interest had been hardly dealt with. A duty of 2d. a pound on exportation would, in point of fact, amount to a prohibition.

that in consequence of the new bonding system, this measure might operate most unequally on different classes of merchants. Many dealers in the town which he had the honour to represent, had a quantity of wool in bond; others again had a large quantity not bonded. It was incumbent on the right hon. gentleman to make such arrangements as would prevent those who had paid the duty from suffering in consequence of this measure.

spoke in favour of the increase of the duty from one penny to two-pence per pound.

contended, that his hon. friend, the member for Shrewsbury, was fully justified in asserting, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had been guilty of a breach of faith. At the same time, the right hon. gentleman had been quite right in listening to the representations of all parties interested.

observed, that if the chancellor of the Exchequer had listened to all parties, instead of attending to the remonstrances of only one party, he should not have complained. The right hon. gentleman ought to have obtained full information as to the propriety of the course he was about to pursue, before he commenced it.

supported the prayer of the said petitions, and hoped that the chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to repeal this unjust and partial tax.

said, that the repeal of unjust taxes ought, from day to day, to be forced upon the consideration of his majesty's ministers.

concurred in his hon. friend's general recommendation, although he doubted if sea-borne coal was the tax which ought first to be taken off. They ought rather to call for the reduction of those taxes which more generally affected the country at large. He admitted, that the coal-tax was in its origin impolitic; but interest had grown up under it, which might require consideration. At all events taxes that pressed more generally ought first to be removed.

was of a contrary opinion, as to the general principle of taxation. He had no hope that the tax on sea-borne coals would be repealed this year; but the attention of ministers to it ought to be kept constantly alive by petitions.

argued, that no tax could be more unjust than one upon a necessary of life, which fell upon a portion of the country only.

spoke in favour of the prayer of the petition, contending that the tax was most unjust and partial. The city of Norwich suffered severely from it.

said, it had not been his intention to have troubled the House at all on this occasion, but he could not withhold a few observations after the appeals which had been made to him. He could not help thinking that hon. gentlemen were mistaken, as to the grounds on which he had proceeded with regard to coals. First, he had never maintained, nor affected to maintain, that the duty on sea-borne coals was not very unequal in its operation, and pressed with peculiar severity on different parts of the country. It was a duty for which, however, the present generation was not at all responsible. It had existed for a century, and he had always thought, that before any step was taken to remove it, some attention ought to be paid to those interests that had grown up under it. He could not repeal the whole duty on coals, without serious prejudice to the interests of parties who ought to be considered but he had never gone the length of saying, that those interests were such as to render the gradual reduction of the tax impossible. Looking at the various items composing the taxation of the country, he had not thought that the duty on coals was one which ought to be repealed to the whole extent, or prior to other taxes pressing with greater severity. He had proposed the repeal of taxes this year, to the amount of a million, conceiving that, taking the country generally, he was consulting its interests better, than if he had relinquished the whole of the duty on coals. At the same time, it had appeared to him, that the coal tax was not only unjust in itself, but pressed with peculiar severity on a particular part of the kingdom; namely, the metropolis and its neighbourhood, because there the duty was considerably more. He had never been able to see any justice in the argument, that the tax there ought to be retained, because the citizens of London, from being more wealthy, were better able to pay it. On such nice calculations as that, taxation could not be regulated. In what he had done, it seemed to him that he had begun at the right end, when he commenced by remedying the aggravated injustice towards the inhabitants of the metropolis. He had, in the first instance, assumed, that the utmost he could spare, for the reduction of this duty, was 100,000l.; and if, instead of repealing 3s. 4d., as he had suggested, he had repealed 1s. generally, upon sea-borne coals, it would have given no relief that would be at all felt by the consumer, and he could not go beyond the 1s. without giving up more of the revenue than he could spare. It seemed impossible, on the other hand, that the consumers in London and its neighbourhood should not be benefitted by the sum per chaldron that he had consented to relinquish, as applied to that district.

said, that when the right hon. gentleman talked of relieving the poor of London, he should protest against the injustice of the measure, which went to continue a tax of 6s. on coals carried coastwise, and a tax of only 1s. a ton on inland coals. This plan was certainly most adverse to those principles of equality of taxation which the right hon. gentleman advocated. The coal-owners of the north wished for no change in their relative position with respect to the owners of inland coals: The duties, before the chancellor of the Exchequer touched them, had been 9s. 4d. per chaldron on sea-borne coals, and 7s. per ton (which was equal to 9s. 4d. per chaldron) on inland coals, and now the chancellor of the Exchequer came with his principles of" just and equal taxation," and reduced the duty on one to 6s. per chaldron, and on the other to Is. per ton. He would* shortly after the Easter recess, submit a motion to the House for the reduction of the duty on coal carried coastwise.

said, that when the question came to be argued, he should be ready to maintain the justice and policy of the plan of reduction proposed by the chancellor of the Exchequer; or he should rather shew, that the duty of 1s. per ton still continued on inland coals was a shilling too much. Where was-the justice of imposing upon inland coals a tax originally imposed only on coals carried coastwise, when those inland coals were also burthened with the enormous dues paid to the canal companies, and sanctioned by acts of parliament? For what did it matter to the owners of inland coals, whether the duties with which they were, by act of parliament, burthened, went to canal companies, or to the government? The inland coals were, even with the reduced duty, so heavily burthened, that there was no danger of their coming into competition with sea-borne coals. Formerly, the same duty was imposed on the ton of 20 cwt. of inland coals brought into London, as on the chaldron of 27 cwt. of sea-borne coals; and when, a few years ago, it was proposed to equalize the duty on the ton to the duty on the chaldron, the hon. baronet was among the most strenuous opponents of that equitable measure.

said, he should be glad to hear his hon friend prove the justice of laying a tax of 6s. on one sort of coal, and 1s. on another, so as to give 5s.bounty in favour of the worse and dearer sort of coals.

said, he was prepared to state to the chancellor of the Exchequer a mode in which he could conciliate both parties; namely, by taking off the duties as well on sea-borne as upon inland coals. This was the best way of putting them on an equality, and it was a wiser course than to apply six millions annually to buy up three per cents at 95. If he would give up the Sinking Fund he might reduce the whole of the coal tax, and the whole of the window and house tax. For what purpose was the sinking Fund maintained? to support the funded interest. But the funded interest needed no such support. The reduction of the taxes to the amount he had stated, would be received with the greatest satisfaction; and he had no doubt, if all those gentlemen who now spoke so strongly in behalf of their several petitions, would come down and support a specific motion on the subject, the chancellor of the Exchequer would find it perfectly convenient to carry the measure into effect.

complained of the policy which government had pursued upon this question. They had given up a revenue amounting to 800,000l. annually, and in so doing had benefited a particular class of the community, residing within certain limited geographical boundaries. Now, when government remitted taxation, they should take care that the relief which they granted should be of a general, and not of a partial description.

could not agree with his noble friend. His noble friend seemed to have forgotten, that the particular class of the community to which he had alluded had, for nearly a century past, been aggrieved by the unjust and partial operation of the coal duties; and surely his noble friend would not argue, that it was not entitled to relief, because it had submitted patiently for many years to the grievance which had been imposed upon it. He must contend that the chancellor of the Exchequer was only performing an act of justice in equalizing the operation of the coal-duties in all parts of the country.

thought, that the country gentlemen were not dealing fairly with the chancellor of the Exchequer upon this occasion. It was rather inconsistent in those who had supported the system of a sinking fund, now to come forward and tell the adviser of it, that they would not bear the taxes by which that sinking fund was to be supported. It was consistent enough in his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, and himself to press for a repeal of taxes, because they had always opposed the scheme of a sinking fund; but as for the hon. gentlemen who now called for a repeal of taxes, after supporting the sinking fund, where, he would ask, was their consistency?

said, he felt that, from the manner in which the resolution respecting coals had been carried, the parties interested in them had lost the opportunity which they were fairly entitled to, of stating the objections which could be urged against them. If, therefore, the hon. member for Newcastle wished to move for the re-commitment of those resolutions, he should throw no objection in the way of it, and in the committee the hon. member might bring forward his statement. Thursday was the earliest day that was open, and if the hon. baronet would move for the re-commitment of the resolutions on that day, he should throw no obstacle in the way of the motion.

thought, that when it was considered how long and how unjustly the people of London had been taxed in the article of coals, and the misery to which the poor had been often reduced for want of fuel, no gentleman could object to the reduction. There had been ten millions of money levied unjustly on the people of London under this tax, which originally had been imposed for a special purpose.

said, he had no objection to Thursday as the day for re-committing the resolutions. He begged again to say, that he had no wish to impose any additional tax on inland coals. He only wished the two descriptions of coal to be kept in the same relative situations in which they had hitherto stood.

rose to move the order of the day for the second reading of the Burials in Ireland bill. The right hon. and learned gentleman observed, that he would not have brought it forward at that moment, if he had not had some reason to flatter himself, from the general opinion which he had collected from all sides of the House on the measure, that there was no likelihood of any material objection being offered to it, nor of any discussion arising that would be at all calculated to pruduce a protracted debate. The House was already aware of the general scope and object of the bill. It related to the burials, in Ireland, of persons dissenting from the doctrines and discipline of the Established Church, with those forms and ceremonies which were peculiar to the religion professed by them. Every one must feel, that this was a subject of extreme importance, as it related to the moral feelings, passions, and prejudices of the great bulk of the population of Ireland; and they must also perceive, that it was a question of the greatest delicacy, because, as it referred to circumstances which must occur in the precincts of protestant church-yards, it would naturally excite the attention of those who felt an interest in the security of the protestant establishment. He therefore approached the subject with a considerable degree of caution, he would not say of alarm; because the measure had been so maturely considered, and so nicely prepared, with reference to both sides of the question, that while it would make the law easy, as to the burial of dissenters, it would not create any just alarm in the minds of those who were connected with the Established Church. But, when he stated that it was a subject of great difficulty and delicacy, he begged to observe, that it was not on that account that he had taken it out of the hands in which it had been previously placed. Whether he considered the question with a view to its importance, its difficulty, or its delicacy, he knew of no hands better suited to bring it forward effectually than those of his right hon. friend (sir J. Newport). The course which his right hon. friend had taken in the debate relative to Education in Ireland, which occurred a few evenings since—the tone of temper and moderation with which he had introduced that delicate subject, proved clearly, that no man was more fit to conciliate the opinions and sooth the passions of all parties. Still, however, he thought it would be felt, that it was better that this question should be taken up by one who spoke the sentiments of the government of the country, rather than by any individual unconnected with the government. Many reasons could be adduced in support of this position. It was right, in the first place, that the public should know the anxious solicitude which the government entertained, with respect to the welfare of the people of Ireland; and next, it was important that the question should be now brought forward in such a manner as to reconcile all classes to it. This end could be much better attained by the government, than if the measure were introduced by any individual, however respectable.—Having said thus much to excuse the government of the country for entertaining this measure, it would perhaps be expected that he should state some reason for its not having been taken up sooner. Many circumstances existed in Ireland, which would have made it unwise in government to have interfered with a question of this kind at an earlier period. Whatever inconveniencies existed in the actual state of the law—and he admitted those inconveniencies to be many and considerable—yet still it was found that very few of them were of a practical nature. Government, therefore, had not thought it necessary to legislate on theoretical principles, so long as the existing law appeared to work well. But a new state of things had sprung up, and it was now found expedient to make some change in the law. The first thing it was proposed to do was, to repeal the act of the 9th William 3rd cap. 7. He believed, with respect to this point, there was an universal consent on the part of every person concerned. He would now state what the object of the act of William was. It was probably known to most gentlemen in that House, that there were in Ireland a number of abbeys and convents, the sites of places formerly used for religious worship, and vested in ecclesiastical persons. These venerable places were looked on with considerable respect, if not reverence, by all classes of people in Ireland. They had been founded from motives of piety, and though sometimes tenanted by superstition and bigotry, yet it could not be denied, that they were often the abodes of genuine religion and pure charity. From them, in former times, the blessings of hospitality had been disseminated amongst the poor and the needy. Those places had long since been taken out of the possession of the ecclesiastical proprietors, and vested in the several members of the state. But they were still viewed by the people with feelings of respect and veneration. Though no longer used as places of religious worship, they were much resorted to as places of burial not merely for the Roman Catholics of the country, but very frequently for the Protestants; and he felt, that the remains of those ancient edifices were not the least interesting objects of contemplation to those persons who visited Ireland. Looking to the disturbances, religious and political, by which that country had been torn, it was a point on which the mind reposed with some degree of pleasure, when it reflected, that in those cemeteries the Protestant and the Catholic, persons of all ranks and persuasions, were buried in common. However they might have differed in life, in death they were suffered to repose together; and the place of their interment was not made a scene for the display of acrimonious feeling and unseemly asperity. This state of things had prevailed, he believed, more or less, ever since the Reformation. It must seem extraordinary that, under these circumstances, the act of the 9th of William was passed, by which burials in those places were forbidden, as well to Protestants as to Catholics. It seemed extraordinary, when the practice was carried on without offence to any party, that it should have been interfered with by this law. He believed it was not with a view to any direct interference with the rights of sepulture of any religious sect, that the law was enacted, but that it was framed in a spirit of jealousy, which could not bear that any religious feeling should be kept alive with respect to those old places of worship. Certainly, whatever might have been the object of the act, its provisions were opposed to those affections and decencies, with reference to the deceased, which ought always to be respected. The act was framed, but it fell still-born, as all measures must do when opposed to the feelings and sentiments of a country. In no one instance, for a series of years, had the custom which had so long prevailed been interfered with—in no one instance had this obnoxious law been carried into effect. If, then, there was an act on their Statute-book, to enforce which would be considered a crime, and to infringe it would be looked on as a duty, it ought not to be suffered to remain; and one object of the measure now before the House was, to repeal this act. The House would, however, observe, that there was a clause regulating and narrowing that repeal. The reason of this was, that many of those places were diverted from their original purpose, and were possessed by individuals; and care should be taken, that no interference with private property was admitted under this measure; which would be the case, if persons who were not in the habit of using particular places of this description for burying grounds, were suffered to do so now.—He would now, as shortly as he could, apply himself to the more important provisions of this bill, so far as it professed to give the right of burial in Protestant church-yards, according to the religious ceremonies of the parties whose friends were brought there for interment. The noble lord who presided over the government of Ireland, and who had applied himself to this, as well as to every other subject connected with the interests of that country, felt the deepest anxiety for the success of this measure; and he (Mr. P.) knew of no other reason why he now addressed the House, except that, from his constant intercourse with the noble lord, he had the best means of learning his views on the subject. This measure originated with the noble lord, and had received the unanimous sanction of his majesty's government. The two great objects of the bill were these, to secure to dissenters of every denomination the right of interment according to the in own forms and ceremonies, and to take care, at the same time, that nothing was done offensive to the dignity, or subversive of the security, of the Protestant reli- gion.—Before he proceeded further, it was necessary that he should describe what was the state of the Jaw on this subject as it now existed. In the first place, he would endeavour to put the House in possession of what was the situation of the Protestant parson as to the right of burial. Gentlemen, doubtless, knew, that the freehold of the churchyard was vested in the rector. The church-yard was his freehold, and no person could enter it, unless by his leave, without committing a trespass. But, besides the right which belonged to him as the possessor of the soil, he was, as the parson, empowered by law to superintend the mode of granting Christian burial in the church-yard. He was to grant the right of interment; and, by the act of Uniformity, he was to read the burial service of the church of Ireland, as by law established, and no other. He could not, himself, read any other service; neither could he depute any person to read a different service in the churchyard. He could employ another gentleman in orders to read the service of the church of Ireland; but he could not allow any layman, or a member of any other community, to read it. If this law were acted on, and the Protestant clergy were in every instance to insist on reading this service, and going through the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the church of Ireland, it would virtually deprive the great body of the people of the right of interment. Considering what their religious opinions were, such a practice would amount to actual exclusion. He did not mean to argue, whether their feeling on this subject was a right one or not: it was his duty merely to state the fact. The opinions, feelings, and prejudices of the people of Ireland were such, that if the principle were insisted on, it would actually amount to an exclusion from the right of interment of all the Catholics, at least, if not of all the Dissenters.—This was the situation of the law, on one side: now let the House mark what it was on the other. According to the laws of the land, every person had a right to interment in the Protestant church-yard of the parish where he died. His relatives had a right to claim it: but they were entitled to claim it, subject to that right of the Protestant parson which he had just mentioned. But, suppose he performed the rites of the Protestant church, or that he waved their perform- ance, there was no law which, in either case, prohibited the performance of dissenting rites in a Protestant church-yard. There was no law, where the Protestant parson had discharged his functions, or waved them, to prevent Roman Catholic ceremonies from being performed in the church-yard, however ostentatiously celebrated, or however calculated to produce feelings of pain in the mind of the Protestant clergyman There were a number of laws passed in Ireland, after the Reformation, on the subject of the Catholic priests. By those laws, besides inflicting penalties on priests coming from abroad, there were others which also imposed penalties on all priests who were not registered in a regular manner. By the 21st and 22nd of the late king, the greater part of these penalties were removed, under certain restrictions and conditions. One of them was, that the benefit of those acts should not extend to any Catholic priest who officiated in a Protestant church-yard. It was supposed, that under this clause it was a criminal or penal act, for a priest to perform the burial service in a Protestant church-yard; but the supposition was entirely erroneous: it had no other effect than saying, that the Catholic priest who performed the service in a Protestant church-yard, should not have the benefit of that particular law. He was liable to be indicted, not for having performed the service, but for not having duly registered himself under the former act; which he was not required to do, provided he obeyed the restrictions enumerated in the 21st and 22nd of Geo. 3rd. But, whatever might have been the-state of the law on this subject, growing out of the 21st and 22nd of Geo. 3rd, all difficulty was removed, in Ireland, by the law of 1793. By that law, it was not an illegalact for the Catholic priest to officiate. He could not be indicted for it: he could not be prevented from doing it. If the contrary were admitted; if the Protestant clergyman had a right to insist on performing the service of the church of Ireland; it would totally exclude the whole body of Roman Catholics from interment. If the Protestant clergyman chose to come in and perform his service, or if he waved his right to officiate, there was no law to prevent the Catholic priest from exercising his functions. This was the state of the law; and, considering the situation of the parties, it was fraught with all the seeds and elements of discord and dissension. But though such was the fact—though the state of the law was calculated to produce connections and collisions between those opposing parties—it was pleasing to state, that, with very few and rare exceptions, those elements of discord and dissension had not created any of those effects which might have been expected from them. One would, indeed, almost praise this state of the law; since it gave an opportunity to people of all sects, and of all religious opinions, to display feelings the most liberal and charitable. He must say, and he said it with great respect for the parochial clergy, that, until of late years, they "had not, in the smallest degree, interfered with the right of interment in Protestant church-yards. They had forborne to exercise a duty which was imposed on them by the common law of the country, and by the act of Uniformity, because they felt that it would create uneasiness and dissatisfaction. The Catholic clergymen also had conducted themselves in a most exemplary manner. He believed the Catholic body in general were buried without any ceremony; but it was customary, on the interment of Catholics of the better orders, to have, more or less, a sort of service performed by the priest. Sometimes he appeared in the stole, a sort of black robe, and sometimes he officiated in his plain clothes; but he never presumed to offer any thing offensive to the Protestant church. This was the way in which the matter remained, until lately, without any degree of offence being taken by the Protestant clergy. This should be particularly stated; because it proved, that there was not that unmanageable texture in the sentiments of those who held different religious opinions in Ireland, that ought to shut out all hope of accommodation, that ought to lead the House to believe, that it was. impossible to smooth down those religious feelings, the asperity of which had been the bane and curse of Ireland. When matters remained thus—when, on the one hand, there was no interference, and on the other, no offence—he thought it would have been unwise if government had legislated for prospective evils, that perhaps might never have arisen. But, about four or five years back, the performance of religious ceremonies by a Catholic priest, in a Protestant churchyard, was resisted. At the time this took place, such occurrences were extremely unfrequent; and government thought it better to get rid of them by giving conciliatory advice, rather than by exerting the strong hand of authority, or by calling on Parliament to take the business up. In the course of last year, however, the complaints on this subject had greatly increased. Whether the right was more frequently claimed by the Catholic clergy, or contended for in a different degree or manner from what had been customary, he could not say but, a good deal of alarm had certainly been excited. Whether that alarm was just or not, he could not discover; and he believed it would be very difficult to ascertain the fact. If one person were asked, whether the ceremony was the same as was heretofore performed, the answer was in the affirmative; but the next individual of whom inquiry was made would state exactly the reverse. In fact, individuals seemed to be guided rather by their prejudices, than by any desire to elicit the truth. He therefore thought it would be much better to leave the circumstances out of which this alarm had arisen, in the ambiguity in which they were placed at present, than to attempt to explore them. Whatever had been done by the Protestant clergy, was, he felt convinced, performed in the discharge of a conscientious duty. He paid a most ready and willing homage to the forbearance manifested by the great body of the parochial clergy of Ireland; and he was certain, wherever they had recourse to resistance, they were impelled to it, by a sense of duty alone. The government, as he had already observed, were anxious to soothe all differences, by friendly and conciliatory advice; but it at length became necessary to examine, what the real state of the law was on this subject. If the law were clear and plain—if its operation appeared calculated to produce peace and union—then it was right that the people should know it: but, the case was greatly altered when the law carried within itself the elements of hostility; when the concord which had so long prevailed arose^ not from a knowledge of the state of the law, but from an ignorance of it. It would have been productive of the most unpleasant consequences, if it had been boldly stated, "You, the priest, have a right to bury this man—you may enter the church-yard with bell, book, and candle, and perform the service in the most offensive manner possible. "If the priest had the power to exclaim to the Protestant clergyman, "I am doing this by the authority of the government, who have told me what the law is on the subject," it would be the cause of constant feuds. This pernicious knowledge of their rights must end in continual conflicts between the parties; and therefore it was necessary, that the law should not remain in its present situation. Heretofore, the law had not been insisted on—the proceedings of the Catholic clergy had been little interfered with. Had it been otherwise, the Catholics of Ireland would be driven from the tombs of their ancestors. It was not a claim of ambition which they put forward—it was not a political privilege which they demanded. What they contended for was the offspring of those 'feelings of devotion and piety, which were inherent in the nature of man, which were wholly independent of adventitious circumstances. There was no crime so barbarous, no ignorance so profound, no philosophy so arrogant, as to deny the justice of that feeling which was implanted in the nature of man, and which induced him to look with affectionate regret to the spot where the remains of his ancestry were deposited. It was not the creature of philosophy: it was the voice of that; Being, who, when he had doomed us to the grave, inspired our hearts with the confident hope, that our affections and feelings would exist beyond that goal If, however, the Roman Catholic priest were openly told, that he might perform his ceremonies in the most ostentatious manner, such a proceeding would give alarm, and not unjustifiably, to the Protestant. It was therefore necessary that some alteration should be made in the law; and the question was, which was the best mode of dealing with the subject? There were three modes, in which the existing law might be altered. First, it would be possible to give separate burial-grounds to the Roman Catholics and the Protestants; and this idea had, in fact occurred to some Catholics of influence I but he thought, for his own part, and he was convinced the House would go along with him in the feeling, that, of all remedies for the present evil, no other so objectionable could be found. The allotment of separate burial-places would not only, like the giving separate places of education, tend to strengthen the line of demarcation already subsisting between the two religions, and to preclude for ever all hope of that union in heart and poli- tical opinion which every sincere lover of Ireland must hope for, whatever be might think as to its immediate probability, but it would go to outrage the very commonest and yet most sacred feelings of humanity. It would have the effect, the? House would see, in many cases, of separating families as to their place of burial. A husband could not be buried with his wife, a brother near his brother, a father by the side of his son. It would hardly be necessary to say more upon the impracticability of introducing such an arrangement. The next proposition then, he would suppose to be this—to make the right of interment to the dissenter in Ireland an absolute right—to have it a stern and unbending mandate upon the Protestant parson, to admit him to burial, and then to restrict the exercise of this-absolute right, so as to prevent its being used in a manner offensive to the feelings of the Protestant. This plan certainly did not carry, upon the face of it, so much positive unfitness as the former; but still the House would hardly find it to be a wise one, even if it was practicable, which he doubted: for the great difficulty in the way of such a regulation would be, not the unwillingness of the Protestant parson to give up the absolute right, but his disability to do so. By the act of Uniformity, and the canon law of the country, he was bound to perform the rite himself, and could not makeover absolute power to another to do it. This, however, was as the law now stood; the new act authorized the Parson to give the desired permission; but if it was said, that the spirit and the not he may give permission, but he shall give permission, he (Mr. P.) denied the fitness of that course, because the House would be aware, that, even for the admission of a Protestant to burial, there was nothing upon the parson mandatory. The Protestant himself could not be buried without permission from the parson. True, the parson might not withhold his permission, unless upon some satisfactory reason; but, even if he did withhold it wrongfully he could not be indicted, or made liable to a civil action for so doing; he could only be censured in the spiritual might be put, however, in a moment, in which the parson was entitled to refuse. He was not bound to bury a person who died excommunicated; or who had never been baptized; or one who had committed suicide. In fact, he was ge- nerally to judge of the time, the convenience and the fitness of the thing being done; and if the assent was not compulsory in the case of a Protestant, there were additional reasons in abundance why it should not be so in the case of a Roman Catholic. When a dissenting clergyman applied to a Protestant clergyman for permission to bury, the Protestant clergyman was bound to judge, first, whether it were one of the applicant's flock. He must ascertain whether the deceased was really a Roman Catholic or not; because there had been cases, and not very uncommonly, in which that point had been disputed. There were other circumstances to be considered. Who was the applicant, for instance? Was he, as he professed himself, a Protestant clergyman? He might be some mad fanatic Jumper, who had no right to make any such application. All these were matters of which the Protestant clergyman had to judge; and, if an absolute mandate was to be given, they would all be special matters to be provided for. Further specialties would have to be considered—the mode and manner of performing the ceremony, the tapers, and other circumstances of ostentation in the Catholic, which went beyond the modesty of the Protestant Church. But the present bill made arrangements which could hardly fail to satisfy all parties; for, as its avowed intention was, to give the dissenter the benefit of interment according to the rites of his own church, in a Protestant church-yard, the Protestant clergyman could no longer allege the difference of religion as a reason for withholding the permission to bury. He repeated that the present act was one for which the Catholics of Ireland ought to feel most grateful; for it was in fact a charter of toleration, a direct declaration, that every person in Ireland, of whatever religious belief, was entitled to interment according to the rites of his own persuasion. The law, as regarded its effects, was put into the strongest practical shape. The protestant clergyman was to be applied to. If he thought fit to refuse permission, he was bound to state in writing to the applicant, and immediately, the cause of his refusal; and moreover, forthwith to certify the same cause to his ordinary, or the bishop of his diocese, who was to forward it again, without delay, to the lord-lieutenant, or chief government of the country. Thus there Could be no reason to apprehend refusal on the existing ready ground—that of the difference of religion in the party making application; and still less would there be any danger of a light or frivolous objection, because it would be known that that objection was at once to go before authority. And further, with regard to the extent of the act, it was virtually mandatory though not mandatory in terms, for he stated it as a principle of law, and if he was wrong he might be contradicted, that where a public functionary was legally enabled to do certain acts which were for the good of the community, the law which made it lawful for him to do those acts, in fact made it his duty to do them So that, on the one hand, the act was mandatory for the clergyman stood bound, in such a case, to do that which it was lawful for him to do; and on the other hand, it would be observed, that in the provision for the service to be performed, there was no permission for the burial service generally, but specially for the service of the grave—an important point, because, in the Roman Catholic liturgy, the service of the grave—was not the burial service, the burial service involving the most pompous display of the rites of the Catholic religion; and the service of the grave being merely a short prayer and psalm, attended with no parade of ceremony whatever. Still the law, no doubt, as it would stand, might by possibility be abused. He did not deny that it might. It was possible, on the one hand, that a protestant clergyman might, in defiance of consequences, capriciously withhold his permission; and on the other hand, there might cases arise, in which the privilege granted might be taken gross advantage of. But it was not, in his view, the spirit of legislation, to make laws to meet extreme and barely possible cases. He rather preferred, in I all arrangements, to leave such cases to be dealt with as they arose and he had no fear, upon the present question, but that the law would work perfectly well.—With regard to the Protestant establishment, he was not surprised that they should feel some alarm as to the new law at first. It was certainly, up to a Certain point, the introduction of a new right and power; it was giving the Catholic church a right in the church-yard of the Protestant church; but a great deal of this objection vanished when gentlemen considered, that the law in fact only took away a right which the protestant clergyman had never exercised. If it was said that the Protestant parson had only abstained from using his right, because the ceremony performed had been performed in the private house of the Catholic, and not openly, as it would be now, in the Protestant church-yard—this might be said, and the case still would be exactly where it was before; for the very avowal conceded a principle just as strong as that he now contended for. The ceremony was performed in the private house? True; but the Protestant clergyman knew that it was performed there. He hot only knew it, but he must, of necessity, be taken by his own act, to be cognizant of it; because he could never be supposed to be permitting bodies to be interred without any ceremony of christian burial. We could not bear that the Protestant parson had been permitting human bodies to be thrown into the ground like so many dogs; he could only stand justified in his forbearing to perform the rites of christian burialaccording to his own religion, by the knowledge that those rites, according to another form, had been performed already; so that, in fact, he acknowledged that the performance of certain rites, according to the manner of the Catholic faith, gave a body that title to come into his Protestant church-yard, which, without those rites, it could not have had. The act before the House went, in principle, no further than this. There was nothing new in the effect of what it did, the novelty was only in the form. No rational Protestant parson would complain of being permitted by law to wave that right, which he had been all along accustomed to wave, with the law against him in so doing. In the confidence that his measure would satisfy all parties, he should sit down by moving that the bill be read a second time. The bill was then read a second time.

begged to put a question to the right hon. the home secretary, with respect to a manuscript lately discovered, and said to be the undoubted work of the immortal Milton. He understood that there was no question whatever as to the genuineness of the work; that it was partly in the hand-writing of Philips, Milton's nephew, and bore otherwise sufficient marks of authenticity. He was desirous, therefore, of knowing how it had been disposed of, and whether it was to be given to the public.

said, it was true that the manuscript in question had been found among: some state papers. It was a theological work entitled, "de Dei Cultu," treating of the truths of the christian religion, and no doubt, as far as evidence could go, it was authentic. How the manuscript had come into the situation where it had been discovered, it was impossible to guess; but it had been submitted to the king, who at once had said, that it was fit it should be given to the public. Accordingly, it had been placed in competent hands, and would shortly be printed, under the auspices of his majesty.

begged to call the attention of the House to the distressing account of the state of the various subjects of natural history in the British Museum, contained in an article of the Edinburgh Review, for May 1823. He was sorry to say, that he understood the observations in that article were strictly just. Generally speaking, the statements of the publication in question were very correct; but, so great a clamour had been raised by the remarks to which he had adverted, that he had been induced to inquire into their foundation, and had been informed that they were grounded in fact. By that article it appeared, with reference to the immense collections of sir Hans Sloane, in which the Museum might be said to have had its origin, that those collections were nearly all gone. The birds and beasts, which formed so large a part of these collections, had nearly disappeared. Of nearly 2,000 specimens of mammalia, all had been annihilated. It was the same with the insects. Of above five thousand of the latter, all in a state of the best preservation, not above three or four hundred remained. Of an immense and valuable herbarium, occupying 334 volumes, but fifty or sixty were now visible, and those were covered with dust and penetrated by worms; threatening the whole with destruction. The various gifts of distinguished travellers to the British Museum were all sharing a similar fate. The trustees declared, that they wanted room. Why, then, did they not come to parliament sooner, and make that statement? Economy was a very good thing in the abstract; but an economy that led to the waste and destruction of valuable property was an extremely pernicious economy. How differently were the museums of France, of Holland, of Germany conducted! Were the House aware of the care bestowed on the subjects of natural history, in Paris for instance? When a rare quadruped was there brought under: notice, it was first examined anatomically before it was stuffed for preservation; by which means an excellent knowledge of comparative anatomy was diffused; and the animal was afterwards carefully preserved; while here neither the one nor the other object was achieved. There was another story told in the publication to which he had referred, of a most extraordinary nature, and well deserving the attention of the House. It was well known, that sir Joseph Banks had given to the British Museum in his life-time a very valuable collection of birds, the packages containing which were deposited in the vaults of the institution, and appeared to be forgotten. When the college of Surgeons commenced furnishing their museum, they were anxious to obtain some objects of natural history, and applied to the British Museum for that purpose. The cases containing sir Joseph Banks's collection were consequently sent to them. As, however, the College of Surgeons afterwards thought it prudent to confine their collection to subjects of human and comparative anatomy, they exchanged these cases with a well-known collector, Mr. Bullock, for some skeletons and other articles better suited to their purpose. The error was discovered when too late; and when Mr. Bullock's collection was subsequently broken up, the trustees of the British Museum gave orders for the purchase, at a considerable expense, of a small part of what had been presented to it by one of the most munificent patrons of natural history this country ever produced. He repeated, that he had every reason to believe that these statements were correct. Such was the public opinion: and, if unfounded, it ought to be set right. It appeared to him, that nothing was more necessary, to prevent the recurrence of such mismanagement, than an entire change in the system of making trustees. He objected to making trustees ex-officio—trustees of straw—trustees merely for the sake of their names. The lord chan- cellor was a trustee, and had never been in the museum, he understood, but once; and then only because some matter of form compelled him to go. Now, such trustees were quite useless. Men of activity were wanted. It was really disgraceful to the country, to see the state of our British Museum, when compared with the condition of similar institutions on the continent. The utter carelessness exhibited towards all properties intrusted to its care, had had the effect of benefitting private collections, where gentlemen knew their specimens would be attended to, and properly put before the public. He repeated that the want of room was not an admissible excuse. More might have been done with the space, narrow as it was; for some of the properties might have been placed in the apartments occupied by the officers of the establishment. At all events, if room was necessary, room ought at once to be provided; for it would be better not to attempt any national collection at all, than to support such an institution as assumed the name of a museum, without possessing any of the distinctive properties of one.

expressed his surprise, that the hon. gentleman should place such implicit faith in an article published in the Edinburgh Review by an anonymous writer. He was sorry the hon. gentleman had not made more accurate inquiries on the subject, before he repeated that writer's statement in that House. If he had done so, he would have found that, for some of the assertions in the article in question, there was not the slightest foundation; and that others were most grossly exaggerated. And first, with respect to that part of the museum which was derived from sir Hans Sloane. The hon. gentleman stated, that of sir Hans Sloane's large collections, few articles were left. This was certainly the case. But it ought to be recollected, that the most valuable portion of those collections was the insects. Now sir Hans Sloane died in 1752. It was probable, therefore, that above a century had elapsed since the preparation of most of them. But, there were in the museum above 70,000 articles in entomology, comprehending among them duplicates of all that had been in sir Hans Sloane's collection. [Mr. Bennet asked, across the table, where these specimens where?] Where? In the British Museum. Not exposed to public view certainly. He was aware that that was one of the complaints in the Edinburgh Review. But, did not the hon. gentleman know that in every museum only a few of the entomological specimens were publicly exposed, because the colours of many descriptions of moths, butterflies, &c. faded when constantly exposed to "the light? In the present day there were also great improvements in the preparation of insects, as compared with sir Hans Sloane's time. The hon. gentleman also talked of a valuable collection of mammalia, as having been derived from sir Hans Sloane. The Edinburgh Review stated the number at 1,886. It was no such thing. There were only 1,886 parts of animals; some the teeth, others the hair, &c. Yet they were described in the Edinburgh Review as so many animals belonging to sir Hans Sloane—a tolerable proof of the accuracy of the reviewer. The hon. member's next charge related to some most valuable quadrupeds, the gift of Mr. Burchill, the African Traveller. [Mr. Bennett denied, across the table, having made such a charge.] It was in the Edinburgh Review, however, and he would notice it before he sat down. The next object, then, to which the hon. gentleman had adverted was sir Joseph Banks's collection. He thought he could give a complete answer to the hon. gentleman's statement on that subject. Not a single step had been taken with respect to this collection (which was supposed by the hon. gentleman to have totally disappeared) except under the direction of sir Joseph Banks himself. He (sir C. L.) as one of the trustees, certainly looked up to sir Joseph Banks as the individual who could best direct the mode of depositing the collection he had presented to the museum; and his directions on the subject had been strictly obeyed. With regard to the subsequent proceedings, the account in the Edinburgh Review was entirely incorrect. The Review stated, that the packages containing sir Joseph Banks's collection, one of the most beautiful that ever came to England, filled a large waggon when sent to the British Museum; that when the college of surgeons commenced furnishing their museum, they obtained an order from the trustees of the British Museum, for such objects of natural history as could be spared from the latter collection; that in consequence, sir Joseph Banks's cases were sent to the College; that it was afterwards deemed prudent by the college to confine their collections to subjects of human and comparative anatomy; that a well-known collector, having in his possession many skeletons and other articles suited to the I purposes of the College, agreed to exchange them for specimens more adapted to his already magnificent collection; that the cases containing sir Joseph Banks's collection, which had remained unopened at Surgeons' Hall, were en masse consigned to him, in exchange for his anatomical preparations; that he found these cases, admirably secured and pitched over, to contain the greatest varieties, in the most perfect preservation; that thus a private individual became fairly possessed of the largest collection of uncommon and splendid birds which was ever at one time imported into Britain; that the mistake was discovered when too late; that the trustees of the British Museum, anxious to repair as much as possible the unlucky accident, authorised Dr. Leach to purchase up those very articles at the subsequent dispersion of the collection alluded to; that the concourse of distinguished foreign naturalists, whom the fame of the intended sale attracted to England, made some of the birds fetch most exorbitant prices; and that near 400l. were expended by Dr. Leach in restoring to the National Museum perhaps but a small part of what it had lost. He (sir C. Long) had made an inquiry into the truth of these allegations, and he found that they were substantially erroneous. His information had been derived from Mr. Henry Ellis, the secretary to the British Museum, a man universally respected, and one of the most active, useful, and meritorious officers that any establishment could possess. From him he found, that the collection in question had never been brought to the Museum in cases pitched over;" that the articles sent to the College of Surgeons were a mammoth's head, and five or six cases of birds; and that the re-purchase was effected by the Museum at an expense of 37l.10s.,instead of 400l.as asserted in the Review. Upon calling on Mr. Bullock, he had confirmed that part of Mr. Ellis's statement of which he had cognizance. The spirit in which the account in the Review was written, manifested itself in the fact that, after all the allegations were made, they were followed by a paragraph, admitting that those allegations were not consistent with the individual knowledge of the writer—The hon. gentleman was severe, both on the trustees, and on the officers of the institution. With regard to the officers, without saying that there were not as scientific men to be found elsewhere; he would say, that no where could be found individuals more valuable to a public institution, or who discharged their duty in a more satisfactory manner. One gentleman was particularly reflected upon in the Edinburgh Review—namely, Mr. Children. With the conduct of Mr. Children, however, the trustees were highly satisfied; and all who knew the gentleness of that individual's manners, and the liveliness of his attention to the subjects entrusted to his care, must feel that some undue motive must have prompted so unjust an attack upon him. It seldom happened that an unsuccessful candidate for a post entertained any very strong predilection for his more fortunate rival; and that remark might, perhaps, explain the cause of the treatment which Mr. Children had experienced. The Review, in speaking of the accommodation in the Museum, recommended, that some of the specimens of natural history should be placed in the rooms now occupied by the officers of the institution. Now, although it would not be impracticable or inconvenient, perhaps, to place a few of the books belonging to the Museum in those rooms, it would be rather too much to introduce into them a bear, or a rhinoceros. The hon. gentleman also objected to the trustees and the mode of their election. All he would say was, that he was sure, if the hon. member had an opportunity of observing the fact, he would find that the trustees, who were appointed to attend every week, diligently discharged their duty. There were four quarterly meetings of the trustees. At these meetings every officer of the establishment stated the manner in which he had employed his time since the last meeting. He made a report of every thing which related to his department. From those reports frequently arose the appointment of Subcommittees of the trustees to inquire into particular points. There was besides a general committee; and lately six smaller committees of trustees had been appointed, who were to report annually on the state of the various departments which they were required respectively to superintend. On the whole, it did not appear to him to be possible that the institution could be better regulated.—He would now say a few words respecting Mr. Burchill's gifts, as well as of those of other celebrated travellers. In the Edinburgh Review it was stated, that those gifts were totally neglected. He would read to the House a report made by a committee of trustees appointed in 1820, to investigate this matter. In the first place, he begged to observe, that it would have been idle to go to the expense of preparing the animals in question, if afterwards there could be found no room for their exhibition. The report of the committee was to the following effect; namely, That the committee appointed to inspect the Zoological Collections in the Museum, regret that a great portion of the quadrupeds which the liberality of Mr. Burchill, and others, has induced them to present to the Museum, have remained so long unexhibited; and they further regret that in the present deficiency of room, they cannot recommend that any steps should speedily be taken respecting them. With regard to the various specimens of birds presented to the Museum by the Hudson's Bay Company, by capt. Ross, capt. Parry, &c. as they are small, and as the public are at present deeply interested in all that relates to the northern seas, they recommend that orders should be given for their preparation. The committee recommend the adoption of such further measures respecting the zoological collections of the Museum as may be the means of accumulating all the subjects of natural history which can be furnished by every part of the globe; but to carry such measures into effect will require the erection of a building of considerable dimensions. Unless such a building should be erected, they, on the contrary, recommend the trustees to decline any future presents, except such as may be kept in a small space." The hon. gentleman had said, that if the trustees came down to that House, there would be no difficulty in granting any sum that might be applied for. Now, although he felt as much as any man the liberality of that House; yet if, three years hence, the trustees were to come down to that House, and ask for a large sum of money for a building for a public exhibition, he had no doubt but that they would see the hon. member for Aberdeen exhibiting one of his most terrific economical aspects; and he was not quite sure, that many of the country gentlemen whom he saw around him would not support a motion by the hen. member for the rejection of that vote. The right hon. member concluded by saying, that if he were to go inch by inch into the statement of the Review, he should be able to shew that that statement had very little foundation.

said, that all the charges contained in the pamphlet, if examined, would be found, if not altogether false, at least greatly exaggerated. He would read to the House an extract from that publication, in order to shew the degree of credit which was due to the writer. The hon. member then proceeded to read the following extract from the Edinburgh Review;—"To much practical knowledge of zoology, he should unite great zeal for the science, and an intensity of application for years to come, before the national collection can be rendered respectable. In its present state, it is an object of disgust and lamentation to native naturalists, and of ridicule and contempt to foreigners. We have heard hints of a permanent provision for an extra librarian being the cause of the removal of Mr. Children from the antiquarian to the zoological department; but we are unwilling to credit this." The House could not be at a loss to understand the meaning of the writer; he referred to other candidates, and evidently spoke in the language of disappointment.

defended the conduct of Mr. Salt, a gentleman who was entitled to the best thanks of the country for the extent of his useful labours.

said, that, of 43 trustees, 21 were efficient, comprising the ministers of state now, it was not to be supposed, that those efficient persons, who had so many duties to attend to, gave any of their time to the consideration of the affairs of the British Museum. There were, then, eight members, who represented the Sloane, the Cotton, Harleian, Townley, and Elgin families. To those he did not object; but he did object to this, that there was not one roan of science to be found in the number of those trustees. If individuals were placed over that establishment who would preside over committees, and attend its general interests, he had no doubt but the affairs of the institution would be Ouch better conducted.

thought that the library was pretty well managed, but complained loudly of the state of the catalogue. The value of a public library must depend, in a great degree, upon the catalogue, and the chief usefulness of it was, to poor scholars, who certainly could not afford eight or nine guineas, the price at which the catalogue must be now purchased. He thought it would be a most desirable point of inquiry, for the trustees to ascertain if there could not be a cheaper edition of the catalogue issued for the use of the country at large. If the expense were too great to be repaid by the sale of copies, no doubt parliament would cheerfully grant a small sum in aid of it, perhaps to the amount of 1001.a year. He thought the present buildings were well adapted to the purposes of the library, and the scientific collections; but he objected to fixing the national gallery there Works of art were especially calculated to civilize and humanize the public at large, and ought to be placed, as it were, in the gang-way of society, to be not only open, but of ready and inviting access to the public. But chiefly he insisted on the necessity of reforming the catalogue of the library, and putting it out in a cheaper and closer shape. It mattered little for such a work how coarse the paper or how poor the printing: the general usefulness of it was alone the consideration.

approved of the institution generally, and thought the objections to the catalogue not very sound. The library was for reference more than for study, and poor scholars, as well as others, might look in the catalogue when there, without going to the expense of purchasing one.

said, that was certainly true; but, if the poor scholar could furnish himself with a catalogue at a low rate, he would not have to waste his valuable time by going to the Museum to discover that the book which he sought for was not to be found there.

thought, that none of the objections, either to the institution or the management of it, were well founded. As to the inconvenience and difficulty of admission, that could hardly be alleged, seeing, that in the course of last year, it had been visited by 100,000 persons. As to the want of room, it was true that they had not enough for all the subjects which were presented, and had been obliged to build for the reception of the king's library. But, if gentlemen would only consider that these collections, after the completion of the new buildings, would cover a space rather larger than Han- over Square, they would scarcely persist in the objection with seriousness. For the catalogue of the library, he did not know how it could be better managed than at present, because of the continual accessions to the library, which of course required continual enlargements of the catalogue—a circumstance utterly at variance with the plan of a cheap catalogue.

expressed a hope that no niggardly principle would prevent the trustees from coming to parliament to ask for two or three hundred pounds, if necessary, in order to procure scientific persons to preside over the different departments. Sir Joseph Banks and sir Humphrey Davy had been named as specimens of the talent with which the different departments were filled; but of those gentlemen one was dead, and the other was far from being an instance of the general talent with which those situations ought to be filled.

hoped it would be generally understood, that nothing which had occurred that evening ought to induce the trustees to consider themselves precluded from coming to parliament for any further sum which they might consider necessary.

was quite disposed to concur in the hope expressed by his hon. friend. With respect to what had been observed, as to the sum paid to Mr. Salt for the sarcophagus, he could only state, that Mr. Bingham Richards, the agent of that gentleman, had been asked, whether he would be satisfied with 2,000l. as a remuneration, and he had replied in the affirmative. The trustees who were disposing of the public money would hardly, therefore, have been justified—he was sure they would not have escaped censure—if they bad offered 500l., or any other sum, beyond that which was expected by Mr. Salt. He thought the public was much indebted to Mr. Salt, and he had no doubt, as well from the result of his inquiries among persons who were acquainted with the value of such things, as from his own opinion, that the articles furnished by Mr. Salt were worth much more than he had been paid. He even believed they had cost that gentleman more. With the election of the trustees he had nothing to do, but, as a body, he felt himself obliged to say, he had never met with any set of men more anxious to discharge their duty to the public. They consisted of a great variety of persons, and among them were individuals of the highest rank and talent in the country. When it was remembered, that there was every reason to expect that the institution would be benefitted materially by the bounty of some and the exertions of all of them, he did not say too much when he asserted, that it would be hardly possible to find any men who could be more safely or advantageously placed in the stations they occupied. This he said in mere justice to gentlemen, whose services had been very useful to the public, and for which he was sorry to say they had had but little credit.

said a few words, which were inaudible, and to which.

replied, that he wished by no means to be understood to say, that the trustees would not very willingly, under the authority of the House, revise their decision as to Mr. Salt's remuneration.

said, that although the full discussion which the subject to which this vote related had undergone on a former evening, rendered it unnecessary to go into it at any length, he could not refrain from expressing a hope, that something would be done speedily upon a matter of so much importance. He was aware that great difference of opinion prevailed on this subject; but he was sure almost all persons agreed, that it was highly desirable to educate the Catholic and Protestant children in the same schools. He doubted, however, the possibility of effecting the object, the great mass of the poor children being Catholic, unless the funds destined for the purpose should be placed, not exclusively under the direction of Protestants, but even the larger part under the control of Catholics. This opinion was supported by the undeniable fact, that a great number of Catholics refused to receive the benefits of education upon the terms on which they were tendered to them. He had the authority of a Catholic bishop for stating, that in the thirty-six parishes of his diocess, there were 10,000 children, all of whom were fit to go to school, but were not able to pay, and who were yet restrained from availing themselves of the schools which were open, on account of the Scriptures being read in them without note or comment, This stipulation had induced many persons to withdraw their children from the schools supported by the Kildare-street society; and, of those who continued, the greater part did so under the influence of fear. The hon. gentleman disclaimed any intention of meddling with the subject of religion. He wished the poor of Ireland should be taught only to read, and then be left to the clergyman to be taught the tenets of their respective persuasions. He did not intend to oppose the present motion, and hoped, that, in the next session, the House would be in possession of such information on the subject, as would enable it to render the advantage of education in Ireland as general as it was necessary.

rose, for the purpose of making a few observations respecting the effect which had been produced in the education of the poor in Ireland by the Kildare-street society. The hon. gentleman referred to the fourteenth report of that society, which, he said, exhibited an interesting comparison between the state of education before the establishment of that society and since it had been in operation. Notwithstanding the number of schools which existed previously, such was their nature, and such the method in which they were carried on, that, so far from education being a blessing, it was one of the main springs of all the evils that prevailed. The Irish peasant was not the victim of ignorance, but of misdirected education. One of the most pernicious practices was, the introduction of books of a dangerous tendency into the schools. Many persons employed their capitals and their industry, in disseminating books purporting to be the histories and adventures of rebels, traitors, and enterprising malefactors. The object of the Kildare-street society had been to check this evil practice; and they had so far succeeded, with the munificent assistance of parliament, that the same persons who had formerly been employed in this trade, were now engaged in furnishing the same schools with books of a more useful tendency. The society, feeling that to provide proper masters for the various schools connected with them was another most important point, had established a model school in Dublin; which, beside the local good which it did in educating 300 of the children of the artizans of Dublin, pre- sented an opportunity for qualifying persons intending to become masters, and foe making them acquainted with the principles of the society. He would meet the statement which had been made, that the Catholics did not benefit by these schools, by merely saying, that of the number of masters in the schools belonging to the society, one half were catholics, and of the children three-fourths were of the same persuasion. It was true that the dignitaries of that church objected to the society, but he did not know on what grounds; and he wished that the committee which had been appointed might be informed of the reasons on which their objections were founded. It had been said, that the subscriptions raised in Ireland for the support of the society were only 200l.; but in fact they amounted to 10,000l. In the year 1812, the number of scriptural schools in Ireland amounted to 239; at present they amounted to 4,150. In the course of the last year, 800 had been added to their number; and, he was happy to state, there was every prospect, if the present grant should be agreed to, of adding 1,000 more in the course of the present year. He would only add that in supporting the Kildare-Street society, the House would most effectually aid the general education of the poor in Ireland. Any other society might send, their masters to the Kildare-street school, where they would participate in all its advantages, and the books of that society were freely furnished to all the other societies, however their principles might differ. The education of the female peasantry, which was known by all persons acquainted with the state of Ireland to be of the utmost importance, had lately occupied the earnest attention of the society; and the co-operation of some benevolent ladies led them to form the warmest hope of success. He trusted that the facts he had mentioned would at least prove, that the Kildare-street society was entitled to that confidence which it had hitherto enjoyed; and he did not doubt that the inquiry about to be made by the committee would prove the utility of their labours.

regretted that this subject had been introduced, before the committee appointed by the House had made their report. He had abstained from expressing his opinion until that report should have furnished a more certain basis upon which a conclusion might be formed. Some points of the hon. gentleman's speech might be disputed; but, in the present state of the question, and as he did not mean to contravene the proposed grant, he should decline saying any more upon the subject, than that he wished things to be left as they were.

regretted, for causes as well known to the hon. gentleman as to himself, that this topic however ably treated, had been touched upon at this time. He would go the whole length with the hon. member in believing, that the Kildare-street society had done a great deal of good, and meant to do still more. The committee must not conceal from themselves, that the object pursued on this occasion was the education of a Catholic population. Any indisposition on the part of the Catholics to have their children educated together with Protestants he should exceedingly deprecate. At the same time, if the objection was a conscientious one, he really thought that the joint education of Protestants and Catholics, or a scriptural education, as it had been termed, ought not to be made a condition of such a grant of the public money as that now proposed.

in a maiden speech, then addressed the committee. He said, the hon. members opposite had objected to his hon. friend, that he had introduced this subject of discussion, but if he knew his countrymen, and be thought he did know them, they would wish, whatever might be given to them, or whatever might be withheld from them, that it should not be done in silence and secresy, but be most amply discussed. He thought the House might trust to their intelligence, for there was not a more intelligent people; the House might trust to their candour, for no people were more candid, and nothing would displease them so much as that middle course of neither giving nor withholding. The House should proceed steadily forward. The gentlemen opposite objected to discussion, not to angry or furious discussion, but to the calm, and he would say, cold discussion of his hon. friend, when compared with the magnitude of the subject. Suppose the statement had not been made, it would have gone forth to the world, that the Kildare society had been attacked, and that a member of the society had been present, and had not defended it. The Irish were a suspicious people; and were jealous that that which was done with regard to them should not be done in obscurity. His hon. friend had acted on the soundest view of making the Irish acquainted with what was done for them, and of making the English acquainted with what was doing for Ireland; and in this view, the statement of his hon. friend could only be beneficial. He had been one of the original members of the Kildare society; one of the first few gentlemen who had formed themselves into a society for the education of the poor, when they had nothing to rely on but the excellency of the objects they had in view, and no other support but the intellectual ardour which they brought to the pursuit. He would appeal to the candour of the hon. member for Aberdeen, if any better objects could have been proposed, or any better course pursued. In 1812, the whole country, in regard to education, was lying in a state of thick and palpable darkness. The Protestant clergy had necessarily no influence over a Catholic population, and the Catholic priests never undertook the task of instructing them. The education of the poor was, in fact, left to themselves; and no good education could possibly take place from their educating each other. The schools were along the side of hedges, and were such as his hon. friend had described. In them licentiousness and robbery were openly taught, and the horn-book of instruction was the manual of vice. The "History of Moll Flanders" was a common school-book. So lamentable, indeed, was the system of education which was then introduced, that it was difficult to pronounce whether the darkness was more dreadful than the lurid gleams by which it was attempted to disperse that darkness. The effect of that system on the mass of the population was dreadful. It was rearing up a lawless, tumultuous, undisciplined array, which threatened the peace, the property, the lives of the community, and which, from the abysses of misery, sent up a voice of defiance against a dismayed gentry, and an almost appalled government.—He could not agree with the hon. gentleman opposite, that the basis of a national system of education should be founded on the exclusion of every particular system of religion. He believed that a system of education for the people, if of any value at all, must be a system of moral and religious education. As religion without knowledge, was apt to degenerate into superstition, so knowledge without religion, was sure to terminate in licentiousness. The first principle which they had laid down, and by which they had determined to regulate ail their movements, was, that religion should be made the basis of the system. They had to deal with a mingled population, consisting of Protestants and Catholics. The laws had, unhappily for the interests of Ireland, drawn a line of demarcation between the Protestant and Catholic, which it had been their object, as far as possible, to obliterate. If, on the one hand, it was said, that it would be improper to put the Protestant catechism into the hands of the children of Catholic parents, would it be contended on the other, that it was proper to put into their hands books of Catholic devotion? The principle upon which they had acted was, to refer them to the great common origin of the different persuasions. It was unnecessary for him to say, in how many great essential particulars both Protestants and Catholics agreed; in how many unimportant, formal distinctions, they unhappily differed. In adapting a system of education to the mingled population of Ireland, it was their object to endear each to each, by the early, tender, sacred, and, perhaps, indelible associations of a common religion; to recal to their recollections, that they had knelt, if the figure were not too bold, at the fountain of a common faith, and that they only separated by following diverging streams. They had riot acted on theory, bat on views bf practical experience. They had seen a similar experiment tried in the university of Dublin, and they had witnessed its beneficial effects. In that university, young men, both Catholics and Protestants, were seen growing up together, forgetting unhappy differences, while pursuing academic honours with equal ardour, and applying themselves with equal enthusiasm to the same enlightened philosophy. The system which they had adopted was founded, not merely on sound principles, but upon an experience of its utility. There was another essential point which they had not neglected. It would have been vain to expect success without the cordial co-operation of the Protestant gentry. They had endeavoured, therefore, to procure that cordial co-operation, and they had succeeded in obtaining it. They had another motive and another object, which was, that of bringing the Protestant gentry and the Catholic pea- santry into a more intimate and cordial intercourse with each other than they had hitherto enjoyed. They had endeavoured to approximate the relation between landlord and tenant in Ireland, which had hitherto, he regretted to say, too much resembled the relation between master and servant. These advantages could never have been obtained by the plan suggested by the hon. member for Aberdeen, who proposed, that one set of schools should be allotted to protestants, and another to catholics: the protestant gentry presiding over the first, and the Catholic priesthood over the other. Such a plan might be plausible enough in theory, but in practice it would be wholly inefficient; or, what was worse, it would be efficient in evil. Nothing was more gratifying than to observe the number of benevolent institutions which had sprung up in the neighbourhood of these schools. Wherever they had been established were seen dispensaries for giving medicine to the poor, friendly societies, and other benevolent institutions; both the people and the gentry seemed to acquire a taste for moral cultivation, and the vicinity of these schools seemed a spot separated from the other parts of the country—an Oasis amidst a surrounding desert; It had been said, that this system could never become general, since the Catholic clergy opposed it, because it involved conditions with which they could not comply. He had heard some years ago a similar argument urged, which, if it had been founded in fact, he should have considered unanswerable. It had been said, that the potting of the bible without note or comment into the hands of the people, might or might not be useful, but that the experiment could never be tried because it was against the tenets of the Catholic religion, and Catholic parents would not allow it to be put into the hands of their children, or suffer their children to go to schools, where such a system of education was adopted. The argument would be unanswerable, if it were founded in fact; but the fact was, that Catholic children did come to these schools, and that their parents were anxious to procure for them the benefits of education. The bible without note or comment was used; nor was any particular doctrine derived from a particular interpretation of a text of scripture attempted to be inculcated. That this institution should have met with the opposition of the Catholic clergy was a circumstance which he greatly deplored. It was a circumstance almost as surprising as it was lamentable. It reminded him of a passage of lord Clarendon—not in his History of the rebellion, but in a posthumous work, which he thought far more interesting, the Memoirs of his own life, where, speaking of archbishop Laud's conduct at a particular period, he says, "he had observed in his progress through life, that of all classes of men the clergy took the worst measure of human affairs." He regretted that the Roman Catholic clergy were not sensible of the advantage which they themselves would derive from being placed at the head of a well-educated, moral, and enlightened Catholic population. The Catholic laity had seen the subject in the same light in which he viewed it; and, however much he might regret the feeling which subsisted among the Catholic clergy, he trusted that, with the zealous co-operation of the laity, their objects would be completely carried into effect.—He had now stated the principles on which they had acted, the views which they entertained, and the system which had arisen out of those principles and views. His hon. friend below him had gone into some of the details of the system, on which therefore he felt it unnecessary to enlarge. With respect to the commission which was now going into Ireland; no one could wish for its success more cordially than himself, but he should lament if it interfered for the present with the progress of the association. To divert the Irish people from any useful object in the pursuit of which they were ardently engaged, was generally a most unfortunate experiment. The character of the people of Ireland rendered such interposition peculiarly inexpedient. He trusted that no measures would be taken to destroy the existing system, before another was substituted in its place. He could not help thinking that the right hon. baronet opposite (sir J. Newport), anxious as he was for the prosperity and the honour of his country, ought to feel something like content and satisfaction at what had already taken place. A system under which had arisen six hundred masters and seventy-nine thousand scholars in different parts of Ireland, and that not after a long lapse of years, not in the course of a century or half century, but, to use an expression of lord Bacon "in an hour-glass of one man's life, in a few yesterdays," was a subject of no ordinary congratulation. If the commission which was about to proceed to Ireland did more, he should be most happy; if it did as much, he should be content. In making these observations he trusted he should not be considered as having trespassed too much on the time of the committee. He should now leave the whole subject to the committee satisfied that this grant would be most useful in its application, and trusting that the commission, if it did not fully and cordially co-operate with the association, would substitute some plan which might be equally beneficial, or which might confer more extensive benefit on the population of Ireland.

in explanation, stated, that he never intended to cast any imputation upon so respectable a body as the Kildare-street society, who had certainly done much in the cause of the education of the Irish poor.