, in moving that the Bill be read a third time, said that two of the gentlemen whose names had been inserted in the list of the Revising Barristers under the Bill had refused to accept the office. The gentlemen he alluded to were Mr. Rogers and Mr. Alexander, and he should have to propose as one of the amendments in the Bill after it was read a third time, that there be substituted in the place of the names of these gentlemen the names of Mr. Russell Gurney and Mr. Edward Winslow.

said, he had a clause to propose by way of rider, the object of which was, to carry into effect the provisions of the Act 8th George 4th, commonly called "Davies's Act." which enacted that counsel, agents, and all others employed by candidates at elections, should not have the right of voting, and that their votes at such elections should be invalid. It was well known, that that Act was evaded, and that, where the contest was a keen one, the votes of these disqualified persons were given at the hustings, the parties trusting to the chances attendant on a petition to the House. The present clause proposed to subject such parties for voting under such circumstances to a penalty not less than 10l. and not exceeding 100l.

said, that such a clause was certainly required to carry into effect the provisions of Colonel Davies's Act.

objected to the clause, as being irrelevant to the Bill, and as being brought forward without notice.

objected to the principle on which this Court of Revision was established. The nomination of the persons filling situations in it should not be placed in the hands of a political character like the Lord Chancellor. It was true, that on the present occasion the selection made by the noble Lord was, ac- cording to all he knew and heard, a most excellent one, but the noble Lord might have successors who might not imitate his example, and the appointments might degenerate into political and party jobs. It was much better under the present system, where the appointments were left in the hands of the judges.

felt confident that the new system would ultimately be found to be a great improvement on the existing one. It would ensure greater uniformity and accuracy in the decisions, whilst, by reducing the number of barristers who decided, it increased their responsibility. He thought it better to relieve the judges of the duty of making such appointments, as under the present system, whenever political bias or partiality was imputed to a Revising Barrister, the character of the judge who appointed him was generally involved in the imputation. He trusted, that the principle which had been followed in this instance in making the selection, of not choosing from one side or the other, but of choosing indifferently from both, and, above all, of choosing men who were known not to be violent, but moderate in their political opinions, would, now that it had been so fully approved of by Parliament, constitute a guide for those on whom hereafter the duty of filling up these situations would devolve.

proposed, in Clause 64, that after the words "with any land," there should be inserted, for the purpose of securing the exemption of existing rights of voting from the disfranchising effect of the Clause, the following words:—"And whose name shall not, previously to the passing of this Act, have been inserted upon the registry of voters for any city or borough by reason of such occupation."

opposed the amendment, the effect of which, would only be to render valid the decisions of some Revising Barristers, and to perpetuate what were called pigsty votes.

defended the present system of Revising Barristers, and contended, that with the salaries now annexed to the situation, they should have got more experienced men than some of the juniors on the list. The fact was, they would have got them, but that the situation precluded them from following their profession at the same time. The hon. Member concluded by expressing his determination to take the sense of the House on the passing of the Bill.

said, that he had not suggested a single name on the list, but believing, as he firmly did, that a better selection could not have been made, he was ready to take the whole responsibility on himself. He was sure that the future appointments could not be placed in better hands than in those of the Lord Chancellor.

said, he had a petition to present in reference to the Irish Malt Bill, and with the permission of the House he would take that opportunity of presenting it. It was from a most respectable and intelligent commercial body, well known in the House—the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin. It stated, that the manufacture and sale of malt are now regulated by similar laws in all parts of the kingdom. That by the proposed Malt Bill, the manufacture and trade in malt in Ireland is subjected to vexatious regulations and penal restrictions, from which the trade of England and Scotland is exempt. That by the Report of the Commissioners of Excise inquiry and the return of penalties it was established that the malt-duties were extensively evaded in England. That while it thus appeared that illicit malting is common to the three countries, the Bill confined the remedy to Ireland, subjecting that country to different laws, and also subjecting brewers and distillers there to vexatious regulations, to which brewers and distillers in England and Scotland were not liable. That the prosperity of the brewers and distillers of Ireland was of great public importance—and that their produce forms one of the exports of the country; and it prayed that the Bill might not pass into a law.

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, observed that the present mode of collecting the Malt-duty in Ireland was exceedingly defective, and required speedy and efficient amendment. Many applications had been made to him by persons connected with the trade, to postpone this Bill, but after mature consideration he had stated to them that he felt bound in duty to the public to persevere with it. If, however, it should appear that hon. Mem- bers from Ireland entertained strong objections to the Bill, he would not be averse to withdraw it for the present, with a view to introduce a similar measure in the early part of next Session. He prayed the House to consider the consequences which would follow if they allowed the law to remain as it stood at present for another year. The inevitable result of such a course would be, that illicit traffic would spread itself over the whole face of the country. If not armed with new and more effectual powers, he would be of necessity obliged to put in force the provisions of the existing law with greater severity.

was very sensible of the magnitude of the evil which the Bill before the House was intended to remedy, but he was very sensible of the extent to which an illicit malt trade had been carried on in some parts of Ireland, and of the injury which in consequence had been sustained by the honest dealer, and also by His Majesty's revenue: at the same time it appeared to him very objectionable indeed if, at so late a period of the Session, when all Members were looking so anxiously for its speedy termination, and when so many Irish Members had left town, a Bill containing such important alterations, affecting a most important branch of Irish trade, and affecting especially one of the most rising and flourishing of her exports—the beer and brewing business—should be carried through that House, and that, too, under circumstances in which, though a Representation had been stated to have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a portion of the trade, it was quite impossible that the opinion of the trade generally could be adequately collected with regard either to the efficiency of the Bill for its own purposes, or to the nature and effect of its provisions; that he, therefore, very earnestly suggested the expediency of its postponement for the present Session; that, as he wished to place the necessity of its postponement on that occasion simply upon the question of time, it was not his intention then to enter at all into the merits of the Bill, further than to state, that he saw many and great objections both to its principle and provisions, which he should be prepared to argue in the event of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinking fit to persevere with the measure. He had stated, that the practice of illicit malting prevailed in Ireland. The Commissioners of Excise Inquiry had declared in their reports that the same practice prevailed in England, and to a very considerable extent; and, should the Chancellor of the Exchequer find, in the interval between the present time and the next Session of Parliament, that the powers with which he was at present invested were insufficient to suppress the illicit trade, he for one, would be quite willing next Session to go into the whole question, with the view to the adoption of some general measure applicable in its principle equally to both countries, to enable Government more effectually to protect the honest dealer, and to preserve his Majesty's revenue. For its prevention in the interval he would rely upon the increased efficiency of the revenue police, which, as he understood, was about to be reorganized and placed on a better footing by the right hon. Gentleman. He would also rely upon a decision which had recently been come to with regard to the construction of the law by the Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland. That decision, though it did not go the full length that had been anticipated, of throwing upon parties in whose possession suspected malt might be found, the responsibility of proving, that duty had been paid for it, imposed upon such parties the necessity of at least proving that it had been purchased from a licensed maltster; and even if it went no further, he thought the Excise department was thereby armed with a considerable additional power to counteract and prevent the evil; that, independently of his own opinion, and the opinion of that very intelligent commercial body the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, whose petition he had just had the honour to present, he had been authorized by both his hon. Friends the two Members for Belfast, who had been obliged to leave town, to state, that they concurred entirely in the expediency of postponement, and that there was a general feeling to that effect among the maltsters, distillers, and brewers of the north of Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the Bill would not be further pressed.

said, it was with extreme regret that he felt himself called upon to offer his most decided opposition to a Bill introduced under the sanction of his Majesty's Government, because be enter- tained the fullest confidence in the sincerity of their disposition to promote good government in Ireland. It was true, that many of the measures which they had brought forward during the present Session had fallen very far short of his expectations; yet, because they contained some measure of good, and because he regarded them as instalments of a great public debt, he gave them his humble but earnest support; but while he did so, he, at the same time, determined to persevere in the suit until the last farthing of his country's claims had been liquidated, and Ireland placed upon a footing of perfect equality with the remainder of the empire. The Bill before the House was of such a nature that he could not conscientiously support it. It did not contain a single ingredient of good, while it inflicted direct palpable injury upon one portion of the empire, which was entitled to equal protection with the remainder. He felt, as a Representative of one of the largest and most influential counties in Ireland, and owing, as he did, his return to the people, that he should betray the trust reposed in him—violate the solemn pledges which he had given to his constituents, and be unworthy of a seat in that House, if he permitted such a Bill to pass without giving it his most decided opposition. If the opinions he entertained upon (his question rested upon no better foundation than his own judgment, he should hesitate before he resorted to any course which might have the appearance of factious opposition. But in order to ascertain how far his opinions accorded with the public feeling, he felt it his duty to address a letter to the people of Ireland, explaining his view on the subject; and he now came forward armed with their authority to resist the further progress of the Bill. He had received numerous communications, not only from his own constituents, but from persons connected with the malt trade in various parts of Ireland, expressing their strong disapprobation of the measure, and thanking him for the course he had adopted respecting it. The Chamber of Commerce of Dublin had, in the petition presented by the hon. Member for the metropolis of Ireland, called on the House not to pass the Bill, and the National Association of Ireland and the Trades' Union of Dublin, had expressed their opinions on the question in language too plain to be misunderstood. Under these circumstances he was quite willing to bear his share of the responsibility which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would impose on the Irish Members who called upon him to withdraw this obnoxious Bill. For his own part, he would at once say, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not intimated his intention of withdrawing it, he would have resisted it, by every means which the forms of Parliament allowed; and if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in the determination he had expressed of going on with this Bill in the next Session of Parliament, if he stood alone, he would oppose it in every stage. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, as a justification of this Irish coercion bill, that smuggling prevailed to a very considerable extent in Ireland. He (Mr. Ruthven) did not deny that smuggling was carried on in that country; but he would maintain that it was not carried on to a greater, or perhaps as great an extent as it was in England and Scotland, as would be proved by documents which he would read with the permission of the House. The first to which he should call their attention was an extract from minutes of evidence taken before the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, and to be found in the 15th Report, a later authority than that quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. In reply to a question respecting the smuggling of malt in England, Mr. Joseph Taylor, of Bishop Storford, maltster, gave the following answer:—

"I think Government have never turned their attention sufficiently to protect the fair trader, and to prevent fraud; that an immense fraud is going on at this moment I am well aware. I am in the habit of seeing immense quantities of malt both in the country and in London, much of which is purchased in the London market, which I know never can have paid the duty, or it could not have been sold at the price."

The next witness to which he should refer was Mr. Edward Churk, of Ware, maltster:—

"Is there in your opinion much evasion of the duty in England?—I can only say that at Ware we go justly to work; we work as closely as men can do; but malt frequently comes to market from Norfolk and Suffolk, and from the west of England, 5s. 6d., and sometimes even 7s. a quarter under ours; then I should make allowance for our better quality; but one cause of malt being bad is the running the duty. I should say that, sup- posing the difference to be 6s., half of it may be owing to the difference of quality; but I think the duty must have been evaded."

The hon. Member quoted a variety of testimony to the same effects. He then said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the maltsters of Ireland had memorialed the Treasury for a restoration of the old permit system. He did not deny, that a certain portion of that body would be anxious for any measure which might have the effect of restoring the monopoly which they formerly enjoyed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not perhaps aware that permits or covers in the old system could be purchased for any quantity of illegal malt at 2s. per barrel. But he begged the attention of the House to a very high authority on the subject of the permit system—namely, Mr. Guinness, the eminent brewer of Dublin. The evidence of that gentleman was contained in the same report.

"Mr. Guinness—Would you propose to restore the old permit system?—No; I conceive that the old permit system was injurious to the fair trader, and ineffective in its operation.

"In what way?—There were, during the operation of the permit system, two prices for malt of the same quality; for the purchaser of a cargo of malt who would receive a portion of it without permit could get that portion at a reduced price."

He would not trouble the House with further evidence on this point, but refer at once to the Report of the Board of Excise, in reply to the inquiry of the same Commissioners relative to the collection of the Irish malt duty, in which is to be found the following important passages:—

"Upon a review of the operation of the Irish acts, as compared with the system now prevailing, no conclusion can be drawn so favourable to the former as to warrant the re-enactment of a separate malt law for Ireland, connected, as such a step would be, with the complaints and inconveniences, which in a great measure led to the adoption of the present assimilated regulations.

"Upon a careful consideration of the whole subject, it is conceived that a recurrence to the old system, such as existed in Ireland previously to the consolidation, would be very obnoxious, and give rise to serious and perhaps well-founded complaints; and that no more effectual means can be resorted to for checking the progress of illicit malting in Ireland than the measures now in operation, which, it is confidently anticipated, will shortly be the means of convincing the dishonest trader that fraud cannot be profitably practised—that detection is almost inevitable, and that great pe- cuniary loss, if not ruin, will follow detection,"

Again the Chairman of the Board of Excise, Sir Francis Boyle, corroborated the evidence to which he referred. That the statement of Sir Francis Doyle was correct would be at once apparent from the following returns of the duty paid in Ireland on malt during the years 1833 and 1834:—

1833	£245,000
1834	272,000

Showing, on a comparison of two years, an increase of 27,000l. in the duty paid into his Majesty's Exchequer, and yet they were told that smuggling had increased to a frightful extent in Ireland. If such an increase had taken place, how did it happen that Scotland exported (as appeared from a return which he held in his hand) 7,349 puncheons of whiskey to the port of London, from the 1st of January to the 7th of August, 1836, while Ireland, during the same period, exported but 355 puncheons? He also found from an official return that the penalties awarded against the English maltsters in 1835, amounted to 10,954l.; against the Scotch 6,565l.; while those against the Irish were only 1,024l. The inference to be drawn from this evidence was first, that there had not been such an increase of late in smuggling as had been stated, because, by the latest returns, it appeared that there was an increase of 27,000l. in. the year 1834, as compared to the amount of duty paid on malt in the year 1833, while the exports from Ireland of whiskey to England, as compared with those of Scotland, were scarcely deserving of notice—secondly, that smuggling prevailed to an enormous extent both in England and Scotland, and to as great an extent (for all that appeared to the contrary) as in Ireland—thirdly, that this alteration in the law was in direct opposition to the recommendation of the Board of Excise, and opposed to the general feeling of the persons engaged in the trade. So that even upon the grounds taken by the right hon. Gentleman, there was no justification for the present Bill. But if all which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated were well founded, he would still oppose this Bill, because it coerced one portion of the empire, while it left the other unfettered—because it applied a principle to Ireland which would not be extended to England—a principle which, in its operation would, be a gross violation of the liberty of the subject. Upon this point, however, he would not dwell further, as the right hon. Gentleman, he presumed, had abandoned the Bill; but, before he sat down he begged to suggest a short remedy "for the more effectually securing the duty on malt" not only in Ireland, but in England and Scotland. Let the right hon. Gentleman reduce the duty to half the present amount, and he would give a more effectual blow to smuggling than he could ever hope to accomplish by the most; severe fiscal regulations.

said, that as the Irish Members had been appealed to by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought he might be permitted to make a few observations. He was perfectly aware, and he freely admitted, that the malt trade in Ireland at present was in a state highly injurious, if not positively destructive, to the interests of the fair dealer. He, however, felt compelled to solicit the Government not to press the measure, and to suspend any new legislation on the subject till next Session. It was his impression that the Bill, whilst it imposed penal enactments of a most offensive description, would not effect the object intended, and his chief objection to it was, that its application was limited to Ireland, and not extended to the other portion of the empire. If the enactments of the Bill would have the effect of suppressing the illicit manufacture of malt in Ireland, what would be the inevitable result? Why it would be offering a premium for the illicit manufacture and importation of malt from other parts of the empire into Ireland, and thus impose on the honest dealer annoying and vexatious regulations, without giving him any adequate protection. He (Mr. S. C.) was decidedly of opinion that no measure could be safe or useful which was not universal in its operation? and as there was not time to digest the details of the measure, he preferred its postponement. He was quite satisfied that all attempts at putting an end to illicit traffic would fail, except by reducing the duty. He called on them to remember that all the arbitrary enactments which were passed, and which the police, and even the army, were for a long time employed in the enforcement of, were ineffectual with respect to illict distillation, till the duty was reduced—and what was more important, that reduction was followed by an actual increase of the revenue. But he objected to this Bill on higher and more important considerations. He objected to it, because it created a dissimilarity of legislation for Ireland as contradistinguished from the other portions of the empire. He objected to this practice, except under circumstances of clear and absolute necessity; but he objected to it, more especially, as it referred to penal enactments. If the system were continued, jealousy and irritation must be perpetually engendered, and every separate enactment afforded an argument and created a desire for a separation of the two Legislatures. He was of opinion that all minor considerations should be abandoned, and if, in particular instances, it should so happen that a degree of injury should be sustained, such partial injury would be infinitely more than compensated by the national benefit to be derived from the practical operation of uniformity in the laws of Great Britain and Ireland. He maintained that it was impossible that the minor and less wealthy country could have any security for her rights or interests when united in the same Legislature, except on the basis of uniformity of laws and institutions. The operation of this system of separate legislation was never more strongly manifested than by the effect produced on the public mind by the proposition contained in the Bill before the House. There never was a Government so popular in Ireland as the present—there never was one so deservedly so, and yet the Bill had produced an excitation of a most serious character. The Government was blamed even by their most warm and devoted supporters. Why was this? He answered because the Bill was partial, and because it was another sample of separate legislation. In justice, however, to the Government, he was bound to say, that they were not to blame on this occasion. He knew that pressing solicitations had been made for protection by persons of high respectability in the trade in Ireland, and he was aware that they contended that some measure should be passed during the present Session. He was convinced that the Bill was brought forward at the urgent entreaty of these parties, and he gave due credit to the Government for the desire they had manifested to acquiesce in the general opinion of the Irish Members on the present occasion. He also thought that it was unjust to charge any particular member of the Government with the unpopularity of this Bill from the incidental circumstance of his name having appeared on the back of it. He thought that at this particular period, when a great struggle was before them, that the principle of common legislation should be sustained and insisted on. What prospect had either country of a successful issue in that struggle, except by a complete union of interest and efforts? All minor considerations of partial interests or partial objects should be set aside, and Britain and Ireland should pull together in a combined and uncompromising demand for justice and for civil and religious freedom.

, though individually in favour of legislation on this subject, was decidedly opposed to many provisions of the Bill. Under all the circumstances he recommended the postponement till next Session.

said, that in accordance with the wishes of the Irish Members, so unanimously expressed, he would consent to defer the consideration of the question till that day three months.

thought it his duty to submit to the consideration of the House the Clause of which he had formerly given notice. If the effect of the present Bill was to impose for the first time a tax of twenty-seven and a half per cent. on the Parliamentary grant to the descendants of the illustrious Duke of Marlborough, the measure would do that which would be utterly inconsistent with the intentions of the Legislature which made the grant, and with the proceedings of that House in analogous cases during the last twenty years. It might be a small matter in itself, but was a great injustice. He was of opinion, that to deduct from a grant to an individual so eminently distinguished for his services to his country as the great Duke of Marl-borough would be to deduct from the honour of the nation. The hon. Member referred to the services performed by the great Duke of Marlborough, in respect of which a pension of 5,000l. a-year and Blenheim House, and the lands attached to it, were settled on his family. If a stranger were to visit Blenheim, he would expect to find that lands commensurate with that magnificent structure were attached to it. But what was the fact? He could state, that the value of the manor of Woodstock and all the ground attached to Blenheim was not more than 3,000l. a-year. Whilst that House showed itself anxious to remove from the Pension List those names that had been unworthily placed there, they ought to draw a distinction between merited and unmerited pensions. He thought, that it would not become them to introduce a law for the first time, which affected with a duty the estate of the Duke of Marlborough, The hon. Member proceeded to compare the rewards assigned to the Duke of Marlborough for his services, and those assigned to others for similar services. If the historian were called upon to point out for public reward the men who, above all others during the last two centuries, had performed the most distinguished services, he would, undoubtedly, select the names of Marlborough, Nelson, and Wellington. He was not going to compare the rewards assigned to the Duke of Marlborough with those assigned to Nelson and Wellington; those assigned to the Duke of Wellington were much larger in amount, but not larger than the gratitude of the country was willing to grant. The pension of the Duke of Marlborough was one with which this country ought not to interfere. The hon. Member concluded by moving a clause to exempt, in conformity with the invariable practice in such cases, the Parliamentary grant of an annuity, settled in the reign of Queen Anne, on the descendants of John, Duke of Marlborough, on account of his eminent services, from all taxes and deductions whatsoever.

seconded the motion, on the grounds that the original grant was clearly intended to be free of all taxes and impositions whatsoever; and, because he did not think it would be doing justice to the memory of the great Duke of Marlborough to place the annuity enjoyed by his descendants on a different footing from the grants to the Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson, Lord Amherst, and Lord Chatham.

said, the grant having been originally made by Parliament, the Government had no right whatever to take upon themselves the construction of the Act of Parliament, or to decide either in favour of or against the claim of the present Duke of Marlborough, to be paid the whole amount of the annuity without any deduction being made for land-tax. The question was one which the Treasury felt the Government had no right to decide, and, therefore, it was, that they had declined expressing any opinion on the subject, in order that the matter might finally be determined by that House, the only authority to whom it could properly be referred. If they were now about to grant a new pension, he did not think they should allow the land-tax or any other imposition to attach to it; but when there was evidence to show that this grant was originally made subject to land-tax, he did not think they would be justified in giving to the Act of Parliament a different construction from that which the framers of it intended it should bear. If the case were a doubtful one, he was ready to admit, that they should resolve the doubt in favour of the Duke of Marl-borough. Under these circumstances, he would leave the case in the hands of the House, satisfied that he had vindicated the Government in declining to acquiesce in this clause, and because, if the boon sought for were granted, it would have additional value in the eyes of the Duke of Marlborough, because it would not be the Act of the Government, but of the House of Commons—because it would show that, by giving an enlarged and liberal meaning to the statute of Anne, the great services of his illustrious ancestor were as fresh in the memory of the people of this country at the present day as those of the Duke of Wellington must be in all times to come. Having now vindicated the course which the Treasury had taken, and stated the grounds on which he thought the House should view the question, he for one would be most happy to acquiesce in any determination to which the House might come.

thought, there were strong reasons for supposing that there was no intention on the part of the framers of the Act of Anne to relieve the grant to the Duke of Marlborough from the payment of land-tax. It might be all very proper to redress injustice; but if injustice had been done in the present case, all he could say was, that the evil could not be remedied by a clause construing an Act of Parliament, but ought to be removed by a distinct Act on the subject. It had been said, that the omission of land-tax in the exemption was the result of accident; but this he did not believe, because he thought the evidence was all the other way. From the year 1780 to the present time this had been the regular payment If it was intended to carry the proposed object into effect, it would be more creditable to do so in the usual course, and not under cover of a clause such as that which had been submitted to their consideration.

was not prepared to contend that an additional grant should not be made in favour of the Duke of Marlborough's family, taking into consideration the altered value of money; but no case had been made out in support of the proposition submitted by the hon. Member, and he should certainly vote against it in its present shape.

thought, all pensions were or ought to be subject to the tax, and if some had hitherto escaped, it was time they were now taxed.

opposed the clause. He certainly thought that when a pension had been granted it ought not to be reduced by any deductions such as those that had been referred to; but that was not now the question. He did not think there were any circumstances to justify them in giving an increased pension to the descendants of the Duke of Marlborough. He, therefore, would oppose the clause.

urged the hon. Member not to press his amendment. The sense of the House had already been taken on the question, and he would not be a party to any further opposition.

complained that the House had been taken by surprise with respect to the clause. He should, therefore, support the amendment.

said, that if the battle of Blenheim were as fresh in the memory of the House as the battle of Waterloo there would not be a word of objection to the proposed increase. He had felt bound to lean in favour of distinguished military services, and he gave the fullest credit at the same time to the Secretary of the Treasury for the having nobly and manfully vindicated the more economical view of the subject. He hoped the amendment would not be persevered in.

As the House had been taken by surprise, he should feel himself justified in moving adjournment after adjournment, until the question should be finally disposed of. With the view of closing the discussion on it for the present, he would move that the further debate be adjourned till to-morrow.

denied that the House had been taken by surprise inasmuch as a notice on the subject had appeared on the votes since last May. He thought the better course for the hon. Member to adopt would be to take the sense of the House on the question when the Bill came on for the third reading.

did not see what objection could be made to duties, the payment of which had not been objected to by the person to whom the pension was originally granted.

wished to know if this clause was agreed to whether it was the intention of Government to pay the arrears of the pension for the time past, as well as to remit the duties for the future? If they were remitted for the future it was an admission that they had hitherto been unjustly received, and the non-payment of the arrears would be direct robbery. Either this was the view which should be taken of the case, or else the proposition was to give an additional pension of 800l. a-year without any inquiry whatever. He hoped the hon. Member would persist in his motion for adjourning the debate.

begged to remind the hon. Member for Finsbury that this clause was not brought in by Government. It would not have a retrospective effect, and consequently no arrears could accrue.

said, as no intimation of the proposition was given to the House he should say they were taken by surprise in being called on to grant a new pension of 800l. a-year to the Duke of Marlborough. This was a grant that should be considered, and they only asked for time—say even until to-morrow.

said, it was a most unjust charge to make, that the House was taken by surprise. The case was not of that peculiar character that required particular notice to be given by the Government. To say that this was a new grant of 800l. a-year to the Duke of Marlborough was, to say the least, a strange and not creditable error. If it were so, the case would indeed have been altered. The question was whether, as pensions had been granted to many individuals for public services, naval and military, such as Nelson and Wellington, and as deductions on the ground of public expediency had been made from the pensions of these persons, the same rule would not apply to the present Duke of Marlborough? He thought that it was shown in the course of the debate that it could not. The noble Duke's ancestor had earned this pension well, and he for one would not defame his memory by curtailing the pension. As a proof that this was not really a Government question he would say that the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General voted against the rest of the Government upon it. As the House would have another opportunity of discussing the subject, on the third reading, he hoped they would allow the second reading.

congratulated the House on the statement just made by the hon. Baronet. He begged leave to observe, however, that from the Report of the Commissioners, he was at a loss to understand exactly at what hours the Museum was to be open. Upon that point he wished to be informed, and also whether there was any probability of a more perfect catalogue being provided, for it was certainly very much needed. He had also to observe, that he did not think 500l., as specified in the grant, sufficient for supplying moulds to the French Government for taking casts of the Elgin marbles, and it would be pitiful to make that Government pay for them.

said, that it was intended to keep the Museum open during the months of May, June, July, and August, from nine in the morning until seven in the evening, and during the rest of the year at the usual hours. He believed a perfect catalogue would be ready before the end of the year, but the Commissioners feared they could not carry their plans into effect without some assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, the Treasury would be always ready to assist the Commissioners, if they made out a proper case.

said, he could not give a silent vote upon the proposed grant. It was understood that there was to be another vote of 11,000l. in addition to an outlay of a similar sum for remodelling Tyrone House. He considered the vote as a most extravagant one, but he did not rise so much on that account as for the purpose of expressing his unqualified disapprobation at the mode in which this system of education was worked in Ireland. The system was not conducted on the plan originally proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley). It was stated by that noble Lord to be intended as an united system of education—modelled on religious education. Now, he would take upon himself to say, that this system, so far from being an united system, was exclusively Roman Catholic—he did not mean to say, that there were not a few Protestants attending the schools—but he maintained that the great body of the persons attending them were of the Roman Catholic persuasion. He could also state, that schools were under such superintendence that it was utterly impossible that Protestant parents could send their children to be instructed at them. It was placed beyond all controversy that twenty-four of the schools receiving aid from the Education Board were placed under the superintendence of monks and nuns, and he would put it to the House whether, under such circumstances, it was not quite a farce to suppose, that a united system of education could be imparted to Protestants and Roman Catholics? In that respect the experiment had been an utter failure, inasmuch as neither Protestants nor Presbyterians could conscientiously permit their children to attend schools conducted as these schools necessarily must be. He did not mean to divide the Committee upon the grant—but he hoped an investigation would be instituted to ascertain how far the rules had been adhered to, and how far the children of various persuasions were in the course of receiving education at these schools. He was afraid the result of the inquiry would prove that, under the present plan, it was impossible to carry on a system of united education. So exclusively Roman Catholic were these schools in their character, that they were familiarly called the priests' schools—and he complained of that state of the new system of education, because the Protestants of the country ought to be more regarded. This system, being exclusively Roman Catholic, he saw no reason why Parliament should not allocate some funds for the instruction of the Protestants. The Protestants of Ireland had been considerably underrated, and he had not the least doubt that they amounted to 2,000,000. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he had data to prove that to be nearly the actual number. But, at all events, the Protestants of Ireland were a body sufficient to demand respect, and he trusted their interests would not be wholly slighted. He must again express a hope, that an investigation might be instituted—the rather as the hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton), not then in his place, had stated, when the appropriation clause was under discussion, that he would not consent to it unless the charges preferred against the Board of Education should be investigated and proved to be groundless.

protested against any re- ligious distinctions being drawn between the people of Ireland when they were legislating for the general good.

said, his hon. and learned Friend had complained of that very practice; he had complained that the schools had been made exclusively Roman Catholic.

said, the Government of the country was a Protestant Government, and, therefore, the Ministry was bound to support the Protestant Church and system of education. It was against popery that Protestants especially protested, and as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House he should never forget that essential principle of Protestantism.

thought, the hon. and learned Member for Bandon might as well have said the Protestants of Ireland were 3,000,000 as 2,000,000. It would have been much more satisfactory if he had laid his finger on any particular parish, and proved the inaccuracy of the Commissioners' returns in respect to the number of Protestants. It was true that the schools were called "priests' schools," but only by those Protestants who had done everything to keep up party distinctions, and to defeat the efforts which had been made to render the system of education united and generally acceptable.

said, he considered that the hon. and learned Sergeant had been rather more severe upon his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bandon, than the circumstances warranted. The hon. and learned Sergeant accused his hon. Friend of dealing too largely in assertion, and on the instant the learned Sergeant dealt more largely in assertion himself than had his hon. Friend near him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asserted that the opposition to those schools emanated from his hon. Friend the Member for Bandon; but the fact was, that the Protestants of Ireland ceased to attend these schools because they were held in Roman Catholic chapels. He could state an instance of his own knowledge. He had named it before, and had no objection to do so again. The school to which he alluded was held in the chapel of Ballymoate, the parish in which he resided. He had himself visited the school, and he supposed it would not be denied that it was one of the rules of the Education Board that no religious books or catechism should be used. Now the first book he took up in the school was a Roman Catholic Catechism. As to the number of Protestants in Ireland being considerably underrated, he would beg leave to give a reason for coinciding in the opinion as to that point expressed by his hon. and learned Friend. In the parish in which he (Colonel Perceval) resided, the Roman Catholic priest returned only one Protestant for the whole parish, and that one was himself. He happened to have a wife and nine children, not one of whom was a member of the Church of Rome. He had at the time upwards of thirty Protestants residing within the walls of his demesne, including his family, gate-keeper, &c; and he could add that he was present at the parish church last Easter Sunday, when he saw 180 Protestant communicants; and still the priest's return was limited to one Protestant, and that one he himself was. So much for the accuracy of the returns. He hesitated not to say, that if the grant were worded perfectly, it should be headed "a grant for the Education of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland." As it was it was absurd to call the system a united system.

wished to know if the Commissioners adopted the particular return alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member.

believed that they did not; but there were places in Ireland where the testimony of the Roman Catholic priest on this and other subjects was implicitly relied on.

was sure, that if the Education Board had been made acquainted with the case, they would have interfered.

wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact, that 50,000l. was the sum agreed upon as the amount to be granted for education in Ireland, and he regretted that sum was not the amount to be voted at present. By the Report of the Commissioners it appeared that 400 applications for Sunday schools had been made, but owing to want of funds they were unable to comply, and the Commissioners were also unable to procure proper teachers for the schools, owing to the limited sums they were at present able to give them.

said, the grant was opposed solely to obtain an opportunity for calumniating, the Catholics.

denied that he had calumniated the Roman Catholics. He stated that the priest returned to a constable named Thompson the return of the Protestants in his (Colonel Perceval's) parish, and that return amounted only to one. Thompson returned the statement on oath.

agreed with those hon. Friends who had preceded him, that at that advanced period of the Session, and in the then thin state of the House, it would be in vain to divide against the grant to the Board of National Education in Ireland. He could not, however, content himself without again recording his opinion against the system pursued by that Board, as one which was opposed to the conscientious feelings of the great majority of the Irish Protestants, and which he believed never could promote united education in that country. He could, if it were not unnecessary to trouble the House with them at that time, adduce innumerable instances in which the rules of the Board were violated in the schools in connexion with them. He did not mean to say, as seemed to be assumed by his noble Friend (Lord Clements), as the argument of those who agreed with him (Mr. Shaw), that the Board refused to listen to complaints on that subject. That was really not the question. The insuperable objection in his (Mr. Shaw's) mind, to the system was, that it formed a fundamental part of it that the Bible, in its simple and entire form, was excluded from the national schools, when alone they could be considered as such. If it was said, that extracts were allowed, his answer was, that that would not obviate the objection, even if those extracts were fairly made; but he was bound to add that they were not, in his opinion, fairly made, but such as might justly be termed garbled. He was as desirous as any one could be for the success of an united and harmonious system of education for the poor in Ireland; but he was persuaded that such a system, so far as regarded Protestants, never could be successful if based upon the anti-Protestant ground of the exclusion of the Word of God. For his part, he had no doubt that the plan of the Kildare-place society would before then have been generally adopted and successful throughout Ireland, but for the party and political motives which influenced the opposition it had met with. Of one thing he was sure, that without the help of the appropriation clause in the Irish Tithe Bill, there was no desire on either side of the House to refuse from considerations of economy, whatever sum of money might be required for the purpose of education in Ireland. He would certainly prefer that separate grants should be made to Protestants and Roman Catholics, if no system of united education could be agreed upon, rather than that the present delusion should be countenanced of supporting under the name of a system of general education, a scheme which virtually excluded from its benefits the poor Protestants of Ireland.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Cashel had made some personal allusion to him, and he therefore felt bound to offer a few observations in reply. If that hon. and learned Gentleman had been in his place on a former occasion, he would have heard him expose the erroneous nature of the returns which the Commissioners of Public Instruction had made to that House. He contended that the returns made by the Commissioners of public Instruction were not deserving of the credit which they too frequently received; and, in his opinion formed no safe ground for legislation. He should trouble the House with but one or two examples to show how little they were to be depended on. Upon a former occasion he stated that a parish in Kerry—the same arish in which the hon. and learned Gentleman who now represented Kilkenny resided—had been returned by the Commissioners as containing but forty-nine Protestant inhabitants, which was one under the number that, according to a Bill of which the House must have full recollection, would be required, to secure to a parish the benefit of Christian instruction by a minister of the Church of England. Now it happened that very shortly after those returns were in the hands of Members he was handed a letter by his friend, the Knight of Kerry, informing him, on the authority of the clergyman of that parish, that the number of members of the Church of England resident therein, amounted to fifty-six at the time the returns were made, and had since then been augmented to sixty-three. He had likewise called the attention of the House to the case of a parish of which the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was the incumbent, and in that return 300 Protestants of the Established Church were suppressed. The census of one of the parishes in Dublin was taken in July, when the greater part of the Protestant inhabitants were at the watering place of Bray, and the census of the parish of Bray was taken in October, when they had all returned to town, so that no place got credit for possessing that portion of the Protestants of Ireland. Another instance he was supplied with by Mr. Barnard, in which the return made by the Commissioners was fifty under the number of Protestants actually residing in the parish. Every person must be aware, that it must be much more easy to ascertain the precise number of schools in Ireland than to obtain anything like a correct census of the Protestant population, scattered as they were over the whole face of the country. Now, the Commissioners returned the number of schools, in connexion with the Kildare-place Society, as amounting altogether to only 235, whereas to his (Mr. J.'s) positive knowledge they exceeded 1000. Their return set forth, that in three dioceses there was not a single school in connexion with the Society; whereas in the very district named there were 300 schools, being a larger number than the Commissioners gave the Society credit for having in all Ireland. Now, where a blunder of such a nature was manifest, it was not unreasonable to suppose that errors to an enormous amount had crept into the census of the Protestant population. With respect to the charge preferred against him by the hon. and learned Member for Cashel, of keeping away children from the school, he denied having ever interfered to keep a single person away from them. The hon. Member for Mayo had said, that the grant was opposed solely with a view of calumniating the Roman Catholics. It had never been his (Mr. Sergeant Jackson's) habit to calumniate any person, and least of all had he that night calumniated the Roman Catholics.

observed, in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, that he had thought the testimony already laid before the House on the subject of the parish in Kerry would have been considered quite sufficient: he thought before, as he did now, that the difference between forty-nine and fifty-six being only seven, had been sufficiently accounted for, and he should therefore not trouble the House with any remarks on the subject. As to the discovery which the hon. and learned Gentleman made with respect to the parish at Bray, he wished him joy of it, and hoped that on some future occasion he would explain to the House how it was possible for persons to be returned as in a parish which at the time the return was made they did not inhabit. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the University of Dublin, had represented the version of the Scriptures used in the Schools under the sanction of Government, as consisting of garbled extracts; to that he begged permission to observe in reply that much higher authorities in matters of religion than the right hon. Gentleman held a totally different opinion, and by those authorities he felt much more disposed to abide than by the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman.

wished to say, that what he had charged some hon. Gentleman on the other side with was, having proclaimed to the Protestants of Ireland that the Government system of education was subversive of their faith. They complained that the Protestants were supplied with nothing but a mutilated version of the Scriptures, and they certainly did all they could to prevent Protestant children from attending the Schools.

must insist, notwithstanding the observations of the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) that he had properly termed the extracts made by the Education Board garbled, at least as compared with the authorised version of the Scriptures. He believed, that in nine cases out of ten when the authorised and Rhemish versions differed, the latter had been followed by the Commissioners. The noble Lord boasted of the Board containing able scholars and divines—that might be true—but would the noble Lord venture to assert that such a Board as that was to be regarded by the Protestant people of these countries as a tribunal competent to undertake the great and important work of a new translation of the Bible of the Church of England?

considered the establishment of a national system of education had been hitherto proposed and maintained as an experiment—that the experiment had proved a complete failure—and to ask for it now the support and protection of the Legislature, was to ask, that the public money should be largely applied for the gratification of the Roman Catholic priests, and the propagation of Popery in Ireland. The scheme had been rejected and denounced both by the Protestants of the establishment and the Presbyterian Church, and was notoriously perverted—if it could be called perversion, and not the natural operation of the system—for the purpose of extending the dominion of the Church of Rome. He perfectly agreed with his gallant Friend (Colonel Perceval) that it would be better if the Roman Catholics must have money, to let them have it avowedly for the support of their own un-scriptural and superstitious system. He (Mr. Archdall) did not consider it possible that the religion of Scripture, and that of human authority and tradition, could be brought together into one common system of national education—the former would be corrupted by the foul contagion, and the result would be to endanger the existence of true religion.

observed, that he had repeatedly recorded by his vote his objection to the proposed grant; and he entertained as strong an objection to it at present as at any former period. His hon. Friend the Member for Durham, had given notice of a motion for next Session, when he intended to move for a Committee to inquire into the system of education pursued at Maynooth College. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friends would not then insist upon a division; if they did, he should certainly feel it his duty to record his vote against the motion, but he trusted that under the circumstances they would not take the sense of the House.

said, he for one certainly should take the sense of the House on the question. It was true, that he had given notice of the motion which his hon. and gallant Friend had just mentioned, but that should not restrain him from taking any opportunity of supporting the rights of the Protestants of Ireland—rights which he thought were much neglected.

hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the House upon that grant. It was, at all events, in one respect unlike the grant proposed for National Education in Ireland—there was no disguise about it. He deprecated the system of Maynooth as conferring neither benefit on the country nor credit on the Roman Catholics themselves. He thought it demanded a searching inquiry, and he hoped such an inquiry would be granted; but he owned that, considering the circumstances under which this vote was brought forward, that it had been sanctioned by various governments, and that many persons were dependent upon it for support, he did not think it would be reasonable to put a sudden stop to it.

begged his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Dublin, to believe, that he entertained the highest respect for any recommendation coming from him, but he had presumed his right hon. Friend knew him well enough to expect, that when once he took a thing into his head he was not to be moved from his purpose.

said, that an inquiry into the whole system of Maynooth College, and especially of the system of education pursued there, was, in his opinion, loudly and imperatively called for, and he regretted very much, that the hon. Baronet, who had given notice of a motion for such an inquiry, had not been able to follow it up. As an individual Member of this House, he felt bound to raise his voice against a grant of public money for the advancement of a religion, and for the promulgation of doctrines which, as a Protestant, he conscientiously believed to be erroneous. He fully concurred in the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Southwark on a recent occasion, that where one set of men differed from another in essential matters of religion, and were sincere and honest in that difference, and believed that it involved principles of great importance, whatever they might profess, it was impossible but that, believing those others to be wrong, they must be anxious not only to convince them of their error, but to prevent the promulgation of that error; and they ought not, therefore, in his opinion, to be parties to its advancement or extension. It surprised him that hon. Members on the other side of the House, especially those of the Roman Catholic persuasion, who were so ready to condemn the connexion of Church and State—to declare that they should consider their religion contaminated by such a connexion, and who, not satisfied with dealing with their own religion as they pleased, should be so forward in endeavouring to free the religion of others from that supposed contamination, by effecting its separation from the State. He confessed he was surprised that persons holding these opinions should consent to owe the educa- tion of their clergy to a public grant from the State.

said, that this was the best of the whole eight and twenty grants. When the Roman Catholics were in the habit of taking money for education, they might the more readily take stipends for their clergy, and thus there would be an end to the influence of the crafty priest and the cunning agitator.

begged to ask the hon. Member, as he had placed his opposition on such grounds, whether he could consent to make a grant of money for Roman Catholic or for Protestant Dissenting places of worship?

said, if he understood the question rightly, he had no hesitation in answering it. He might vote for those Protestant Dissenters whose opinions did not appear to him wrong in essentials; for the others he could not, because he did think them wrong in essentials.

said, he thought the proposition a most extraordinary one. Because the hon. Member for Roscommon could not get all he wanted, he refused to take anything. Anxious as he was personally for the improvement of the Shannon, he would not ask Parliament to grant a single penny until the local proprietors had subscribed their quota. He had been charged with not bringing in a Bill upon the subject; he held the Bill in his hand, and intended to move for leave to bring it in the moment the House resumed.

was sorry his hon. Friend (Mr. French) proposed to strike out the sum requisite for keeping the works in repair, though he perfectly agreed with him in the justice of the remarks he had made. He objected to having the navigation of the river placed under the control of the Government, and he was confident, that the trade of the river, if left to private individuals, would pay all the expense of improving the navigation.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had distinctly pledged himself to bring forward a measure for the improvement of the broad waters of the Shannon during the present Session, in his reply to his motion to inquire into the tributaries. If the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to redeem his pledge, he was perfectly aware that no report from the Commissioners was required. There was no land to be valued, nor any damages to be estimated. He denied, that the right hon. Gentleman was either deeply or personally interested in the improvement of the Shannon. He had no connexion whatever with it, the right hon. Gentleman's property all lying below Limerick. The right hon. Gentleman had done a great deal for Limerick, where he was deeply and personally interested, but nothing for the navigation of the Shannon.