, on rising to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to take into consideration the most eligible site for the two houses of Parliament, said, he was actuated in the course he was taking by a desire that the buildings to be erected should be left to future ages as a memorial of the grandeur, wealth, and importance, of this great and glorious empire, and to prevent the loss of the advantages which accident had afforded of removing those buildings from the hole in which the House was now assembled. He was aware that this question had already been discussed and decided by the House, but he trusted he should be able to show good ground for the appointment of the select committee. The House was aware that not very long after the destruction of the Houses of Parliament by fire in 1834, an invitation was held out to architects to supply plans and specifications. Those plans and specifications were submitted to commissioners composed of amateur architects, but of scientific knowledge. Those commissioners examined the plans, and on the 9th of February, 1836, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved for the appointment of a select committee to examine the report of the commissioners. That committee recommended, that plan sixty-four (Mr. Barry's) should be so far adopted as to be made the basis for further inquiry in respect of cost of the plan and the best mode of carrying it into execution. It was said the sum required was not to exceed 500,000l. That amount Mr. Hanbury Tracy, one of the commissioners, had, on his examination, stated, came very closely to the amount the new buildings would cost. Sir John Hobhouse, in moving an address to the Crown for an inquiry into the best mode of proceeding in conformity with the report of the commissioners, said, that, "should the House agree to the report, the effect would merely be, that proceedings would be taken to procure from Mr. Barry some statements of expense, without at all deciding that it ought to be incurred. The report went no further, and the House would probably be of opinion, that, under all the circumstances, due caution had been used in an important and somewhat delicate investigation." On the same occasion Sir Robert Peel said, "that the further inquiry would extend not merely to the cost of the buildings, but to the comparative expense of erecting them of different materials, and their durability as affected by London smoke and London atmosphere. If it should appear, said the right hon. Baronet, that Mr. Barry's plan, beautiful in its exterior, and convenient in its arrangements, as it was, could only be carried into effect under an enormous and unjustifiable outlay, which would require too great a sacrifice of economy, the motion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hobhouse) implied no pledge that it should be adopted by the House." The motion was agreed to, estimates were called for, and Mr. Barry fixed the amount of the cost at 750,000l. This estimate had then been submitted to, persons appointed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and the result of that examination had proved that the estimates and specifications of Mr. Barry were erroneous to a very considerable extent. In the first item, that for a foundation of concrete, calculated by Mr. Barry at four feet, it had been found that twelve feet would be necessary, and this produced an increase on his estimate of no less than 54,972l. Again, the cost of the embankment, calculated by Mr. Barry at 40,000l., had been converted to 67,373l., being an increase of 27,373l. upon that item of expense, and these, with the expense of the purchase of land, and the construction of steps and landing-places, increased Mr. Barry's estimate by no less a sum than 77,325l. While he admitted Mr. Barry to be an architect of great talent and ability, still his estimates, like those of other architects, were below the mark, and he (Colonel Davies) contended that the express condition being that the cost should not exceed his estimates, the House and the country were relieved from any obligation to adopt his plan. With respect to the site, if the new buildings were erected on the site occupied by St. James's Palace, a saving might be effected of not less than 450,000l., allowing 76,000, for the erection of suitable buildings for her Majesty to receive her subjects at levees and drawing-rooms, and for which Buckingham Palace was but ill-adapted. The present site might be made valuable for quays and warehouses, and the purchase of land would, by the change of site, be unnecessary, inasmuch as St. James's Palace afforded ample space for both purposes. Again, the cost of the round tower, estimated at 115,000l., might be saved, and he repeated, that in these and other items a saving might be effected of 450,673l. He did not wish the House to take his word for the statements, but, as guardians of the public purse, and relieved from any engagement, to grant an inquiry into the subject. The height of Mr. Barry's buildings, if erected here, would totally eclipse Westminster-hall and Westminster Abbey, the superiority of which he was most anxious to preserve. He considered the site of St. James's Palace much more central and convenient to all parties. The convenience of the great majority of the Members of both Houses of Parliament ought not, in his opinion, to be sacrificed to the present advantage of those members of the bar who were also Members of the House of Commons. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the appointment of a select committee.

Sir, Having been requested by some of my hon. Friends to second this motion, to satisfy both this House and the country that it originated in no party feeling or political object, I do so with pleasure. I take up the question without the slightest intention or desire to support any set of professional men: besides, as the motion is made by a supporter of her Majesty's Government, and approved by some on this side, it cannot be supposed for a moment that it partakes of any political feeling whatever. I think that I ought, also, to state, that I have little or no acquaintance with any of the architects who sent in their plans, and that my only object in rising on the present occasion, is to draw the attention of the Houses of Parliament and of the country to a subject of great importance, both in point of national taste, national expenditure, and national convenience.

It is usually the case in private life, that, whenever an individual wishes to erect a house for his residence, he selects the most healthy spot on his grounds, and sets about the building so as to get it constructed in the most eligible, and at the same time the least expensive manner. This, I believe, will not be contradicted, and it seems to me natural that, nearly the same rule or mode of acting ought to be applied to national buildings, unless peculiar reasons can be given for a deviation from such a principle.

No one can venerate more than I do the site of ancient recollections, endeared by deeds of days of former years, where the liberties of our country have been raised, confirmed, cherished, and secured, and where, from the contests of parties, an interest is excited that makes history so valuable to the statesman and the patriot. Every Member of this House is aware that when the first Parliaments were assembled, the two Houses sat together in the King's Palace at Westminster; when they were separated under Edward 3d, the Commons sat in the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey, and continued there until the reign of Edward 6th, who gave them St. Stephen's Chapel, which was occupied by them until destroyed by fire in 1834. The House of Lords sat sometimes in the Painted Chamber, sometimes in the Star Chamber, and latterly, until the fire, in the Court of Records, the old site of the present House, where we are sitting at this moment, which was the Court of Records.

* From a corrected report, published by Roake and Varty.

The inconvenience of the present situation of both Houses of Parliament is so evident as to require little comment, to most of the Members, to those persons whose attendance is required, either officially or before committees, or to those who come from curiosity; in short, it occasions to almost every individual who attends on Parliament, either from the calls of business, or from other motives, the loss of nearly half an hour in time, and nearly a mile in distance. This being admitted, requires no additional proof. The present situation of the Houses of Parliament forces many persons to take up their residence in a part of the town inconvenient to them in many respects: indeed, so general is the inconvenience felt by almost every member of the community, either of the upper or middle classes of society, who at various times are necessarily obliged on some occasion or other to attend at Westminster, that nothing but some very strong and cogent reasons can be urged for rebuilding on the present site, when other situations, more commodious in every respect, may be obtained at less expense.

The leading reasons that I have heard assigned for the adoption of this locality are:—

1. The vicinity to the courts of law, which enables members of the legal profession, who are Members of this House, to attend without delay, or much inconvenience, and also the facility of counsel when before committees, to leave Westminster Hall.

2. The veneration which it is natural should be entertained for a situation which has been the arena in which the contest for the liberties of England has so often taken place, and so often been victorious—the spot where Chatham, Pitt, Fox, and all the leaders of both parties in each House of Parliament, have distinguished themselves, and rendered more perfect the constitution of their country, besides being a place identified with our history, and the deeds of days long since past away.

3. The facility afforded by water conveyance for Members, in cases of political excitement, of avoiding the taunts and insults, and, perhaps, personal violence, of a mob.

I have, Sir, to notice very briefly, each of these arguments in their order. In re gard to the convenience of legal men frequenting this House. I grant there may be some advantage to them in so doing, but I maintain that their clients may suffer in nearly the same proportion as they, the lawyers, are benefited. I have often witnessed in committees the slack attendance of the leading counsel, and although the talent of those gentlemen might, in some measure, supply the want of time, and the hurry and consequent excitement arising from a vast accumulation of business, yet I cannot see or think that part of the population of the empire should be inconvenienced, for the mere accommodation of a few gentlemen, who, if they had less business, would be under the necessity of allowing their juniors to come in for their shares, and a greater equality of briefs to each would be the result.

The argument that old recollections ought to be kept up, and that the new Houses ought to be on the site of the old, has, I confess, something in it, but would have more, if the old walls really existed, but they are not to be seen; nothing remains except the foundation of St. Stephen's Chapel; the charm is broken, the prestige is gone. Now, Sir, it really appears to me that building on the site merely, (and the proposed building will not be on the old site,) does not fulfil the ideas of veneration for those great men and for antiquity, the recollection of which carries importance on the human mind. If I see a table or any particular substance that has been used, or been in the sight or occupation of a great man, I may entertain some veneration for it on that account, I may have the same feeling for the walls that have responded to his voice, but where every thing has been destroyed by fire, where scarcely a trace or vestige is to be perceived of a former structure, except the foundations, I confess, I do not think, that for the sake of building on the mere site, or in its vicinity, at an enormous inconvenience to the population of a great empire, is either a judicious measure, or one that will give general satisfaction.

In regard to the last argument brought in favour of the Houses being near the river, that is really too childish, and scarcely requires an answer. The idea of Members of the Legislature making their escape, and fleeing from a mob, like sheep before the shepherd's dog,—to suppose the Legislature of such an empire as this, placing an enormously expensive structure on piles and on mud, at great cost and inconvenience, that its Members may have the means of escape from the people, is really too ludicrous to require a serious answer.

This brings me to another point which I may now lay before the House, which is the very bad taste of crowding together in the smallest possible space. The architecture of Westminster Abbey (like all those magnificent structures erected in France and England in the eleventh and twelfth centuries) is formed of that chaste and elegant style of Gothic architecture prevalent at that period. Westminster Hall is also of considerable architectural antiquity; is it not bad taste to crowd into the small space between the Hall and the Abbey, another building, quite in a different style of the Gothic from either of the others, and so squeezed in by both, that some difficulty may occur in turning a carriage drawn by more than two horses. The new Houses of Parliament, if erected here, cannot be seen to advantage, from any point of view; if seen from the street they will be too near the spectator, if seen from the other side of the river, they will be too far to have justice done to their elevation; on one side shut in by the Abbey and by St. Margaret's Church; on the other by Westminster Hall, and on the south by the river Thames: where can the building be seen to advantage? How often has it been regretted, that the beautiful building of Somerset House was only seen from the river; in the present instance, without any cause, you place your new building not only in a similar but even in a worse situation! Nothing can be more offensive to the taste, than different specimens of Gothic architecture jumbled together without judgment, taste, or discrimination. I will here give the opinion of one of the commissioners, appointed by the Crown to investigate the plans, Sir E. Cust, a gentleman of great skill and architectural knowledge on the subject, who says:—

"The north front of Westminster Hall, which it is very properly proposed to incorporate into the design, looks now so bald in the midst of the pannelled and pinnacled architecture that surrounds it, that it would be my advice to lower its tone, to make the new building suit the old, and that Mr. Barry be required to do this. Any suggestions that I can make upon the subject cannot fail to be of more value when offered previous to the undertaking."

Unless this be done, that is, unless the tone of the plan is lowered, it will not correspond with the architecture of Westminster Abbey, if in the intended structure no decoration is allowed, the building may look like a row of houses, and be quite different from the ornamental plan laid down and adopted as the best to follow. If the projected building is decorated as in the plan proposed, you must pull down and decorate a part of Westminster Hall also; you must enlarge the Hall, and make its exterior correspond with the new building; you will have a corresponding tower, as stated in the plan, as high as the dome of St. Paul's; and the fret work and ornamental part must be constructed of that soft and discolourable stone, which will, in a few years, look black, and crumble into dust. Why, Sir, if a committee is formed only to ascertain the best sort of stone to resist the influence of the atmosphere, some advantage would be gained by this motion.

Now, Sir, I come to the last, and by far, too, the most important objection, that I have to bring against the proposed measure, to which I beg most particularly to call the attention of the House, being very anxious to have some information on the subject, and to be placed at ease on the question. The same gentleman (Sir Edward Cust), who is one of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown to decide on the building of the Houses of Parliament, states as follows:—

"The proposed plan of Mr. Harry's, by far the most elegant of the whole, was to cost, as that Gentleman stated, 724,986l., say in round numbers, 725,000l., which was to include fixtures, architects' fees, and all contingencies whatever, exclusive of the embankment, which he stated would cost 40,000l., and the houses in Abingdon-street about 60,000l. or 70,000l. Now, the committee after examining the statements said, that they were not satisfied on the head of expense, and reported that they recommended Mr. Barry's prize plan, No. 64, only on the express understanding that it should not exceed, in any material degree, the estimate given, 725,000l., and that it would not be safe or expedient to proceed on a building of such magnitude and importance, until a satisfactory estimate had been made, founded on detailed working drawings and specifications, and examined and approved of by competent authority."

Now, Sir, this has never been done, no specification has been submitted to the House, no committee appointed to examine the estimates, no examination of the proper stone or best materials to be used. No tenders made by builders for the build- ing; no evidence as to the effect on the river and bridge of the embankment now in progress. No account of the value and number of the houses required in Abingdon-street. The only thing that has been done is, to have a vote of credit for 100,000l. included in the miscellaneous service, which money ought to have been applied to the purchase of the houses in Abingdon-street, instead of the embankment. It seems rather hasty to proceed with the embankment, which may annoy the navigation and the neighbourhood by raising a large bank of mud, very likely (as engineers report) to injure the foundations of Westminster Bridge, but which at any rate must occasion a great expenditure of the public money, until a committee of this House, or some commission appointed for that purpose, have examined and are satisfied that the estimate is correct, that it includes all contingencies and expenses, that the materials to be employed are proper. No one who considers the subject a moment can imagine that the estimate given, 724,986l., say, to speak in round numbers, 725,000l. can be correct, when it appears that the first contract made nearly doubles the estimate first given in. Why, Sir, if things are allowed to proceed in this manner, two millions will not cover the expense. Really, the whole business has an appearance of a desire existing somewhere to involve Parliament into the measure by a grant of money, 100,000l., and then, the ice being broken, and the undertaking once commenced, to force the nation to an unlimited expenditure, which must follow as a matter of course. The same leading commissioner appointed to investigate the plans, to whom I have already alluded, Sir Edward Cust, says on this subject:—

"I take the liberty of saying, without any fear of contradiction, that neither the commissioners, nor the Committees of Parliament, nor the ordinary executive department of the Office of Woods and Works have given any consideration to the details of Mr. Barry's design."

The uncertainty of the expenditure likely to be incurred in the proposed edifice is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments in favour of the motion which I have the honour to support. Really, it does not appear that any positive estimate has been made of the expense, and when that is the case, we all know by experience, both as private individuals, and as public men, the vast additional charges which in such a case are incurred. Is it expedient, I ask? Is it just or proper that no further inquiry should take place into the proceedings for the proposed buildings? Is it in accordance with the resolution of the committee first appointed, consisting of the men in this House most conspicuous for their talents, habits of business, and high character, is it not in direct opposition to their recommendation? The only resolution of this House in this momentous question has been an address to the Crown to make further inquiry.

After the best consideration that I can give the subject, after consulting the sentiments of many Members of this House, after endeavouring to obtain the opinions of persons out of doors, and of the public at large, I can arrive at no other conclusion than that there is a necessity for reconsidering the subject, which will satisfy the country that the public money is not wasted, which inquiry cannot in any way delay or postpone the proposed buildings for one instant, as hon. Gentlemen are aware that no structure is as yet in progress, or likely to be commenced for some time to come, and therefore another committee on the subject can be productive of no delay. I should besides wish it to be understood, that in no manner, except in the undefined estimate made, do I object to Mr. Barry's plan, which, both in exterior beauty and internal convenience, surpasses any other that has come under my notice; but the more beautiful is the elevation of Mr. Barry's projected structure the more imposing would it appear, either on the site of St. James's Palace, or in Trafalgar-square, or in any other situation than on piles of wood in a swamp on the Thames, where it can only be seen and admired by a few boatmen or persons in coal-barges ascending the river. Whether Mr. Barry's plan is finally adopted or not, whether the projected building takes place on this site or elsewhere, is not, I think, (being a mere matter of opinion,) of such importance as to be able to lay before this House and the country a correct account of the proposed expenditure, and some security that the undertaking will be accomplished in conformity with the estimate given.

It is rather singular that in this country, the energies of which are so great as to create railroads, improvements of every kind, little thought of a few years back, which surpass all the improvements of other nation's, it is, I say, rather singular that we, who are giants in all improvements, and have advanced in such a manner, should be pigmies in the erection of our public edifices, that, with the mass of talent to be found in the architects of this country, so little is done; and that great expenditure, bad taste, jobbing, and parsimony, should, as a writer observes, be the characteristics of our public buildings, when erected at the expense of the country.

Sir, I have to apologise for intruding so long on the attention of the House; the more concisely this subject is treated, the more will it command the attention of the community.

said, that the House had fully deliberated upon this question, and it was a matter of surprise to him how any hon. Member could say, the House was taken by surprise upon it, when they recollected the quantity of evidence which they had heard in connection with it. It must be in the recollection of the hon. Members, that in the year 1834, the fire took place which destroyed the Houses of Parliament. No step could be taken immediately subsequent to that occurrence, but upon the assembling of Parliament in 1835, the right hon. Baronet opposise moved for a committee to inquire into the most judicious steps to be taken with respect to the removal of the inconvenience which arose from it, and the erection of suitable Houses of Parliament. That committee published a report, and upon the report a commission was instituted, in order to discuss the plans of the projected buildings. Those plans were submitted to the committee; they not only were deliberated upon with the most minute and patient attention, but they were laid before the public, and the general opinion was, that Mr. Barry's plan was the best calculated with respect to architecture, and in every other respect, to effect the purposes required in the new Houses of Parliament. He did not remember a plan upon which so great a unity of opinion was observable as that of Mr. Barry. But the inquiry did not terminate there. Mr. Barry sent in his estimate, and another committee was appointed to inquire into the amount of the estimate, as it would appear when taken in its several departments separately, and Mr. Barry was directed to make out a new estimate, with all the heads of expenditure stated distinctly in the form of particular items. This estimate thus particularized in its heads of outlay was submitted to the inspection of the principal officers under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and it was not until it had received their entire approval, after minute investigation, that the House resolved upon adopting it. The House had a full opportunity of deliberating upon the subject at that period, and up to the present time all the works had been carried on under the eyes of the Members of that House. Under these circumstances, he was of opinion that they should look upon the subject as a matter which had been decided upon, and which it was not now competent for them to open again for discussion, in order to make any change in the arrangements. It would be highly dangerous to adopt such a course. If they were to unsettle it now in 1838, what was to prevent them from unsettling it in 1839, or at any future period, when objections might be taken to it? He had a strong objection to enter into the merits of different sites, but as that subject had been the principal ground of the motion he felt bound to say, that none of the objections which had been raised against the present site, were of sufficient importance to make him change the opinion which he had held with regard to its eligibility, and there was, in his mind, no objection to the adoption of other sites that had been formerly urged which did not apply now with equal force. He wished to impress upon the House that the question of changing the site was not open to them; they had voted money for it already, and the works had been proceeded with for a considerable period. He trusted the House would not adopt such a course as that suggested by the hon. Member.

said, it was quite true, that the country had not been taken by surprise upon the subject, but that did not, in his mind, form a sufficient reason for their refusing to afford it further deliberation. After all that had passed since the House last came to a decision upon the subject, he was still of the same opinion which he had expressed when it was at first taken into consideration. He was of opinion, that there were other sites in London which possessed incalculable advantages over the site which had been approved of. One of those was opposite Marlborough House, a site which, both with regard to healthfulness of situation and to the advantage it would afford of appreciating the beauties of the architecture, was immeasureably superior to the present one. The site upon which it was proposed to erect the New Houses of Parliament was in many respects deficient in those requisites which it should possess; it was too near the river, upon which it encroached to such an extent as to blockade two or three arches of Westminster bridge; this, in itself, was a serious inconvenience. Then it was so blocked up by the buildings at the land side, that its beauties would all be lost; and in order to obtain a view of it a person should go into a boat on the river. Its situation was so low that it could not be healthy, and from those combined objections he was inclined to think it ought to be changed. He should totally deny, that the change of the situation was one involving additional expense. So far as the new alteration of the site was concerned, the change would tend to save expense to the country from the difference of purchase required. At present, admitting, that in what had been done and was immediately projected there had been 80,000l. expended, still if they altered the site to where he proposed, it would eventually be a saving of 100,000l. to the country. The lowness of the site was a great disadvantage; from the situation and height of the buildings around it the edifice would be shaded from the sun for one-half of the year, and they would thus be sooner involved in darkness by a considerable period than most other portions of the city; indeed, after three o'clock in winter they would lose the advantages of daylight. At all events, they ought to obtain a situation where daylight could be obtained as long as possible, and not willingly and knowingly incur so serious and so lasting an inconvenience.

said, the hon. Member for Kilkenny appeared to labour under a misunderstanding when he expressed an objection to the plan but not to the site. If he objected to one he should object also to the other. The principal claim of the plan was its adaptation to the site, and it did not follow that if a new site were to be adopted the same plan would be appropriate. In all architectural plans one of the most indispensable attributes was congruity, and the style of architecture which the plan of Mr. Barry embraced was adopted for its peculiar adaptation to the site. With respect to the diversity of opinion which it had been said hon. Members entertained, he could only say that it would be quite impossible to select a plan which should meet with universal approbation. If the committee had sat from year to year and discussed the subject for any period of time, there would not be found a perfect unity of opinion with respect to the merits or beauties of any one plan. The hon. Member who had spoken last remarked, that in consequence of the contiguity of the river there would be a great want of light in the new Houses of Parliament. Now, the sequel was not at all a necessary consequence of that position. He (Sir R. Peel) could assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the greatest advantages which houses abutting on the river possessed was the superior light which such a situation afforded. That ground of objection was, therefore, entirely void. He would implore the right hon. Gentleman to persist in the course he had adopted—he entreated him not to have a Penelope at each side of the House, ready to undo all the acts of the House as quickly as they could perform them. If they opened the subject afresh at this period they would find it as difficult, after a lapse of two or three years, to appoint a site which would be generally approved of as it was at present. No site would be fortunate enough to give universal satisfaction. He believed Mr. Barry's plan had given complete satisfaction, and had been generally approved of. He hoped they would begin the foundation, and that was the only way to end the discussion.

fully coincided in opinion with the right hon. Baronet. In his opinion it would be better to have the House built upon the adopted site than in the neighbourhood of the clubs; the exercise of coming to the House, and returning home, would be far more healthful to hon. Members than if the House, by being near the clubs, would permit them to be too much at their ease; a walk home would be far more beneficial to them.

said, that it appeared the foundation of the Houses of Parliament would encroach very much upon the River, and therefore it was essentially necessary that every precaution which would have the effect of rendering it more secure should be adopted. At Woolwich, when they laid the foundation of the public works, the foundations of which were similarly situated, it was thought they had been sufficiently secured, but they had since given way, and sunk considerably. With this experience before their eyes, he was of opinion that they should adopt the most effectual means of securing the foundations, where so great a super-incumbent weight would be placed, from a similar defect.

had been informed that the situation which had been chosen for the foundation was a quicksand. If such were found to be the case they would require additional precautions. He understood that since the coffer dam had been formed the greater rush of water against the Westminster-bridge had worn away the gravel from the lower part of the piers, and thus rendered them more insecure. The piers of Westminster-bridge had been cased with timber, and sunk in that situation, so that if the gravel should be worn away to a much greater extent it might prove highly injurious to the bridge.

had built upon his property at the other side of the water a very high tower, and of a greater height than any part of the intended buildings would be, and although it was quite close to the water, it had not up to this time varied an inch from its perpendicular, so effective were the means of security adopted by the architect.

said, there need not exist any apprehension with respect to the security of the foundation. That part of the work was under the direction and superintendence of the architect, who was, of all others, most interested in having the preparations such as would secure the stability of the building.

The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 90:—Majority 57.

,after presenting several petitions in favour of a system of National Education, went on to move "An address to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to appoint a board of Commissioners of Education in England, with the view, especially, of providing for the wise, equitable, and efficient application of sums granted, or to be grant- ed, for the advancement of education by Parliament, and for the immediate establishment of schools for the education of teachers in accord with the intention already expressed by the Legislature." He felt rejoiced, after so much delay, to have an opportunity of bringing the question in a tangible shape before the House, because the public mind had anticipated the Legislature on the subject. A strongly-marked change had taken place in the public feeling respecting education within a very few years. [The hon. Member referred to the great number of petitions which had been presented of late as a proof.] There had been large meetings, he continued, on the subject, in various parts of England, but especially in those great towns of the North, the seat at once of our manufactures and our intelligence, in Bolton, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester; and the anxious desire of all present, was for the establishment of a system of national education. In furtherance of that object, societies had been established under different names, and minute inquiries were set on foot by these bodies to ascertain the exact state of intelligence in the country, and to stimulate each portion of it into a generous emulation with each other on that important subject. Then, again, a few years ago, the press was wholly closed to anything like observation on the state of education, with the exception of a few of the graver quarterly publications, when it was treated as a matter of metaphysics or theology, more than as a matter of general interest; now, however, there was scarcely a periodical of any class which did not advocate the diffusion of intelligence in some form or other, among the mass of the population. In proof of the rapid progress the question of education had made among the poorer classes, he could assure the House that there was never a meeting of workmen in large numbers—nay, they never met two or three in a body that it did not form an engrossing topic of their conversation. Even the Legislature—so much behind public opinion in all cases, and the Government, generally so much behind the Legislature, had changed their views on the subject, and now entertained the question as one necessary to the welfare of the community. A few years since, he could scarce find a seconder for his motion respecting education; now the estimates included an annual grant for its promotion, and he had read, with great pleasure, an appeal of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to his constituents, in which the advisableness of general education was enforced in the most admirable manner. All these were good signs of success, and proofs that, however slow might be the advancement of the question, perseverance would eventually accomplish all that could be desired. He should have wished to bring the question in another form before the House. He should, for his own part, have preferred a bill for that purpose, but that there was one already before Parliament, in charge of a noble Lord elsewhere, than whom there was no man in the kingdom better calculated to do it justice. He thought it was necessary that education should be equally promulgated among all classes, or otherwise the lower classes would march past the higher, and the masses advance while the rich and the few stood still. Reference had been more than once made to the state of crime in comparison with the state of education, and in France, particularly, deductions had been made adverse to the extension of intelligence among the community; but he was fully satisfied that these deductions, founded on false or imperfect returns, were radically false and imperfect themselves. By more recent returns, compiled with greater accuracy, it appeared that of those who were brought before the criminal tribunals of that country, in the year 1837, there were of both sexes—

Thus showing, that a superior education was found to check, in a powerful manner, rather than promote in the slightest degree, a tendency to commit crime. Various decisive proofs, besides this, could be produced of the effects of a good education in preventing crime and extinguishing a tendency to it. In the Canton Frieburg, in Switzerland, on the spot made sacred by the labours of Von Fellenberg, and in the Ban de Roche, in the same country—all heretofore the chosen abode of crime, and vice, and misery—such changes had been effected by its means, that these districts were now models of virtue. There was no reason whatever why such a beneficial change should not be extended over the whole of a country, as well as over its districts. The question, then, before the House was this—had England reached that superior state of education which made those heretofore lawless districts at present the seat of so much real happiness? If not, had she the means of extending it to every portion of the country? In regard to the extension of education among all classes of the community, England was at that moment the lowest on the list of all countries calling themselves civilized. The result of all inquiries made on the subject was, that of children between the ages of seven and fourteen, amounting in all to two millions and upwards, there were at least one-half that number in England and Wales totally uneducated; while if those between three and seven years of age were taken, half a million more might fairly be added to the account. In that case, the proportion of educated to uneducated, would be as one to fourteen. Now, in America, the proportion was, in the State of New York, as one to three; in the State of Massachusetts, it was as one to four; in Switzerland, generally, as one to seven; while in the Canton of Vaud, it was as one to six; in Prussia, as one to six; in Wurtemberg, as one to six; in Bavaria, as one to six; in Holland, as one to nine; in Belgium, as one to eleven; in Austria, as one to twelve; in France, as one to sixteen; and in Russia, throwing the serfs out of the calculation, as one to six. Thus it was plain, that all other countries, with the exception of France, surpassed England. There was, amongst us, no extension of schools, and no extension of what was still more desirable, instruction, in the higher branches of education. The hon. Member went on to say, that it was proved, beyond a doubt, by the reports of educational societies, that more than one-half of the education of this country, if it might be called education, was carried on in Sunday schools, but was of the most inadequate and worthless kind. In many of the Sunday schools arithmetic was quite unknown, and in some writing was prohibited, in others reading, these employments being considered to desecrate the Sabbath, and the pupils being gathered together only for the purpose of receiving religious instruction, as if that alone were a substitute for all other kinds of education. In this estimate of the value of Sunday schools, his own opinion was supported by that of a gentleman every way well qualified to appreciate their merits, the Rev. Mr. Burgess, in a work lately published by him on the subject of education. That gentleman described such schools, however beneficial they might be where no other channels for the diffusion of education existed, as utterly useless for the purposes of general education. The day schools in many towns throughout the kingdom were deficient in some essential respects. The education only extended to the rudiments of knowledge, and the teachers were frequently ignorant and otherwise unqualified for their duties. [An hon. Member moved, that the House be counted, but the number being forty, the hon. Member proceeded]. The present system of education, as regarded the mass of the people, was defective, from the absence of responsibility on the part of the teachers, from a want of the element of permanence, it being dependent for continuance mainly on private bounty. These faults were only to be remedied, and the system improved and extended, by placing it under the control of public officers. In fact, there was not a single country in Europe, but this, without its board of public education. But, in case the House should reject the example of such countries as Prussia and Austria, and Sweden, would it not defer to that of republican Switzerland and republican America, the states of which had adopted, to a considerable extent, such a system of general education as he was advocating? The state of New York had appointed superintendents of the common schools throughout the country. There was a public board of education at Massachusetts. In Virginia they had commissioners of education; and in South Carolina there was a similar body. Nor was this all. In a report of great importance presented at a time when Kentucky was looking out for the best method of establishing a system of education, and after the commissioners who made it had travelled through all the states, and examined into the systems prevalent in each, what was their final conclusion? That it was impossible to hope for progress, to any great extent, in the work of education, without the aid of Government or Legislative interference. Now, England had admitted the principle of such interference with the education of the people. This it was most important to bear in mind; the House had admitted, that the schools could not get on without public aid and superintendence, and that teachers could not be taught without that aid and superintendence; but what had been done? Only some small sums of money had been voted, the due application of which they had taken the worst possible means of insuring. But what was 20,000l. a-year for such an object? And to whom had the distribution of it been given? To the Treasury. The Lords of the Treasury were the sole directors of the expenditure of this sum, and the sole inspectors of the schools; and it was they alone who were responsible to Parliament for the results of the plan pursued. But it was obvious to every one, that with so many and pressing public duties to perform, it was impossible that the Treasury, Briarean as its grasp might be, and though furnished with as many eyes as Argus himself, could discharge the necessary duties of superintendence, direction, control, and correction, relative to the schools, to which the grant was applied, in a satisfactory and complete manner; they could not have time to inquire fully into a number of points on which it was essential a directing body should be informed—as, for instance, the numbers of the scholars, the subjects of education, the wants of different districts in respect of education, and a variety of other particulars. He proposed, therefore, that a central board of public education should be established, to be composed of fair proportions of the representatives of the different parties and feelings prevalent in the country; and, that with that, there should be combined a system of local bodies or boards to give efficiency to the general scheme, and to control abuses as they arose. He was for a combination of local boards with one central board, because the local boards alone could not be expected to be able to acquire information sufficiently extensive on the subject of education, nor consequently to act with the most enlightened views; while, on the other hand, a central body could not attain an individual interest in each of the schools as a local board might, nor the advantage of being on the spot to correct and punish abuses; wherefore he was extremely anxious to give the local boards a deep interest in the welfare of the system, and to make them feel, that they were bound up in the schools. Why should such a system be denied to England, when it had been established in Ireland, and established, too, without any reference to an Act of Parliament? With respect to religious opinions, he begged to say, once for all, that nothing was farther from his desire than to meddle with religious opinions; to do so was, in all cases, a gross violation of the principles of justice, and a flagrant misdemeanour against society. He wished that Government should take the subject in band, and appoint a board on the principles which he suggested: that they should set to the work heartily, and not tremble in hesitation and the wish to know what this party or the other would think of their proceedings. In fact, the country could not stand where it was. Recent facts showed this. Within the last week or two, hard by the very threshold of the tribunals of justice, almost under the shadow of Parliament, acts had been done which would throw shame upon the remotest corner of the empire. The Central Society of Education had sent down persons to the neighbourhood of Canterbury immediately on hearing of the late riot there, and they knew that it was not want which had given rise to that unfortunate occurrence; no, the men were in the receipt of 2s. a-day. It was not want, therefore, but in the whole of their houses there was not a book found. Hence it was, that they were ready to receive any, the grossest misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Was it to be wondered that in such a state a spark should ignite their passions? However what he said might be despised, he hoped it would not be believed, that there were not numbers of men, in every part of the country, who had deep in their hearts the conviction that there was no hope for this country until it should be emancipated from its ignorance. Other nations would not stop for us; we must advance up to them; and if we did not push forward in the race of civilization, we might depend upon it we should be flung back, even by those over whom we had been most in the habit of asserting our superiority. He moved "that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to appoint a Board of Commissioners of Education in England, with the view especially of providing for the wise, equitable, and efficient application of sums granted, or to be granted, for the advancement of education by Parliament, and for the immediate establishment of schools for the education of teachers, in accord with the intention already expressed by the Legislature."

, in seconding the motion briefly called attention to two documents which bore strongly on the subject. The first of these was a report made by the grand jury at the last Durham assizes, in which they expressed their deep regret at the lamentable want of instruction amongst those who are convicted of offences, and also at the general want of instruction amongst the working people. To such an extent did this ignorance prevail, that he believed every grand jury in the country might with truth make a similar report. The second document to which he referred was riot from a grand jury, but an address from a society of working men in the metropolis, who, in their humble station, were endeavouring to impart to others the advantages of education. Now he would ask, when these poor men made such efforts with their small means, was it not incumbent upon the Government and the Legislature to apply some of the funds of the country to promote what ought to be considered a national concern? The body of men to whom he referred asked in one of their statements whether it was not injustice to keep men in ignorance, and then punish them for that ignorance? They proceeded to point out some of the general evil effects of ignorance, and they concluded by calling on Parliament to interfere to check it by encouraging public instruction. He did sincerely hope that the Government would take this important matter into its own hands.

said, that he thought the hon. Member for Waterford had not done justice to the service rendered to education by the parliamentary grants, nor to the merits of the plan acted upon for five years by her Majesty's Government. The Treasury had never attempted to regulate the system of education. Their duty had been confined to the distribution of the grant which was annually voted to the two societies, the one connected with the Church, and the other with the Dissenters, which had now been for years engaged in the work of popular education in England. The effects of the grant had been, as far as the National Society was concerned, that out of 100,000l. voted by Parliament, they had received 70,000l. By this they had been enabled to draw forth public liberality to the extent of 220,000l.—they had added by this upwards of 700 schools; and by means of it, they had provided accommodation for more than 130,000 children. These were the consequences which, as far as the National Society was concerned, had flowed from the parliamentary grant. The British and Foreign Schools had, on their part, received 30,000l., and had added, he presumed, proportionally to their numbers. These points ought not be lost sight of in estimating the effects of the sum hitherto voted. The hon. Member, however, was dissatisfied with this system, and proposed to substitute for it another. His object was, to constitute a board, composed of the representatives of the different religious parties in the country. He would remind the hon. Member of a very just observation which had fallen from the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, when this subject was last under the consideration of the House—that no system of education could prosper in this country, which did not carry along with it the religious feelings of the people of England. How was it possible that the system proposed by the hon. Member could do so? It was to be a system of education embracing the points in which the different religious sects were agreed. What were these points? He would suggest to the hon. Member to move for a Committee to inquire what those points were. He knew of none. ["Oh, oh."] He would quote to the hon. Member who doubted his assertion on this subject, an authority which he would acknowledge to be competent, that of Lord Brougham, who, in the House of Lords, June 24th, 1834, said—

"It had been objected, you might find some certain system of religion to which all Dissenters would agree. They but little knew the human mind who thought the system could be laid down with reference to which all Dissenters would agree. Many differed more from each other than from the Established Church, and would rather come to the Church than agree with their brother sectaries. Those who formed the London University were very anxious to teach church history, biblical criticism, and all those branches on which it was supposed that the different sects agreed. They found it was impossible to do so. They could not agree. It was found better, therefore, to exclude this species of education altogether. This was not a matter of choice; it was the result of a controlling and over-ruling necessity. Secular matters might be compromised, but it was impossible to compromise that which was connected with religious feeling."

It would, therefore, be necessary to exclude religion from popular education, if the object was, to produce an agreement between different religious sects; and he would ask the House whether they were prepared to establish a system of popular education from which religion should be excluded? He would venture to say, that such a system would find no favour with the people of England, nor would such a system produce the desired result in preventing crime and raising the moral character of the people. He need not quote the opinion of Mons. Cousin and Mons. Guizot, who were most emphatic on this subject, that no education was good for anything which was not based on religion. He would refer rather to the opinions of practical men. He would take the testimony of two inspectors of factories, examined before the Committee of 1835, both of whom stated, that the only education which would be useful in repressing crime would be one in which the precepts of the Bible were familiarly taught, and earnestly impressed upon children in the National Schools. He would take also the testimony of an intelligent magistrate of Northumberland, Mr. Grey, and of another gentleman, Mr. Blackton, whose evidence would be found in the Appendix to the poor-law report. These gentlemen attributed the superior morality of the people of Northumberland to the practice established there of teaching the Bible and inculcating its precepts in the schools of that county. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not sanction any system of education which had not this character, nor could the system be of this kind, if the attempt was made to amalgamate in it different religious sects. There was another point which he thought he might fairly put to the House. He would call on the hon. Member to exhibit some specimens of this liberal system of education which was to unite all sects. The National Society, that system which the hon. Member denounced as narrow and sectarian, exhibited to Parliament 110,000 schools and 110,000 specimens of its system. Imperfect as the hon. Member was pleased to think them, they were at least so popular that they embraced in them above 500,000 children of the people of England. What favour did the schools founded on the liberal system meet with? There were indeed, but few specimens of these. One, however, was to be found in Edinburgh, under the auspices of Mr. Simpson, who had accompanied the hon. Member in his educational tour; the other was in Bath. Now what acceptance did these schools meet with? Mr. Simpson tells you, it was hardly possible to keep his liberal school in Edinburgh alive; the subscriptions were languishing, and as for establishing a second school it was out of the question. That is, in a population of 160,000, while numerous schools on the sectarian system were established and flourished, it was hardly possible to keep alive this dwarfish and dwindling specimen of a liberal school; such was the case in Edinburgh. In Bath the liberal school had been established under favourable auspices, as he believed it had the take patronage of Mr. Roebuck; such, at least, was the popular impression: and however much hon. Members might differ from Mr. Roebuck's principles, they would acknowledge his talents and zeal in the cause of education. This liberal school, therefore, was started with every advantage, nor was there any indisposition in Bath to the cause of popular education—for the National School there was flourishing, crowded, as he could testify, to the door, a most successful school; in fact, a Normal seminary for the training of masters for the West of England. What was the ease, however, with the liberal school? Ushered in with great pomp, with the parade of a numerous committee, with assurances of high success, it fell from one degree of weakness to another, until disappearing from a principal street into an obscure lane in an obscure quarter of Bath, its committee dissolved, its funds with drawn, its benches empty, and its master reduced to the starvation point, it offered a memorable proof of the degree of favour with which the people of England regard liberal schools. On the other hand, he would satisfy the House that he had not exaggerated the favour with which the National Schools were regarded. For that purpose he would quote the case of Leeds, which he gave as a large town, and a fair specimen of the acceptance of the National Schools in the midst of a manufacturing population. He would, with the permission of the House, read an extract from a letter of the Vicar of Leeds:—

"We had in the Church Schools of this town in Dec. 31, 1837, 4,039 scholars, being an increase of 1,650, There appears to be, at present, a general rush to the Church Sunday-schools. Every school connected with the Church is crowded to excess, and new scholars are presenting themselves every week. It may be of use to prove the preference given by the people to the Church Schools, to observe, that the Ellerlay-lane school was conducted by dissenters for six years, and contained 120 scholars. We have now purchased that school, and it contains 398. The day-schools, conducted on the principles of the Church, contain 860 children. In our National School, containing 375 scholars, children are refused every week for want of room."

He could not give a better, nor a more respectable testimony to the feeling entertained by the people of England towards those schools which the hon. Gentleman would set aside as narrow and sectarian. He would now say one word upon the constitution of the board for which the hon. Member moved. It was true, that the hon. Member had not stated to the House the subsequent proceedings which he would adopt, if such a Board were once established, but it was well that the House should know what was designed, and what would follow if the House consented to introduce a system of which the establishment of a Central Board was the first step. What the system was, he would state on authorities which the hon. Member could not deny, on the authority of that bill for the establishment of a liberal system of education which Lord Brougham had introduced this session into the other House of Parliament, and to which the hon. Member had this night alluded in terms of high praise; on the authority also of Mr. Blake, one of the Commissioners of Irish education, and the House would remember that the hon. Member had referred this very night to the Irish Board, as a model of a national system. What, then, was the Board which Mr. Blake pointed at, and which Lord Brougham actually proposed in his bill? The Board was to consist of three paid Commissioners, lawyers, he did not know whether of that favoured section of six years' standing, paid at an enormous salary, possessing powers, the extent of which would be imagined, when they heard from Mr. Blake, that the Act appointing them should confer upon them more ample powers, and a larger discretion, than were enjoyed by the Poor-law Commissioners. This enormous triumvirate were, in the first place, to lay their hands upon all the charitable endowments which existed in England for the support of education. These amounted, he be-believed, to somewhat near 800,000l. per annum. These they were at once to grasp, to compel the trustees to obey their orders; and if they rebelled, they were to remove the trustees, and replace them by their own creatures; thus were they to levy a rate of 1s. in the pound on all property, compel individuals in parishes to sell lands to them, and set up, with one stroke, two schools in every parish in England; they were to appoint the inspectors of these schools, who were to hold their appointment at their pleasure; the masters of all these schools were to be appointed by them, and removable at their pleasure, owing their existence to their breath. So absolute was to be their power over them, that Mr. Blake compared it to the powers of the Government over the constabulary and police—to its power over the army and the navy. As to the local Committees, which the hon. Gentleman had to-night contended, might be of such use, they were to exist, it is true, but they were subject to the entire dictation of this triumvirate, who were to have the power of removing them, and replacing them with their own creatures, if they ventured to differ from their views. Then these Gentlemen were to prescribe the course of instruction; to fix without remonstrance, whatever books it was their pleasure should be read in the schools, with an army of 26,000 masters, submissive to their orders, and instilling their opinions; endowed with enormous funds, and invested with absolute discretion, they were to erect their authority in every parish in England, and to subject the minds of all the children to their unrestricted control. Mons. Cousin, an eminent statist and an anxious inquirer into the state of education, objected to the system of education in Holland, because there were two Normal schools established there, the masters in which were appointed by Government, and the system of education was under the control of Government. He was afraid, that this would place in the hands of Government an undue influence over the popular mind of the country; but what was this indirect and partial power compared with the enormous and oppressive influence with which, on the liberal system of education, it was proposed to invest three paid barristers in London? He would beg to recall to the House the opinion of Lord Brougham, given before the committee in 1834. The far wiser, he must confess it appeared to him, and more practical opinion, than that which he had lately adopted in his bills of education: "Such a system would place in the hands of Government—that is, of the Minister of the day—the means of dictating opinions and principles to the people. If a system of instruction in the hands of Government were established, what security would the country have against its falling into the hands of men who might deem it their duty to propagate their opinions." Such was Lord Brougham's opinion, and such, he trusted, would be the objection of the House to constituting a Board such as the hon. Member proposed—a Board to grasp all the charitable endowments of England, to thrust their hands into every parish in England, to tax the property of the people in order to establish schools in which they should place their own creatures, let loose upon the minds of children their own opinions, mould them according to their own pleasure—a Board, the only guarantee of which was, that it was to teach principles which were not offensive to any religious sect in this country, and what these principles were he was truly at a loss to know.

did not understand his hon. Friend who had brought forward this motion, to have contended for any universal plan of education, and to such a plan as most wild and visionary he should object. His hon. Friend contended that whatever plan of education might be adopted should be placed under general inspection; whatever system was adopted, general inspection was absolutely necessary with respect to it. For his own part, he would say, that he knew of no system of education whtch could have any salutary effect on the heart and mind, unless it were founded on religion. This was his opinion; but he had never heard the hon. Member say anything to the contrary. The extent to which ignorance went would not surprise any person who had given this subject much attention. Even in the metropolis, where greater pains were taken, it might be said that two out of three of the children were without any education that deserved the name. But the case was still worse in many of the large towns. For instance, in Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Bury, and Oldham, containing a working population of 841,000 persons, there were not more than 27,000 children sent to school, making the pro-portion 1 in 31 educated. This did not arise from the fault of the parents, for the great body of the working classes throughout the country were generally, anxious to have their children educated and willingly contributed for that purpose from their earnings, and with a little assistance from Government, and the adoption of a proper system, the sums they contributed in that way would be found to be sufficient. From a calculation which he had seen on this subject, it appeared that in Manchester 14,000l. were paid by the working classes for the imperfect education of 17,000 children, but that 4,000l. more,—viz. 18,000l., would, if properly applied, give the best education to 25,000 to children. In Liverpool 11,000l. were given for the imperfect education of 13,000 children closely crammed together in confined and unhealthy neighbourhoods, whereas for 15,000l. 20,500 children could have obtained education in the very best manner. He did assure them that the more he looked at this important subject, the more he was convinced that they would deeply rue it if the attention of the Legislature was not speedily directed to devising some means for increasing the amount of education throughout the country. He would say, that they had neglected their duty for many years, and they were now bound without delay to do something for those by whose labour they were supported, and he would ask if they could do less than educate their children? It was, however, extremely desirable, that in any steps which the Government might think proper to adopt, nothing should be done to disturb the good feeling which existed between the British and Foreign School Society and the National School Society, and he thought it better that they should continue to act as two separate and distinct institutions. If the Government were not prepared to take any steps at present, he trusted, at all events, that he should hear from the noble Lord that the Government were prepared to give the matter their fullest consideration, and he hoped that whatever plan might be proposed the House would enter upon the discussion of that plan with a total absence of party feeling, for the question was not one of a party description.

said, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had resisted the motion before the House on the ground that it would be impossible in establishing a board of education to avoid offending the religious feelings of some portion of the community. It was extremely unfortunate that no subject could be debated in that House without appeals being made to the religious feelings of some portion of the people. Whether the measures under consideration had reference to the granting of municipal corporations to Ireland, or whether they had reference to any other portion of the policy of the country, still those measures were discussed with reference to the effects which it was argued they would have upon the religion of some particular portion of the people. The argument of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was, that it would be impossible to avoid giving offence to the religious feelings of some one sect in establishing a board of education; but was the hon. Member willing to intrust the sums granted, and more particularly the sum which ought to be granted, by Parliament for the purposes of education, to two irresponsible bodies? He contended that Parliament, instead of granting 20,000l., ought to grant 200,000l.; and he did not think that the hon. Member would be willing to intrust a sum of such an amount to two societies which, whatever might be their merits, had not the power of carrying their good intentions into execution. Government might interfere without exciting the jealousy of any sect; and he was persuaded that a board of inspection would be productive of the very best effects. He could assure the House, that the want of education was generally felt, and although it was not his intention to enter into details, yet he might be allowed to state one circumstance, which would have the effect of showing the state of education in some of the most important districts of the metropolis. In one of the parishes of the borough which he had the honour to represent, he alluded to the parish of Bethnalgreen, where a society for the promotion of education had been established, there was a population of 62,000, and there were about 14,000 children between the ages of five and fourteen. Of the whole 14,000, not more than 2,000 were receiving instruction of any description. Such was the state of things even in the metropolis, and he thought, that that one fact alone ought to be sufficient to induce the Legislature to take some steps to promote the education of the people. Not one year, he contended, ought to pass without some measures being adopted to remedy such a state of things, and he did hope to hear from the noble Lord, that something would be done by the Government without delay.

observed, that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had said, that he was perfectly satisfied with the mode in which the money granted by Parliament for the purposes of education was at present distributed, and that he wished for the establishment of no board of education. Now, he would ask the hon. Member whether that money was distributed at present according to the wants of the people? Would a poor district, peopled principally by Dissenters, obtain a part of that money under the present system? No; the hon. Member knew that such a district could not obtain any portion of the sum voted by Parliament out of the general revenue of the nation, and he would ask, whether it was just or proper that the Church of England, because she was such, should have the whole benefit of the money voted out of the public revenue? Such, he would say, was not the principle upon which the money ought to be distributed, and it was the duty of the House to find out those places where there was a want of education, and they were bound to supply the deficiency without regard to sectarian prejudices. All the duties of the board, proposed by his hon. Friend, were of an administrative character, and not calculated to create jealousy between contending sects, and he thought, nothing could be fairer than such a proposition, as he was convinced that such a board would be productive of the best effects. The Lords of the Treasury had already enough to do, and he would ask the hon. Member whether it was fair that additional duties should be imposed upon them? Yet the hon. Member contended, that the distribution of the money voted by Parliament should remain with the Treasury; and the object the hon. Gentleman had in view in such a proposal was evident. The hon. Member was fully aware that, by such an arrangement, the whole sum would go to the members of the Established Church; but he hoped to hear from the noble Lord that the Government were prepared to adopt some plan which would do equal justice to all parties.

said, that the number of Sunday-schools belonging to Dissenters instead of being 4,000 was, be believed, 6,000, and he thought it right to mention the fact in order to prevent any one from being misled on the subject. The sum granted by the Treasury for the purposes of education was 20,000l., and this fund, he must say, was most unequally distributed. Of it the schools connected with the Established Church received 10,000l., while the other 10,000l. was given to the schools of all other religious denominations. This, he contended, was anything but fair or just, and to show the inequality of the distribution, he had only to mention that the rich districts alone could obtain grants, while the poor could get nothing. He was one of those who thought that the subject of education ought to be attended to by the State; and whatever weight might be attached to the opinions of Lord Brougham in other respects, sure he was, that with reference to education they were entitled to the utmost possible credit. Lord Brougham had done much for the cause of education; for not only had he brought to light the fact that funds had been misapplied, but he had rendered it impossible that abuses of a similar kind could arise in future with respect to the application of those funds. The views of Lord Brougham, therefore, were entitled to the utmost weight. If his (Mr. Baines's) hon. Friend pressed his motion, not only would he support him, but he trusted that the Government would adopt the view which he took, and that those who advocated other sentiments in that House would take the course which he meant to pursue.

said, that, not having heard the whole of the discussion, he did not mean to go at any length into the subject under consideration. What he rose for, principally, was, to say, that, whatever the merits of Lord Brougham's opinions might be in other respects, his view was, that the education of the children of England should be committed to the hands of the clergy of the Established Church. In 1818, he believed, Lord Brougham made a most elaborate statement on this question of education, and the great result at which he arrived was, that the education of the people ought to be placed under the direction of the clergy of the Established Church. The hon. Member for Leeds and other hon. Gentlemen had talked of sects, and seemed to suppose that the Church of England had ceased to exist as an Established Church; but he could tell them that they little knew the strength of that Church and their own weakness. It had been attempted "to frighten them from their propriety" by a display of numbers, and it had been said, that what the Dissenters demanded they must have, on the ground of numbers. The argument, however, with reference to numbers had been tested by the application of the rules of arithmetic, and what was the result? Why, that, as far as numbers were concerned, the Dissenters were not justified in talking of the Church of England as a mere sect. It was true, that the hon. Gentlemen opposite had complimented the Church of England on its wealth, but he must claim for that Church the right to be considered as the first estate of the realm. [Cries of "Question, question!"] When the hon. Member for Leeds called the Church of England a mere sect, he had a right, and it was his duty to do it, to insist upon the distinction to which the Church of England was entitled, and not to allow its legitimate claims to be impugned by any one, whether in or out of that House. He certainly should oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Waterford.

thought, great praise was due to the hon. Member for bringing forward this motion; and could not but express his regret at the lamentable neglect of education in the manufacturing districts. In the part with which he was connected many children between five and fifteen were destitute of the means of education.

said, that a more important subject could not come before the House than had been brought on tonight. With regard to the statements that had been made as to the distribution of the funds voted by Parliament, some had supposed that there had been an unfairness in the distribution, and it had been considered that half of the grant ought to go to the Church, and half to the Dissenters. But the principle on which the Treasury had proceeded was different; they had deemed it their duty, in distributing 20,000l. for example, not to give 10,000l. to one, and 10,000l. to the other, but, without looking to the claims of either, to distribute the grant so that the greatest quantity of education should be obtained. The best mode of doing this was to say, that where a considerable amount of money was subscribed, they would give such a portion of the grant as would secure the greatest number of scholars. It was obvious, that to obtain this greatest quantity of education, supposing there was 5,000l. to give, and on one hand 10,000l. was subscribed, it was better to make this 15,000l. and apply it to education, than to give the 5,000l. to another set of persons who had subscribed only 5,000l., and thus applying only 10,000l. to education. In the great deficiency of education in this country it was their duty to apply the grant in such a manner as to secure the greatest amount of education. With regard to the results, it appeared that, in 1833, the number of scholars for whose education money had been given by the Treasury was 30,356; the total amount applied to education had been 48,000l., of which the grant from the Treasury had been 20,484l. In 1834 the number of scholars was 41,000; the total amount of money expended 59,619l.; granted by the Treasury 19,358l.; so that only 19,000l. had been expended by the state in the education of 41,000 persons. In 1835 the number of scholars was 45,321, total money applied to their education 71,731l., of which only 21,659l. had been given by the Treasury. The population amongst whom these scholars were found amounted in the first year to 1,139,000, in the second year to 1,846,000, and in the third year to 1,615,000. He owned he could not see any means by which so small a sum as had been granted by Parliament could have been applied in a more useful way so as to educate a greater number of scholars. He must admit, that there was another question, and a more extensive question, to which the attention of the Government and of the House ought to be turned; for if the money were applied in this or any other manner, still it was clear, that a large portion of the population of the country—the poorest classes—would be left without education. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury had stated of a large district, that where there ought to be three educated, two were uneducated; and in other districts it was still worse, for there only one out of four children were edu- cated. The result was, that not only was a vast number of the people without the instruction they ought to have, but that when returns were made from gaols, and chaplains were asked what had been the result of their inquiries, it was found, that many of the persons in gaols for crimes of the deepest die were without the simplest elements of religious instruction—not only those elements of religious instruction on which the different classes of Protestants and Catholics, Churchmen and Dissenters disagreed, but those elements of religious instruction in which all were unanimous and of one opinion. This could not be said to be a satisfactory state of things. There were various speculations with regard to education; some thought, that education had a certain effect in preventing crime; others, on the contrary, thought, that crime was not prevented by education; but this must be allowed—that it was the duty of the State to afford the people the means of making a choice; that they should be made aware of what their religious and moral duties were, and if they then deviated from those obligations, the State would not have the responsibility of never having afforded them the slightest means of education. The exertions of the societies which had promoted the cause of education had been but little assisted by the small grant which each year had provided. Supposing the grant had been given with the best judgment and discrimination, it was clear that any distribution could not have provided a considerable fund, and that the money raised must have been independent of the grant, by voluntary contribution. Therefore, he asserted, as he had done on various occasions, that the effects of the grant of the State as to the education of the people had not yet been fully realised. He was aware of what had been done by the National Society, year after year, by the British and Foreign School Society) its means were extremely limited) and by other voluntary societies, and by individuals (and no individual deserved more praise on this head than the hon. Member for Waterford); but still it was with regret he said, that he was not prepared to state any manner in which he thought Parliament should be called on to aid the work of education beyond what it had done. He felt that there were such objections entertained by different parties as to the mode in which education should be carried on, that he thought it would be far better to wait till there was a greater agreement of opinion on the subject, than to adopt this address. Suppose a commission was issued by the Crown, one of two courses must be taken; one opinion would be entertained on the subject by the Church society, and another by the British and Foreign society. Other societies differed from each other, and their differences were not likely to be reconciled by a central board or commission. Why, then, if persons of different opinions were called to act in this central commission, these differences of opinion would break out, and the board would be inoperative. On the other hand, if the board were to consist of only one of the classes, although its operations would be more prompt, a great portion of the community would be dissatisfied, and would exert themselves to oppose the decision of the board. With regard to the different modes of education which had been proposed, the first was that of the British and Foreign School Society, a system, in his opinion, best adapted for this country,—namely, that the education should be a religious education, but that no catechism of any sort should be introduced into the schools, and that the children should not be confined to any place of worship, but might go where their parents liked. The National Society's system of education was conducted on the principle that the catechism should be taught in the schools, and that the children should go to church on Sundays. If the former system was adopted, a great many of the National Society, and a great many churchmen would object to it, because the catechism was not taught in the school. If the latter system were adopted, the Dissenters would urge that, although it might be fit for a particular society to teach the catechism in its schools, it was not fit for the community at large, and for Dissenters to be obliged to comply, and to let their children be taught the church catechism. A third mode had been suggested, as more suited to the education of the nation; that was, as far as he understood it, that the education given in the schools should be entirely of a secular nature, and that the clergymen of the church, and the ministers of each particular sect, should give religious instruction separately to the children, at different times and places from the education given in the schools. That was a very plausible-system, and it would seem at first that persons of all religious creeds might be reconciled to such a proposition; but he was convinced, in the first place, that it was not a system which would ever meet with the general assent of the people of this country; and he was convinced, in the second place, although he only spoke from hypothetical grounds, that it would fail to implant in the minds of the children that religious and moral culture which was necessary, in order to enable them to become good members of society. But with these differences of opinion, what ever might be the individual sentiments of Members of that House, or of those out of it, he confessed he did not see, until there was more likelihood of agreement among the leading persons who were in favour of general education in this country, that it would be a good plan to establish a commission or a board of education by the Government, because, in whatever way it might be constituted, it would create great jealousy on all hands on this subject. There was one great point, however, which was deserving of attention—it was that of contributing to the education of teachers, and affording a better set of teachers than now existed in this country. That, he thought, was an exceedingly useful scheme; but he thought, also, another scheme must be adopted with it whenever it might be adopted. The plan he meant was, that there should be given to those teachers, after they had left the schools of discipline, a certain amount of salary in addition to what might be given by the schools in which they would be engaged; because, in fact, the education which was given to the teachers was so good, that they found the usual salary of a schoolmaster was very much smaller than the remuneration which they could obtain by engaging themselves in other professions or occupations. This had been found to be the case in the British and Foreign School Society; those teachers to whom the greatest attention was paid, and who were made the fittest to conduct the education of the young, were often the first to find some other situation, feeling that it was not worth their while to pursue a profession of which he must say, although at present it was very inadequately rewarded, he considered it to be one of the noblest and most honourable which any man could undertake. He thought they could do nothing better—if by law it was possible to do so—than to raise the profession of schoolmaster by taking care to provide a more adequate income, and by making it, in some way or other, a passage and a path to future rewards, so that men might not be left for some 40l. or 50l. a-year to spend the best of their days in the drudgery and toil of the school-room, without any prospect of advancing their interests, or even securing a comfortable provision for old age. He wished, therefore, to say, that although he was not prepared to agree to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, because he thought the Government ought not to adopt such a motion without making up their minds that they could thereby take a useful step in respect to education, at the same time he declared, that he was fully convinced that it was the duty of Parliament and of the state to further and encourage education in this country. Whether the results of that education would altogether bear out the expectations which had been entertained was a question on which he did not then think it necessary to enter; he was quite sure that though some of the more sanguine of those expectations were likely to be disappointed, very great good would be effected; and he was convinced, with all the various means at hand, with the Church with an income so very considerable, with charitable foundations of such very large amount, with the large income of the state itself, and with the wealth of this country generally, that they ought not to permit education to remain in that low and inferior condition in which it was unfortunately at the present day.

regretted, that the speech of the noble Lord indicated, that the present opportunity of conferring a great boon on this country was to be lost. The present mode of administering the funds devoted to national education, he must say was unwise, and called for an immediate alteration. He did not see why religious topics should have been mixed up with the question of establishing a board of education. Surely there could be no difficulty in finding a sufficient number of persons fully competent to undertake the responsibility of being members of that board, and to discharge their duties without reference to religious prejudices.

would venture, considering the desire that prevailed on every hand to forward education throughout the country, to urge on the hon. Member for Waterford the expediency of not pressing his motion to a division. He conceived, that the object of the hon. Gentleman would be sufficiently answered without going to a division. The good which his motion would do, was rather to call the attention of Parliament, and of the public, to the duty of providing a better mode of education, than to call on the House at the present moment, and in the present state of the question to take the step proposed in that motion. The hon. Member for Limerick had said, that the funds applied to public education, were at present unwisely administered. The hon. Gentleman should consider not only the positive good done by the application of those funds, but the good that had been done by not suffering private benevolence to be directed from its accustomed channel and legitimate object. If Parliament were to double or even quadruple the vote already given, if they were to supply the whole amount now supplied by private funds, would it not rather prejudice than help the progress of education? If Parliament did step in, it must be prepared to go further, otherwise the experiment would be a dangerous one. Some hon. Gentlemen thought the Government acted unfairly, because the national society had a larger share of the public grant than the British and Foreign School Society. But why was it so? Because the National Society produced more money than the other. That was the rule. If the people of England gave more money to one society than to the other, then that society was entitled to the larger grant. Why did not both societies on their own part require the Government to do a great deal more? First, there was the National Society, the richest and most powerful, which ought to be a model for all other school societies in the land; and yet let any hon. Gentleman visit the model school connected with it, and would he come to the House and say, that it was a credit to the society, or that it was formed and conducted on principles that were advantageous to the education of the people? For the two years last past, the Government had made offers for extending improved modern schools for the instruction of masters, and neither society, the British nor the National, had come forward to accept those offers. both societies would be defective until they established a much more active system of inspection and superintendence than they employed at present. They were satisfied with the establishment of schools, and with keeping up a correspondence with the clergyman, or active man, in the neighbourhood, but they did not bring the whole of the machinery under their control. Money had been voted from year to year; the number of schools and of scholars was known, but there was no practical report of the state of those schools, to show how far they had answered the purposes of Parliament in diffusing among the people that education of which they were intended to be the channels. He thought the Parliament was entitled to call on those societies to give an account of their stewardship. He did not undervalue the inquiry of the committee on education; but he thought a fair report ought to be made to the Government and to that House of the condition of the number of schools founded and endowed by Parliament. That would be just now one of the most useful interpositions of parliamentary authority; it would give authority to the societies themselves to call on the several schools to prove the grounds for their claim to the bounty they received, and it would make the best foundation for a new and a large consideration of this question. The books in use in these schools were, for the most part, very inferior to those which had been provided by the literary skill and industry of individuals, and which were in general use in other schools. These things might be remedied, and that would lead to the co-operation of Parliament. The two societies he had mentioned were daily approximating towards each other, and he believed, that the great mass of Dissenters would be ready to consolidate their schools with the establishment if the church catechism were taught on Sundays only. Believing, that the interference of Government, by appointing a commission or board of education, in the present state of the question would create great jealousy amongst all parties, and be injurious to the progress of education, he must oppose the motion, and hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in it.

agreed with many observations which had fallen from his noble Friend and from the right hon. Gentle- man who had just sat down with respect to the manner in which this subject ought to be considered. But with respect to the amount of the grants made being in proportion to the money raised by the parties applying for assistance to the Government, that was a principle which did not operate with perfect benefit and justice to the people of this country. The amount of money could not be equal in every instance. In one parish the people might raise 1,000l., but you might go to the next parish, and there, where the want of education was five times as great, and the number of inhabitants in a state of destitution considerably larger, infinitely less money would be raised for the purposes of education: yet to that place, notwithstanding its increased wants and helplessness, the grant would be a great deal less than to the richer and better educated parish. To poor places additional grants should be made, and the restrictions at present imposed ought to be removed. But if his right hon. Friend answered him by saying, "By these arguments you would discourage public contributions and the charitable exertions of individuals," he would say—"No, but let the amount of their contributions be considered in connexion with their power to subscribe. If they found that in the poorest districts of London education was most needed, and that it was utterly impossible for the people to raise money sufficient to obtain a grant equal to the wants of that district, which he asserted to be the fact, then he would say, in the name of the people of such a district "Tax us according to our ability; do not deny us assistance because we have not the power to do more to assist ourselves." Where was the greatest want of education? In the most populous and the poorest parts. He would put it to the House and to the country what were likely to be the effects on the morality of this great metropolis, what the consequence with respect to crime, what the result with regard to the contamination of youth, while there was a district like that of Spitalfields and Bethnal-green, in which there were 10,000 children rising every morning, of which a moiety, and above a moiety, had no employment, and no education, and were exposed to every possible temptation to evil? It was his firm conviction that it was impossible such a population could remain even in its pre- sent degraded state, and that the evils of their condition must increase and extend to others unless some means were promptly taken to educate and reclaim them. Unless they attempted to check the growing evil, they ought to experience, he would not say the effects of it in their own sufferings, but in feelings of the deepest regret, that so many persons should be left exposed to every species of temptation, and deprived of that education, which, under the providence of God, was the surest safeguard against temptation to evil. He therefore objected to any postponement of this question. Notwithstanding, he did not very sanguinely hope that the object of the motion of the hon. Member for Waterford would be attained, he did urge upon her Majesty's Ministers without any delay, to a certain extent at least, to provide the means for obviating these evils by establishing such regulations for the disposition of the funds at their command as would tend to prevent the continuance of those mischiefs arising from the want of education, which had been described by his hon. Friend, and of many more which it was in his power to describe.

replied; as to the observations of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and the quotations he had made from the evidence of Mr. Blake before the Committee of which he (Mr. Wyse) had been chairman, he would only remark, that he could quote the evidence of many other witnesses which would give a full answer to the hon. Gentleman's position. With regard to the bill of Lord Brougham, he must say, that there were many portions of it which he approved of, and should be glad to see carried into law. In the motion he had submitted he had no wish to bind the conscience of any man; he desired, that the Dissenter should have the benefit of instruction in reading, writing, geography, and other useful acquirements, without reference to his creed, and the same benefits he wished to see conferred upon the Churchman. He could not conceive why, if grants of the public money were made to the Treasury, the administration of those funds ought not to be confided to a particular and especial department of the board, in order, that it might be ascertained, that a control should exist over those schools, in aid of which the public money was granted. He, therefore, could not assent to withdraw the pre- sent motion, and, having heard no declaration of approbation by the Government of the measures he had suggested, he thought it necessary, by taking a division, to place his views and opinions upon record.

The House divided:—Ayes 70: Noes 74; Majority 4.

, in moving for leave to bring in a bill for providing for the conveyance of mails by railroads, observed, that it must be obvious to every hon. Member, that the great alteration which had latterly taken place in the internal communications of this country, by the establishment o railways in various directions, must materially affect the post-office service. A committee had been appointed early in the session to consider what Legislative measures might be rendered necessary to provide for this altered state of circumstances; and upon the report of that committee, the bill which he proposed to bring in was founded. In asking leave of the House to bring in this bill, he would confine himself to stating, without any argument, what were its main provisions. The first resolution to which the committee had come—and it was agreed to unanimously—was to the effect that railway companies appear to have it in their power practically to prevent the transmission of the correspondence of the country by the established means of communication, and to take whatever steps in this matter they pleased. If hon. Members would take the trouble of referring to the evidence which was laid before the committee, they would find, that there was no exaggeration in this statement. The Post-office had, in point of fact, been already deprived altogether, in certain cases, of the power of carrying on the correspondence of the country, because where railways existed, in all the parallel lines of road, the traffic by stage-coaches was absolutely put a stop to. The Post-office would, therefore, be obliged to have recourse to the agency of the railways, or suspend the transmission of letters altogether. This important fact had been established by the committee—that by the railway acts a monopoly was vested in the proprietors of the railway companies, who possessed that monopoly not only as proprietors, but as carriers, they being enabled to demand heavy tolls from persons running carriages upon their several lines. These tolls were so high, that the Legislature was found to have practically given to these companies the power to exact an amount equal to or nearly approaching, in almost every instance, the sum which they demanded of passengers. Persons attempting to run carriages upon their lines must pay this toll, and demand some fare besides. The monopoly of the communications of the country, which had been given by law to these railway companies, might, therefore, be considered as absolute. For this novel and unprecedented state of things it was necessary to provide a remedy. He begged to observe that he did not mean to cast the slightest reflection on the manner in which these companies were conducted. But, however respectable these parties might be, if the Government were to continue responsible for the transactions of the Post-office, it must not be left to the mercy of any private company, however eminent. His right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had, upon various occasions, when railway bills were before the House, put in his claim on the part of the Government whenever it was possible, and asked of the House to agree to measures calculated to obviate any inconvenience which might be found to arise; and to give to the Postmaster-general the power of requiring from the proprietors of railroads any reasonable services which he might require. With respect to the question of remuneration, that would be settled by arbitration, one arbitrator being chosen for the Post-office, another for the railroad; and in case of a difference of opinion arising, an umpire would be elected to decide. He fully admitted, that the mode of deciding, with respect to expenses by arbitration, was not the most advantageous to the Government; but, at the same time, the committee, after considering whether they could find any general principles applicable to the payment of charges by railroad companies, were unable to discover one, though they were of opinion that, after great experience had been had on these undertakings, data might exist on which to found a general rule. Under these circumstances, the committee recommended, for the present, that the settlement of the charges should be made by arbitration, though it was admitted to be an imperfect and inconvenient mode of proceeding. It was also provided by the bill, that it should not be lawful for any railroad company to enact any by-law to restrict powers thus conferred on the Post-office. Such a provision was necessary, for some of the companies closed their railroads on Sundays; and unless the Post-office possessed the power of transmitting letters, the consequence would be that the correspondence of the country would be interrupted. These arrangements had not received any opposition from the proprietors of rail-roads, but he was now about to state a provision to which he was afraid some objection might be offered. It was thought by the committee, that these powers were not sufficient to enable the Post-office to carry on communications with the country with that expedition and economy which were necessary for this department; and though they were perfectly satisfied of the general willingness on the part of the rail-road proprietors to meet the wishes of the Post-office, still it was deemed advisable, considering that the carriage of letters must always be regarded as a secondary object to the carriage of passengers, to give the Post-office an additional power, in case any company should resist the fair demands of that establishment. The House would perceive how necessary this was, when it was recollected that between London and Manchester, as likewise between London and Brighton, the Post-office would have to deal with three different companies. It was, therefore, indispensable that security should be taken to prevent any interruption to the communications arising from a feeling of jealousy between the companies, or from any other cause; and the committee had come to a resolution, declaring that it was expedient to give the right to the Post-office to run their own engines on any railway with a train containing a limited number of passengers, and luggage without payment of tolls, subject to a payment to be fixed by arbitration for any services that might be required from the rail-road companies. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked why the Post-office should have the power of conveying passengers besides letters. He would state the reason; and he would take the instance of the Post-office conveying letters on part of a continuous railroad, in which two or three different companies had an interest. When the letters arrived at the end of the first portion of the road, the next company would charge, and with justice, most exorbitantly for their conveyance if no passengers arrived with them. He might also take the case of a road where part of the communication was carried on by horsed carriages; and in such a case the House could not doubt that a most extravagant charge would be made for the conveyance of the letters alone; for the only means by which the Post-office was enabled to send letters so cheaply through the country was by transmitting them by mail, which carried passengers and was free from toll. It was, of course, provided, that any damage which might be caused to the railway by the carriages employed by the Post-office should be settled by arbitration. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to introduce the bill.

said, that as the effect of the establishment of the railroads would be to destroy all the ordinary means of communication, it was the bounden duty of the Government to provide for the due conveyance, not only of the mails, but of troops and the stores belonging to them. He felt alarm at the proposition, that the expense should be settled by arbitration; for the Government had then never fair play. He therefore suggested whether it would not be better to fix the rate of payment for the Government according to the charge of remuneration established by the proprietors of railroads for the public.

saw the necessity of passing some bill like the one proposed; but as the railroads had been established by a vast outlay of private funds, the interests of the proprietors ought not to be overlooked. He therefore thought it would be better for the Post-office to endeavour to come to an amicable arrangement, in the first instance, with the proprietors of railroads; and if that at- tempt failed, then to resort to arbitration.

could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, that, although it appeared to her Majesty's Government to be absolutely necessary that they should be vested with these extraordinary powers, he sincerely hoped that they might never be compelled to use them. Unless those powers were given, the remainder of the bill would be quite unavailing. The measure might fail; but it would be well for the railway companies to keep in mind, that if it did, if they were so unreasonable in their demands as to prevent the bags from being carried on their railroads, it would be quite in the power of that House to impose such duties upon them as completely to counterbalance the additional charge to which, by such conduct, they would subject the Post-office.

believed it to be impossible for the Post-office to run separate trains. How were they to be supplied with water and fuel on the road? How obtain all the conveniences which the immense establishments of the railroads afforded to their own trains? Was it possible for any man to require the use of all these for carrying on business which unjustly invaded the property of the railroad companies, by paying no compensation for their costly works, and demanding their constant employment.

, at that late hour of the night, would trespass but a very few moments on the attention of the House. With respect to the conveyance of letters and all other traffic, of whatever kind, which the Government of the country required for the public interest, he felt that it should be secured in the most ample degree; but the question was, should it be required without reasonable and moderate payment for the cost of constructing and maintaining the railways? The committee were unanimous in favour of giving the greatest possible security for the steady and punctual performance of the Post-office business; but not so in respect to this being done without any allowance for the cost of the construction of the railroads. Some Members of the committee objected to the sixth resolution as an invasion of the rights of property, and they also considered it to be impossible for the Post-office to run their own engines under a separate management without creating great danger and inconvenience to the public. The evidence taken by the committee amply confirmed this view, whilst there was no evidence to support the practicability of the Post-office running its own separate train with safety to the public, or the justice of doing so without any payment or toll, as a compensation for the original construction of the railroad. The adoption of such a principle would engender amongst the proprietors of railroads the greatest alarm. They certainly had the greatest repugnance to establish a principle which they deemed fraught with danger and inconvenience to the public, and also an invasion of the rights of property so monstrous that he never could believe it would obtain the sanction of that House.

Leave given.