rose to call the attention of the House to the report of the select commit of of June, 1841, on National Movements, and to demonstrate the propriety of the recommendation contained in that report being fully carried out. This was not a party question. The object Which he had in view was one to which, he conceived, no party in that House could possibly have any objection. It had long been made a charge against the people of this country, that they could not be admitted to visit Public Institutions, where there Were collections of paintings, statues, and other works of aft, without endangering the safety of those precious deposits; and they were, on that point considered to be inferior to the French and other nations of the continent. Now, he was one of those who had, for a very long time, studied the character of the great mass of the people, and he observed, uniformly, that where they were kept at a distance—where little confidence was placed in them—no matter whether it was in affairs of mere amusement, or in matters that were of importance to society in general—he had uniformly observed, that this suspicious distrust of the people led to those very consequences that were deprecated, and which a more kind and generous expression of feeling towards them would assuredly prevent. Until within a very short period all our valuable collections of the paintings and work of art were, in consequence of this jealous and distrustful feeling, shut up from the great body of the people. They were prevented from examining those objects of curiosity and instruction to which, in other parts of the world, individuals of their own class were allowed easy access. Some of those places were indeed open; but they could not be entered except at such an expense as confined their inspection to persons in the middle and higher classes of society. A better state of things had, however, grown up of late years; and the experiment had shown, so far as it had been tried, that the English populace might be permitted to enjoy the treasures of art collected in different parts of this metropolis without those treasures receiving the smallest injury. In June, 1841, he moved for and obtained a committee on this subject. That committee had effected much good; but they were not able, in consequence of the shortness of the Session, to do that justice to the question which they otherwise would have done. He was anxious, how-ever, to place before the House the result of the labours of that committee, in order to show, on the part of the working community, bow far the benefits expected to be derived from their recommendations had been realized, and how far it would be proper and beneficial to carry out the principle which, in consequence of the report of the committee, had been first acted on. It was important to the working classes that that principle should be fully carried out. Very many of these individual had no opportunity to cultivate the arts o reading and writing. It was not in their power to study at home during the few hours' respite which they had from labour. They were obliged to devote almost all their hours to providing for the wants of their families. They were literally excluded, in many instances, from any opportunity of education. It, there-fore, appeared to him, that the opening the doors of these public institutions to the working classes in the metropolis did in itself actually afford a species of education. The inspection of these works of art gave rise to habits of thinking in minds that had never thought before, and thus, in the very outset, a great good was attained. He believed that the character of the working classes in general was in a great degree influenced by the character and conduct of the higher classes; and if higher classes treated those whom providence had placed below them with coldness, indifference, or harshness—if they kept them at a distance, like beings of a different species, it was not difficult to see that such conduct must lead to unpleasant consequences. This had been too much the case in this country; and he believed the result of the system had been to place the population of this country in a worse moral position than their continental neighbours. The brutality and rudeness which they every day saw exhibited could not but be extremely painful to those Who witnessed it. He would remove this by directing the minds of the people to amusements that were not only harmless but instructive. Ignorance led to crime, and in that respect it was lamentable to observe how degradingly this country was situated, as compared with any other nation in the world. On the committee of 1841 they had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire, and five other hon. Gentlemen, who were now Members of that House, men who advocated different classes of political opinion; and he was free to say that throughout all their proceedings, and up to the close of the labours of that committee, they had only one dissention, and that was with respect to the insertion of three words, whether the British Museum and other Public Institutions should be "open on Sundays." Those who opposed the proposition were afraid that, if these places were open when divine service was being soleminised in the afternoon, the multitude would go to view objects of art and science instead of attending public worship. The answer to this was, that in every class of society a time for amusement and recreation must be set apart. Now, the time when it was proposed to open these Public Institutions, on the Sunday, was the only one of which the poor man could avail himself, and he believed, that for the want of a better mode of employing and amusing themselves on that day, the working classes had recourse to public-houses. Was it not better, he would ask, that instead of besotting themselves in public-houses, the National Gallery, British Museum, and other places of a similar character, should be opened on the Sunday afternoon, where the working classes might amuse as well as instruct themselves? If this plan were adopted, he thought that the working man, with his wife and family, would partake of this innocent enjoyment, instead of, as was now too often the case, the husband proceeding alone to the public-house, where he wasted his money, wasted his time, destroyed his constitution, and demoralised his character. These were the arguments in favour of opening public institutions on the Sunday afternoon. He thought they carried great weight with them. In his mind they were conclusive. Such was the practice abroad. If he went to Belgium or to Holland (and no place was more religious than Holland), he found that, after the hours of divine service, the husband, wife, and such members of the family as were able to go abroad proceeded to the country; or if the weather was not fine, or they preferred it, visited the museums and public institutions, where they examined and admired the splendid collections of works of art or of mechanical ingenuity. But what was the case in this country? Let any Gentleman ride round the environs of London on a Sunday evening, and in every quarter he would see flags displayed from public-houses, apprising the artisan where he might procure beer and spirituous liquors. He did not wish to shut those houses up; but certainly he would not encourage them by preventing the people from having recourse to a more salutary and harmless enjoyment—that of inspecting works of genius. The whole evidence before the committee of 1841 satisfied his mind of the utility of acting on this principle. It proved to him, that if the recommendation of the committee were carried out to its full extent, it would improve the morals and add greatly to the happiness of the industrious, honest, hardworking classes. Great benefits had accrued from opening the public parks. Let any hon. Member visit the Regent's-park next Sunday, and he would behold a most gratifying scene. He would see the whole of that extensive area crowded with families—men, women, and children, happily enjoying themselves. Undoubtedly their constitutions were renovated, their health was improved, in that pure atmosphere; whereas, if they had not such a place to proceed to, if they were compelled to remain in their murky and unwholesome districts, their health would be deteriorated and their constitutions impaired. He rejoiced that so much had been done, but he was anxious that still more should be done; and when the weather did not allow the toil-worn artisan to rove through the fields, he would open to him the various public institutions, and permit him to enjoy the different objects of art that were there assembled. This would do more to sober the minds, and improve the morals of those too much neglected classes, than all the rigour and all the severity with which the more strict religionists would visit them for the purpose of compelling them to act as they did. In respect to promenade accommodations for the inhabitants, the eastern parts of the metropolis had been much neglected. Much good, however, would be effected by the formation of Victoria Park; and hundreds of thousands of artisans living in murky and unwholesome dwellings in the east of London would be enabled to enjoy that air and exercise which those who resided in the western part of the town could at present boast of. A petition had been presented to the House signed by almost all the inhabitants of Bermondsey and its vicinity, praying that a similar park should be formed in that neighbourhood. There was a piece of ground centrally situated with reference to St. George's-fields, Bermondsey, and Lambeth, which could be procured by Government on easy terms, and might be appropriated to that beneficial object. He did not want the expenditure of money, as his object would be by an exchange of Crown property in one place to procure appropriate sites in another. With respect to the improvement which took place amongst the people, by opening up to them the means of innocent and wholesome recreation, he had the testimony of Colonel Rowan, who stated, that since the facilities of this sort were increased one policeman was now found sufficient where ten had been required before; that at Greenwich fair, after which, formerly, the prisons were full of offenders, there were now no riots whatsoever. This, in the Colonel's opinion, was owing to the facilities for recreation which had been afforded, and he recommended that further means should be adopted for forwarding the same object. When, on a former occasion, it was urged that the Museum should be opened during the holidays, the answer was, that the adoption of such a course would be attended with considerable hurt; now that the trial had been made the result was highly gratifying. In the report of 1835 and 1836, Sir Henry Ellis said, there would be great danger in opening the establishment during the holidays, and that the collection could not be kept safe from the crowds which were likely to attend. From the evidence of the same Gentleman it now appeared, that from 16,000 to 32,000 visited the Museum in the course of one day, and during the four years that it had been open to such numerous assemblages, not one instance occurred in which the aid of the police was required, though the changes which were taking place during the time offered great temptation. He had it from the Secretary, that up to the 2nd of July the institution had been visited by 232,778 persons. Amongst the complaints at present made, one related to the exclusion of children under eight years of age, even though under the care of their guardians. These children had to be left in some neighbouring shop with one of the parents, whilst the other visited the collect on, and then the person who had charge of the child took his or her turn. Children were now admitted to Hampton-palace. Before that injury used to be sustained, but since then not sixpence worth of damage had been done. That was a fact well worthy of consideration. He was anxious that children should be admitted to the British Museum and to the National Gallery, as well as to Hampton Court, and if it was understood that their parents were to hold them by the hand no injury could be done. A great inconvenience also arose from making parties write their names upon entrance, as it occasioned a crowd in the passage. It was a useless practice, and according to the testimony of the porters and the best informed officers, no benefit resulted from it. He thought it right too, that the King's library should be thrown open to the public. As to the objection that the admission of a great number of people would raise too great a dust, it would be easily obviated by adopting the same precautions which had been taken with respect to that House. At present the Museum was opened only for four days in the week. He imagined that the public might now with great ease and safety be allowed the accommodation of an additional day. Ingress was now afforded to the public up to six or seven o'clock; but the number seeking entrance after five o'clock was very inconsiderable. By gaining the two hours the labour of the persons employed would not be increased, and two hours additional might be afforded to students. He visited the Museum on last Easter Monday, when he found that from 15,000 to 16,000 passed through with the greatest regularity—indeed, he might almost say with the discipline of soldiers. Thence he went to the National Gallery, where he found 13,000 persons had passed through with the same order as at the Museum, and departed with equal readiness when the proper hour arrived. In the year 1840 there passed through the gallery 503,011; in 1841, 538,355; and on the 7th of July of the present year, the numbers given by the Secretary were 370,105. This would sufficiently testify the desire of the people to indulge in those habits which, whilst they gratified, at the same time improved the public taste. Whilst the admission of visitors to the Tower was as high as 2s., the sum acquired from visitors was very small, and the visitors themselves very limited. For the last year at that price the number of visitors was 8,000, exclusive of 2,000 admitted on orders. When the amount was reduced to Is. in 1838, the number of visitors was 40,000; the next year, when the admission was reduced to. there were 84,000 visitors; the next year 94,000, and the year following, 103,000. At 2s. the amount raised for entrance was but 800l. in the year, whilst at 6d. it was '2,570l. Of the sum thus acquired, the Master-general of the Ordnance had been enabled to appropriate 1,059l, to the purchase of ancient armour. There was one improvement which he would suggest as respected those who visited the Tower, namely. that they should not be hurried F through a hasty inspection, but be allowed the privilege which they had at the Museum. As another example of the good effects of reducing prices, he would mention that when 2s. was charged for admission to see the jewels in the Tower, no more than 6,000 or 7,000 persons visited charge 20,000 did so. It was quite delightful to see the eagerness of the public to visit Hampton Court Palace. He understood it was now common among the working classes for a party to hire a waggon to go there, which they could do for Is. a head, and frequently twenty or thirty waggons would arrive from London in a day, the inmates of which, after having enjoyed themselves in the palace and park, returned to their homes in the evening. He was happy to acknowledge the gratitude he felt for the handsome conduct of Sir R. Stopford, Governor of Greenwich Hospital, in opening the chapel and hall to the public on two days of the week, free of charge, from ten o'clock in the morning to four o'clock in winter, and six o'clock in summer—an act which reflected the highest credit on the gallant admiral. Sailors, who had been formerly obliged to pay, were now also freely permitted to see the records of our naval glory which that institution contained. There was much still to be done to facilitate the access of the public to cathedrals. The committee had proposed that St. Paul's should be opened to the public for two hours every day, not during divine service. It was well known that now, during the hours of service, crowds of persons entered, because they were not admitted at any other time without paying, but whose entrance now was productive of little other result than to disturb divine worship. Mr. Britton, Mr. Cunningham, and other men eminent in art, had borne ample testimony to the strong desire which the public felt to view works of art, and to the entire absence of any disposition to do injury to them and Stated that they might be admitted freely to Westminster Abbey and other similar buildings without the least danger. He had written a letter to the dean and chapter of every cathedral in the kingdom, soliciting that free access might be granted to visitors, and in consequence arrangements had been made in the cases of Norwich, Durham, and Bath and Wells, for the admission, of the public at certain times. He hoped that they would have the assistance of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government towards opening Public Institutions of all kinds. As an instance of the success of an experiment of this kind, he might mention Newcastle, the museum of which place was visited by vast numbers of persons from the country resorting to the town on market days, and at other times, with the best effects. The Dulwich Gallery, near the metropolis, contained a collection of pictures which had been left expressly for the use of the public, but he regretted that he had been unable to induce the warden to meet the public convenience by opening the gallery; the vexatious regulation of requiring tickets was still kept up, and the consequence was that the poor, as well as many persons of the middle class who had no time or opportunity to procure tickets, were excluded from seeing the gallery. He wished he could say anything in favour of the Royal Academy: but he found them, who ought to be the patrons of art and taste, more inexorable than any others. A sum of 50,000l. had been ex. pended by the public to provide them accommodation, and surely the public had a right to derive some advantage from that expenditure. He wished them to permit the exhibition to remain open gratis for a week or a fortnight after those who paid had seen it, or to be gratuitously open for one day in the week during the time the exhibition lasted. He believed them to be the only body in Europe who did nothing towards the promotion of those objects for which it was established. He saw no other course that could be adopted on the present occasion than to address her Majesty, praying for her assistance for the attainment of the objects he had indicated, and he was sure, from the readiness with which she had consented to the prayer forwarded to her soon after her accession relative to the royal palaces, that she would not refuse her aid on the present occasion in the work of humanizing the minds of her people, and disseminating, taste. He was perfectly willing, however, to adopt any other course that might be thought preferable; to carry his object was what he wished. The hon. Member concluded by moving,

"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to give directions to the trustees of the British Museum and of the Na- tional Gallery, to the authorities having charge of the armouries and jewels in the Tower of London, and to all other persons having the management or direction of public edifices and cathedrals, for the adoption of those facilities and improvements recommended in the report of the select committee on public monuments."

seconded the motion, and recommended that a commission should be instituted for the inspection and preservation of all the national monuments and works of art.

concurred most cordially in the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Montrose, as to the importance of throwing open to the public, as far as possible, all those exhibitions and works of art which tended to elevate their ideas to higher objects than those by which they were immediately surrounded, and by improving their taste, contributed so essentially to humanize and elevate their character. The only point in which he differed from the hon. Gentleman was a technical one,—as to the mode in which the common object might best be attained. He agreed that nothing could be more advantageous to the public in the largest sense, than the opening of the parks in the neighbourhood of London. It was beneficial not only to the lower classes, as af3ording admirable facilities for healthful recreation and enjoyment; but even to those in the higher ranks of society nothing could afford greater gratification than to see their humbler fellow-subjects innocently enjoying themselves, and partaking of those blessings which Providence had placed within their reach. There w as scarcely a Sunday he did not himself go to those scenes of enjoyment; not so much for the purpose of his own recreation, as deriving the higher gratification of seeing his fellow-creatures innocently enjoy themselves. The only point on which, as the hon. Member observed, there was any difference of opinion in the committee, was as to the propriety of opening the National Gallery on Sundays; and he, with many others, conscientiously entertained the opinion that the opening of such exhibitions at all on Sunday, and especially during divine service, would be extremely prejudicial to the moral habits and feelings of the people. He knew well that arguments of a religious character were particularly out of place in the House of Commons; and the hon. Gentleman might be disposed to designate the opinion he had expressed as a mere prejudice; he called it an honest, conscientious feeling, but in either view of the matter he would recommend him not to press his motion for an address, Let him take what advantages he could, and leave prejudices to be counteracted by the silent operation of public opinion. Within the last few years great progress had been made in this question, and there was now a readiness displayed by those who had charge of the public, and even of many private collections, to open their doors to all classes of the community, which no interference of that House, by means of an address to the Crown, could have brought about. With respect to the Museum, the hon. Gentleman had proposed that it should be opened an additional day in the week for the accommodation of the public; but it was extremely difficult to hit the precise means of reserving a sufficient time for those who resorted to the Museum to study, without encroaching on the accommodation which he admitted was due to all classes of the community. He believed the desire existed on all hands to accommodate the public as far as possible. The same might be said with reference to the cathedrals. In Westminster Abbey a great reduction of the charge had taken place; and it had, therefore, proved the greatest attraction to a very large body of the people. In common with the hon. Member for Montrose. he wished the Dean and Chapter of Westminster would consent to throw the Abbey open to the public some portion of every day, under proper regulations, but he did not think that object would be gained by the proposed address. There was a natural disposition in mankind to resist the exercise of an assumed authority to which they were not bound to give obedience; and he doubted whether the direct interposition of Parliament, through the medium of the Crown, would not retard rather than accelerate the accomplishment of the great end in view. He would undertake, however, to say for himself and her Majesty's advisers, that they anxiously wished to extend the means of innocent enjoyment to all classes, even to the lowest order of the people; and, as far as they had the direction of public establishments, or any means of persuasion over those who had, they were determined to lose no opportunity of ex. Lending the means of access to them one the part of the people. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member, having originated this matter and having obtained a general expression of opinion on the part of the House, would be content to leave the question on that footing, without insisting on an address, which might give rise to opposition on the part of some who could not agree to the full extent of the recommendations of the committee.

could not admit that the hon. Member for Montrose had obtained a general expression of opinion on the part of the House. In fact, he had yet only received the concurrence of the hon. Member for Dumfries and the more qualified approval of his right hon. Friend. He did not wish that this metropolis should run a race with Paris in the desecration of the Lord's-day. It was not always the case that a high taste for the fine arts and public virtue were necessarily co-existent. The period when the fine arts most flourished in ancient Athens and Rome, and when taste was at its highest pitch, was the time when the morals of the people were most corrupted, and when the greatest abominations were practised.

" Græcia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes Intulit agresti Latio;"

and a flood of corruption followed. The hon. Member for Montrose had referred to the Royal Academy, and said that that institution derived 10,000l. a year from the public, and had done nothing to benefit their fellow-men. Now, he must inform the hon. Member that the Royal Academy was not a Public Institution, and was not amenable to that House. It was not right to say that a public building had been erected for the convenience of the Royal Academicians, for they had previously apartments in Somerset-house, and on giving them up it was stipulated, that they should occupy the new apartments in the National Gallery exactly on the same footing. If the hon. Member's motion was pressed to a division, he should vote against it, as he was decidedly opposed to opening Public Institutions on the Lord's day.

regretted that his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, should have thought it necessary to throw cold water on the liberal unanimity with which the House appeared disposed to receive the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. He still more deeply regretted that, his hon. Friend should have gone so far as to launch his anathema against the cultivation of the arts. Were we living in the nineteenth century, or thrust back into the darkness of the middle ages? When his hon. Friend was addressing the House, it appeared to him Mr. Knight) that he was listening to some venerable monk who was commending Virgil and Cicero to the flames, and doing his best to re-plunge the country into that barbarism and that ignorance which, we have always been told, is the fertile parent of crime. For his own part, he would cordially support the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, both for the sake of the cultivation of the arts, and with a view to its moral effect. This country, great in many ways, had not, hitherto, been equally remarkable for its preeminence in the arts. Yet commerce was not adverse to the arts, for the arts had been restored to life in the commercial towns of Italy—in Florence, in Pisa, in Venice—and in those towns the arts had flourished more and more in proportion as their commerce had extended. But the truth was, that the arts cannot flourish unless the public at large take an interest in them, and are capable of appreciating their merits—and this was not as yet the case in England. Now, with regard to the moral effect how desirable was it that the people should have the opportunity of contemplating the sculptured resemblances of those great men by whom their country had been assisted or adorned ! It was for this reason that the Greeks and Romans filled their streets and their forums with the statutes of their distinguished men. They knew that the sight of those statutes would supply the state with a constant succession of poets, and philosophers, and heroes. They knew that nature sows the seed of genius in every soil; that in all the walks of life there exist hearts that are "pregnant with celestial fire"—hearts that, admonished by such remembrances, kindle at once, and exalt those who own them to the loftiest heights of virtue and of fame. For these reasons it was his earnest desire that all the doors should be thrown open as wide as possible; and he would further admit that, in cases where public monuments had been raised at the expence of the country, the will of an individual who may be weak, who may be haughty, who may be narrow-minded, should not be permitted entirely to stand in the way of great national objects. He further agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose in opinion, that there would be nothing improper in providing the working classes with opportunities of innocent recreation on a Sunday afternoon. It would go far to divert them from those habits of intemperance, of which we hear such frequent complaints. If a working man went to church in the morning, he would not quarrel with him, if, in the afternoon, he visited the National Gallery, or took a walk with his wife and his children in the parks, where, as he inhaled the fresh air, beheld the blue canopy of heaven, and gazed on the verdure of the lawns and the woods, his thoughts would ascend in gratitude to Him who made them all. But, if the cathedrals of this vast metropolis were thrown open to the public, great care must be taken that the house of God should not be desecrated in any way, nor the performance of divine worship be disturbed: this could only be done by multiplying the number of vergers, and, perhaps, introducing policemen; and the expence of this additional force., as it would be incurred for the accommodation of the public, should be sustained by the public, and not thrown on the chapters. An idea had occurred to him by which public monuments might, in future, be offered to the contemplation of the people, in a manner that would be wholly unobjectionable. He would have spacious cloisters, like the Campo Santo, at Pisa, or a church, like the Madeleine, at Paris, built at the expence of the public, and devoted, hereafter, to receive the monuments of our distinguished men. Into such a building the people might at all times be admitted without any inconvenience. The building itself would be ornamental to the metropolis. He hoped the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would take this subject into his consideration, and not disdain to be handed down to posterity as the pericles of his time. His hon. Friend, the Member for Dumfries, had mentioned a subject which, in his (Mr. Knight's) opinion, was well deserving of attention: he had expressed a wish that a commission might be appointed to examine and report upon the state of our cathedrals, and the historical monuments which they contain. But he (Mr. Knight) would prefer an inspector to a commission. Such an officer existed in France, and had been found exceedingly useful. But if such an officer were appointed, the hon. Member for Montrose must so far restrain his economical propensities as not to find fault with the expence which such an appointment would necessarily entail; for such an officer must be a professional man of acknowledged ability, who could not be called upon to give up his time without a liberal compensation; and there would be no use in his making reports unless the recommendations contained in those reports were to be carried into effect. This, however, was a subject to itself—a project which could not be adopted without much and mature consideration. He would leave it in the hands of Government, and content himself with repeating his candid concurrence in the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.

said, he had never heard, that giving the humbler classes access to our national monuments, was attended by evil consequences; on the contrary, it was one of the best links between the higher and lower classes. But he would ask the House, whether it was not for the interest of artists, as individuals, that opportunities should be given to the public of improving their taste in works of art by public exhibitions. With respect to the productions of the middle ages, of which this country had so much reason to be proud, he regretted that means should not be taken to preserve them from that destruction to which so many had been consigned, not by the barbarism of our ancestors, so much as by the neglect of the present age.

hoped, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his motion to a division, but it appeared to him that on technical grounds there was a strong objection to it, because communications between that House and the Crown were of a formal nature, and he thought the hon. Gentleman would feel that to refer the Crown to the report of a select committee, and ask her Majesty to carry into effect the recommendations of the committee, without particularizing what they were, was a course of proceeding not exactly consisteut with the respect that was due to the Crown. He was almost inclined to doubt the power of the Crown with reference to the opening of cathedrals, as that remained with the deans and chapters; and the only effectual way to get ready access to them was to apply to the persons having charge of these buildings to increase the facilities of access. Undoubtedly, access to our national monuments could be afforded, and, in his opinion, the greatest advantage would result from it to the working classes of this country; but it was proposed only as a substitute for dissipation and vice. Now, their whole time could not be absorbed by such exhibitions, and all that he contended for was, to show the public the wonders of the creation, and the works of art, so that their taste might be gradually refined. It was very difficult for the State to come into contact with great masses of the people in granting these indulgences; but if they could in their expenditure attend to the health and improvement of the people it would tend to strengthen the monarchy and our form of Government, and would be giving a new guarantee for the preservation and stability of the Slate. They would then show the people that in the expenditure of the public money, their interests, their enjoyment, and their improvement were regarded; and when they heard of millions being necessarily raised by taxation for the conduct of the public service, it would not be so much objected to. At the same time, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose, he must object to the British Museum and National Gallery being opened on Sunday. Why should they refuse to allow those who were employed there one day of rest after the six during which they were engaged? With respect to the charges that were made for admission, one of the arguments in favour of it was, that it was necessary for the purpose of insuring the respectability of the visitors; but he understood that it was rather from the vulgar rich than from the artisans that any damage arose to public monuments; and he referred the House to the evidence printed in the report on the subject in Confirmation of that opinion. Much more might be expected to be achieved through the influence of public feeling than by anything peremptory or compulsory.

as one of the committee whose report referred to this subject, he found himself in the novel situation of concurring with the hon. Member for Montrose. Every facility ought to be given for the inspection of public exhibitions of works of art.

heartily agreed in wishing the cathedrals to be opened to the public gratuitously, as had been the intention of their founders. He was persuaded that no inconvenience would result there-from, and that the real obstacle arose out of consideration of pounds, shillings, and pence.

felt very strongly on the question of opening the exhibitions or museums on Sundays. He would ask any one on what other days could our artisans and those engaged in constant servitude find time for enjoying the glorious emanations of genius? It need not follow that the exhibitions should be opened during the hours of divine service; and he was sure that the effect would be beneficial, in affording sources of refined and elevated pleasure in place of other and less worthy ones.

thought, that this was a subject of the greatest moral importance. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hertford that many recreations had been taken from the people, and that no subject was more entitled to the attention of Parliament than that of providing innocent amusements for the people. He therefore cordially concurred in the motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Montrose. At the same time, he thought that there was great danger in making any extensive change against the opinions of the best portion of the people. He trusted, that something would be done to revive the spirit for the games and pastimes of former times, for he was sorry to say, that they were now almost forgotten among the villagers in England, and nothing tended more to promote the health and happiness of the working classes than these innocent out-door recreations.

was glad, that a question of this importance had been so favourably received on both sides of the House. He wished to cull the attention of the noble Lord opposite to the exceedingly capricious rules by which some of the parks were regulated. The remarks which he had to make would apply to all the parks, but more particularly to St. James's, because it seemed to be the one where the demon of the Woods and Forests most delighted to interfere with the enjoyments of the people. What could be said for the rule which excluded from that park every person carrying a bundle. The keepers very often exercised a wicked sort of malice in this respect—they would let the person walk half-way down the park, and then up would come one of the gentlemen in Lincoln green, and turn the unfortunate individual back. It was only the other day that the hon. Member for Bath, in his way down to the House, and carrying a book and some papers tied with a string, presented himself at one of the gates. One of the gentlemen in Lincoln green came up and stopped him, saying "You have got a bundle, Sir." The hon. Member remonstrated, and carried on the discussion with the keeper on general principles—he told him who he was, and the keeper, having no doubt the fear of the inquisition before his eyes, at last allowed the hon. Member to pass. He thought, the regulations with regard to games were also absurd. The other day he saw four little boys playing at leap-frog in the park, but, one of the gentlemen in Lincoln green coming in sight, they all ran away. He went up to the keeper, and asked him if his orders were to prevent the boys playing, and he answered that his orders were to prohibit every game. Could anything be more absurd than such a rule? Then with regard to sleeping in the park, No one, it seemed, was allowed to sleep,

" Sleep that knits up the ravelled sleeve of care."

The moment any one threw himself down on the grass, and appeared as if inclined to sleep, out darted a gentleman in Lincoln green, and told him that he must not sleep there. Now, all these were absurd regulations, and as they interfered with the comforts of the people, he hoped the noble Lord would excuse him for having taken advantage of this discussion to draw his attention to the subject, and he hoped, that the good principles laid down by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government with regard to the admission to the Museum and the picture gallery, would be also applied to the admission of the people to the parks.

doubted, whether the House would expect him to answer the hon. Gentleman on the present occasion, and he regretted, that the hon. Gentleman had introduced topics of this nature into the present debate—topics, he might observe, not worthy their discussion. The hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that any instructions were given by the authorities to interfere with the innocent enjoyments of the people. The reverse was the case: there existed every inclination in the office which he held to extend the enjoyments of the people, and to facilitate their admission to the public parks. In St. James's park, he had himself done one or two things, which he thought would add to the enjoyment of the people, he had introduced various botanical plants, and had effected a botanical classification of them. The keepers might occasionally have exceeded their authority, but they had no instructions to interfere with the innocent amusements of the people. With regard to the rule respecting bundles, he thought that if persons carrying bundles were admitted, a serious impediment would arise to those persons who went there for relaxation With regard to the rule against persons being allowed to sleep in the park, he had only to say that the practice had of late been very common, and it had been found necessary to enforce the rule. There certainly was a regulation against admitting persons in a working dress, but there, was scarcely a mechanic in London who had not a decent dress, and no person who was decently dressed was ever refused admission. All these rules had been established from a desire not to interfere with the general accommodation of the public, and if the hon. Member for Liskeard had in future any complaints to make, he hoped he would make them to him, and not to the House.

could not see what harm there would be in allowing a man in his working dress to pass through the park. It was a bad principle which excluded a man from places of that description merely because he happened to have on a working dress.

begged the right hon. Gentleman to recollect that the rule existed during the whole time that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the late Government. No new rule had been made, and any alterations that had been made were alterations of relaxation, and not of obstruction.

entirely concurred in the views taken by the hon. Member for Montrose and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. He saw no objection to opening the edifices alluded to on Sunday, and he thought the Church might well afford the expense of keeping them open out of its own funds.

complained of the barricades erected on Sundays in Westminster Abbey for the purpose of preventing the people getting a view of the monuments. He complained also of the manner in which the public were driven out of the abbey after the service; the vergers were always telling the people to move on, and no one could get even a glance at the monuments. He hoped the Dean and Chapter of Westminster would imitate the conduct of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's in this respect, and he thought the public ought to be grateful to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's for having removed the barricades in that cathedral. He thought great advantages would result to the people if these edifices were thrown open, as proposed.

was not surprised that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University objected to this motion, because he never expected to hear anything liberal from the hon. Member. He was therefore not disappointed in this respect, but he confessed that he was agreeably surprised at the manner in which the motion had been received by the House and the Government. Far from the churches being desecrated by consenting to a motion like the present, he thought they were desecrated at present, by taking filthy lucre for admission to see them, and refusing to admit a man because he was poor. All he wished was that the public should be permitted after divine service to see those noble edifices. After what had been said in the course of the discussion, he would not press his motion, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw it.

rose, in pursuance of notice, to move,

" That it is expedient that the Government school of design be formed into a central normal school, for the instruction of teachers of design, in communication with other schools of design throughout the country; and that the general recommendations of the committee, which reported on this subject in the year 1836, be adopted."

The committee recommended the establishment of a central school, which should issue casts and books of prints for the use of other schools. This recommendation had been complied with, and casts had been issued, and one book containing the most approved patterns had been sent forth. The commission which was issued to inquire into the condition of the handloom weavers, and which sat for two years, made a similar recommendation with regard to designs and patterns. The committee of 1836 further recommended, that there should be a normal school established for the instruction of persons who should afterwards be employed as teachers at the provincial schools. It was his conviction, that it became the duty of the Government to encourage the formation of provincial schools. He did not mean to say, that the Government ought to create them; but that whenever they were established, the Government ought to afford them every facility. The great benefit which these schools were calculated to effect, by encouraging improvements in our manufactures, and enabling us to compete with foreign manufactures, entitled them to the favourable consideration of Parliament and the Government.

seconded the motion. The superiority of France in the art of design, as applied to manufactures was traceable primarily to the encouragement given to the schools established there for teaching youth the art of design. One great house in Paris, the chief member of which had the order of the Legion of Honour conferred on him by Napoleon, paid 10 per cent, upon their capital for patterns. In another establishment 180 artists were employed to prepare designs; while in the city of Lyons,, between 500 and 600 youths were constantly under artistical instructions for improving manufactures. There was a general impression throughout this country, that Parliament ought to countenance and encourage the art of design; and he was therefore glad that his hon. Friend had brought the subject before the House.

observed, that the motion of the hon. Gentleman consisted of two parts; the first part referred to the general recommendations of the committee of 1836, and the second referred more particularly to the School of Design now existing in London being constituted a general normal school. With regard to the recommendations of the committee, he believed that every recommendation which Could be acted upon by the council of the School of Design had been adopted and carried into operation. There were, indeed, some important recommendations, having reference to changes of the law, which it was not competent for the council to meddle with. But all the subjects contained in those recommendations would, he hoped, be provided for. So far as the general recommendations, therefore, were concerned, he thought he might pass them by. But as to that portion of the motion which went to constitute the London School of Design into a central normal school, the only objection which he could see applicable to so formal a proceeding was, that it would be a title rather more ambitious, and one signifying more than the present experiment in this country could warrant. As regarded the substance and object of the proposition, he believed it was an accurate conception of that which the council of the School of Design entertained. They were of opinion that it was by no means the main purpose of the institution simply to establish a good drawing school, nor one at which parties might learn the habit and art of applying designs to manufactures. They conceived it rather as the foundation of a school for training teachers for the purpose of carrying out the great object of the Government in encouraging art in various parts of the country, where similar institutions were to be established. He believed that the council had decided upon five places, at which it was their intention to assist in conducting such institutions. It was the opinion of the council that there ought to be six schools of that description. These were as many as they thought advisable to contemplate. With regard to the five places on which they had fixed, they were Manchester, Birmingham, Norwich, York, and Coventry; as to the place where the sixth should be instituted, that was still under consideration. It was the intention of the council to appropriate a sum in aid of these schools. So much with regard to the foundation of a normal school. With regard to the supply of teachers, the council had felt very strongly the difficulty of finding suitable teachers for Schools of Design in London, from the circumstance that the application of art to manufactures was comparatively novel in this country. They had established a probationary class for persons of good character for the purpose of being trained as teachers of design in the provincial schools. It had been also proposed to offer six exhibitions of 30l. a year each for open competition; these to be enjoyed for three years. The council of the school now stood upon a more permanent basis than it did last year. Many members had been appointed to it who would afford valuable aid to those who originally belonged to it; and the director of it had borne testimony to the efficacy of the plan on which the school had been established.

considered the encouragement of this institution to be an object of the greatest national importance. This school had been instituted a very few years, and, considering how slow necessarily must be the growth of any such institution, he thought its progress, as far as it had gone, was most satisfactory. He hoped a report would be made of the actual state of the School of Design before the end of the present Session. He thought the council had acted wisely in proceeding gradually and cautiously, but he had no doubt that, as the benefit of these establishments came to be felt in the country, there would be an increasing desire, on the part of the people, to participate in the advantages they were calculated to afford. He agreed in opinion with his hon. Friend, that the establishing of a normal school was one most important duty devolving on the council; and he was glad to know that this great object had not been neglected. There was a normal class established, to which great attention would, he was perfectly assured, be paid. One master had already been perfectly qualified, and sent forth to preside over a provincial school. Females were also educated for those departments of manufacture in which their labours were engaged, and he had no doubt that all the benefit that could be expected from an establishment of this description would ultimately be realised.

said, that one of the first objects of the council, on its formation, was to ascertain whether there was any warmth of feeling existing in the country to acquire the necessary knowledge for the application of art to manufactures. They soon found that there was a very earnest desire on the part of persons in the principal towns of the country, not only to acquire that knowledge, but that there was the greatest anxiety to obtain the advantage of the opportunity and means proposed, and placed within their reach by the Government. The art of design had not by any means been sufficiently followed out as a branch of education, and he hoped that Government would direct their attention to the subject. He had no doubt that the time would come when they would be able to compete in the art with any foreign country.

had heard the statement of the] right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade with much satisfaction. The Somerset-house school would not, he believed, be of much service in promoting design in connection with manufactures. It was impossible to teach persons the art, with the view of the knowledge being applied to manufactures, unless they also had some acquaintance with the species of manufacture to which it was to be applied. As yet no pains had been taken to cultivate the innate talent in the country. The feeling of the higher classes on the subject, their ideas of the want of taste of native manufacturers, had been most detrimental to the cultivation of that taste. He would give an instance of the extent to which this feeling was carried and of its consequences. A manufacturer in Coventry brought out a pattern which he expected would take; he had in fact a very high opinion of its taste, but it proved a complete failure, and he sold off at very low prices a considerable part of the goods so manufactured. It so happened that a French manufacturer obtained the pattern and introduced it as the new French style. It proved quite successful everywhere, and that part of his stock which he was still possessed of he sold at 40 per cent, higher than the price for which he had disposed of the remainder. In many cases, however, he believed that, notwithstanding the tendency of the public taste, that the English designs were superior to those of the continental manufacturers. He trusted that the Government would be liberal in establishing the proposed schools, and that they would consider the advisability of exceeding the number of six.

would only trouble the House with a few words, after the full and lucid statement which had been made by his right, hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade; but, as a Member of the new council of the School of Design, he felt it right to assure his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, and also the House, that the new council were animated with the same spirit which had guided their predecessors, and that they were diligently employed in carrying into effect all the recommendations of the committee, of which the hon. Member for Dumfries had been Chairman. They had assumed as the basis of their operations, that the school was not to be a common school for drawing, but a school for the practical combination of the arts with manufactures. They had obtained casts from Paris, and of the most celebrated works of art, from which moulds were to be taken, and sent to the branch Schools of Design, which were to be established in the provincial towns. They had begun to issue a periodical work, prepared by Mr. Dyce, the director of the School of Design, with engraved outlines, which would be of great assistance to the scholars. They had examined into the merits of the probationary class, and found that amongst them there were already young men who were sufficiently advanced to be sent down as masters to the schools that were about to be. established in the manufacturing towns. In fact, therefore, though the School of Design did not bear the name of a normal school, it was, practically, and in reality, a school for training masters. The council were in correspondence with five towns, in which branch schools were about to be established—Manchester, Coventry, Norwich, Birmingham, and York, The local committees had engaged to bear a proportion of the necessary expenses. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Dumfries, would see that all his wishes had been attended to. These schools, he trusted, would be of the greatest use to our manufactures; and when the hop. Member for Coventry regretted that the British public had not as much confidence as they ought to have in British produce, he would beg leave to remind him that it was but a short time since the School of Design had been established, since which time there had been a decided improvement in the taste of our manufactures; and it might be hoped that, when the public were aware of this, they would give that confidence which they had hitherto withheld. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries had stated, that one of the recommendations of the committee bad been the encouragement of British artists; and this, he could inform him, was in a way to be accomplished by the appointment of the commission for the decoration of the new Houses of Parliament. At the head of this commission was a Prince, (Prince Albert), who in so short a time had won the hearts of a whole nation, who took the greatest interest in the management of the arts, had regularly presided at the commission, and not only protected the arts, but understood them. Under such auspices his hon. Friend might feel sure that the recommendation of the committee would be carried into effect.

having been one of the committee which had originally recommended the foundation of a School of Design, had heard with satisfaction the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that Government had recognized and meant to act upon the principle recommended by that committee. In the list of towns in which schools of design were to be formed, he was sorry not to find the name of Newcastle. It deserved to be included for it had done much, by the establishment of local schools, for the encouragement of the art of design. He trusted, that Government would not allow his suggestion to pass without some consideration.

had heard the sentiments expressed with general satisfaction, and was sure that progress had been made, and made, too, in the right direction. He would withdraw the motion.

would not preface the motion he was about to make by more than three sentences. On the 22nd of June, 1841, a bill was passed relative to the formation of a tribunal to decide upon the merits of contested elections. The duration of that act was limited to the two Sessions which should elapse after the then pending general election. One of these Sessions scarcely lasted six weeks; it was so short that there was no opportunity of appointing election committees, and the consideration of the petitions against returns at the general election was postponed until the present Session. In point of fact, there had been only one Session since the passing of the act, and he now proposed to bring in a bill which should continue the law as it at present stood, but not for a longer period than the act originally contemplated. The law would expire, as was originally intended, at the end of next Session; and he could not help thinking, that any discussion upon the subject should be for the present postponed, although he know that the hon. gentlemen acting upon the general election committee had some amendment to propose. For his one part, he would not say one word upon the merits of the question; but would simply content himself with proposing a bill to continue the operation of the act for the period originally contemplated. The right hon. Baronet then moved for leave to bring the bill

said, the intention he had entertained of moving an amendment to the proposition before the House was greatly modified by the length to which previous discussion on the subject had been carried. He doubted whether he should be treating the House with due respect, were he, under the circumstances, and so late in the evening, to submit an amendment to amotion of such importance as that now before the House, but he must say, that when he gave his notice of amendment, he did not know that the motion was such as it was now explained to be, namely, the prolongation of the operation of the existing law for one year only. There was nothing in the terms of the notice of motion to indicate its purport; and until very recently the impression in his mind was, that the right hon. Baronet intended to continue the act, not for another year, but to propose that the act, which had only been temporary in its nature, should be permanent. It was under that impression that he had now given notice of his intention to propose an amendment. He thought the right hon. Baronet had pursued a judicious course in proposing to continue the act for only one year; and he hoped that when it came on for discussion it might be at a period of the Session which would admit of its full consideration.

had been a member of a committee under the act in question, during the proceedings of which he had had an opportunity of forming some judgment as to the working of the law and he had had occasion to remark how important it was to have some legal gentlemen to direct the committee on questions where men who were really most anxious to arrive at the truth and justice of the case were much at a loss to come to a sound determination. There were nice points of evidence on which the chairman felt some hesitation in pronouncing, and in which persons unacquainted with legal science were at a loss not help thinking, that any discussion upon what course to follow. Perhaps if the aid the Masters in Chancery was to be called in, the effects would be beneficial, but, at all events, he was sure that these tribunals would bring the House into disrepute, if some legal assistance was not afforded to them.

differed from the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity for legal assistance. He thought, that in the cases referred to, after a little discussion, the committee were enabled to come to a sound decision

must say, that he had proposed a bill of very limited duration, not from the slightest doubt that it was not necessary for the House, in order to preserve its own character, to keep its jurisdiction in disputed elections in its own hands, but he had adopted the course which he had pursued, because, from the advanced period of the Session, and the general anxiety of Members to leave town, he did not wish to propose any extensive changes in a measure of such importance.

in rising to move for some returns relative to Naval Promotions, of which he had given notice, said that the system of Naval Promotions was so extravagant and unjust, that if once fully understood by the public it could not be continued. He wished for full information on the subject, and he was sure it would show that the navy was a complete pension list of the aristocracy. He found that there were 2,879 lieutenants on the list in the Royal Navy, and the average period of their service was five years, six months, and twenty-seven days. For that length of service 2,879 lieutenants received half-pay. There were 807 commanders, of whom 419 had never been employed since they were promoted, and upon an average of the whole, each had only served eleven months and two weeks. There were 683 captains, on the list, of whom 313 had never served a day since they were promoted, and the average period of service had been two years, two months, and ten days. The average period since each was employed was twelve years and seven months, 249 had been receiving pensions from twenty years to fifty-five years. Those facts showed a wasteful and extravagant system of promotion, having no just relation to the wants of the service. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that there be laid before the House

"Copy of the last patent constituting the commission for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, with a return of the names and rank of the persons constituting that commission, and the pay and allowances of each, and whether they occupy the houses appropriated for them by Government.

" Return of the names and present rank of the naval Lords of the Admiralty, stating their age at the time of their entry into the service, and the date of such entry: the date, and where they passed their examination for lieutenant, and copy of certificate of such examination; the dates of their promotion' to each rank, and the number of officers passed over by such promotions, stating the period which each has served in commission in each rank.

" Return, showing the services of all flag Officers in the navy promoted since the 29th day of June, 1838, stating the date of entry of each officer into the service, and the date of the several commissions which they have obtained, distinguishing the period passed in commission in their respective ranks, the period on half-pay in each rank, and the total period on full and half-pay; and showing also the period when and in what ship each was last employed, and the age of each officer at the date of last promotion (in continuation of the returns No. 6 of Appendix in the Report of the Commission of Naval Inquiry, 1840)."

said, that it was a most unjust aspersion on the half-pay officers to call them pensioners. As to the large number of officers, it might be readily accounted for, when it was called to mind that, at the end of the war, there were upwards of a thousand officers whose services being no longer required, they were placed on half-pay. In the case of the admirals, too, several had been appointed to the rank without receiving the additional pay. It was not the fact that the total amount of half-pay had increased; on the contrary, it had decreased. He had no objection to give a copy of the last patent, but he objected to the second paragraph. As to the other return, he did not object to give part of it; but he thought it quite unnecessary to give the personal details required, as to time of service, and so on. The first part of the return for a copy of the last patent was agreed to. The second paragraph of the motion was withdrawn.

moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a committee on Stamps and Assessed Taxes.

rose to move the amendment of which he had given notice, namely a resolution to the effect, that, considering the heavy existing taxation of Ireland, it was not expedient to increase the stamp duties in Ireland. He felt the full disadvantages and difficulties before him—first, from the lateness not only of the period of the Session, but also from the lateness of the hour (twelve o'clock). He was not, however, to blame for this, as he had been patiently waiting during the Session for an opportunity, which the Government had not given till then, although to convenience the Government he had given way last March on the resolution respecting Irish stamp duties; having done soon the understanding, as he conceived, that Government would have given a speedy opportunity of discussing the principle of that resolution. As to the lateness of the hour, he was only complying with the wish expressed to him by several Members, to have his amendment disposed of as soon as possible, and also with an intimation he considered he had received of the convenience it would be to the Government. He had to deal with a most intricate subject, and therefore should claim the indulgence of the House. Another formidable disadvantage under which he laboured was his want of experience in dealing with financial matters, especially when contrasted with the long experience and financial skill with which he was provoking a contest. It might be asked why he had not made a motion against adding to the taxation of Ireland on the bringing in of the Spirit Duties Bill. But he had refrained, as he heard that a large number of that most respectable body, the Irish Distillers, were in London then, endeavouring by private remonstrance to obtain some alleviation of the grievances under which they laboured; and any public opposition might indispose the Minister to attend to them. He regretted to say that he believed that, notwithstanding this forbearance, the distillers did not obtain the redress they sought. He came now to his subject. His simple statement was, that Ireland had been taxed too much, and ought not to be more taxed. To make his case it was necessary to go into some details. The existing financial arrangements between Great Britain and Ireland were founded upon an act passed in 1816, for consolidating the two Exchequers, and rendering them liable to indiscriminate contribution, by equal taxes, to the united expenditure. Before that act their contributions were in the proportion of two parts for Ireland to fifteen parts for Great Britain. These proportions were fixed by Lord Castlereagh at the Union, although much protested against at the time by the Irish lords and others, as imposing too high a rate of contribution upon Ireland. Lord Castlereagh himself allowed at the time that he was not satisfied as to its justice but it was not necessary to dwell on this point, as presently; he (Mr, J. O'Connell) would be able to bring forward the opinions of Members of the Government in 1816, condemning the 2–17ths for Ireland as unjust and oppressive. The arrangement of the debts at the Union, and up to 1817, was, that each country should separately provide for its debt previously contracted. Lord Castlereagh said, in 1800, that a perfect consolidation and union in financial matters was then impossible, consistent with common justice to Ireland, as her debt was so much smaller than that of Great Britain, the Irish debt on the 5th of January, 1801, as represented by the annual charge upon it, requiring annually only 1,194,000l., while the annual charge on the British debt was then 16,600,000l. This was the case, notwithstanding that the Irish debt had been most grievously and unjustly swelled, especially during the three preceding years, by her being called on to pay the expenses, first of the fostering by the Government of the rebellion, and afterwards of the putting it down. But he would not go into matters that occurred before the Union, as his present motion had nothing to do with the discussions on that measure. The question of the repeal of the Union was too grave and important to be based upon a question of pounds shillings and pence; and his present motion was to redress financial grievances, which should be redressed whether the Union were repealed or not. Lord Castlereagh further said that at the' Scotch Union a consolidation was effected by giving Scotland a money-compensation for taking on her the English liabilities, but that this was impossible in the case of Ireland, as the debt of the latter country was so much inferior to the British. He said, however, that as England might be able to reduce her debt—that, if she did so, in the course of some years, so far down, at least, as to bring it to bear no higher a proportion to the Irish than that of their rates of contribution, it would be well in such case to leave the Imperial Parliament the power of effecting the consolidation. Accordingly the act of Union provided, that whenever the two debts should come to bear that proportion to each other, the consolidation might take place; provided however, also, that a second condition should occur at the same time. This second condition was, that the respective circumstances of the two countries should appear at that time to justify their being called upon henceforth to contribute, indiscriminately, by equal taxes in each. Thus, Ireland seemed to have two safeguards against being made at any time liable for the excessive debt of Great Britain; first, in Lord Castlereagh's ex planation that the manner in which the required proportion between the two debts was to be attained, should be by the reduction of the British debt, not by the increase of the Irish; and secondly, that no step could be taken in the contemplated consolidation unless the respective circumstance of each country should appear to justify equal taxation—in other words, until the ability of Ireland to bear taxation should have much increased. But the House would scarcely believe that the first of these conditions was attained by the wanton and flagitious increase of Irish debt, and not by any decrease of the British; and, as to the second condition, it was not taken into consideration at all. Thus he Contended, that the act of consolidation was totally illegal and void, as it violated the expressed intentions and views of its author, Lord Castlereagh, with regard to one condition, and as it was carried without reference to the second condition. The latter did not exist, and could not have been said so to do, as the very increase of the debt of Ireland, under a limited system of taxation, was in itself a proof of her inability to bear the same taxes as Great Britain; and even that limited system of taxation was too high for her. The present Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, President of the Board of Trade, was, when Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer in 1816, the mouthpiece of Lord Castlereagh's Government, in proposing the consolidation of the exchequers, and in doing so he thus denounced the injustice of the Union rate of contribution imposed upon Ireland, and its grievous effects upon her:—

" I hope it will not be said that Ireland throws a great burden on the empire to save herself. Oh, no ! The necessity of reviewing the act of Union has been caused by the sacrifices she has made, doing her best to keep pace with you. You contracted with her for an expenditure she could not meet. She had been led to hope that her expenditure would be less when united to you than before. She has absolutely paid more in taxes since the Union than seventy-eight millions, being forty-seven more than her revenue in the fifteen years on which her contribution was calculated. "

Thus the Government itself, in 1816, confessed that the rate of contribution was too high. But the present Chancellor of the Exchequer bore witness himself to the same fact. In 1822, when speaking to a motion of Sir J. Newport's, the right hon. Gentleman himself said—" The Union contribution of 2–l7 ths for Ireland is now allowed on all hands to have been more than she was able to bear." He should content himself, and he thought the House should be content with these admissions, coming as they did from two Gentlemen high in office at present, and one of them in that House. Thus the Union rate was established to have been unjust, and being so, the consequence necessarily follows, that the increase of Irish debt between 1800 and 1837 was unjust, it having been caused by the inability of Ireland to meet the unjustly grievous rate in question. What ought to have been done instead of consolidation of the Exchequers was, to have lowered the rate of contribution for Ireland, and to have made some arrangement by which the burden of the unjust increase of her debt since 1801 should be taken off her shoulders, at least for the greater part. But, instead of this measure of justice, the consolidation was forced on, although, as he had before shown, one condition of that consolidation was wrongfully and iniquitously attained, and the second condition was shamefully and totally disregarded. The consequence of that consolidation of the Exchequers have been to Ireland the increase of her taxes—the liability to further increase at the will and pleasure of England—the being compelled at present to a large portion of the payments on account of the British debt contracted before the Union—a debt with which she was promised by Lord Castlereagh in 1800 that she never should have anything to do. Finally, the consequence has been, and is, to Ireland, that from that hour she became, and is now, mortgaged in every acre and every one of her resources for the whole amount of the enormous debt of Great Britain, and no matter what may at any time be her surplus of revenue it must go away from her and into the coffers of Great Britain. But the consolidation had been a great gain to Great Britain. In the first place, she obtained what was in itself a most important benefit — namely, the security to her national creditor of the present and future resources of Ireland. And then she has been able to relieve herself of much of the separate taxation which she was previously compelled to endure. This would be seen by examining into what was the utmost that could be set down for the separate taxation that is so much talked of at present. In excise she pays on hops, bricks, soap, post-horse duty, and licensee, &c, about 1,700,000l There is then the product of her duties on home spirits, which are much higher than the Irish, and may be about 2,200,000l. In stamps she pays on newspaper supplements, medicines, cards, dice, stage and hackney coach licenses, &c, 560,000l., and by higher rates than the Irish on other items of stamps she pays a further sum of nearly the same amount. Land and assessed taxes gave last year 4,700,000l. The total of all these was 9,600,000l., which he took to be even an exaggerated statement of the British separate taxation, but his endeavour was to take the case as strongly against himself as possible, as he thought the case of Ireland so strong that it could afford to be under stated. But although he would not disturb the exaggerations in the statement he had just read, he should say there were deductions to be made from the total of 9,600,000l., on account of what are called in the finance accounts "drawbacks, re payments, allowances," upon the duties mentioned in the statement. Thus, for instance, hops, on exportation to Ireland, have the duty remitted upon them, or in other words, the duty is paid back by the Government to the exporter. Again, a portion of the amounts he had read were really paid by Ireland, as money went from Ireland to effect insurances in England, and as stamped medicines, cards, and some minor articles of stamp duties were imported from England paying the duty there. There was also what was in fact an unrcedited contribution from Ireland in the benefit the British Exchequer receives from the expenditure in Great Britain of millions of Irish absentee rents. He thought he was not saying too much when, taking all these deductions into account, he considered they amounted to at least 600,000l; and that, therefore, the separate taxation of Great Britain did not, at the very outside, exceed a net amount of 9,000,000l., and he believed they were really less. But, taking them at that sum, see how the case stands:—

Annual charge of the British debt contracted before the Union (see Par. Paper 256, of 1824)	£16,600,000
Separate taxation of Great Britain	9,000,000
Excess of annual charge	7,600,000

This amount of British debt, over and above her separate payments, she, by the powers given her by the Consolidation Act, compels Ireland to assist her in paying although at the Union Ireland was strongly and repeatedly assured she should never have anything to do with the British debt contracted previous to the Union. Such being the benefit to Great Britain, what did the consolidation do for Ireland? It is pretended that she got great benefits, as it abolished the unjust and universally-condemned rate of contribution the Union had put upon her; and further, that Great Britain took on herself the burden of the increase of the Irish debt between the Union and 1817. But as to that increase, it having been declared and admitted to have been unjust, no argument can be fairly founded upon the burden of it having been taken off; and especially when its amount, viz., an annual charge of 2,700,000Z., was such moderate purchase money for getting the security of the resources of Ireland for the whole enormous amount of the British debt. He trusted now to show, that notwithstanding that the Union rate of contribution had been condemned, and that at the consolidation it was declared that Ireland should be released from that unjust and condemned rate, yet she has since been forced to pay, at the very least, as much as that rate. To show this he had taken the average of the revenues of the two countries during the twenty-five years, since 1817, with, also, the average of their united expenditure, and of the charge of their united debts; and, deducting the latter from their united expenditure, had got the amount of expenditure common to both, on which he had calculated the average of their respective contributions, taking the Union rates in each. It was necessary to premise that the respective amounts of income in the calculation should be altered by taking into account the uncredited payments by Ireland on articles chiefly of customs' revenue, which she imported from England, paying the duty there. These latter payments were different from the uncredited payments he had before spoken of, which were under heads under which Ireland was supposed to pay nothing at all. But those he now would speak of were upon items on which the rates of duty are the same as in England. The late Lord Congleton, in his ' Financial reform," estimated these at 300,000l. annually, and did not include in his estimate any portion of the customs' receipts on tea for consumption in Ireland. Those receipts were, at the time he wrote, and for some time after, credited to the British revenue, and amounted then to nearly 500,000l. Neither did he include the Irish quit and Crown rents, which, by a paper of the present Session, No. 222, continuing a former return, have averaged about 65,000l., annually, since the Union. As to the present uncredited payments by Ireland on foreign articles imported through England, it was only necessary to compare the details of foreign imports into either country, in this year's finance accounts. On some articles of common consumption, there appeared no receipt whatever in the Irish list; on others a receipt of 1l., of 5l., of 16l. or 20l., while the English receipts on them amounted to many thousands—in some to hundreds of thousands. Thus there must be an uncredited payment by Ireland upon such articles; or, if that were contested, and that the amount in the Irish list was held accurately to represent Irish consumption, then a most convincing argument was furnished of the utter inability of Ireland to bear further taxation, when she was so poor, as only to consume those articles to the amount stated in her lists. Under all these circumstances, he did not think he was overstating his case, in taking the aggregate of the Irish payments uncredited to have amounted to an annual average during the twenty-five years of 400,000l. Subtracting this from the average of British income, and, of course, adding it to the Irish, the twenty-five years' averages will stand thus. British income, 49,671,330l.; Irish ditto, 4,930,473l.; united expenditure, 53,198,413l.; charge of united debts, 29,363,422l. Subtracting the charge of debts from the expenditure, we have 23,834,991l. as the amount of common expenditure—viz., that on which, according to the terms of the Act of Union, the amounts of contribution were to be calculated in the ratio of two to fifteen, or two-seventeenths for Ireland. Now, first take the case, that England took off the burden of the Irish unjust increase of debt between the Union and 1817, there will remain 1,194,000/., being the charge of the Irish debt at the Union. Subtract this from the amount of Irish income, and there will remain 3,736,473l., which has gone to England, and which will be found to amount, not to the condemned propor- tion of two-seventeenths, but to the far higher and more grievous proportion of two-twelfths of the common expenditure. But, if we take it on the ground that Ireland should not be totally absolved from the whole amount of her increase of debt from 1801 to 1817, but that that amount should have been shared between the two countries, the following would be the re-suit—taking, as before, the annual charge to represent the debt, for the sake of the convenience of the calculation. Charge of the Irish debt on 5th of January, 1801, 1,194,000l.; charge of the Irish "debt on 5th of January, 1817,3,927,000l.; being an increase of 2,733,000l., or 229 per cent.; whereas, the charge of the British debt in the same interval had only increased from 16,600,000l. to 27,750,000l., or 67 per cent. Now, he would show what would have occurred had the arrangement been that an increase equal in proportion to the British, should be paid for by Ireland, and that the excess of her increase above that, was to be put on the two countries in the proportion of their rates of contribution:—

Irish debt charged at the Union	£1, 194,000
67 per cent, increase, up to the year 1817, as in England	799,980
Add 2–17ths of the excess of increase (viz., 1,933,020l.)	227,414
Total average for 25 years debt liabilities of Ireland	2,221,394

A deduction, however, is to be made as follows:—The charge of the United debts in 1837 was 31,677,000l., and it is now no more than 29,450,110l., showing a decrease since 1817 of 2,226,890l. It would be only fair in the calculation to give Ireland at least two-seventeenths of this reduction, which would amount to 261,986l; and this sum subtracted from the debt liabilities of Ireland, would leave only 1,959,408l, after providing for which, the Irish income would give still 2,971,065l to meet her proportion of the common expenditure. Two-seventeenths of this common expenditure would be 2,804,116l, leaving a surplus of Irish income over expenditure of 166,949l, which surplus is the one-eighth of the surplus of the united income over the united expenditure on the average of the twenty-five years since 1816. Thus, he contended, that even under the harsh and stringent arrangement he had supposed, it. would be found that, in reality, the con- solidation had not relieved Ireland from the condemned rate of contribution; while under any more favourable arrangement —such as that asserted by the defenders of the consolidation namely, that England kindly took the whole burden on herself of the unjust increase of the debt of Ireland—it would be found, that the latter had been forced to pay not two-seventeenths, but. two-twelfths of the common expenditure. Where, then, was the benefit, of the consolidation to Ireland, or rather, where was not the injury? If in consequence of it the British market was more freely opened to the Irish corn and cattle, that was a benefit to England herself, and besides, she took care, in return, to get the command of our market for her manufactures. But an argument might be raised, that as be had shown that Ireland since, 1817 had at least, paid the Union rate of contribution, which same rate she had been found unable to pay before 1817, therefore, that he had proved her to have increased in ability. But this was not the case; she had not paid that rate since because of greater ability than before, but because the expenditure of the empire had materially diminished. That expenditure diminished 26,000,000l. the year that the Consolidation Act came into force, and even the heavy expenditure of the year 1841 was 14,000,000l. less than that of 1817, making a total of reduction of expenditure since 1816 to the present time of 40,000,000l. It was this reduction which enabled England to drain from Ireland the full amount and more of her Union contributions to the common expenditure. But the expenses of Great Britain are on the increase, and the Consolidation Act gives her the power of un-limitedly drawing upon Ireland. The latter will be again rendered bankrupt as she was before, and therefore it was, that he thought it was time to protest, and that Ireland should demand at least some modification of the Act of Consolidation, if not its total repeal, on the grounds of its undeniable illegality and grievous oppression to Ireland. The hon. Member quoted the expressions of the late Lord Sydenham, in 1830, denouncing the financial injustice with which Ireland had been treated, and showing that an increase of taxation upon her had led to an alarming decrease of revenue, owing to the exhaustion of Ireland. He also quoted from the report of a finance committee in 1815, to show, that while the taxation of Great Britain from the Union, including not only permanent taxes, but also the extraordinary and war taxes, had increased only as twenty-one to ten, the permanent taxation of Ireland had increased as twenty-three to ten. He also stated some figures from a parliamentary return of the year 1820, showing the number of notices in the two or three preceding years to the commissioners of assessed taxes in Ireland, of the intention of persons paying those taxes, to give Up the objects of them, such as carriages, horses, servants, &c; in consequence of which notice the assessed taxes in Ireland became unproductive, and were consequently given up. He gave those quotations to show the efforts that had been made to tighten the screw of taxation in Ireland, and the result always was, to diminish the receipts of revenue, and to impoverish Ireland more than before, as would be found to be the case again if her taxes were now increased. If she ought to be made to contribute to the growing expenditure caused by the rather questionable wars into which Great Britain had plunged, she ought, at any rate, to be relieved from the necessity of contributing to the 7,000,000l. which went to pay the annual charge of the British debt, contracted previous to the Union, over and above the amount of separate taxation which Great Britain paid for that purpose. The making Ireland pay to that debt was utterly unjustifiable. Some persons had asserted that if Ireland had been treated with injustice, it had been compensated for by relief of taxation, and a greater proportion of public money, in loans and grants, than England had got. But by a return he had moved for this Session, which, amongst other things, continued a former return relative to taxes in the two countries, he found that of the relief of taxation, that is, the gross amount since the Union, Great Britain had got 42,000,000l.. while Ireland had got but 2,300,000l. On the other hand, while of taxes imposed, 6,900,000l. were put on Great Britain, Ireland had had the large proportion of 900,000l., that is to say, her relief of taxation was less than one-eighteenth part, her share of the imposition of taxation was nearly one-seventh. And as to the assessed taxes, which were made the occasion of taunting Irish Members with the indulgence they had received by. the remission of them, the total amount of relief given by their remission in Ireland, including a partial relief some years previous to the total repeal, would be found by those papers to have been about 500,000l. or 600,000l., while, in the same papers, Great Britain would be found to have given herself relief under the same heads to the amount of upwards of 5,000,000l. Then, as the public money spent on the two countries, a return of the year 1839 gave 8,000,000l. odd, as the amount spent upon Ireland, and looking through the finance a sum should be added, which would give a total for Ireland of, in round numbers, 9,000,000l. One of the returns he had moved for this year was similarly worded by him as the return of 1839, and was for a parallel amount for Great Britain, and it gave an amount of 15,600,000l., notwithstanding some unexplained omissions that he would not now delay to discuss. Again, it had been said that Ireland never repaid a loan of public money; but the finance accounts of the present year would show that she has repaid more than 5,000,000l., whereas Great Britain has repaid only a little more than 3,000,000l. And money advanced to Ireland bore interest at 5 per cent., though obtained by the Government at 3 per cent., which was not the case in Great Britain, where the percentage was seldom above 4, and several advances bore no interest at all, such as, among others, the 250,000l. advanced to the projectors of the Thames Tunnel. In fact, Ireland had got nothing to compensate her for the drains, direct and indirect, that were made from her. The papers he had so often mentioned showed, upon an account of the remittances of moneys from the Irish Exchequer to the British, and vice versa, there had, on the whole amount since the Union, been an excess of Irish remittances of no less than 25,000,000l. Then there was the loss by diminished expenditure of public offices, owing to their being removed to England. Ireland lost the amount of their expenditure, which, in her anomalous and wretched condition, was of importance to her; and if any reduction of the imperial expenditure were effected in consequence, the benefit of the economy was spread over the three countries, while the loss was to Ireland alone. Then came the enormous absentee drain, nearly 4,000,000l. destroying much of what benefit Ireland could otherwise expect from her provision and cattle exports, as the money the latter produced went away for the greater part into the pockets of landlords living abroad. It was ridiculous to institute a comparison between the contributions of Great Britain and Ireland. One was a rich, the other a poor country. Great Britain had various manufactures—Ireland but one, and that failing. There was a bitter complaint the other day that agricultural wages had fallen in some English counties to 7s. or 8s. a week. But the average of agricultural wages in Ireland was not 6s. Again, out of the 53,000,000l., making the amount of the united income of Great Britain and Ireland last year, Ireland paid equal rates on articles that produced 44,000,000l., and yet the produce credited and uncredited was but one-eleventh of that amount. Was not that a sign of poverty in a people who are one-third of the population of the empire? But the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had himself admitted this poverty, when he confessed that an Income-tax in Ireland would not pay the expenses of collection. The hon. Member read an extract from the works of Mr. Ricardo, showing that the ability of England to bear taxation had increased faster even than her taxation, and he asked how could this be shown in Ireland. He read from the railway report a return of the decrease in the period from 1825 to 1835, in the Irish import of cotton manufactures and yarn, of sugar, and various other important articles, and also a decrease of Irish exports of value; and contended that, although in consequence of no returns being kept at the Custom-house since 1825 of the cross-channel trade, Mr. Drummond had been obliged to get his statements as to that trade from interested parties, and that, therefore, much reliance could not be placed upon their accounts of prosperity, yet their accounts of adversity and diminution were much less suspicious, as no trader would willingly undertake his dealings. He also read Mr. Willam's evidence as to the decline of the woollen trade, and various extracts from the hand-loom weavers' report showing the decline, or annihilation of nearly all manufactures in Ireland. The linen trade was nearly the only one left to Ireland, and even that was much declining. At a meeting in Belfast last autumn, it was declared that the linen manufacturers had lost 300,000l. by the 20 per rent increase of duty on import into France, and the recent French ordinances would complete the ruin. But even if the linen trade flourished, one trade and the prosperity of one town would be bad proofs of the prosperity of a nation. The hon. Member concluded by urging the Government not to cripple Ireland against the day of any real emergency of the empire.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in that motion, but surfer the debate to be brought to a close at once. The object of going into committee was not to add anything to the burdens of the people, but on the contrary to relieve them, by alterations in the stage-coach duties, the railroad duties, and the stamp duties. The subject of the hon. Member's speech undoubtedly deserved the serious consideration of Parliament.