asked if Government were prepared to lay before the House any information or extracts connected with the late transactions in Scinde.

was not prepared to afford all the information wished for. It was reported that a second engagement had taken place, and they had no reason to doubt but that her Majesty's troops had been successful. They were not as yet, however in full possession of the circumstances, and they could not, therefore, lay the documents connected with them before the House. As soon, however, as these transactions should have been completed, such information would be produced as would enable the House to form an accurate judgment of all that had taken place in the country alluded to.

wished to know, whether he was to understand that no information would be granted until all the transactions now in progress should have been completed.

had no objection to lay before the House copies of all treaties already formed and ratified. At the very earliest period consistent with his public duty, the House would be put in possession of full information upon the subject.

said, that there was a report that certain treaties had been concluded with the Ameers of Scinde, but that after they were signed certain other demands, not contained in these treaties were made upon our part, and not complied with by the Ameers. Now the mere production of these treaties, without other documents, would not show whether that report was true or false, and if it were true, whether the circumstance to which it referred had been the cause of the war. If there were any papers connected with this matter in the possession of Government, he thought that they should be produced; and he did not see how their production could interfere with any military operations.

had no objection to the production of signed and ratified treaties; and he repeated that, on the earliest opportunity consistent with public duty, full information would be given to the House.

referred to the question which he had asked the other night, with reference to a certain sum of money said to have been paid by the authorities of Ningpo for the ransom of that town. He begged to ask what was done with it, and also what was to be the destination of the treasure said to have been taken at Hyderabad.

said, that the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that a ransom had been paid for Ningpo. Such was not the case. Upon the occupation of that place it was proposed that certain imposts should be levied upon the merchants. They offered a million of dollars to be relieved from that impost, but that amount was never paid, and so there was an end' to the matter. As to Hyderabad? He had made application to the proper quarter for obtaining information upon the subject, and the answer was, that no information had been received by the Government upon the subject.

referred to the reports relative to the excesses said to have been committed by our troops in Afghanistan. He wished to know whether Government had received any information as to these alleged proceedings.

had no specific information to answer the charge. He had, however, received a letter from the Governor-general, in which that noble Lord stated, that he had been in correspondence with between thirty and forty intelligent gentlemen in the military and civil service in India, all of whom stated that they had never heard anything of the excesses said by the press of this country to have been committed.

pursuant to notice, to ask leave to introduce to the House a " bill to secure the full representation of the people, and to shorten the duration of Parliament." He was aware of the difficulties with which he should have to contend in bringing such a question under the consideration of the House. He was conscious of the opposition which would be offered to his motion. The great basis of political liberty was the right construction of the suffrage, and the right mode of bringing the power of the suffrage into practical operation; that was what he wanted by the bill which he desired permission to introduce. In the first place, he would wish to draw the attention of the House to the extent and regulation of the suffrage, and the laws of election in the ancient periods of the constitution. The great extent of the suffrage, previous to the first limiting statute, that of 8th of Henry 6th, c. 7, could be proved by a reference to that act, which, whilst it endeavours to cast unjust opprobrium on the people, is a lasting record of the rights which they before enjoyed. The preamble states, first, that whereas elections of the knights of the shire, have been made by very great, excessive, and outrageous numbers, most part of people of small substance and no value, pretending an equal voice with the most worthy knights and esquires; the preamble then goes on to state—what not that outrage had been committed, but that riots, batteries, and divisions among the gentlemen and other people of the same counties shall very likely rise and be; and for this reason, the act goes on to limit the franchise to those possessed of 40s. freeholds. Thus it appears that previous to this statute, the great body of the people did attend, and vote at elections for knights of the shire, and that they were disfranchised on an imaginary prospective case, without any real charge having been made or substantiated; but it was not necessary to rest this case on the preamble of this statute. The 7th of Henry 4th enacts:—

"That elections shall take place in full county court, where all shall attend, as well suitors duly summoned, as others in pleno comitatu;

which act is recited, and further confirmed by the 12th of Henry 4th, and again by an act of the 6th of Henry 6th, and we have the authority of Pryme, who says that:—

"By common right every inhabitant and commoner of each county, had a voice in the election of knights, whether he were a freeholder or not."

Can it be denied in the face of these statutes and authorities, that in those times the mass of the people had the right of voting? Can the opponents of this position show that there was any limiting statute, any penalty for voting, any voiding of an election because the people voted? They cannot show this; they must admit, that previous to the statute of Henry 6th, the people did enjoy the right; and with regard to boroughs, we know that several of the charters gave the most extended suffrage, even to every man who boiled his own pot upon his fire; and we find in early days, a decision of a committee, asserting that the election of burgesses in all boroughs did of common right belong to the commoners. In the year 1623-4 a most eminent committee of the House of Commons, consisting of the greatest lawyers of the day, was appointed specially to lay down the legal rights of voting. They decided that where there was no certain custom or prescription or constant usage beyond all memory, recourse should be had to "common right," which for this purpose was held, that more

Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva, Page 186.

than freeholders only ought to have the right to vote, namely, all men inhabitants, householders resident within the borough. This was the common law right; and it is further confirmed by the acts of the 25th and 34th of Edward 1st., which assert the principle, that no taxes shall be imposed without the consent of all the freemen of the land, and also the petition of right to the same effect in the reign of Charles 1st. Sir T. Smith, an eminent authority, says,

"Every Englishman is intended to be present in Parliament, either in person or by procuration and attorney, of what pre-eminence, state, dignity, or quality soever he be, from the prince to the lowest person of England, and the consent of Parliament is taken to be every man's consent."

Such was the original practice and theory of the constitution. Blackstone, in book 1, chap. 2, states the theory of the constitution as follows:—

"The construction of Parliaments as consisting of the King and three estates, viz., the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal, who sit in one House, and the Commons who sit by themselves in the other. The King and the three estates form the great body politic of the kingdom."

He states the object of this construction in the following terms,

"And herein indeed consists the true excellence of the English Government, that all the parts of it form a mutual check upon each other. … Like three distinct powers in mechanics, they check and counter-check each other, impelling the whole in a direction different from what each would have taken separately, but forming out of all a direction which constitutes the true line of the liberty and happiness of the community."

Again, he says, vol. 1, page 158,

"A law to bind all must be assented to by all."

If this be a true description of the constitution, as laid down by Blackstone, that constitution does not now exist. Is there any House of Commons now in existence which answers the description given by Blackstone or by the other authorities quoted? Are we such a House of Commons? Are we the representatives of the Commons of England? Who are the Commons of England? Are they not the whole people? Are the voters as now limited by law entitled to the name of the Commons of England? If the average of voters be compared with the average of population in the united kingdom, the voters arc not in a larger proportion than as one person to every nine families. A petition had been sent to him for presentation from Clipping Hamden, in Glocestershire, addressed to " the representatives of the electors"—instead of the usual term " House of Commons"—but even if the voters were entitled to be called the Commons of England, are we entitled to call ourselves the true representatives even of the electors? Are there not records on the journals and debates of your House which would indicate that a great portion of this House is returned by other means than the voice of the electors? You have made a record against yourselves by your vote of last Session on the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, on the occasion of the compromise committee. That hon. Member proposed that the Members serving on that committee should take a test that they had not paid or agreed to pay money contrary to the law for the purpose of obtaining a return. It was alleged that the forcing such a test would upset the committee, and you negatived the proposition by a majority of 160 to 19. Under all these circumstances, are you entitled to assume the position of the House of the Commons of England? and if this be not the House of the Commons of England, what is the consequence? The consequence is, that your boasted constitution is defunct. That you are not the House of Commons is the feeling which prevails among large bodies of the people. The object of the bill now presented is to remove that stigma from the character of this House—to restore the Commons' House to its full integrity, as one estate of the constitution—as one of the mechanic powers described by Black-stone—and thus to restore that balance of conflicting powers which he states to be necessary to insure the liberty and happiness of the community. At present the machine of the state is drawn by one power alone—that which is represented by the House of Lords, namely, an oligarchy of the landed and monied aristocracy. To this power the Crown is compelled to submit—by this power the voice of the people is cancelled; and the constitution, although still holding the name of a free Government, has become practically the worst of all Governments—the Government of a self-interested oligarchy. This evil can only be repaired by going back to original principles, and by restoring the people to their full rights, through the medium of an extended suffrage—rights enjoyed by the common law of England, again and again asserted in all the noble struggles made by Britons. But the rights of the people have been swamped in other modes besides the limitation of the franchise; Parliaments have been unconstitutionally lengthened, through the means of powers assumed by the representatives to prolong their own existence, without an appeal to those who had elected them. Our ancestors considered short Parliaments the great bulwark of the rights of freemen. It appears, from a reference to the earliest authorities, that the practice of prorogations is comparatively new, and that originally Parliaments were summoned for a particular purpose, and dissolved after that purpose was answered; the same Parliament did not sit a second Session. At that time Parliaments were held at different places, according as they were summoned, and could not sit except at that particular place; but the encroachment of the prorogation system put an end to the frequent election of Parliaments, and made the inroad of which the people now complained. That these were the former principles and practice of the constitution can be proved by various statutes and records. The statute of the 34th Edward 3rd, c. 14, provides that a Parliament shall be called every year, or more often if necessary; the 36th of Edward 3rd, repeats the same enactment; and we find, by a reference to the practice, that by this was intended the calling of a new Parliament—not a prorogued one; because it appears from a catalogue of original writs recorded by Pryme as found in the Tower of London, that there were writs for new elections in every year of the reign of Edward 3rd, between his 34th, when the first act insisting on annual Parliaments was passed, and his 50th year, with the exception of three years, in two of which we know from other sources that Parliaments were called; and also writs were in existence for new elections in each of the five eighteen years of the next reign. Such were the law and practice of these times, and up to the reign of Henry 8th, the Commons served only for the Session, with the exception of three or four Parliaments; but it was afterwards relaxed, and the statute of the 16th of Charles 2nd makes the first inroad upon the right of annual Parliaments that was made by any statute law. It does not formally repeal the acts of Edward, but it provides that the intermission of Parliaments shall not be longer than three years, and then the statute of the 6th of William and Mary, c. 2, gives a legal sanction to the prorogation system, by enacting that no Parliament shall have longer continuance than three years; and lastly, the Parliament which passed the statute of the 2nd of George 1st made the climax on these encroachments by prolonging its own existence for seven years, and by enacting that future Parliaments may exist for seven years. That these were violations of the constitution, if any doubt exists, is proved by an authority which this House can hardly reject—it is proved from a quarter not too prone to assert the rights of the people, it is proved by the protests of the House of Lords. When the Triennial Act was passed a protest against it was signed in the Lords, on the grounds—

"Because it tended to a continuance of this present Parliament longer than, as we apprehend, is agreeable to the constitution of England."

Now let it be remarked that this allegation was made even against the triennial duration to which many hon. Members would now desire to recur; but afterwards, when the Septennial Act was passed, a most remarkable protest—a document most honourable by its noble principles of liberty—was entered against it, signed by no fewer than thirty-one Peers. This document records the right of the people to frequent and new Parliaments—

"As the fundamental constitution of this kingdom. That representatives who continue themselves by their own power are not the representatives of the people. That foreign powers have never objected (as alleged in the act) to make treaties with us, on the grounds of our relations being uncertain in consequence of short Parliaments; they say, on the contrary, that it cannot be expected that any prince or state can rely upon a people to defend their liberties or interests who shall be thought to have given up so great a part of their own. That by making the seat an object of greater value it will tend to increase expenses and corruption. That it will be a greater object to a Ministry wishing to maintain itself against the people to purchase the members when they have so long a term of their trust; and that they will have a greater opportunity of exerting corrupt influence over these members by means of that prolongation; and that therefore the ancient and primitive constitution of frequent and short Parliaments should be adhered to."

The last authority he would quote on this subject was not the least. It was the recorded declaration of the noble Alfred—

"It is just that the English people should ever remain as free as their own thoughts;" 'and in an assembly of Parliament he enacted this for a perpetual custom,' that a Parliament should be called together twice every year, or oftener, in times of peace, to keep the people of God from sin, and that they might live in peace, and receive right by certain usages and holy customs."

Such were the ancient principles of our constitution with regard to the duration of Parliaments. Another mode was taken to subvert the rights of the people, in demand of qualifications for Members of Parliament. It cannot be shown that in the early periods qualifications were required. The first act, so far as he could find, was the 23rd of Henry 6th, c. 13, which provided—

"That those chosen should be esquires of the county able to be knights, and no man to be such knight as standeth under the rank of yeoman."

Coke on Littleton says—

"No manner of property qualification was required of citizens and burgesses."

So this remained till the 9tb of Anne, when the qualifications which existed previous to the alterations made by a late act were provided. No qualifications were required for Members of the Irish Parliament. None is required for Scotch Members, for Members of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or Dublin, or for the eldest sons and heirs-apparent of Peers or of commoners qualified to serve as knights of the shire. Why then should these anomalies remain? Is it found that any practical advantage has been derived from the qualifications which exist; and if there be not such practical advantage why keep up such laws? why limit the people's choice? why not recur to the ancient principle of the constitution? And in connection with this part of the subject, we find another practice undoubtedly existing, that of the payment of Members. All attempts at a free representation of the people must be nugatory without the adoption of this system. If the representative be called on in any shape or form for the gratuitous expenditure of his income, the choice of the electors must be thereby limited to a class of persons who by their large possessions are able to spend this money, and the foundation is thus laid for every species of corruption and unfaithful service. The payment of a knight of the shire was and is by the common law As. per day, and for a burgess, 2s. The act of the 23rd Henry 6th, c. 10, directs the mode of levying the wages by assessment of the sheriff from the several hundreds in each county; and the 12th of Richard 2nd, c. 12, further confirms this by making the lands purchased by Peers liable to the assessment as before they were purchased. These acts are still unrepealed. Thus it appears the ancient principle and practice of the constitution were—extended suffrage, annual Parliaments, no money qualifications, and payment of Members. He proposed to recur to these principles— and to these it seemed to be necessary to add the protection of vote by ballot. If the voter could be induced to perform the fearless duty of voting openly, without fear or favour, he would not deny that open voting would be preferable; but under existing circumstances this seemed impossible. As the question of the ballot had been so often debated, it was not expedient to take up the time of the House on this occasion with a repetition of the arguments. It also seemed necessary, in order to effect a fair representation of the people, to make a new arrangement of the electoral districts, and thus to remedy the strange anomalies which now exist, and under which nothing approaching to a fair representation could be obtained. To attain these objects, and by these means to secure a full and free representation of the people, he was desirous to obtain the leave of the House to submit a bill to their consideration. In contending, however, for these rights of the people, he admitted that every right existed only in subservience to the general interests of society at large. Those were his opinions, and he wished fairly and freely to enter with the House into the discussion of them and the question which he desired to discuss was this,—whether the property qualification should be continued, or the right of suffrage extended to the whole mass of the community? He wished that an opportunity should be given to the people at large to state what was the amount of electoral privileges they required; and a similar opportunity given to the Legislature to come to a decision as to how much they would concede. He would put it to hon. Members to say, was it fair that one class of the community should say to the rest, "We hold the elective franchise in our hands, and you I shall have nothing to do with it?" He knew it had often been said, that the people were poor and ignorant. Many of them might be but little acquainted with the science of politics, but surely it was not necessary to decide upon matters of state in order to exercise the elective franchise. The poor might be as good judges as any portion of the community as to whether a candidate was a man likely or unlikely to betray their interests —whether, in short, he was a man of fair and unimpeached character. To the poor a representative was especially essential, because the poor man wanted protection much more than did those who belonged to the middle classes. Then the upper orders should recollect that they were themselves the sources of those bribes which the poor electors were said to receive; let them abstain in future from setting that evil example, and there would then be no risk in letting the poor enjoy the benefit of the franchise. The principles for which he contended were the ancient principles of the constitution, and such as had been advocated by Reformers in all ages. Sixty years ago the Duke of Richmond took a leading part in the advocacy of reform, and it was his opinion that annual elections were indispensable to the effective exercise of the franchise. Those were the opinions of the Duke of Richmond; but he (Mr. S. Crawford) begged the House to understand that he was willing to go into the question with them calmly and dispassionately; he was not for revolution, but for reform, and he was perfectly ready to submit his proposition to the House in the form of a bill, if they would permit him. The public mind was in a more agitated state now than it had ever before been—it was in a state which might lead to convulsion and all he wanted the House to do was to take measures to save the country from scenes of violence and bloodshed. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to secure the full representation of the people and to shorten the duration of Parliaments.

seconded the motion. He thought that, from the manner in which his hon. Friend had submitted his proposition to the House, no hon. Member who felt the necessity of amending the present system of representation could object to record his vote for it. He would vote for the motion, but he should not consider himself bound to all the details of the bill. He contended that the strongest argument in favour of a reform was to be found in the events of the few last years. When the noble Lord the Member for London introduced the Reform Bill, he said that the measure would enable the voice of the people to be heard in Parliament—that the Members who would be returned to the House of Commons, under its enactments, would be the real representatives of the people, and that the result would be to secure good and cheap Government for the nation. Had the noble Lord's promise been fulfilled 1 Quite the reverse. That measure was a complete failure. It was a curious circumstance that the leading Members of the present Government were also the leading Members of the Government which existed immediately previous to the introduction of the Reform Bill. Before the last general election, which placed the present Ministers in office they declared that they would conduct the Government on the principles which they professed before the passing of the Reform Act, and they had kept their word. The bribery which took place at the last election was equal to any that was practised under the old system; the electors were bought and sold, as used to be said formerly, "like cattle in Smith-field market." This was clearly proved by the committee obtained by the Member for Bath, and is notorious to all. Then, as to cheap Government, which had been promised as the result of the Reform Bill; he would remind hon. Members, they were now in the 28th year of peace, and yet they were augmenting the national debt, whilst the amount of taxation could scarcely be borne. Within the last three years the taxes had increased 8,000,000l., and within eight years 42,000,000l. had been added to the permanent debt. Before the French war, in 1792, the army did not exceed 36,000 men, the taxes were under 19,000,000l., and the public establishments limited to the wants of the country. He could not say that at present. In fact, since the Reform Bill we had had a dearer Government than any one which had existed under the borough mongering Parliaments. This year the army was 120,000 men, and the taxes expected to produce 56,000,000l., which is a larger amount than the taxes of any year during the last war, taking into consideration the depreciated value of money then as compared with the present. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who was now the advocate of the finality of the Reform Bill, when that measure was before this House said, " I propose that the people should send to this House real representatives, to deliberate on their wants and consult on their interests, to consider their grievances and attend to their desires." But he denied that the Reform Bill had accomplished these objects. This House did not really represent the people. He knew not an instance in which the wants, wishes, and desires of the people had been attended to; on the contrary, he believed the acts of this House were generally in direct opposition to their wants, wishes, and desires. The noble Lord had also boasted of the immense power the House possessed by its hold of the purse-strings of the nation. He had had the honour of a seat in the House ever since the passing of the Reform Bill, with the exception of two years, and he had never seen thirty Members who opposed any expenditure that was proposed, however profligate it might be. Why, under the boasted Reform Bill, there were at present five boroughs returning ten members to that House, the constituency of the whole being only 1,088; there were thirty-seven boroughs returning sixty-one Members, the constituency of the whole being less than that of Manchester; one fifth of the whole House was elected by towns which had an aggregate constituency little more numerous than that of the West Riding of Yorkshire; and there were many other glaring defects in the representation, which, in order to save the country from a state of things which would destroy that protection to life and property which all should enjoy, he should wish to see amended. He trusted that the noble Lord, the Member for the city of London would abandon his finality doctrines, and then he might again become the leader of the Reform party in that House. He would give his vote in favour of the motion, although he did not agree in all the principles the hon. Mover advocated.

was not prepared to carry the franchise to such an extent as the hon. Member advocated in the present state of the people; but he had seen so much corruption, and so much intimidation, that he had become a convert to the ballot. He was also in favour of shortening the duration of Parliaments, although on that point he thought the people had not much reason to complain. He was asked one day whether he would vote in favour of triennial Parliaments, and he said, " Yes, with pleasure, for it would save me much trouble and expense, for I have had rive elections during seven years."

was understood to deprecate inattention to the prayers of the people on these and other subjects, considered by them as important to their welfare. The character of the measures which emanated from the Legislature as at present constituted, was not likely to recommend it to the people. He alluded particularly to Ireland, emphatically condemned the injudicious imposition of a poor law on that country akin to that which had caused so much dissatisfaction in this country. The operation of that law was most distressing, and tended to excite the utmost hostility on the part of the people. As to this country, the distressed position of the manufacturing population, and the apathy with which their distress was regarded by a Legislature which had voted 20,000,000l. for the sake of slave owners' "compensation," was to say the worst of it most unfortunate. The poor-law had been worthily followed up by the introduction of a most unnecessary and unconstitutional police force; when the people asked for bread they had been given a stone, and a serpent was offered for a fish. A similarly unconstitutional spirit had marked the attempts to supersede insidiously the trial by jury by the "Juvenile Offenders Bill." The people seemed always doomed to suffer from the Legislature, which was generally injudicious, even when well meaning. Then great contests had arisen upon the question of the Corn-laws, which affected class interests much more than the welfare of the poor; for he believed there was amply sufficient soil in this country to grow corn for the supply of all her population; and, for his part, he had rather our people were fed with corn grown at home and the result of home labour. There were many waste lands in this country which ought to be cultivated, but that was a subject which had been neglected by the Legislature. There were many other and far deeper evils in the existing state of society, which required the remedy of, really impartial and disinterested Legislation—a remedy not to be expected till Parliament was more opened to the influence of the working classes.

considered the proposition now before the House as a practical one, and although he might not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, that the franchise should be extended to every person of sane mind and twenty-one years of age, yet as his hon. Friend had justly said in committee, they would be able to discuss the point how far a full representation could be made compatible with the public welfare. On the subject of the ballot he was quite agreed with his hon. Friend, and their views had been supported in that House by minorities numbering more than 200. For shortening Parliaments, also, large minorities had expressed themselves. As to property qualification, there was none in Scotland; but he was yet to be informed that the want of qualification operated at all his-advantageously to Scottish members. To the working class the question now before the House was all in all. Whatever mental power a man of that class might have, to throw a new light on the subject discussed in Parliament, the property qualification made it impossible for such a man to enter the House; yet he believed that the House would derive great benefit from some infusion into their debates of the views and sentiments of the working class. Agreeing, therefore, on so many points with his hon. Friend, he held it to be his bounden duty to vote for the proposition. The House ought not to disguise from itself the extent to which the opinion was spreading among the people that this House did not represent the feelings of the people. When he first went to Sheffield the franchise question excited no interest. There were people indeed who thought the Reform bill ought to have fixed a lower franchise, but among the constituency there was no general feeling in favour of a further extension; and when he had himself expressed an opinion to that effect, he found that he was going beyond the opinions of his constituents. A great change had since taken place. He had received within a few days letters, bearing 800 signatures, praying him to support the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale to its fullest extent. Much of this feeling in favour of a further extension of the suffrage had no doubt arisen from the course taken by the noble Lord the Member for London, who, it was long expected, would have shown a greater desire to carry out the principles of the Reform Bill. With respect to the violent opinions laid to the charge against the working classes, he felt bound to say that the most dangerous opinions of the Chartists—those on the subject of machinery, for instance—had been quite as strongly expressed within the walls of that House. He believed that Parliament might with perfect safety reconsider the representation of the country; and he believed that the franchise might, with perfect safety, be thrown open to a large proportion of the working classes.

said it appeared the argument was to be all on one side, but he could assure them that the feeling excited on this question out of the House was very different from that manifested within its walls; and he believed the House acted most unwisely in not taking a more serious view of this matter. The Reform Bill had given the people a worse House of Commons than they had before the passing of that bill. The present House paid much less attention to the wishes of the people than did the uniformed House. The hon. Member for Coventry had noticed the great increase of taxation, but he had adverted to the great reduction in the price of all commodities which had also taken place. While the amount of taxation had increased, the value of all produce which enabled the people to pay taxes, had fallen one-third, or in some cases a half. That made the present taxation unbearable. Some years ago, a petition praying for much the same thing as was now contemplated, and bearing upwards of a million of signatures, was presented by the hon. Member for Birmingham. Did they suppose the people were satisfied with the rejection of their petitions? He was as fully convinced as of his own existence, that sooner or later the House must come to all the points of the bill now proposed; the people were determined to have these changes made; they were suffering the greatest distress, and they saw that that House had done nothing to relieve them. All that was now asked was for leave to bring in a bill to secure the full representation of the people. Objection had been taken to the word " full"—but had not the people a right to be fully represented? and were they so represented? That was the whole question. Entertaining the opinions which he did he should cordially support the motion.

said, that he was in the manufacturing districts in the north of Eng- land for some time last year, and there he heard doctrines propounded which appeared to him so monstrous, and he was sorry to say so widely spread, that if this bill became law, the country would have such a deluge of these doctrines as would carry all before it. At some of the public meetings held in these districts he heard speakers express a wish for the demolition of all the factories throughout the kingdom; and he heard one man addressing a meeting of 10,000 men say, that he should like to see all the follies of the Monarchy swept away. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale was present, and also Mr. J. Bright, who said that these feelings pervaded the manufacturing districts. Now he was a friend to the Monarchy, and should not like to see the Constitution destroyed. He therefore could not vote in favour of a measure the tendency of which seemed to him to enforce such doctrines as he had referred to. At the same time, he was not. satisfied with the representation of the people in that House; for he thought it did not fairly represent the sense and understanding of the country. An amendment might be made in the representation of the people. Members of literary institutions and all similar bodies should undoubtedly have votes. He did not object to the extension of the suffrage on account of the ignorance. of the people, for they might be qualified to express an opinion with respect to a candidate, but he was afraid that much error prevailed throughout the country, and he was more afraid of the consequences of erroneous doctrines than of the effects of ignorance. Under these circumstances he should neither vote for nor against the proposition of his hon. Friend.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had not assigned a very satisfactory reason for the course he intended to take. The hon. Gentleman objected to the proposition of the hon. Member because he thought the tendency of the bill was to introduce a republican form of Government in the place of that limited monarchy to which he said he had the deepest and warmest attachment; but yet he would not make such a demonstration of his attachment as to give a vote against the motion. He thought if the hon. Gentleman's attachment to our limited monarchy was so warm, he might, in its support, make the sacrifice which would be involved in his walking out with those who were opposed to this motion. But the hon. Gentleman had another reform of his own, and he knew no reason why the hon. Gentleman, at the same time that he voted against this motion, should not give notice of his own proposition. However, he did not exactly know how the hon. Gentleman would carry out his principle of reform. The hon. Gentle man did not object to the ignorance of voters; he thought that enlightened men, under certain restrictions, should have the franchise, and he also thought that ignorant men, under certain restrictions, should have that right. The hon. Gentleman did not fear ignorance, but he feared erroneous opinions, and he should be curious to see what test the hon. Gentleman would apply in respect to erroneous opinions. The hon. Member said, he would admit the Members of literary institutions; but really then he must take great care that the literary institutions which may be formed for qualifying electors, are not literary institutions propagating erroneous opinions. He should be curious to see the process by which the hon. Member determined what opinions were erroneous and what were not—and what were the literary institutions which would come within his description. That, however, was not the question before the House, with respect to which he did not intend to take the course which the hon. Member adopted. The hon. Gentleman said, he should neither vote for nor against the proposition of his hon. Friend, and he thought the hon. Gentleman, the author of the motion, would say he was treating the motion more respectfully by frankly avowing his dissent from it, than if he had absented himself from the discussion and the division. From the respect he had for the integrity of that hon. Gentleman's motives and his character, he thought it was more respectful towards him and those who concurred with the hon. Gentleman, that he should frankly avow his statements, than remain altogether silent. He should decline, however, entering into any lengthened discussion. The subject was so extensive that properly to discuss every matter involved in it would necessarily require him to go into details which he did not think the House was prepared for, and he doubted whether it would be a satisfactory way of discussing the question. The hon. Member had called the attention of the House to several propositions, first, the abolition of all qualifica- tions on the part of the candidate; next, limiting the period of the duration of Parliaments; next, to vote by ballot; next, what was called, although the hon. Member did not contend for this object in its full extent, universal suffrage; and lastly, the division of the country into new electoral districts. He was quite sure that no one who was aware of the extreme importance of those subjects would deny the impossibility of discussing them in all their bearings on the Constitution in this method—subjects, each of which would require, efore there could be any satifactory conclusion formed with regard to them, a very lengthened discussion. It would be quite impossible that to discuss so many subjects at once could lead to any good result, and on that ground, and not from any insensibility to the importance of the subjects, he should decline entering into them at length. The hon. Member said that, though he contended for universal suffrage in the abstract, still he was perfectly ready to listen to any modification that may be proposed. He did not understand how the hon. Member could admit any modification of his principle, because he said that every man who was not allowed to exercise that right was in the condition of an alien and a slave. How, then, could the hon. Gentleman, with his opinions as to the consequences of being excluded from the suffrage, listen to any modifications? How could the hon. Gentleman be convinced that any considerations of expediency would entitle the House to subject any man to the reproach of being an alien and a slave? He (Sir R. Peel) totally differed from the right hon. Gentleman as to the existence of the right, and as to the consequences which must result from an application of this principle. If the hon. Gentleman's principles were correct he could not conceive how the hon. Gentleman could propose to maintain a House of Lords, to control the decision of the popular assembly. He did not consider them to be at all compatible with the maintenance of a limited constitutional monarchy in this country. The hon. Member contended for the right of each man to have an equal influence in conducting the affairs of the country, without reference to his property, his stake in the country, or his knowledge. On that principle, the most democratic and republican form of Government might be founded, but how it could be consistent with the ancient form of monarchy established in this country, he could not conceive. He was placed apparently in the position of being a defender of the Reform Bill, to the passing of which he was opposed. He saw at present no one of the immediate authors of that measure in the House. [A >voice, "Look behind you."] Certainly there was his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham), but none of those right hon. Gentlemen were in their places who were bound to defend the Reform Bill. The conclusion which he should draw from several of the speeches he had heard was, not that we should make a further experiment in reform, but that we should repeal the Reform Act, and reconstitute Parliament on the basis of the arrangement existing before that act was passed. So far from having received any encouragement to proceed with the experiment, the inference which followed from the speeches of two or three hon. Gentlemen was, that the unreformed Parliament was infinitely better than the reformed; and that an infusion of more of the popular principle into the representative assembly of this country bad worked nothing but evil. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry had told the House that in the unreformed Parliament, before we ventured on this experiment of reform, the estimates of expenditure were much more reasonable than they had been of late years; that public taxation had progressively increased since the reformed Parliament had been in existence, and that the unreformed Parliament had shown much more attention to the general interests of the country than the reformed Parliament. When he recollected all the prophecies which were made as to the consequences of reform, he confessed he much distrusted the more lavish promises now made as to the blessed consequences of the further application of the principle. The hon. Gentleman said,

"See what the estimates were in 1792: you had then an army of only 36,000 men, moderate establishments, the taxes limited, and the military force not beyond the exigencies of the country."

Well, but these estimates were voted by an unreformed Parliament. Seeing these accusations against the reformed Parliament, he certainly was not encouraged to adopt the principles of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, from some of the principles avowed to-night by Members who certainly would be returned to Parliament if the motion of the hon. Gentlemen were carried under a much more extended franchise, he very much doubted whether the legislation of the new Parliament would be marked by much more wisdom than that of its immediate predecessor. Take, for instance, the gallant Officer who spoke shortly before, and who maintained this principle, that provided there had been a reduction in the price of produce, there ought necessarily to be a reduction of taxation; so that according to the hon. and gallant Officer, if you could not get the same price for a yard of calico which you used to do, it would be absurd to levy the same amount of taxation on the people. He always thought that the sound doctrine of political economy was, the more the people saved in the prime cost of an article, the greater was their ability to bear taxation. To suppose there was any analogy between the price of a yard of calico and the amount of taxation which the country was able to bear, was a confusion of ideas which he did hope would be corrected before the hon. and gallant Officer took his seat in the new Parliament. There were a thousand causes which affected the price of goods; and for the hon. Member to say, that the taxation of the country must necessarily have a reference to the prime cost of each article, as corn or calico, showed there would be no great chance of benefiting the country from a Parliament composed of such Legislators. He would undertake to show that the price of a yard of calico, at the present moment, was probably one-third, or at least one-fifth or one-sixth less than in 1780; and he could account for all the causes which had reduced the price; but he would also maintain that it did not follow that the country was not therefore able to bear the same amount of taxation as in 1780. The other hon. Member for Oldham had stated charges against the present Parliament. One of them was, that a bill had been proposed by some individual Member, for the purpose of subjecting juvenile offenders to summary jurisdiction. He could only say that the motives for introducing the bill, if he recollected them rightly, could not be termed adverse to popular rights. Great complaints had been made that the character of very young children who might have committed some trifling offence was ruined by subjecting them to a long imprisonment before they were brought to trial, while the country was put to vast expense by the cumbrous process used for the purpose of punishing boys who might have pilfered a few turnips or apples, and it was considered desirable that means should be taken to rescue these children from the contamination of the society of the gaol. Accordingly a Mem-of the House proposed that summary jurisdiction in such cases should be given to magistrates. There might be many reasons against the proposal, but he thought it hardly fair to denounce a constitution because an individual Member, with motives and objects such as he had mentioned, proposed a measure of this description. Then, with respect to the measure of making 5l. notes a legal tender, that was advocated by many hon. Gentlemen who were not opposed to the extension of popular rights. He had predicted the evil consequences which were likely to flow from it, and had given his opinion against it. But that was surely a matter which might be considered without its being supposed that the proposers or opposers of it had any hostile design against the liberties of the people. He was rather afraid that an alteration of the currency was one of the measures which would be popular with a Parliament returned under the system proposed by the hon. Member. Then the hon. Member said,

"See what the late Parliament has done; it has increased the paper currency, and laid the foundation of joint-stock banks, which gave facilities for extending it, the tendency of which, he said, was to diminish the rights and liberties of the people."

If the hon. Member would consult the hon. Member for Birmingham, who sat near him, who was returned by a popular constituency, and respected popular rights, he would no doubt be told that this plan was perfectly consistent with public interests, and with the comforts of the working classes; and that though possibly the hon. Member might not wish to promote the issue of 1l. or 2l. notes, at any rate, he would contend for a very considerable extension of the currency, and would expect to give material relief to the public burthens by a measure of this nature. He said then, that the hon. Member had no right to find in any such changes as these an intention on the part of Parliament to limit and confine the privileges of the people. Whatever effect these changes ultimately might have upon the political freedom of the lower orders, they were agreed to by this House without any view to such effect, and without any belief that they would be productive of such effect. Therefore, he thought the charges brought by the hon. Member against the existing constitution of Parliament rested on no good foundation. It was very doubtful, whether, if the principles of the hon. Member for Oldham were adopted, the public interests would be promoted, or the popular will satisfied. The hon. Member declared himself decidedly adverse to the Corn-laws, but said he viewed with satisfaction the consumption of our own corn in preference to that of foreign countries. Then he exclaimed, look at the waste lands of England and Ireland, which have been neglected by the madness of the Parliament, and he proposed the application of large capital to their cultivation, for the purpose of encouraging the growth of domestic corn. If these views were to prevail, he must again doubt whether, in the new Parliament, any great advance would be made in the application of popular principles. With the encouragement of the existing Corn-laws, these lands had not yet been cultivated by individual enterprise. What was the legislation by which the hon. Member proposed to secure his object? Would he lay out the public money for the purpose, and undertake the promotion of agriculture at the charge of the state? If individual exertion the hope of gain, the competition of capital, had not been sufficient to bring these lands into cultivation, would that object be attained by the means proposed by the hon. Member? If the hon. Member thought so, he would find many Gentlemen on his own side of the House who would deprecate the measure, because, however captivating it might be, as tending to promote the interests of the labouring classes, they would tell him it was their bounden duty to resist plausible theories and popular arguments, by which they might be supported, and look only to the ultimate results. Then with respect to the Poor-law, why that law was introduced by many of the most strenuous advocates of popular rights in this country, and was intended for the benefit of the working classes. The hon. Member de- preciated the law, and laid its character was atrocious; but could it in fairness be said, that it was introduced by the aristocracy, or that it was introduced for the purpose of maintaining the rights of the aristocracy or for any other purpose than this, that the condition of the working classes was so depressed at the time, from a habit of depending on the poor-rates instead of on their own industry, that many of the most fervent friends of the rights of the people thought it expedient to make a great change in the Poor-law, in order to remove that depression! He doubted, whether, if alterations in the constitution were now made, and laws passed for the purpose of gaining popular favour, they would not find precisely the same condition of opinion as at present, and whether the tendency of their changes would not be to injure the firm, comprehensive, and permanent interests of the country for the purpose of making experiments of popular and plausible measures which were great favourites of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had now fulfilled the object for which he had risen; he had been unwilling to meet an important motion of this kind with merely a silent negative. He had slated generally the grounds on which he opposed it, believing that it was entirely inconsistent with the existence of the constitution of this country, which, whatever might be the difficulties to which we were now temporarily subjected, had on the whole, secured to the people of this country more of real freedom than had existed in any other part of the globe, under any form of Government whatever.

could not allow the aspersions which the hon. Member for Belfast had thrown on the working classes, especially those in the manufacing districts, to go altogether unnoticed, and he must give them the most unqualified contradiction. Where his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale had introduced the hon. Member for Belfast it was impossible for him to say; but he could say he had seen very large assemblages of the working classes in the manufacturing districts and no sentiments of the character attributed to them by the hon. Member had he ever on any occasion heard. The rights of property he had always heard them respect and profess their readiness to uphold. What they claimed for themselves was equality of political rights, and to that, he maintained they were entitled. As to the revolutionary doctrines they were said to hold—that they wished all the factories in the country to be destroyed, that as they themselves were in a state of poverty and distress, they wished their masters and their families also to be ruined—he should like to ask the hon. Member for Belfast, and all who came from the manufacturing districts, who were acquainted with the feelings and wishes of the working classes, whether they could not have gratified these desires, had they entertained them, during the disturbances of last autumn? Did not the House know that the town of Manchester had been in the hands and at the mercy of the populace for three days, and that they might have levelled every factory in Manchester and the adjacent manufacturing towns with the ground, if they had had any such intentions as those attributed to them. He denied that they had any such intentions; he said it was a libel on the working classes to attribute them. Would his hon. Friend tell them where he met the persons of whom he spoke? [Mr. Boss; "About four miles from Rochdale."] He understood his hon. Friend also to say, that Mr. Bright had said these sentiments pervaded the manufacturing districts. [Mr. Ross: "Yes."] A most extraordinary thing, if they did pervade the manufacturing districts, that they should not have exhibited themselves during the disturbances of last autumn, when, he believed, neither in Manchester, nor in any other of the manufacturing towns, was there a single atom of property injured by those engaged in the disturbances. They had prevented, by violence, threats, and intimidation, a large number of the working classes from pursuing their daily vocation. Nothing could be more culpable than this part of their proceedings, but he believed that not the least damage was done to property. With respect to the motion of his hon. Friend, it was not for him to excuse her Majesty's late Ministers, or to offer any apology for their absence. He supposed, as they had seen their successors take up a considerable portion of their free-trade principles, they thought they might safely leave their finality principles in the hands of the right hon. Baronet; and he must say, a more efficient advocate of those principles they could not find. It was really too absurd to say, that the conse- quence of allowing every man to have a vote, must be that the aristocracy and the monarchy would be swept away. What was that House called? They named it the people's house; and all that he and his hon. Friend asked was, that it should be identified with the people, and become part and parcel of the people. The House of Lords would remain exactly where it was, though the working classes might be admitted to vote. There was no intention on the part of the working classes to do away with the House of Lords, or offer any disturbance to the Sovereign on her Throne. He did believe that such an intention never entered their heads; all they wanted, all they required was, that their interests should be represented in that House. The hon. Member for Oldham had given them his views, not only of the state of the country, but of the proceedings of the House, in the reformed and the unreformed Parliament. He could discover no great act of benefit to the people accomplished by the reformed Parliament. Catholic emancipation, repeal of the Test Act, the Reform Act itself, had been passed by unreformed Parliaments, and he knew of no other great measure carried, except that of negro emancipation, at the cost of 20,000,000l. to this country, and he did not know that there was any thing that might not be carried in this country by money, at the expense of 20,000,000l. He believed they might carry the repeal of the Corn-laws at much less; if they gave the country gentlemen only one-half of the 20,000,000l., he ventured to say they might carry the repeal of the Corn-laws to-morrow. He, therefore, did not give the House the slightest credit for negro emancipation, when carried at such an enormous cost to this country. He had not intended to take part in this debate, but he could not hear the statements of the hon. Member for Belfast without giving them an unqualified contradiction. The working classes did not wish for revolution, but Gentlemen would find, if they knew them better, that they had no right to attribute any such opinions to them. If treated with kindness, it would be found that, if they did not surpass they at least equalled hon. Gentlemen in their anxiety to support their character for loyalty to their Sovereign, and to maintain the honour of their country.

thought that neither ignor- ance nor poverty should be a bar to representation; indeed, he wished that even erroneous opinions should be represented in that House, in order that they might be brought into the arena of public discussion. The opinion was widely spread throughout the country that the people were not adequately represented; but the organization out of doors was becoming stronger every day for the purpose of making legislation more subservient to public opinion and popular interests; and, whatever the decision of the House might be now, the time was not far distant when it would be impossible for them to hold the reins of power without ceding much to public opinion. He should support the motion of the hon. Gentleman.

denied that he had advocated an unlimited increase of paper circulation with the view of obtaining a temporary prosperity. He had never recommended anything of the kind. He complained that the value of money did not bear a proper relation to the price of corn, and that they must, either alter the money value or the corn laws. With respect to the present motion, he was favourable to a considerable extension of the suffrage; he believed it to be due to the people and absolutely necessary; but, although he wished the duration of Parliaments to be much abridged, he could not support the proposition to make them annual. If Parliaments were annual, then legislation would be nothing but a system of electioneering. He had the deepest sympathy with the people in the privations, the sufferings, and the miseries they now bore so patiently, and he knew that many attributed them entirely to the want of fair representation in Parliament. If the petitions of the people were properly attended to—if justice were done—he felt assured they would give up political agitation altogether.

entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham. If that House paid more attention to the real grievances and petitions of the working classes there would be no more agitation for universal suffrage. During the last Session of Parliament a select committee was appointed to inquire into the injurious effects of the truck system; and the witnesses who were examined before it proved that the working classes were most cruelly treated by their roasters in many parts of the country. The evidence taken had been laid on the Table, but up to the pre-sent moment no measures had been adopted to put an end to that system of cruelty and oppression. During the present Session a great many petitions had been presented, imploring that immediate steps should be taken effectually to abolish the truck system, and he did hope the Government would pay attention to this subject. There was another subject on which the people in the north of England felt deeply aggrieved—he referred to the cruelties inflicted upon them by the New Poor Law. At this very moment the working classes in the Bradford Union were compelled to walk nine miles to their labour, and after working under a taskmaster all day were obliged to walk nine miles home in the evening. Could men sit down patiently under such treatment as this? The working classes were a patient, enduring, and loyal race of men, devoted to their sovereign and anxious to support the laws and the institutions of the country; it was therefore but right that fair attention should be paid to their petitions. While that House paid so little attention to the petitions and complaints of the people, even when those complaints had been proved before Parliamentary committees, it was less surprising to find them agitating such questions as universal suffrage; but if they would only do the working classes justice they would be content to earn their bread with the sweat of their brow, and leave legislation in the hands of those whose position in society gave them leisure and disposition to attend to it.

opposed the motion. Without a great improvement in the education and morals of the people at large the advantages which the hon. Member for Rochdale contemplated by the success of his motion never could be realized. It would only create hopes to disappoint them.

did not think that a debate of so much importance could well be closed without some further observations being made on his (the Ministerial) side of the House. He opposed the motion, not because he differed from the hon. Gentleman on trivial grounds of expediency. If his difference of opinion were merely one of time or circumstances, he should not vote against it; but differing, as he did, on the abstract principles on which he conceived the motion to be founded,—denying altogether the position that the people were the source of all legitimate power,—believing, as he most conscientiously did, that all political power derived its only sanction and incurred its chief responsibilities from a source far higher than that abstract something or nothing—the people, he felt himself bound to oppose the motion. Furthermore, he conceived that as the principles he advocated were departed from, so the comforts of the people bad diminished. For the last 150 years the principles contended for by the hon. Member for Rochdale had been more or less put into practice, and as power was taken away from the mitre and crown, and transferred either to the people in that House or out of it, their physical and moral happiness had been lessened. This fact had been so happily expressed by Sir Edward Bulwer, that he could not help quoting his words. Referring to questions of this sort, Sir Edward Bulwer said:—

"They tell thee in their dreaming school,

"Of power from old dominion hurled,

"When rich and poor with juster rule,

"Shall share the altered world.

"Alas! since time itself began,

"That fable has but fooled the hour,

"Each age that ripens power in man

"But subjects man to power."

He would extend the feeling of responsibility between the rich and the poor, and shorten the interval which in his opinion was growing too wide between those for whom wealth was made and those who made it. Thus they would most materially promote the welfare of all classes. It was because he was convinced that the happiness and prosperity of the people were intimately connected with the triumph of those principles—principles which, as they demanded ready obedience on the one hand, involved the most serious and awful responsibilities on the other—principles which, while they would render the church triumphant, and the monarchy powerful, would also restore contentment to a struggling, overworked, and deluded people—that he opposed the motion of the hon. Member.

would not support a motion for annual Parliaments and universal suffrage, but he was favourable to a considerable extension of the suffrage and triennial Parliaments. The noble Lord who had just sat down talked of "that abstract something or nothing, the people"; and he could not help thinking such a designation came with peculiar appropriateness from a noble Lord who supported the corn laws, thinking no doubt, that an " abstract something or nothing" must be incapable of eating and drinking.

felt all the responsibility of addressing the House on such a question in the present state of the country. He was a decided opponent of all organic changes in the constitution, and was, moveover, of opinion that all such attempts, as far as they had been carried, had hitherto proved failures. It was thought by many hon. Members that the Reform Bill, at the time when it became law, would prove a remedy for all abuses; and it was little short of heresy, at that time, to venture a suspicion as to its perfection. Yet how many had since confessed it to be an utter and complete failure. It was thought by the lower orders that that measure was to improve their condition and give them cheap bread; but it had failed, as he believed every further experiment on the side of democracy would fail. The hon. Member's motion, if successful, must overturn the institutions of the country before the lapse of many years; for one of its first effects must be to stir up a conflict between the upper and the lower branches of the legislature, in which the humiliation of one was certain, a state of things which had resulted from a former measure in its early operation. If the present motion were carried, what would the Sovereign become but the chief magistrate of a republic? From the time of Henry VII. to the treaty of Vienna there had been a constant struggle between the House of Commons and the Crown; but since the latter period the struggle had been between a certain portion of the House of Commons and the democratic principle out of doors. It was said by Lord Chatham, on undertaking the Government at a very critical period, that he could save the country, and no one else could. He wished to see this feeling animate the right hon. Baronet opposite. He thought the measures of the past year were all in a right direction, and that the worst consequences would have ensued if they had not been adopted. He hoped all the upper classes would see that the time was come when they must make sacrifices to set the labourer free from the consequences of the competition now going on. The simultaneous increase of the price of corn and the national debt from 1790 to the peace was evidence that a virtual bargain was struck between the state and the people; but as the state received taxes so it should have the power of issuing currency which would enable the working classes to cast the burthen of taxation upon their superiors. Since that time, however, we had changed the system, and thrown a much greater burthen on the labouring classes than it had ever been thought they would be likely to bear. He thought it was the duty of the House to promote the physical comforts and happiness of the lower orders, but as he did not think it likely to effect that object he could not give his support to the motion.

rose amid cries of " Divide," and said, that after the observations made by the hon. Baronet who had last addressed the House, he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman had not voted the other evening in favour of the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers). He was glad to hear the hon. Baronet express so much anxiety for the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes. He must at the same time observe, that he thought there was some inconsistency in the conduct of the hon. Gentleman, who, professing great anxiety for the welfare of the people, still opposed the repeal of the Corn-laws. They had been told that having demanded " the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill," and having obtained their request, they ought to be satisfied; but the question was—had they got what they had demanded? They had got the bill and something more. Two clauses had been subsequently introduced, which completely swamped the rest of the bill, and but for those clauses hon. Gentlemen opposite had never enjoyed their majority. He certainly thought that one class of the community ought not to have the power of imposing taxes which another class was compelled to pay. He believed that if the people had justice done them, they would not seek for further reforms, as he believed if the legislature had done justice to the people of Ireland, the agitation which now prevailed in that country on the subject of repeal would never have arisen.

in reply, said that his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Ross) had alluded to a meeting at which he (Mr. Crawford) was present, and at which one of the speakers expressed a desire for the destruction of machinery throughout the country. He remembered that one of the speakers on that occasion adverted to the injurious effects of machinery, with regard to the operatives; but he could not recollect that any such expression as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was used. He might also observe, with respect to another allusion of the hon. Member for Belfast, that he was present at a meeting at Leeds, at which one of the speakers referred to the dangers which might result to the monarchy if fair and just reforms were not conceded; but certainly such strong language as that stated by the hon. Gentleman was not uttered. He had no recollection that any language was used on that occasion which could be construed into a desire to subvert the monarchy.

rose to bring forward the motion which he was now about to submit to the House in consequence of the measure which had been introduced by the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham) relating to the Education of the people. He would ask the House to consider this question calmly and deliberately; and he would promise the right hon. Baronet, that in discussing the subject he would give him (Sir J. Graham) full credit for the intentions with which he had introduced his measure. He would abstain from imitating the conduct of parties out of doors, who in discussing this question had evinced an utter absence of charity. His object in bringing forward this motion was not to introduce a discussion which might give occasion for the display of any asperity or bitterness. He would be the last person in the world to excite any ill-feeling on a subject of such vast importance—one which involved the rescue of a vast portion of our fellow-countrymen from the thraldom of ignorance. If he thought that the resolution he was now about to propose would throw any difficulty in the path of the right hon. Baronet, he would not press it; but he believed his resolution would afford them the only possible means of escaping from the difficulties by which the subject was encompassed. No system of education would be concurred in by the people which recognised the predominance of any one sect. But, before he went into the discussion of that portion of the subject which was connected immediately with the proposal of the right hon. Baronet, he would ask the House to bear with him while he invited their attention, in a form not usually employed in discussions in that House, to several points respecting education. He knew that the subject was dry and uninteresting, and, therefore, he could only hope for the indulgence of the House for a short time. When they set about forming a plan of national education, the first inquiry they should address to themselves ought to be " What have we in view when we set about framing a system of national education 1" and, having clearly placed before their minds the object they had in view, then they ought to analyze and arrange the various means which might be at their disposal for carrying that object into effect. Now, it appeared that a portion of the population of this country was unable or unwilling to give their offspring that amount of education which society, as at present constituted, thought requisite for the wellbeing of the children themselves and the security of society at large. If, then, the object of national education was what he took it to be,—if national education consisted in the endeavour to impart the knowledge to children which might enable them to do their duty in that station of life in which Providence placed them, which might enable them to consult their own happiness consistently with the happiness of others; and in the endeavour also, whilst they gave the knowledge which taught children to know what was right, to give that knowledge which would enable them to follow what was right—then any person who applied himself to the formation of a plan of national education ought to institute an accurate analysis of the means by which he was to workout this problem, —how to give the knowledge it was requisite for each child to receive, and how to form the habits of mind which would enable each child to follow out that knowledge when given. He was not about to enter upon that analysis; he should only observe, that their objects in national education ought to be, first, the mere knowledge to be given; second, the habits of mind to be formed. Now, as to the knowledge to be given there was no dispute; all were agreed as to the sort of knowledge which ought to be given, but, with regard to the habits of mind, there were various sanctions, the knowledge and importance of which were to be made apparent to the mind of the child. For example, he might teach a child that it was not to steal, but, then, he had to teach it why; he had to show that it was for the happiness of others that no violent abstraction of their property should take place, and for its own happiness that no other practice than that of perfect purity in this respect of stealing be established. But he had another thing to do—he had to create the habit of mind which should induce the child not to desire stealing. Now, of the means of creating this habit a vast portion was beyond the reach of Legislation. When they spoke of education, they should recollect that properly education reached from the cradle to the grave; that it consisted not merely in that which was taught at school, but that it was the same of circumstances in which an individual was placed, and which reached (as he had said) from the earliest birth of the infant to the latest hour of life. Now, there were a hundred circumstances of health and habits of early youth which were beyond the reach of legislation; but, on the other hand, there were many circumstances of early youth which were within the reach of those who directed their minds to the subject. Of these, again, some were within the reach of legislation; others were beyond their grasp. All those effects which scholastic discipline could produce were within the power of legislation; all that part of education which consisted in merely learning duties raised no dispute—all which related to the various sanctions of society, as, for example, the sanctions of law and the sanctions of public opinion, all that might be taught by any person without any fear that any danger or ill-will should accrue. But there was one of the sanctions which was found to create the greatest possible doubts, animosities, and ill-blood among mankind. Let it be observed, that to create proper habits in the child sanctions were necessary, one of which, the religious sanction, was surrounded with difficulties in its application. Now, then, the Legislature had to ask itself this question, " I may impart all necessary knowledge; I may give all that, and no dispute will arise about it; but there is one sanction, that of the mysterious future, that which religion teaches, over which there has been unfortunately cast, from the world's foundation to the present time, much rancour and dispute; how am I to dispose of that?" Now, there was no dispute that the Legislature might take into its own hands the management of this sanction in a community where there was only one religion; but in a community where there were many religions this difficulty arose. From the commencement of the history of mankind, persons had been dedicated to the task of teaching religion, and by its ceremonies and observances creating that habit of mind of which he had spoken. That was their special business; the creation of that habit of mind was the business of the priest; and the question the Legislature had to ask itself in a community consisting of various sects was, whether all the other sanctions might not be employed, and taught the child, and whether the sanctions of religion might not be safely left to the teaching of those who were dedicated to teaching religion, each in his particular sect or division. He was not, let it be observed, endeavouring to get rid of religion, but, on the contrary, to make out a way by which to increase the knowledge, and alleviate much of the miseries of a great portion of the population. He would now proceed to support his proposition, and he should do it in this way; he should endeavour to show, that in a country where various religions co-exist, and the great doctrine of reliance on private judgments is introduced, any way of education which sought to make poverty the means of instructing children hi doctrines which the parents don't desire they should be instructed in, was an infringement of that great doctrine of private judgment, and therefore unjust; and he should next shew that, wherever there were various sects, it must be impolitic as well; and he thought that, from the circumstances which they witnessed in the House and oat of it, any such attempt must frustrate itself, and that every measure based on such a principle would be found to be utterly impracticable. He came to that conclusion with regret; he said it knowing what would be said of him in return, but he was so familiar with calumny that he was hardened to it; at any rate, many persons might wonder at such a sentiment coming from him, but he could not help perceiving that every rude and ignorant people must be excited if they were to be instructed, and from the times of Greece and Rome down to John Wesley, they had been excited; and it was a means of instruction which, if the condition of the many would permit, he should be happy that the state should employ. But it was impossible that the state should employ it among a people like our own. He did not mean, however, to say, that the state should exclude completely religious instruction in giving that knowledge which the parents should wish; but having a state church, all he asked was, let us not have a state school. If it were necessary to have a state church, they must assume that it did its duty. But they knew that religion was taught by separate sects; all he asked, therefore, was, " let the children learn all that is requisite for them to know, at the expense of the state, but do not interfere so as to create ill blood and asperity by teaching religion." His first proposition then was, that the interference of the state in this matter was unjust, and ought not to be perpetrated; he meant the word " perpetrated" in no offensive sense—he would say, ought not to be done. It must be borne in mind, that the great principle of private judgment was admitted by the law, and was the foundation of the Protestant religion. He knew that proposition was now called in question, and he was very much grieved to see that the mode in which it was called in question was one of the great causes of the extraordinary explosion which had taken place on the subject of this bill; but the doctrine of the right of every man to form his own opinions on religious subjects was acknowledged by the law, by the Protestant religion, and by all sound morality, if he asked the question, he found that it appeared that some part of the population from poverty were unable to give their children that secular instruction which it was for the happiness of the children, and for the happiness of society that they should have, and which they ought to receive. Then the State said, "I perceive the want, I perceive the inability of these people, but at the same time I cannot give them secular instruction, without instruction in religion, which will hurt the feelings of the parent in many cases, and make him feel himself an insulted and degraded person." The poor man said, " I should be glad; but I find the schools closed up, that I cannot send my child without some distinction from the others, and I find that arises out of the teaching religion." This was what was said, and he found, that the compromise offered by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was scouted by all sects in every part of the country. The conclusion, therefore, which he drew was, that the State should leave the teaching of religion to the pastors of the various sects, and confine itself to secular instruction. But he was here met by an objection, where he did not expect it, from a portion of the religious world—namely, who said we can make an arrangement which will be quite pleasant to the majority. He could not understand that. If he was to make any compromise, it should be that of the right hon. Baronet, and he would make the state religion be taught. He should be carrying out the opinion of the majority by doing so, for there could not be a doubt that the Church of England in England comprised an enormous majority of the population. But if any body doubted it let him look to the return which had been moved for by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir R, Inglis) of the number of marriages, and he would find that the Dissenters married were in proportion to the Churchmen as one to four; but if he was to follow out the principle of private judgment, he claimed it for all sects—for Jew, Turk, and Deist, and, if there were such a being, for him who was of no religion. If that was denied him, he went back to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. He had shown then, that this religious teaching was but in aid of all other teaching, and that they did not lose by allowing it to be taught by the various sectaries to their children, but, on the contrary, gained by adopting that course, the benefit of the principle of co-operation of all sorts of persons as well as a healthy emulation. Bnt if, on the contrary, they gave the power of instruction to any one sect, then they were sure of a snappish, snarlish contention, instead of a generous emulation. He said, then, that it was unjust to interfere in the case of the poor with private judgment, and as unjust as in the case of the rich. He next came to his second proposition, that in any community in which there were various sects, it was quite clear that such an interference was impolitic. Supposing they had not had the experience of the last few weeks, this was clear; and then did the right hon. Baronet believe that any plan of taxing the people for the establishment of national education on the principles of the Church of England could be viewed with pleasure and complacency by the great body of the people? But he asked, why raise the question? What mischief was not done by raising it? You wanted co-operation—you wanted to instruct the people. How were you to gain co-operation? By giving no offence. You would give no offence if you would put all parties on an equality on a matter on which you had no right to say that you were better than your neighbour. If ever there was a case on which the experiment might have been made with safety, the right hon. Baronet bad that case before him. What was it? A noble Lord (Lord Ashley) had drawn a picture of great misery — horrible ignorance amongst a large portion of the population. The House was naturally struck by the description and was anxious to endeavour to relieve and to rescue the people. All the sympathies of the House were raised on the part of the children, whose lot was principally in the hands of the Government, and if ever there was a case in which that sympathy would have reached out of doors and have influenced Churchmen as well as Dissenters that was the case. The right hon. Gentleman had tried the experiment. If he (Mr. Roebuck) were to point to the scenes which had been described by the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) on a former occasion, he Would go over them again, but he could not give expression, as the noble Lord had done, to the dreadful darkness of that ignorance which prevailed, or the mischiefs which it entailed on the moral and physical condition of the poor of this country. If, however, he were an orator, he would attempt again to depict those facts, in order to make clear before the House the horrible scenes which the noble Lord had described. And why would he do so; Why, to show the favourable circumstances under which the right hon. Baronet might have brought forward a measure based on just principles. If beforehand he had been asked what would be the probable consequences or course of proceeding under such circumstances, what should he have said? He would have said, that the Church should have been particularly careful to abstain from all attempts to seize upon power; the Church should have shown no desire but that of co-operating in the benevolent and enlarged principle of humanity on which the noble Lord had acted. The Church like that noble Lord, should have shown itself above all petty distinctions, it should have shown itself the friend of peace and goodwill to the people. The Dissenters should hare shown themselves above all sectarian principles, or at least above those disputes which in other cases might be stirred up; they should throw themselves hand and heart in zealous co-operation with the Churchmen, though they differed from them on religious points; they should have shown that they had but one object in view, that of raising the manufacturing population of this country out of that ignorance into which they were sunk. Bat had the result of the right hon. Baronet's measure answered these expectations? Had the Churchmen on the one hand abstained from grasping at power? And had the great Dissenting body shown themselves ready to participate in the benefits which they might have been instrumental in carrying out? He thought he had shown that the Church was desirous to grasp at power—[No.] You cry no; and when I come to the Dissenters I shall be told no, by hon. Gentlemen on this side. And yet I say with regard to the Dissenters, that I do see on the other hand an unwillingness to enter into any accommodation expressed by the Dissenting body a cry of no surrender. They would not attempt to enter into a discussion, and they said of the bill, "Though you may alter and amend it from its commencement to its last section — throw out the bill—do not for a moment discuss it." That was the feeling expressed by the great body of the Dissenters. If he thought it necessary, he might be tempted to go at large into this view of the case; he might show that whatever might be the wishes of these parties, it was equally clear that the immense power connected with the machinery of this bill was thrown into the hands of the Church. There were two distinct things which showed a want of judgment in the framing of this measure. It was founded on the narrow basis that education should depend upon the accidental circumstance, or test of employment. When there was no employment there was to be no instruction. It was a partial measure—it was not for the extension of education, but for a system of education dependent on the merest chance in the world — namely, that of employment. So far then the measure was defective in the first place,— it rested on a narrow basis—on a narrow principle of education, dependent on a test, that test being employment, and did not apply, moreover, to the first eight year of the child's life. In the next place, the working of the machinery was thrown into the hands of Churchmen. First, from the Secretary of State to the very teachers, they must be members of the Church of England. The Secretary of State was a portion of the machinery —Privy Councillors in the same way— and then came the teachers—[Hear]. What, must they not also be of the Church of England by the bill? Was not the instruction to be given by teachers of the Church of England? Was not the appointment of the teachers dependent on the bishops of the Church of England? They could not stir a step in the bill but they met with some wonderful attempt on the forbearance of the people. He should show that in a moment. Supposing a child to gain the ill-will of any of the persons connected with the school or of the teacher; he could not come to school, he could not work, therefore he could not get his bread, so that they made the life's blood of the child depend on his creed, and might not that be a matter of daily occurrence? They were, in fact, employing the bill as a test of the religious belief of the community, and were about to create distinctions among them as a means of earning their bread. The grand faults of the bill were, that it went first on a narrow basis, and next on a sectarian basis; and when he saw this narrow, grasping disposition manifested on one side, and on the other a feeling so averse to conciliation that conciliation would not be listened to, he had no hopes of the measure. The Govern- ment would do wisely in putting themselves at the head of public opinion, and in acting as its guide, and not its follower, in showing themselves above sectarian feelings, and in setting a great example of forbearance and toleration. The Government ought to show that it had what he should call a Catholic feeling—that it allowed itself not to be influenced by any party, petty faction, but that in its wide benevolence it would teach what it could with safety, and say to all contending sects, " teach your religion as you are able; each sectarian come and teach his own peculiar tenets; let there be no 'let or hindrance' to anyone to teach. All we do is to prepare the children for you to enable them to understand such religious instruction." To the Church it should say, "Your ministers are many and mighty, come and aid us in our teaching; but do not interfere." To the Dissenter it should say, "Teach the children for their eternal welfare; but while I am endeavouring to assist the unfortunate parent unable to instruct his child as he ought to be instructed, while I am pursuing that benevolent purpose, and doing my duty, as a Legislature do not interfere, but follow in my steps." If the Legislature would do that, it would prove what it ought to be, the leader, the guide, and instructor of the people, and not one that hunted after public opinion, but in its own opinion would guide, direct, control. He would have the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government aspire to that high position, and in terms and language better than he could employ, say to the country, "follow in the right path, where complete unshackled freedom directs you—be you a wise and patient follower." He believed that the opinion of the people of this country would bear them out in pursuing such a course; he believed that the country would say that they set a wise example as legislators and would support them. Therefore, wishing to heal all differences—wishing to instruct and guide the people in all that related to their temporal welfare, wishing to cast no obstruction in the way of instruction, but to aid and assist the teacher, he should ask the House to come to the resolution which he should now conclude with moving:—

"That in no plan of education maintained and enforced by the State, should any attempt be made to inculcate peculiar religious opin- ions; because, as such an attempt would be considered a plan for maintaining and strengthening an undue superiority of one sect over all others, the animosities and strife already existing among different religious denominations would thereby unhappily be greatly increased, and the cordial co-operation of all sects and denominations, which is absolutely necessary to insure the success of any plan of public education, rendered impossible."

said; I know not that under any circumstances, or on any occasion, I should be competent to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, through the philosophical disquisition in which he has brought before the House, with that perspicuity which he so remarkably exhibits, the subject of education; but, at present I am placed under an additional disadvantage, for, I must confess to the hon. and learned Member, that I did not altogether expect that his motion would come on this evening; and I must frankly tell the House, that my various pressing avocations have prevented me from bestowing that attention on this proposition which the vast importance of the subject requires. The hon. and learned Gentleman at the commencement of what he addressed to the House, made two important admissions. He said, that this was an abstract resolution, and that the matter which it contained, was surrounded with great practical difficulties. Now, an abstract resolution of this nature necessarily carries with it, if adopted, consequences of vast importance, and I shall consider it my duty to resist the resolution which is proposed. I am bound to believe from the assurance which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the House, that it is far from his intention by the present resolution, to prejudice a practical measure which 1 have submitted to the House, which is now on the Table which has been partly considered, the principle of which has been adopted, and the details of which only remain for discussion. I am satisfied that whatever may be the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, yet the House not being to-night prepared for the discussion of that measure I should do infinite injustice to the subject, which has hitherto been treated with remarkable forbearance, if I proceeded prematurely to the defence of its provisions. Therefore, I shall not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through all that part of his speech in which he particularly dealt with the bill to which I have referred. But I must, injustice to myself and to the Government, set the hon. and learned Gentleman right upon one or two material points. He has treated the measure as if it were propounded by the Government as a scheme of national and general education. Now, the hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to remember —and I am sure the House will agree with me in what I say—that I specifically guarded the Government against that construction. I distinctly said, that the measure never was intended as a scheme of national education; that it was meant to grapple with difficulties confined within certain limits, which are specified by the bill itself; which are limits not now newly invented or discovered, but which have been already laid down and marked out by the wisdom of Parliament. I proposed to deal with that portion only of education, which in this country is compulsory by law as a condition of the employment of children in the three great branches of our staple manufactures, I mean our cotton, woollen, and flax manufactures. In my bill I propose somewhat to extend this plan to the silk, and possibly to some other trades; but I distinctly stated to the House that which I now beg to repeat, that I did not propose a scheme of education to be applied to the nation at large, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has contended, but that I made the proposition only as an amendment of the existing system, in respect of the quality of the education which the State now provides as a condition to the employ. went of children. As a specimen of the inaccuracy of the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he will pardon me for so saying, I may refer to the observation which he made, that the bill is framed with the exclusive spirit of a churchman in every minute detail, and be says that the whole machinery must belong to, and must fall into, the hands of churchmen; and he begins with the highest offices, and says, first of all, that the Secretary of State must be a churchman. Now, it so happens that there is, at this moment one of her Majesty's Secretaries of State (the Earl of Aberdeen) who is a Presbyterian. Next, the hon. and learned Gentleman says, that the Privy councillors must be Churchmen. There is, however, now present a remarkable exception in the person of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who sits opposite (Mr. Sheil) who is not a member of the Church of England; but, who, nevertheless, by his learning and ability, has risen, to the position of a Privy Councillor. These are specimens of errors into which the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his zeal of attack, has been led. 1 may observe, also, that some of the topics which he has introduced into his speech have no immediate bearing upon my bill. He spoke of the force of public opinion, of the influence of domestic habits, of various sanctions more binding than school discipline, in training and educating youth. He said, that religion was one of these sanctions, and I. say, and with deference, that I consider it the first and most important of all; and although this country at the present moment is disturbed by the heat of religious dissension, yet I do believe that upon this, the cardinal point, there is a strong—an almost universal—concurrence of opinion, that education, to be sound, to be safe, nay, to be useful, must be based on a knowledge of the scriptures. Churchmen differ from the Dissenters upon the precise doctrines to be inculcated, we differ with respect to the judgment to be formed, but we agree that the distinguishing mark of Protestantism in this country is perfect freedom of private judgment; and entertaining this opinion, speaking generally, I affirm, that both Churchmen and Dissenters are equally desirous that the private judgment should be formed when a man arrives at the maturity of discernment upon an early knowledge of the scriptures as taught in schools. The hon. and learned Member will excuse me if I call his attention to what I must say appears to roe an error in fact on the face of this resolution. It is comprised in the first line and a half of the motion. That which we are called on to affirm is, "That in no plan of education, maintained and enforced by the State, should any attempt be made to inculcate peculiar religious opinions." What follows is matter of reasoning, and the point and real pith of the resolution consists in the word "peculiar." If the hon. and learned Member would put to the House a resolution excluding the word "peculiar," I am satisfied that an overwhelming majority, not only of this House, but of this great community, will be found arrayed against it; for I am sure that the vast majority of the people of this country are prepared to negative the assertion "that in no plan of education maintained and enforced by the State should any attempt be made to inculcate religious opinions." What then is the force of this word "peculiar?" Having dealt with the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will proceed to his reasoning: and it does so happen that there are two instances in the United Kingdom which completely negative the induction which this motion seeks to establish. In Scotland it does so happen that, with the greatest possible advantage, with the greatest possible harmony, the State does impart to the people peculiar religious instruction; and this is a circumstance which, to a great extent, negatives all the reasoning of the hon. and learned Gentleman; because, so far from discord raging, though they do qnarrel in that country upon points of discipline with respect to their Church, perfect unanimity prevails with regard to doctrinal instruction. In every parish there is a school, which is superintended by the minister of the parish, and whatever doubt there may be with respect to any other part of the discipline of the Church of Scotland, it is universally admitted that the parish school system is a great ornament and a great blessing to that country, and is highly conducive to the civilization as well as the welfare of its industrious people. This circumstance, therefore, refutes part of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The attempt, however, has been made in another part of the kingdom to avoid the evil which it is said is likely to arise from the inculcation of peculiar religious instruction. An attempt has been made in Ireland to avoid this difficulty, and to teach scriptural religion without imparting peculiar doctrines. I will not here pronounce an opinion on the success of this experiment; but it has failed to produce concord and religious peace. I do not wish to follow these two points further, but they occur to me as affording a strong illustration of the fallacy of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that religion had been at all times used as an incentive to knowledge, by reason of the excitement which it produces. I say that when a human being believes in the great truths of Christianity, that which touches his eternal interest will excite much deeper feelings than that which is limited to his temporal concerns; but Legislators in directing the operation of those truths should bear in mind that they are not the means of excitement; they are the blessed means of eternal salvation. The hon. and learned Member says, that the measure of the Government, to which he has particularly referred, savours of preference to what he terms "one sect," for that is the expression used in the resolution. I beg to state to the House what I strongly feel on this subject. I am sincerely attached to the Church of England. It is established by law, and, being so established, has obtained a preference at the hands of the Legislature; but I never can forget that the principles of toleration are also established and sanctioned by law; and the moment it became my duty to deal with a scheme of compulsory education, and the bill is strictly so limited, from that moment I felt it my duty to endeavour to combine the two principles of respect for the claims of the Established Church on the one hand, and of equal respect for the conscientious scruples of Dissenters on the other. The hon. and learned Member, and I am afraid the Dissenters both in and out of the House, are not satisfied with the term toleration, but they contend for the principle of perfect equality. Now, I do think that while the Church of England remains established, the preference must be given in favour of that Establishment, and I am entitled to argue the case thus: I will put the case that there is a school established, which is presided over by one master; (I assume, for the reasons which I have already stated, that it is the imperative duty of the Legislature to adopt a system of education by which the Scriptures must be taught) there being, then, children of Churchmen, professing the religion favoured by the State, and it being necessary that the Scriptures should be taught, the question remains—every care being taken that no particular tenet on which any doctrinal difference exists shall be inculcated, and it being necessary also that the master shall be of some creed—is it too much to ask that the creed professed by the master shall be the creed of the Established Church? I say that as a Minister of the Crown —that Crown being the head of the Church established by law, I should be- tray my duty if I made any concession on this point. Conscientiously I cannot do it—as a Minister I believe it would not be consistent with my duty—as a Member of Parliament I should not be true to my private judgment. To every security that can be given, or can be asked, where education is compulsory, to prevent the undue inculcation of peculiar tenets, I think the Dissenter is fairly entitled, and such securities shall have my cordial support. Nor have I shown myself unwilling to make concession for that object. The Roman Catholics object to the reading of the authorised version of the Scriptures; they have conscientious scruples on the point, and it has been thought necessary to admit such scruples. But on the part of the great body of Dissenters, so far from their objecting to free access being had to the Scriptures, I do not believe that they would be satisfied with any system of education which debarred them from their free use. The whole difficulty turns on this point; can you find security against the undue inculcation of peculiar tenets, if the master shall profess the religion of the Established Church? I believe that my bill provides sufficient security. I shall be ready to discuss that point when the measure shall be in committee; but I do not think it advisable to dwell further upon it now. I should be grieved if anything that I have now said should aggravate the difficulties of the question, when it shall be brought forward. I am anxious to discuss it in the most frank and cordial spirit; but I must repeat to the hon. and learned Gentleman that by forcing on this discussion, on the present occasion, he has much increased the difficulties of the future consideration of the measure, and has, I must say, offered some obstruction to its further progress. The hon. and learned Member says, that he was forcibly struck with a statement made by my noble Friend, the Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley) when he enlarged upon the gross unhappy, and heathenish ignorance which prevails among the lower classes in some parts of the manufacturing districts. The desultory and uncombined efforts of Churchmen and Dissenters, have not been sufficient, to prevent this unhappy state of things. The safety of the community demands that some attempt should be made to penetrate the darkness which prevails. I should have neglected my duty if I had not called upon the Legislature to sanction a combined effort to attain so desirable an object. Whatever may be the result of the attempt, I, for one, shall not regret that it has been made. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made use of an expression which is extremely happy in itself, and which has fully conveyed to the House my feelings upon this subject; he said that the Legislature, as a Legislature, should be the guide of the people, and that we should endeavour to lead them the right way. That is exactly what I hold to be the duty of the House. We are bound to guide the people and to lead them in the way that they should go. Upon this subject the immortal Hooker has truly said:—

"There is a politic use of religion. Men fearing God are thereby a great deal more effectually than by positive laws, restrained from doing evil, for these laws have no further power than over our outward actions only: whereas unto men's inward cogitations, unto the privy intents and motions of their hearts, religion serveth for a bridle. What more savage, wild, and cruel than man, if he see himself able either by fraud to over-reach, or by power to overbear the laws whereunto he should be subject? Wherefore, in so great boldness to offend, it behoveth that the world should be held in awe, not by a vain surmise, but by a true apprehension of somewhat, which no man may think himself able to withstand; and this is the politic use of religion."

I say, that if you would restrain the people from the commission of crime, it must be by such means. But I do not believe, that any exertions of man, or of human knowledge, can succeed, if we neglect that which is the great guide to truth, I mean the Holy Scriptures; and I am satisfied that in England, whosoever attempts to proceed on the assumption that the people of this country could be educated without the aid of the Scriptures, and that it would be wise to exclude the Scriptures from a system of national education, would commit the grossest error. I may have erred in the mode of carrying out my views; at the right time I shall be prepared to enter into a discussion upon that point; but, for reasons which I have already frankly stated, I am bound to assure the House that it is impossible for me to assent to this resolution: and I hope the House will agree with me in this view. I do not think that the resolution is accurate in point of fact—that it will be politic to agree to it—that it can be practically carried out. It is certainly at variance with the proposition which 1 have submitted to the House, but it is not. on that ground that I propose to reject it; I reject it on the grounds put by the hon. and learned Member himself—that it is an abstract proposition—an abstract proposition fraught with great practical consequences, and my belief is, that those consequences would be injurious to the country. Entertaining this opinion, I am bound to meet the motion with a direct, negative.

The Roman Catholic population of this country is already so considerable, the Irish immigration into the factory districts is so great, that being a member of that Church, to which there exists in this country a tendency to revert, I think myself not unauthorised to take part in a discussion, with which the merits of the Factory Bill are so intimately connected, I frankly acknowledge, that considering the difficulties with which the Government have to contend in reference to all questions relating to the Roman Catholic religion, a concession by no means unimportant has been made to us. It is not rendered imperative on Catholic children to read and to learn the authorised version of the Scriptures, as we entertain the opinion that the sacred writings ought not to be used as a school book, that the rudiments of literature ought not to be taught through its intervention, that an irreverent familiarity with holy writ may lead to its degradation; that the perusal of the bill, unaccompanied with that interpretation which our Church has from the earliest foundation of Christianity, as we conceive, put upon passages which are either obscure or doubtful, is not judicious, and that the unqualified exercise of the right of private judgment must conduce to error, as we hold besides, that facts are recorded in the history of an exceedingly carnal people, which it can answer no useful purpose to bring within the cognizance of childhood, and from which modesty should instinctively turn away,— these, I say, being our sentiments upon a question of much controversy, though differing from our view, you have been sufficiently just to make allowance for what you consider to be our mistake in this regard; and notwithstanding that in this country there prevails a very opposite opinion, although it has been made a point of Protestant honour, that without distinction of age, of sex, or circumstance, the sacred writings shall every where, and by every body, be indiscriminately perused, you have taken our conscientious difficulties into account, and have not insisted that against the will of Roman Catholic parents, their children shall be subjected to the compulsory acquisition of elementary knowledge through the medium of holy writ. That concession having been made, 1 own, that bearing in mind the incalculable importance of applying a remedy to the evils which result from the ignorance which is submitted to prevail in the factory districts, 1 felt that the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government ought not to be resisted on any light and trivial ground, that it ought not to be made the subject of a mere political or sectarian struggle, and that a perverse ingenuity in devising arguments against it, ought not to be indulged. I asked myself whether there was any real practical evil to be apprehended by those who are not in communion with the establishment, and I was anxious, if possible, that my own judgment should yield an acquiescence to the reasons which were urged in favour of the scheme propounded in its ameliorated form, by the right hon. Baronet. It is matter to me of unaffected regret, that after giving the plan the best consideration in my power, I have not been able to arrive at a conclusion favourable to the measure; for while I am aware that the professors of my religion are exempt from the necessity of receiving instruction, in the sacred writings in a form to which they object, I feel, in the first place, that an unnecessary and therefore illegitimate predominance was given to the Church, and that it was my duty to look to the Government plan, not merely with reference to the manner in which my own individual religion was affected, but to the general usefulness of the scheme, to its compatibility with the principles of religious liberty, the maintenance of which is as important as the diffusion of knowledge. Not only is the Board constituted in such a way as to deprive Dissenters, although a majority of the rate-payers, of their just share of influence, but the master of the school, by whom the Scriptures are to be taught, must be ex necessitate a member of the Church. Now, if it be right that Catholics should be exempted from the necessity of reading the Scriptures at ell, is it just that Dissenters should be exempted from instruction through the medium of an episcopal delegate, in the Scriptures, of which the exposition is confided to him. The right hon. Baronet took a distinction between expounding and interpreting, but it is of a character so subtile that no ordinary casuist could have struck upon it. Not only is an ascendency given to the Church against which a not unnatural pride on the part of Dissenters revolts, but opportunities of proselytism, the more dangerous because the better disguised, are afforded. The more accomplished, the more skilful, the more zealous the churchman is, the more likely he will be to avail himself of the facilities with which he will be obviously supplied. Would the right hon. Baronet permit an adroit, persuasive Catholic to teach the Scriptures to a child in whose orthodoxy he felt a concern? I very much doubt it. He should, therefore excuse Dissenters for objecting to the influence with which men will be endowed in public schools, whose dogmas are almost as much at variance with those of Dissenters as "the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Putting all considerations of the progress which has been made by the dogmas of men who, to the honour of Dr. Pusey, are designated by a reference to his name, there is so signal a difference between the opinions of Dissenters and those of genuine Churchmen upon the doctrine of succession and the power of the priesthood founded on the Scriptures, that if there were nothing else, it would afford a reason for objection. The Bishop of Exeter, who is not, I believe, as yet attached to the Oxonian school of Theology, has, in his charge, claimed prerogatives and powers as great as any to which the most absolute prelate of the ancient Church could put in his title. If even to the assumptions of that conspicuous Pontiff a Dissenter might reasonably object, the spread of Puseyism must awaken and, fortiori fear. It is notorious that although the external aspect of the Church remains superficially the same, it has undergone a great internal change. Men of distinguished talent, of exemplary lives, of great learning and piety, have from motives the best and purest, made an eloquent announcement of opinions, in more strict conformity with the tenets of the Catholic church than with the principles of the Reformation. Those opinions have been adopted by laymen highly born and bred, remarkable for their proficiency in literature, for the gracefulness of their minds, and their persuasive manners. The new, or rather the revived doctrines have made great way among the clergy, who have begun to display the zeal, the energy, the devotedness and enthusiasm by which the missionaries of that church to which they have approximated, are distinguished. As yet these tenets have perhaps made no considerable progress among the mass of the people, but for the people those tenets possess great allurements. If Protestantism, says Madame de Stael, appeals to the understanding, Catholicism addresses itself to the heart. How largely have the Puseyites borrowed from that portion of our religious system, which truth exalts, consoles, which raises us above the sphere of ordinary thinking, chases despair from anguish, restores to us "the loved, the lost, the distant and the dead," pours into minds the most deeply hurt the most healing balm, ministers to the loftiest hope, and awakens those imaginings, which to use the Miltonian phrase, "brings all heaven before our eyes." Aware of the attractiveness of our tenets, those who regard them as a delusion, not unnaturally conceive that against these allurements, more than ordinary caution is necessary, and tremble at the influence which may be exercised with so much facility at a period of life when the first and the most permanent impressions are confessedly made in the inculcation of doctrines for which they conceive that no scriptural sanction can be adduced. It may be said that their apprehensions are ill founded, and that care will be taken by the prime minister that no heterodox ecclesiastic shall be raised to the episcopal dignity; but, sir, we must bear in mind that proof is almost every day afforded us of the appositeness of Lord North's remark, that "the first thing a bishop does is to forget his maker." Witness Dr. Daly, who was named a bishop in Ireland the other day, and immediately after poured out an anathama against, the Government scheme of education in Ireland. But even with regard to the prime minister's nomination, what security have the Dissenters got, beyond such intimations as a cheer affords? Among the supporters of the right hon. Baronet, are there not men distinguished by their talents, with more than a leaning to the new theology. Nay, was not Lord Morpeth himself sternly reproved on one remarkable occasion for railing at the Oxonian Professors, by a distinguished gentleman, who is favourable to freedom in trade, but a monopolist of truth? And if it be thought that I ought not, to refer to an incident so remote, and before the hon. Gentleman was in office, let me be permitted to ask, whether not many nights ago, there were not remonstrances addressed to the Member for Kent of a very significant sort, by Gentlemen whom the cheering of the Prime Minister did not deter from a confession of their creed? The fact is, it is hard to know who is, or who is not a Puseyite. I have even heard it made a question whether the Representative of Oxford himself does not to a certain extent, and more especially on the eve of a dissolution sympathize with the divines, by whom so great and just an influence is enjoyed in the learned localities where their talents and their devotion are pre-eminently displayed. I have heard it said that he must have a most difficult card, which few but himself could play; for my part, I do not believe that he is a Protestant in one college, and a pseudo Catholic in another, I do not believe that he adopts any of those amenities for which a celebrated order in the Catholic church, distinguished by their genius and erudition, are supposed to have had recourse for the advancement of truth: my opinion is, that while he adheres to the principles of genuine Protestantism, he is forgiven on his canvass for the sake of certain associations with Popery which are irresistibly suggested by the hon. Baronet. But whatever may be the religious predilections of the representative of Oxford, of the inclinations of Oxford itself there can be little doubt. Can we wonder then that the Dissenters should object to a surrender of their schools to the Church, when the Church itself derives its own instruction from what Dissenters consider a contaminated source? It is from these considerations that the fears of the Dissenters originate, and to those considerations we must ascribe the extraordinary excitement which has been manifested through the country, and the enormous mass of petitions with which your Table has been loaded. The Church-rate agitation was not comparable in its fervour to that which we have lately witnessed. The Dissenters were far more disposed to give you up their money than their creed. Besides the payment of Church-rates is an abuse which the law has long sanctioned, which time has consecrated, and which if not venerable is at all events hoary: but in the present instance you propose an innovation against the liberty of conscience, and utterly at variance with the spirit of modern legislation. This is a relapse into intolerance. Before the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, it might have been reasonable enough—no it would never have been reasonable, — but it would have been consistent enough to have claimed this exclusiveness for the Church:—but now it is anomalous indeed. The Tory party resisted the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act as long as they could: at length in 1828 the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government gave way, and passed a measure which was the precursor of emancipation. Having passed that measure why does he upon a collateral question adhere to a policy wholly inconsistent with it? But on the part of the Home Secretary the incongruity is still more glaring. He was not driven into the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts: he supported the noble Lord on his first introduction of the bill. You will tell me perhaps, that the Test and Corporation Act has nothing to do with this bill. I answer that the great principle on which it was founded, of removing every obstruction which religious differences had created, is in direct antagonism to the basis of your scheme, and that it is most absurd that Dissenters should be admissible to this House, to every office of dignity and of influence under the Crown, to the highest place in the Cabinet itself, and yet should be excluded from all influence in those schools which are to be sustained by rates raised from those very Dissenters; upon whom this most offensive disqualification is to be inflicted. The schools are local, are to be supported by a local rate and not a national fund—the district, not the state, is to be taxed for their maintenance; is it not monstrous, then, that in those localities where these Dissenters constitute a majority, they should be made the object of this wanton legislative affront— you don't pursue this course in Ireland— Why? Because the majority of the people are Catholic. But in the districts where local schools are to be supported with local imposts, the majority are in many instances Dissenters. The Church, there-fore, cannot insist that in right of their general tutelage of the national mind,! they are entitled to the control which is given them by this bill; and I am at a loss to discover what they conceive it will profit them to exercise a power so invidious as that which they are now seeking to obtain. What have they to dread from the imaginary influence of dissent in the schools which it is proposed to establish? Let them consider the bulwarks by which the Church, in reference to national instruction, is already sustained, and let them dismiss their fears of any evil effect which these schools can have on its stability. Is not Cambridge, is not Oxford theirs? In Durham have they not gained an university? Are not all the great seminaries in which the gentry of this aristocratic country are educated, in their keeping? Have they not a direct Masterdom over almost every place of public instruction, where the men, who are to will the destinies of England receive the elements of instruction? Do not a vast body of the middle classes draw their first intellectual nutriment from the bosom of the Church, and can you turn your eyes to any part of this great kingdom, in which you do not find the Church already exercising an influence over education, which it is impossible to distrust? With these vast advantages is not the Church contented, but must she needs, after having herself most reprehensibly neglected the education of the poor, when a measure is proposed to rescue the infant operative from the degradation and the depravity of ignorance, is she to come forward with her pretensions, and claim, as a matter of ecclesiastical prerogative, the instruction of the factory infants, on whom she never cast a thought away before? What has the Church to dread? Has she reason to tremble at the influence of dissent among the lower classes of the manufacturing population? If she is in the possession of the truth, wherefore does she not manifest the security which the consciousness of its possession should inspire? If she is built upon a rock, why should she dread that the gates of Gehenna shall prevail against her, and as she has retained so much of the old religion (the Americans call England the old country, you should call the Catholic, the old religion), as she has retained so much of its doctrines, and prefers the title of Anglo Catholic to any other designation, why does she not copy her great predecessor in that attribute, which a convert from your establishment, and one of the greatest ornaments of your literature so well ascribed to her?

"Without unspotted, innocent within,

"She feared no danger, for she knew no sin."

If there be any danger which she has cause to apprehend, it is that which must result from the hostility which she will produce among all classes of Dissenters by the unjust assumption of antiquity, who will beyond all question be arrayed against her, if she has the misfortune to succeed in her unjustifiable pretensions. She will embody and array together all those sects which have now no common bond of union, and even among the Wesleyans, who are supposed to adhere to her by some sort of ligament or other, she will produce an antipathy which it is most unwise to create. I have often heard the Wesleyan Methodists made the theme of conservative panegyric. The most distinguished tories, especially at the eve of a general election, have been lavish in their encomiums on this powerful body: what a mistake it is to enter into a quarrel with them upon what is a mere point of punctilio with the Church? Instead of trespassing upon their rights, why does not the Church follow their example, and become their honorable competitor in the work of education? If it be of importance that the lower orders should cling to the Church, has not the Church some better expedient for the retention of its adherents than the invasion of religious freedom? Monopolies in religion are like all other monopolies—they retard improvement. It will do no harm to put the Church upon the necessity of exertion, and teach her that instead of relying on any unjust predominance, she should resort to more legitimate endeavours to secure an honorable influence among the humbler classes of the people. It is by piety, by benevolence, by zeal, by meekness, and by humility, by the association in the primitive doctrine of primitive practice, that an influence most useful to the country and most honorable to the establishment will be extended. Let the Church herself with the opportunities, incalculably great, which her affluence affords her—let her prelates—be distinguished for munifi- cence: let them look on the noble structures which the Bishops of the olden time have left as monuments of their pious disinterestedness through the length and width of all the land; let them in raising many a great moral edifice emulate that generous example: let her priests become the associates, the friends, the auxiliaries, the protectors, the Consolers of the afflicted, the humble and the poor; let them not only by their persuasiveness, allure to brighter worlds, but let them by their example "lead the way." Let religion be recommended by the practice of the Church, and in the Christian assemblage of persuasive virtues let the Protestant Propaganda be found; but let not the Church from a sacerdotal passion for ascendancy, from a love of clerical predominance, thwart the great work of education, and incur the awful responsibility of becoming instrumental in the propagation of all the vices, which ignorance has spawned upon the country'. At the conclusion of the very remarkable speech in which the. Secretary for the Home Department introduced the measure which was so ably propounded by him, he called on us to "raise up our hearts," and to rise above all lowly prejudice in the achievement of a great moral purpose. It is to the Church itself that this " sur-sum corda," this invocation, taken from the antient ritual of Catholicism, should be addressed; he should adjure the body over which he exercises so great and natural an influence, and for which he has made great sacrifices, to ascend above every inferior consideration, and to regard the instruction of the people as paramount to every other object. The right hon. Baronet has again and again protested his strong anxiety to render his measure acceptable to the great mass of the community, and to introduce such modifications as should meet all just objections. I trust that his professions may be realized, and as he told us that he wonld send forth his bill in the hope that it would receive the public sanction and indicate that the "waters of strife had subsided," let me be permitted to hope that he will associate with that image another incident connected with the primeval history of mankind, and bear in mind that every colour was united in distinctness without predominance, that token of peace which God set in the cloud, as a covenant of his reconciliation with the world.

regretted that the present discussion had taken place, as he did not conceive that it was calculated to promote the object which they all ought to have in view. The right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had adopted a most unfounded and mistaken opinion as to the view taken by the Church of England on this subject. As an humble Member of that Church, he would say that the Church had no thought or notion of wishing to obtain power by supporting this or any other political measure. While the Dissenters had expressed their opinions so loudly, as to this measure, the opinion of the Church had been given passively, and passively only—and this was because the Church conceived that this was a measure with which it had no right to interfere. It was a measure brought forward as one of State policy, and only on this ground he supported it. He was sure that the only object of the Government in bringing forward this bill, and in giving power to the Church under it, was because the Government was convinced that that body alone could successfully work it out in consequence of the superior organisation of the Church. If this were not to be done what was the use of a Church establishment at all. He did not understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by some peculiar and internal change in the structure of the Church of England. He really could not contemplate, in his imagination, what the right hon. Gentleman alluded to. All that could here be meant was, that there had been a revival in the energies of the Church of England, and that it had reestablished some of its ceremonies, and brought forward some of its doctrines, which had laid for some time, historically speaking, dormant. No doubt the new energies which had shown themselves in the Church, had been accompanied in their development with a certain degree of violence and exaggeration, which it could be wished had been avoided; but these temporary incidents could not affect the utility of the general result. There had been this internal change in the Church of England; a change such as Wesley and Whitfield would have been delighted to see. There had been an advance made by its members, not only in personal piety but in historical learning; a great advance also in many matters that involved great hopes and schemes of public good. This was the change, the only change which he could recognise in the Church establishment; and he was sure it was the only one which her Majesty's Government had in their contemplation when they framed the present measure. He must say that the way the present measure had been received throughout the country was, in his opinion, a subject for the profoundest sorrow. He could not say which party was in the right, the Churchmen or the Dissenters; but he did say that lit was sad indeed, when they saw any Government, whether the present Government or their predecessors, coming forward with a scheme of great public utility, and meeting, instead of co-operation, the most pertinacious religious animosity. It was hard to say, if such a line of conduct were systematically to be pursued, whether it would not become necessary to adopt the measure of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, as the sole resource which was left them to mitigate the mental and moral destitution of the country. He only expressed his own opinion, but he did think that if public opinion remained so divided, and if both parties continued so obstinate, if the Dissenters would yield nothing towards the superior organization of the Church, and the Church would yield nothing to the peculiar sentiments of the Dissenters, he did not see that they could come to any other alternative but some such scheme as that proposed by the hon. Member for Bath. He called on Hon. Members on both sides, who saw this necessity before them, and saw in it a virtual abrogation of the national profession of Christianity, to come forward and unite in endeavouring to frame some scheme to avoid such an event. For his part, Churchman as he was, he would rather that the people should be educated in any creed of dissent, than that the factory children throughout the land should be left in their present state of mental destitution; and with this feeling he did earnestly call upon the House to avert from them the danger of perpetual darkness which now threatened them. The Members of her Majesty's Government had shown great willingness to hear anything that could be urged against this plan, and to concede to many things that might seem almost to savour of prejudice. There was every desire to meet the wishes of the great mass of the people throughout the country upon this important subject; and, therefore, he again adjured every Member of the House, ex- cept the very small minority who would vote with the hon. and learned Member for Bath on the present occasion, to avert from the country the mournful alternative which was now proposed to them, but which, as he had already said, he would rather accept than see a continuance of the total ignorance and mental depravity which prevailed throughout the factory districts of this country.

as he could not give his vote in favour of the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, wished to state shortly his views upon this subject. In the first place, he must confess that what had been said by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and by the right, hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, in reference to the conduct of the Dissenters on this subject, had a little surprised him. All that could be said of the Dissenters was, that they had refused to accept the particular plan which had been proposed by the right hon. Baronet. They had not been asked to propose any measure of their own, and because they had not offered any such, they were accused of intolerance and impracticability. On the subject of education, he maintained that the Dissenters were entitled to tolerance and equality. There were, undoubtedly, some matters in which the Church of England was, entitled to peculiar privileges, but, in the matter of education, Dissenters were entitled to perfect equality. The hon. and learned Member for Bath contended, that because of the difficulty of teaching peculiar religious opinions, without involving an increase of religious animosities, that the instruction of the public should be of a purely secular nature. He was not prepared to come to this conclusion. Whilst he admitted the first part of the premises, namely, the difficulties which would attach to any attempt to teach peculiar religious opinions, he still thought that the Bible ought to be the basis of any national system of education. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department a contradiction of the impression which had very generally prevailed, that the national system of education in Ireland had entirely failed. Upon this subject he would beg to refer to the report of the commission on schools in Ireland, published in 1812, which stated that they had,

"Applied their best efforts to frame a system which would afford the opportunities of education to every description of the lower classes, keeping clear of any interference with the peculiar tenets of any particular sect, and induce them all to join as one undivided body in the same establishment."

He was glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet that this laudable project had not failed, whilst the reports showed that those who participated in the advantages which it offered were increasing. With this example before him, he would not give up the hope that some combined system of education might succeed in this country, and he was not prepared to yield to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that amid the difficulties which surrounded the question of national education, there was no other resource but to adopt a scheme in which the course of instruction should be confined to purely secular subjects. He should refer, as an instance in point, to the British and Foreign School Society. There they had a combined system of education, of which the Bible was the basis; and he hoped that the time was come when the Church of England would take a more enlarged and liberal view of the subject in regard to this country. They saw that in Ireland the Protestant and the Catholic combined in the cause of education, and they were told that the system succeeded; and he could not see why in England a similar scheme might might not be adopted with similar results. But as the right hon. Baronet said, that the schoolmaster must be a member of the Church of England, he presumed that this was the determination of the whole Cabinet; and he (Mr. Hawes) believed that he spoke the sentiments of every Dissenter throughout the land, when he said that they could not accept this proposition as a measure of conciliation, or as one likely to carry out the scheme of national education on any principle of liberality or public utility. On the other hand, with regard to the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he would venture to say, that throughout the wide extent of the country, no system of education could be acceptable to the great body of the Dissenters, which excluded the Bible from its course of study; and he for one hoped he should never see any system adopted which attempted to exclude from the pupil a free and entire access to the truths of Holy Writ, [Cheers.] He knew the meaning of that cheer. It was implied that the Dissenters were already provided with pastors and instructors on the subject of religion. He admitted the merit and the industry of those reverend pastors in their several occupations; but he knew also the importance of early impressions and trains of thought on such subjects, and he thought that if the Bible were excluded from the ordinary course of education and left only to a collateral share in the instruction of the people, they would not have that security of a scriptural basis for their education, which he for one wished to see. He looked upon the Bible as the best foundation, not only of religious but of civil liberty, and he appealed to all the momentous struggles in the cause of constitutional freedom in this country, where the Bible had always been the basis and the text-book of our greatest patriots. He did not wish to anticipate the discussion which might take place on this important subject. He feared, from the tone and temper of the public mind, which had, he thought, been somewhat justly excited by the speech of the right hon. Baronet, that there would be much difficulty in bringing it to a calm and satisfactory issue. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath that, in matters of education, there should be a strict equality. Education implied equality and they could not do justice to that proposition without giving the pauper the means of education, and of an education such as he could accept; and, therefore, he, on behalf of the poor man, would not waive a single claim which he could have on the community for the means of education.

said he could not shrink from the challenge cast at him by the right hon. Member for Dungarvon [Mr. Shell.] Whatever other faults might be attributed to him (Sir R. H. Inglis), at least it could not be said that he had ever shrunk from an open declaration of his opinion, or from his openly recording his vote, whenever any question came legitimately before him in that House. But whilst he was always prepared to do this, he would resist any attempt to interrogate him as to his private opinions upon religious subjects. The right hon. Member for Dungarvon himself, he dare say, would not allow him (Sir R. H. Inglis) to ask him what was his opinion in respect to the dispute between the Jansenists and the Jesuits, or that other dispute between the Franciscans and Dominicans, in respect to which the church of Rome to this day never pronounced an opinion. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) claimed for himself the selfsame right to hold his own opinions upon matters of religion without interrogations from the right hon. Member or others in that House. The right hon. Member could not accuse him of having wavered in his opinions as to the impolicy of admitting persons holding the religious tenets of the right hon. Gentleman within the walls of that House. He gloried in the name of Protestant, and that was the only answer he could give to any catechetical address the right hon. Gentleman might put to him. Having now been called upon his legs, he would state in few sentences his opinions upon the subject of national education. He thought that nothing could be worthy the name of education which did not bring out the higher qualities of man, and promote his eternal destinies; and he did not see how this could be done without some definite form of instruction on the subject of religion. To supply this sort of education he thought the Church of England was best adapted, whilst she was also constitutionally and historically entitled to claim this high authority and privilege, of instructing the people of this country, not only in what would make them good subjects here, but also in what rested their hopes hereafter. Stripped and spoiled as the church had been in the lapse of time, still she was complete in her organization, and would be prepared to meet the exigencies of the present case, if the state would give back to her the means which it had taken from her centuries ago. If the state would give up to the church such means as the education of the people would require, he believed that the church would prove itself the best medium of conveying throughout the land the advantages of education. He could hardly believe it possible that the House, which had received with such enthusiasm the address of the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, describing the state of almost heathenism which existed in the northern districts of the country, would now refuse the means of giving vitality to the philanthropic views propounded by the noble Lord, in the form of a proportionate grant of public money. He should observe that it was quite as easy to carry out the proposed system of christian education, as that now proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He would entreat the House not to suffer the speech of his noble Friend, made two months ago, to pass from their recollection. Had a vote been proposed at the conclusion of the speech, the House could not have resisted an appeal so made and so sustained. But he would go further and say that, if the right hon. Baronet had proposed a grant of the public money for the purpose, he might have obtained it without difficulty. Of this he was quite sure, that, if the right hon. Baronet had proposed a grant for the purpose of carrying out a system of church education, he would have obtained to such a proposition quite as much support from his own side of the House, while he would have excited no more opposition from the other side than he had already experienced to his mitigated plan of church extension, which had occasioned so much horror in the minds of hon. Members opposite. He believed the hon. and learned Member did not intend to divide upon his resolution. [Mr. Roebuck: "Yes I do."] Then he should give to that resolution his most cordial opposition.

thought, although he should vote for the motion, that the course adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Bath was not the most judicious that could have been adopted. He objected to the phraseology of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham), which was not such as was likely to conciliate the dissenters and dispose them favourably towards his measure. The founder of the Wesleyans had been alluded to, but he knew that that body would be the last persons to agree to the right hon. Baronet's bill. The schism at present existing in the Church of England had awakened a feeling of distrust on the part of the Wesleyans towards the establishment, which it would be impossible to allay. He would not, however, enter into the question of the educational clauses; the time for that would be when the right hon. Baronet brought on his amended bill. The dissenters would maintain the position which they held; it was a defensive, not an offensive one, against the aggressive principle of the Government education scheme.

objected in reply to the language of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That right hon. Gentleman had stated that he (Mr. Roebuck) proposed to exclude all religious education from the national schools. Now, he had taken care to guard himself most pointedly from any such imputation. What he had said, and what he would still say, was, that so far as the state was concerned it might prepare the youthful mind for the reception of peculiar religious views, which should be taught by the pastors of the sect to which the child belonged. He wished for no sectarian teaching in schools. He would not be a party to making the school-room a scene of the domination of one sect over another, or an area in which to struggle for religious supremacy. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford had talked of his consistency. Yes, the hon. Member was consistent. He began as an opponent of religious liberty, and he would die as he had lived. He had boldly proclaimed that he would maintain the domination of the church, the spirit of which he so fairly represented. The right hon. Baronet opposite, too, had uttered sentiments which would seal the fate of his bill. There was now no mistake in the matter. It was sought to establish the domination of the established church in the schools which were to be paid for by all. He did not mean, as the hon. Member for Lambeth seemed to suppose, to exclude the Bible from schools. He might as well say that he intended to exclude any other book. Those who taught in the national schools would teach in accordance with the general opinion and sentiments of the community. He contended that they must not infringe upon the right of the father to judge for himself and his children. If they did so, they would be breaking down the first principle of Protestantism, that of the recognition of the right of private judgment. He would adhere strictly to his resolution, warning the right hon. Baronet opposite that if he persisted in his bill he would rouse a fearful feeling of opposition to the Church, a feeling which was already sufficiently manifested against the supremacy given her by the Government scheme of education, and which was in great part owing to her Puseyite tendencies. He warned them to be wise in time—to be prepared to admit equality in the schoolroom, whatever they might do in the church, and to say we will commence, not by sowing discord, but by instilling into the people feelings of friendship and good-will towards one another, by ex. eluding from schools the great cause o national discord and heart-burnings.

said, that as his hon. Friend's explanation ([Mr. Hawes had said a few words which the House would not attend to.] had not been fully heard, he was anxious to say a few words in ex planation of the vote he meant to give —that though there was nothing in the words of the motion before the House to show that peculiar religious opinions meant more than differences between various denominations of Christians, ye' as the hon. and learned Member had intended to move this resolution as are amendment upon the third, fourth, and fifth of those of which he had given notice, the first of which three stated that the Holy Scriptures ought to be read in schools, it became impossible not to conclude, that though according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's speed extracts might be allowed to be read from the strictly historical parts of the Old and New Testament, yet that in fact the motion before the House went to prevent the Bible from being read as a school-book.

rose to move for certain papers respecting the French occupation of Tahiti. He understood that his motion would not be opposed, and the papers it related to went only to show what were the recent proceedings of the French government, and what was more important, to calm the feelings of just apprehension entertained by many in this country for the fate of the British missionaries on the island. It would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at any length, but he could not move for these papers without bearing his testimony to the invaluable labours of these estimable men, who for fifty years had been labouring for the promotion of Christianity. These men had been supported by the voluntary contributions of Christians in this country, who took a deep interest in their welfare, and who looked with considerable apprehension to the establishment of French sovereignty in Tahiti. He trusted these apprehensions were without foundation, but he thought it material they should bear in mind the changes which had been effected by these missionaries. The following was the testimony of Admiral Duperre, who visited the island in 1819, and said, in a letter addressed to the then Minister of Marine: —

"The state of the island of Tahiti is now very different from what it was in the days of Cook. The missionaries of the society of London have entirely changed the manners and customs of the inhabitants. Idolatry exists no longer; they profess generally the Christian religion; the women no longer come on board the vessels, and they are very reserved on all occasions. Their marriages are celebrated in the same manner as in Europe, and the King confines himself to one wife. The women are also admitted to the table with their husbands. The infamous society of the Arreois exists no longer; the bloody wars in which the people engaged, and human sacrifices, have entirely ceased since 1816. All the natives can read and write, and have religious books translated into their language printed either at Tahiti, Ulitea, or Eimco. They have built handsome churches, where they repair twice in the week, and show the greatest attention to the discourses of the preacher. It is common to see numerous individuals take notes of the most interesting passages of the sermons they hear. The subjects of Queen Pomare have been already initiated in the rudiments of European civilization. The English missionaries have instructed them in the dogmas of Christianity, and have given them some notion of our arts and our laws. Their garments are like ours; reading and writing are in common use amongst them, and the children are brought up in schools on the Lancasterian plan. They possess a code which guarantees the rights of individuals, as well as of property, and which establishes trial by jury. The people have only required twenty years to become the most enlightened of the Polynesian populations."

He could, in addition, state one fact, which was most honourable to those men, and that was, that they did not possess a foot of land. They looked to moral and social advantages alone. He hoped that the professions recently announced by a distinguished member of the French government—and he had no doubt sincerely entertained — would be faithfully acted upon; but he confessed he thought it was to our own Government the missionaries had to look, and he trusted that the Government would not be found inattentive to their protection. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving an address for,

"Copies or Extracts of a Letter addressed in 1827 by Pomare, Chief of Tahiti, to King George 4th, and of Mr. Canning's reply thereto."

"Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence which may have taken place between her Majesty's Consul at Tahiti, and her Majesty's Government since 1835, relative to the proceedings of the French in Tahiti."

"Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence which may have taken place between her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris and her Majesty's Government, or the French Government, relative to the recent proceedings of the French in Tahiti."

seconded the motion, and cordially concurred in the praises which his right hon. Friend had bestowed on the missionaries. They had achieved, he thought, the greatest miracle of modern times.

expressed a hope that the French might not be allowed to take possession of all the islands.

was ready, on the part of the Government, to confirm by his testimony all the praise which had been given to the missionaries. Their exertions had been very great, and very meritorious. The Government, he could say, had not neglected the opportunity of obtaining from the French government assurances of its intentions, and they were obtained in writing, so that they might be placed on the records of their country. They were to this effect,

"The French Government remains faithful to the three great principles it has ever professed and upheld; first, to afford perfect liberty of worship; secondly, to give all the protection that is due to the subjects of a friendly power; and, lastly, to favour the labours of all those bodies who are extending the benefits of Christianity."

It was a great advantage to have obtained those official declarations from the French government, which enabled him to lay before the British Parliament, in an official form, the solemn assurances which had been received by her Majesty's Government from the government of France.

said the circumstances of the case required that a clear understanding should be come to with the French government. The differences between that government and the Queen of Tahiti begun by a difference between the missionaries of the two religions. The French sent Catholic missionaries to Tahiti, which missionaries were expelled from Tahiti by the native government. The French government thought that the banishment was caused by our missionaries, and the difference arose between the French and the native government in consequence of the differences between the missionaries. He thought, therefore, it would be right to procure a pledge from the French government that the Protestant ministers should not be disturbed.