wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland (Lord Eliot) to the case of two women who were convicted at the late Roscommon assizes for murder, and were left for execution on the 31st of this month. The crime was committed so far back as June, 1843, and the coroner's inquest which had sat on the body of the man alleged to have been murdered, returned a verdict of suicide. Since then, a woman who said she slept in the room where the murder was committed, had come forward to prove that the man was murdered, and his throat afterwards cut to make it appear that he had committed suicide, which was the verdict of the coroner's jury. The jury before whom the case was tried at the assizes, however, had, after twenty-two hours' deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty of the crime of murder against the wife of the deceased and her sister. They had, however, recommended the prisoners to mercy, but the judge, as he understood, had refused to forward that recommendation to Dublin. The chief witness, it appeared, was a woman of very indifferent character, and a very low state of morality existed amongst the whole of the parties implicated. The case seemed to he one well worthy the attention of the Government. If the man had been murdered, an inquiry should be entered into with respect to the conduct of the coroner, before whom only one witness was examined, and who had called no surgeon. The inquest altogether was most unsatisfactory and insufficient, and he wished particularly to call to it the attention of the noble Lord.

thought, that the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view would have been answered by merely calling his attention to the circumstances of the case, without, as he had done, rather overstepping the limits usually observed in putting questions in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman thought that the coroner ought to be called to account for his conduct, but he would recollect that Government had no authority over this officer. With respect to the circumstances of the trial he would undertake to put himself immediately in communication with the Lords Justices in Ireland. He hoped this would be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman.

rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the expediency of a statement being made by the Government respecting the disposal and the results of the outlay of public money voted for the purposes of Education; and also to call the attention of the House to the expediency of promoting the formation of public libraries in the metropolis and provincial towns. It was customary, in voting money for the Navy or Army, for the Member of Government whose department was immediately connected with the destination of that money to make a statement as to how it was to be applied, and as to what were the prospects or exigencies of the department for the service of which it was voted. Now, he did think it would be highly advantageous if this practice were followed with respect to the education estimates. He thought they ought not only to have a statement as to the general application of the funds, but a statement of the prospects of each particular department. They had estimates proposed for various establishments; they had estimates for the schools of design, for the universities, for the National Gallery, and for other institutions of a similar nature. That was an additional reason why they should have a statement on the subject on the part of the Crown. Education had, of late years, been extended into the factory system, to the system of prison discipline, and it had formed portions, more or less, of bills for the amendment of the Poor Law. Now, the Government ought to give them an insight into the alterations which had taken place in the educational establishments during the past year, and into the prospect of their probable improvement. Among the votes for education, there was one for the School of Design. He rejoiced to observe that such schools were spreading through the manufacturing districts, and he hoped the time was not far distant, when the school in London would be a focus from which the other schools might radiate, so as to spread information through the country. The School of Design in London was gradually assuming a more central and normal character, and he trusted that all the schools in the manufacturing districts would become subordinate to it. These schools were of the utmost importance, not only to the arts, but to the commerce and manufactures of the country. The Government, he considered, were bound to lay before them some statement of the progress which had been made, or was intended to be made in improving and fostering these schools. Then there was the general vote for Education. It was an opprobrium to the country in general, that a vote of 30,000l. only had been devoted to that purpose, and he understood that this year there would be a reduction on preceding years. They should have an explanation from the Government as to how that sum had been divided—whether equally divided among all religious denominations, or confined to the British and Foreign, and National School Societies. They ought to have some explanation on this subject from some Member of the Government. There was another most important subject on which information was equally requisite. There had been vast sums left by the pious bequests of our ancestors, which had been at first appropriated and afterwards misappropriated, in the grammar schools of the country. That was a question which must eventually come under the consideration of the Government. They ought to state annually what steps had been taken to place those schools on a proper foundation. He knew not why education, the most important of all subjects, the preventive of crime, that which ought to receive the first consideration from every Government, should have hitherto received the last. They never had a statement made by a Minister of the Crown on the subject of Education; yet, in countries more despotically governed, an annual report on the state of education was made by a Minister of the Crown to the Government which he served. He knew that it would be impossible to make education in this country a strictly Governmental measure. He believed, however, that although Government could not control education, they could do much to promote and assist it, and they would be effecting that object by making such an annual report as he had described. There was another subject to which he wished to call the attention of Government, of the House, and of the country—it was the constitution of public libraries for the general use of the people. It was a most discreditable thing for this country that there was not such a thing as a public library in the sense in which the word was understood on the Continent, from one end of the land to the other. Any gentleman who had entered into a public library abroad—in France, Germany, or Italy—would remember with gratitude the facilities given and the ease with which he could obtain literary information. Here, however, with the exception of that of the British Museum, there was not an institution which could be called a national library. They had libraries connected with Mechanics' Institutes in many of the large towns; but as for libraries to which the poorest man might freely resort, there was no such thing known in the country. Let them contrast in this respect the condition of London with that of Paris. In Paris there were no less than five public libraries open to every class of society, from the highest to the lowest, and to the subject of every country. Libraries had lately been founded by the Emperor of Russia in his dominions, and the King of Saxony had opened a library to the public at Dresden. What would have been the astonishment of these monarchs on their recent visit to this country, had they known that England, so great in every department of art, science, and manufacture, was so deplorably deficient in this most important respect? He trusted that this subject would have the serious consideration of the Government. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would not think it chimerical and impracticable, but would deem it a subject worthy of his immediate and earnest attention.

expressed his concurrence with much of what had fallen from his hon. Friend. Enough had not been done for education; and looking to the state of the country—looking to the rapidly increasing density of the population—increasing without any adequate increase in the means of providing instruction, and thus also giving increased facilities to their being led away by designing men—he could not help regarding the prospect with great anxiety. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that it was not desirable to make education completely governmental. The experiment made last year proved that there was not among the different religious sects of this country sufficient toleration (and in this respect he thought Dissenters were as much to blame as Churchmen, and Churchmen as Dissenters)—there was not sufficient toleration among men of different religious opinions to render it possible that anything like a public system of education could be created with advantage. But although the experiment of last year could not be renewed with advantage, it was deserving of the consideration of Government, whether more might not be done in the direction of that which had been already attempted. He wished to see measures taken with a view to stimulating the people themselves to increased exertions in the cause of education. Moderate as the grants hitherto made for education had been, they had greatly stimulated private effort, and he wished to see the Government taking further steps in the same direction. It was possible to do a great deal at a very small expense in this way. Schools had been lately very generally established throughout the country, but much yet remained to be done. He would suggest that the all-important object might be attained—that at all events much might be done towards creating a general desire for the best education, if a partial examination were now and then instituted into the acquirements of the children brought up in different schools in a district. In each district, examiners appointed by Government might open examinations, which the children brought up in the various schools might voluntarily attend. He would propose in this matter strictly to carry out the voluntary system. At first, it was true, but very little effect might be produced by these examinations, but he thought that a change in that respect would very speedily take place. If the system were commenced, and certificates granted to those children who had made most progress, it would speedily be found that these certificates would be of much value to those who obtained them. They would have the preference in competing for employment in which education and intelligence was of value. But Government might also bring candidates to these examinations by holding out more substantial rewards to a few of the children. This could be done at no expense whatever. They all knew how earnestly situations in the lower ranks of the public service were looked for among the classes likely to send their children to these schools, and if a few such situations—as those of tide-waiters for example—were made prizes for perseverance, attention, and ability, the hope of winning them would attract great numbers of persons to these examinations. By a small sacrifice of patronage this important object might be attained by Government. Parents would then look out for the best schools to which to send their children, so as to give them the best chance of winning future employment and emolument. He was sure the Government would not allow the consideration of petty patronage to stand in the way of such a scheme as that which he contemplated and recommended. Indeed he thought it would be rather a relief to them than otherwise to have the means of introducing into the lower ranks of the public service persons selected on account of superior qualifications, and not, as at present, more in consequence of influence or favour. It was quite manifest, that men imperfectly educated (as, to the disgrace of the Legislature, too many of the working classes unfortunately were), had very inadequate means of judging of the qualifications of the different schools to which they might send their children. But such an examination as he proposed would give a plain and simple test of capability which no man could mistake. It would besides render schools as efficient as possible. The Government would have, also, the means of judging who were the parties deserving of reward; and he could not help thinking that some small proportion of the Government grant for education might be most usefully employed in giving rewards to those who were the best schoolmasters. It would be very easy to provide that, after a certain number of years' service (and he did not think it should be a small number), schoolmasters should be entitled to some small pension from the State. He believed that a comparatively small sum expended in this way would go further than any other plan to raise the general standard of qualification on the part of schoolmasters. He looked upon this as the most important object which they could now have in view with reference to education. He was perfectly aware this was not a time for entering into details; but feeling that it was a subject of intense importance, and that the Government and Parliament had not yet done as much as was desirable with respect to it, he thought this not an improper opportunity to suggest the carrying further an attempt already partially successful in stimulating the private efforts in favour of education. Believing that from the unfortunate feeling that prevailed amongst different parties on the subject of education that a Government measure was impossible, the only thing that remained was to stimulate the private efforts in favour of education.

thought there would be great difficulties in the way of appointing a separate minister for Education. To multiply the responsible Ministers of the Crown was not desirable. He thought the object of the hon. Gentleman might be effected by leaving the control over this question to the Secretary for the Home Department, whose duty it was to attend to our internal concerns of which none was more important than Education. But the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the Government had already appointed a Committee on the subject, which, by clubbing the information and local information of each, was likely to answer every purpose that could be effected by the Executive. He held in his hand the Report of that Committee. He was very much afraid that Gentlemen made motions in that House, and called for reports, whilst they neglected the information already supplied. If hon. Gentlemen would only read the minutes of the Council for Education during 1842 and 1843, they would find that they contained a vast amount of information. The Government had put this information in a form somewhat more inviting than the usual Blue Book. They had already increased the vote for Education, and he was sure, if the occasion required it, that the House would respond to an additional demand for such an object. On one point he certainly concurred with the noble Lord. He thought if the patronage of the Government could be applied to promote the cause of education by giving situations to persons who had distinguished themselves at the public examination of the Government schools, it would be a most wise application of public patronage. Any loss of patronage sustained by a political party would be amply compensated by the advantages that must result from such a system. It was the duty of every administration, irrespective of party interests, to strengthen the foundations of good Government, and they could not do so more effectually than by stimulating the efforts of those who were anxious to distinguish themselves in point of education. He was afraid, however, there were some practical difficulties on account of the age at which the education at those schools was provided. If they were of an academical character, and the education there provided was for youths of seventeen or eighteen, he should not hesitate to accede to the proposal of the noble Lord. But he was afraid that the boys at the Government schools left them at a very early age—eleven or twelve—and that to hold out to them the prospect that they might then choose a profession, but that when they arrived at the age of eighteen they might depend on getting some Government situation, would be doing them anything but a service. But if it were found possible to apply some subordinate patronage of Government as a stimulus to education, he should not merely not object to such a proposal, but he thought it the most legitimate application of the public money. The jealousy manifested with respect to public education had its evils, in preventing a large number of persons from receiving the benefits of mental culture; but it showed an independent spirit which ought to be respected.

was perfectly satisfied with the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman, that he would consider his suggestion, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not only consider the possibility of giving premiums, but of providing an impartial examination.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any provision for public libraries?

He could not consider any moral obligation stronger than that on great manufacturers to provide libraries for those employed by them. When they gained thousands and tens of thousands through the labouring classes, he could not conceive a more fitting return than to do all in their power to elevate the mental character of those whom they employed. He believed that many such libraries were established.

Not libraries open to all as in other countries.

He thought the hon. Gentleman did the manufacturers injustice, for many of them had, he believed, provided, if not open libraries, at least libraries to which the price of admission was a very small sum. He should be sorry to see the Government interfering in a matter which had much better be left to private exertion.—Subject at an end.

called the attention of the House to the case of Mr. Rolls, who had been dismissed from his situation of landing waiter, because he did not divulge to his superior officer an offer which had been made to him, in 1840, to participate in the Custom frauds. It appeared he made a private memorandum of the fact, which was found in 1842, and on this discovery he was dismissed. The Commissioners of Inquiry had recommended his reinstatement, but though he was paid his salary, and had been offered another situation for a year, the Lords of the Treasury would not agree to re-appoint him. He begged to move that the

"Petition of Mr. Joseph Henry Rolls be referred to a Select Committee, to report their opinion thereupon, with the Evidence, to the House."

defended the conduct of the Board of Customs. The Board of Customs made a Report, in which they discussed the circumstances of the case, and stated that they could not place in Mr. Rolls that confidence which should be reposed in every officer of the public service. In these circumstances that letter was written which had been read to the House by his right hon. Friend, in which the Treasury stated, that as he had been deprived of the confidence of his department, they did not consider it consistent with their duty to replace him in the situation he had filled. This communication was accompanied by the intimation that the salary should be paid up to the period when the decision was communicated to him. His hon. Friend stated that an offer of another situation had been made to Mr. Rolls, and this was perfectly correct. It was felt at the Treasury that though Mr. Rolls might not have been deficient in integrity, as was stated by the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry, there were circumstances of want of judgment, which had entailed on the Customs serious consequences, and which might naturally prevent the Board from having him placed under them in a situation of trust; but still the Treasury did not consider that this ought to operate as an entire disqualification of Mr. Rolls for further employment. An offer was made to him of an office of a temporary character, the only one at the disposal of the Treasury, in testimony that they did not consider his integrity impaired. On the whole, no other course could have been pursued consistently with the interests of the public service.

said, the situation offered to Mr. Rolls was that of registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, and it could not have been expected that a man of unimpeached integrity, who had filled an office so much higher, should have accepted of it, particularly as he had a right to insist that he should be reinstated. He was satisfied that the public did not yet know who were the real parties to the Custom-house frauds, and he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman refused to give the evidence on which it was founded.

said, the Board of Customs and the Treasury could have followed no other course than that which, on due consideration of the case, they had adopted. The Treasury had not rested satisfied with a merely verbal objection from the Chairman of the Board of Customs; they had requested that the objections to the reappointment of Mr. Rolls should be placed on record, making it a matter of official reference. Accordingly an answer was received from the Customs, signed by six members of the Board, in which they stated in detail the reasons why they could not recommend Mr. Rolls. He meant no imputation on the integrity of Mr. Rolls; but the Treasury, with that distinct opinion, could not force him upon the department, seeing that there had been some unfavourable circumstances in the case.

said, as regarded the character of Mr. Rolls, there was no imputation upon it; even the Government admitted that. He acknowledged the difficulty of interfering, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he hoped that what had passed would not prejudice the expectations of Mr. Rolls.

said, however liable to suspicion some circumstances in Mr. Rolls' conduct might have been, and however his want of explicitness was to be regretted, he must declare that his conduct had been always that of an honest man. He regretted that the Commissioners of Customs had persisted in their original opinion. It seemed to him that the Commissioners had not enough considered the additional circumstances which were subsequently brought to light. As far as he was individually concerned, therefore, he was desirous that any inquiry should not be stifled; but, upon the whole, he thought it better that he should not vote upon the question before the House.

thought the noble Lord who had just sat down had spoken very fairly considering the position in which he was placed in conducting this inquiry. He regretted that allusions had been made to the system of promotions and appointments at the Customs. Those promotions and appointments were much better left to the Treasury than interfered with by votes of this House. Nevertheless he could not but think that Mr. Rolls had been hardly dealt with, and he concurred with his hon. Friend in hoping his case would not be prejudiced in consequence of this Motion.

said, it was now his intention to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice relative to the incendiarism now prevalent in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Cambridge. He did so because he felt a question of this importance did not stand in that position in which it ought to do, inasmuch as the explanations given on the subject in that House had not produced the impression on the public mind that a full inquiry had made into the subject, or that there might not be on the part of the Government considerable misapprehension as to the causes of these atrocities. He was aware that during the last week or two, and at the present moment, these awful crimes had somewhat subsided, but so short an interval could scarcely be relied on, and he thought this ought to be an additional reason for inquiring into the condition of the peasantry, and endeavouring to trace, as far as they could, into the causes of discontent which had given rise to them. The extent of the crime of Incendiarism had been very great during the last six or eight months; so much so, that he believed he spoke within the mark when he stated, on information which he had received, that considerably more than 100 separate offences of this kind had been committed in the county of Suffolk alone, and he believed upwards of 200 in the two adjoining counties. He had it also from good authority, that insurance-offices which insured something like 4,000,000l. of agricultural property had lost more than four times the amount of all the premiums paid to them on insurances of this description. If, therefore, these incendiary practices continued, the insurance-offices must either increase their rate of insurance to such a degree as materially to restrict the insurance of agricultural property, which it was very desirable should be insured, or they must exclude from the insurance contract the risk of incendiary fires, just as they did that by civil commotion, foreign invasion, or other contingencies not within the ordinary calculation of chances. But although he had thus alluded to the pecuniary loss and the effects of these crimes on the insurance system, he still conceived it was a much more serious consideration to reflect, that during this short period they had seen in these counties so much malignant feeling, and such disregard for the rights of property, as had been evinced by these incendiary fires. They knew that various causes had been assigned for the discontent which it was alleged had originated incendiarism; and the Motion he meant to make was for an Address to the Crown to send into these counties trustworthy, discreet, and careful men, for the purpose of inquiring into the general condition of the agricultural labourers there, and to ascertain what were the grievances under which they were supposed to surfer. He had hinted to the right hon. Baronet a few nights ago, that he thought it would be desirable to issue a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into these matters; and the reply of the right hon. Baronet was not such as gave him to understand that he (the right hon. Baronet) was averse to such an inquiry, though he was not prepared to give his assent to it without further consideration. He trusted, however, that the further consideration which the right hon. Baronet had been able to give to the subject would induce him to assent to sending down some discreet persons to make this inquiry. He would not suggest that it should be made through the Poor Law Commissioners—not but that he should have the greatest confidence in them, and in any report which they might make to the House—but that it was said a feeling with reference to the Poor Law itself, amounting to a "detestation" of it, had given rise to the discontented and, consequently, he feared that any, report made by the Poor Law Commissioners on this subject would not be satisfactory to the public, but would be regarded rather as an attempt to make out the good working of the Poor Law than to show the actual condition of the agricultural labourer. The right hon. Gentleman, the other night, said, that trials were about to take place of many persons who were in custody charged with offences of incendiarism, and he suggested that it would be better to wait the result of those trials. Now he called on the right hon. Baronet rather to take a statesman's view of the question than that of a police-officer or administrator of the criminal law. He called upon him not to take what had been designated "a chief-constable's view" of this question. They wanted to go beyond the mere detection of particular offenders, and to ascertain what were the exciting causes of this crime, that, if possible, they might guard against it for the future. It might be said it was too much to assume that distress and misery were the causes of this incendiarism, since many persons were charged with the crime who were not in those distressed circumstances which could have urged them to commit it. But it was well known, nothing more so, that when considerable discontent prevailed among the labouring population, individuals were always to be found to gratify malignant passions, by doing the work of violence for those who deemed themselves suffering under oppression. He was induced on the best authority to think that in the eastern counties this incendiarism must be regarded as a symptom and a proof that a dangerous and deep-rooted discontent was smouldering amongst the labouring population. He was using the expression of a Gentleman whose name would carry great weight in that House, and who was the best authority on this subject in the county of Suffolk — he meant Sir H. Bunbury—who, in a letter recently published in the public papers, said, "I must avow my conviction that these incendiary crimes are symptoms of smouldering and dangerous discontent." He thought it right, therefore, to call upon the Government to send some persons in whom they could confide, to investigate the truth of the different allegations respecting the cause of these outrages. He thought it peculiarly right to call upon the Government to do so, considering that they upheld, in reference to the rest of the people, laws and restrictions which they only attempted to justify on the ground of the well-being and happiness of the rural districts. They avowed that it was their first duty to maintain order, morality, happiness, and prosperity among the rural population. Other classes were called on to make sacrifices for this express purpose — trade was interfered with, and restrictions were upheld, to maintain those scenes of rural felicity which the right hon. Gentleman once said would cease if the Corn Laws were abolished. He considered, therefore, that this gave him a peculiar claim to call upon those who took upon themselves to sacrifice other interests to maintain the good order and happiness of a particular class to institute an inquiry, when they were informed on so high an authority as Sir H. Bunbury, that the incendiarism which prevailed was symptomatic of deep and dangerous discontent among the rural population. He knew it had been alleged, and Sir H. Bunbury mentioned it, that the New Poor Law was the cause. But he wanted to know if it were the New Poor Law? It was said, that under the Old Poor Law and the allowance system, and when the amount of out-door relief given to the poor was considerable, incendiarism prevailed to as great an extent as it did at present. It had existed under the old Poor Law; it now existed under the new; and, therefore, he concluded, that something beside the mere mode in which relief was administered had given rise to those feelings among the rural population. Considering the great number in this country who were driven, from want of employment, to parochial relief for their support, he much doubted whether any system could be adopted by which they could avoid complaints against the administration of the Poor Law. He himself had witnessed even the distribution of coals, raised by subscription for the poor, give rise to as much bickering, bad feeling, and charges of favouritism, as the administration of legal relief. No doubt similar cases would occur to hon. Gentlemen opposite. In these counties there were many charitable subscriptions to relieve distress; but all these were temporary expedients, resembling that of the charitable sermons which the Government appointed to relieve the manufacturing population, and were not likely to be permanently effectual for the relief of the agricultural labourer. With regard to the other statements of the operation of the New Poor Law without going into the question, he could not help feeling that there might be some truth in saying that the labouring classes were prejudiced against it. But he did not think it was the main cause of the present alienation of the peasantry from the landowners and occupiers in those counties. He believed that no class in this country comprised men better disposed, more industrious, more willing to bear up cheerfully against the pressure of distress, than the agricultural population of the counties he had mentioned. He believed that no class in this kingdom—and he spoke from his own personal knowledge of them—could be so well brought forward as instancing general good conduct and industry as the agricultural population of the eastern counties. He could not help thinking, therefore, that the pressure must be strong indeed, and the discontent very deeply rooted, which could induce men, naturally so well disposed; to give almost direct encouragement to the commission of so awful and horrible a crime as that of incendiarism. He saw the hon. Member for West Norfolk in his place, and he could not help regretting the remarks he made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when alluding to the conduct of the Lord-lieutenant of Norfolk. The hon. Member seemed to him to overlook altogether the pressure of distress and the effect of want and despair upon men's moral perceptions. He seemed to take the old view which had been so long relied on, and with so little effect, that nothing could be done but through the instrumentality of the dungeon and the gibbet. The hon. Member had not used these words, but still he inferred from the question he put, that he found fault with that exercise of mercy which the Secretary of State had felt it his duty to recommend to the Crown, in the case of two persons convicted of incendiarism. He would not say the hon. Member actually made such a remark, but any one who heard his question would infer, that in those cases he impugned the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. In his opinion crime had thriven under severe penalties, and never would be put down by an increase of capital punishments. Before the hon. Member ventured to question the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, he ought to have recollected for how many crimes the State was answerable. By bad legislation the wants of the lower orders had been augmented; they saw themselves neglected, and that nothing was done to mitigate the evils under which they suffered. Such a course could not conciliate the lower orders or tend to diminish crime. There certainly was a growing feeling among the labouring classes, that all legislation was in favour of the middling and upper ranks of society, and that as long as the wealth of the rich was swelled, the poverty of the poor did not merit consideration. Even the Clergy had contributed to nourish this feeling, and a distinguished divine had very recently printed a letter to the Duke of Richmond, which having appeared in the London papers, was soon transferred to the weekly journals circulating among the labourers of the country. He would take the liberty of reading an extract from it:—

"At a meeting lately held in London, a deputation of landowners and tenant-farmers waited upon you, and of course did all in their power to apprize you of the dangers that threaten and the difficulties that now beset them; but I do not find that any one appeared at that meeting to represent the agricultural labourer. … And now I will only add, that if your Grace will kindly accept this assistance—if you and your Colleagues will only give to the labourers' condition one half the attention you have given to the condition of the landlord and tenant, and the improvement of the condition of your cattle—I have no doubt but that you will arrive at the conclusion at which I have arrived—that there is no one creature belonging to the farm, there is not an animal you rear, to use or to sell, that has been the subject of so much neglect, in everything that tends to his improvement, as the labourer. Compare the way he is housed, fed, clothed, and valued, with the way in which the animals he tends are treated in these particulars, and then answer to the public and to yourself—why in the present agitation is he overlooked?"

Such was the language of the Rev. Godolphin Osborne, a gentleman of unquestionable authority, and possessing great local influence, and thus it was seen that the pastors of the people themselves propagated the notion, that the welfare and interests of the lower orders were disregarded by the higher. When, in answer to this, augmented penalties were asked for, could it be wondered that alienation was increased? It had been urged, that in some of the manufacturing districts, disorder had been produced by the want of pastoral care—by the absence of a sufficient number of clergymen; but, in the district to which he was now adverting, it could not be said that there was any deficiency of spiritual instruction, if the abundance of the Clergy might be taken as a test. The true deficiency was a deficiency of physical comforts; and what did the Rev. Godolphin Osborne state upon that point?—

"Neither law nor gospel can avail, when hopeless indigence has made a man hate the power that checks him in getting the food he needs, but cannot earn; when he sees, in a land of churches, the poor left to struggle how they may against circumstances that keep them down in the very lowest stage of civilised existence—a stage in which they find much in the condition of the brutes about them to envy."

He (Mr. M. Gibson) entirely concurred in these expressions, and did not think that any extension of Church accommodation, any increase in the number of clergymen, any attempt to keep up the price of corn by legislation, would conciliate the working classes, or would ward off at some future day the serious disorganization that might be anticipated, looking at the limited surface of our island, and at the rapid growth of population. Increased population had been assigned by some as the cause of distress; and the hon. Member for East Norfolk, some time ago, attended a meeting where he recommended the production of flax as a means of giving employment to the poor. He had to charge Gentlemen opposite, though he was sorry to make a charge on a matter of this nature, because he wished to say nothing the least intemperate, and most sincerely desired that the right hon. Baronet would agree to his Motion, and send down Commissioners to inquire; but he must complain of Gentlemen opposite for strengthening prejudices among the labouring classes—prejudices upon subjects which were very likely to lead to acts of violence and incendiarism. There was no doubt that machinery had lately been much applied to the purposes of agriculture — there were threshing machines, machines for hoeing wheat, and for other purposes; in fact, the peasantry saw machinery supplying the place of manual labour, and the argument on this subject, applied to the manufacturing districts, might, to a certain extent, be applied to the agricultural. At public meetings on the Corn Laws, landed gentlemen had not hesitated to revile the manufacturers, and to utter tirades against the use of machinery. No argument was more in vogue than that the use of machinery in manufacturing districts was the cause of distress; and agricultural labourers finding that such an argument had been employed against others would not fail to apply it to their own cases. The labourers were aware that the indifference shown to the manufacturing operatives existed as regarded themselves. He charged landed gentlemen with augmenting these prejudices—and he farther charged them with doing it for party purposes—to excite a feeling against the manufacturing interest, and now it recoiled upon themselves. Then, again, on the question of wages, a similar attempt had been made to delude the poor labourers, and it was said that the farmers gave too low wages. The fact was that the farmers could not give what wages they liked, for they must be regulated by circumstances over which they had no control. Nevertheless, landed gentlemen endeavoured to produce a prejudice against the farmers, that they were screwing their labourers down to the lowest amount of wages, and not doing them justice. This was a most improper statement to make. [An hon. Member: Who made it?] It had been made repeatedly. Great incredulity was affected whenever the statements of the Times on the Poor Laws were mentioned; but he (Mr. M. Gibson) believed that what was said by its correspondent on the question on wages was true. A farmer who held only a small quantity of land, as he could not increase that quantity, and was required to increase his rent, being afraid of being outbid, was driven to save where he could, and that saving must come out of the pockets of the labourers. But rendering the barrier between the manufacturing and agricultural classes more impassable, was to augment the difficulty, and to promote emigration to the manufacturing districts. Labourers were redundant, farmers were obliged to pay higher rents, and the money saved out of the wages of the labourer found its way into the pocket of the landlord. He would also direct attention to the promises of protection held out up to a recent period, promises that the price of grain should be maintained by Act of Parliament. He was happy to say that confidence in the durability of that protection was not so great as it had been. He had been lately in the country for change of air, and had made it his business to inquire into the subject, and he found that even the last declaration of the Head of the Government was considered somewhat equivocal. He had felt it his duty to increase that opinion, and he would continue to do so while he saw the present uncertainty, and felt that there was no real intention to maintain the Corn Laws for any lengthened period. Interested as he was in the prosperity of the occupying tenantry, he had thought it his duty to caution them not to build on a rotten foundation—not to trust to a broken reed. Such, he believed, was the opinion of the agricultural tenantry, and as far as it went it was conducive to good. The more the farmers were disposed to rely upon natural instead of artificial prices, the more profitable would be their business, and they would thus be enabled to employ agricultural labourers at fair wages, and to carry out the various improvements in agriculture. Agricultural labourers were deeply interested in the prosperity of the farmer, and the prosperity of the farmer depended upon his belief that Parliament would do nothing for him. He called upon the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) to meet him fairly upon this Motion, and he trusted that he would pardon him for having said one word which might indispose some Gentlemen to concur in a proposal for inquiry. It was not unprecedented; not long ago an inquiry had been instituted into the condition of the Aborigines, the Hottentots, and the Esquimaux; and why should not an inquiry be undertaken into the state of persons severely suffering at our own doors? Some might urge that there was no distress, but there could be no doubt that the most grievous distress existed. Magistrates had stated, that where labourers did not perpetrate the crimes themselves, they looked on with a sort of satisfaction while the flames were destroying their neighbours' barns and stacks. The Chairman of the Bury Sessions, Mr. Bevan, was reported to have used these words:—

"At the occasion of the late calamitous fire at Tuddennam, while the populace did all they could to extinguish the flames, others of the Mildenhall people did all they could to promote the fire by casting fuel upon it. A certain magistrate who was present had said he had seen fuel placed on the fire, and could not prevent it."

More important evidence than even this had recently been obtained, and Professor Henslow had published a pamphlet containing the following:—

"Notwithstanding any assurances that I have heard to the contrary, I feel convinced that it is want of employment among the labourers which must be considered as the proximate of those motive causes to the incendiarism which has lately prevailed. The labourers themselves refer the fires to this cause; and although the great majority of them hereabouts acknowledge the folly and wickedness of incendiarism, some of the worst disposed refer to them too significantly not to have it understood that they are rejoicing in these exhibitions of infatuation and cruelty."

Although he would not for one moment assert that the whole body of the labouring population, or any large proportion of it, viewed incendiary fires with any other feelings than those of abhorrence; yet, when he found some of them talking with apparent satisfaction of what had occurred, it could not fail to increase his conviction that not only discontent but bitter hatred existed among them. He had put his Motion into writing, but he did not wish to confine the right hon. Baronet to particular words, if he would consent to send down a Commission, consisting of persons unconnected with the Poor Law, and likely to give an unbiassed opinion after an impartial investigation. His proposal would be in the form of an address to the Crown for a Commission to inquire into the discontents in the counties of Suffolk, Essex, and Cambridge, with a view to ascertain the causes of grievances under which the working classes there suffered. It might be said that he limited the investigation to two or three counties, but after that part of the subject had been gone through, if it were thought desirable to extend it, he should be most happy to do so. The result, he believed, would be to show that the condition of agricultural labourers was deplorable; and if the investigation were deferred much longer, the country would have to rue the delay. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, that,

"An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing to Her Majesty that there is reason to believe that the Incendiarism which has for some time prevailed in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Cambridgeshire, is caused by deep discontent amongst the labouring population of those counties, and praying Her Majesty to issue a Commission to inquire into the condition of the agricultural labourers in those counties, and to ascertain what are the grievances from which they suffer,"

The Motion was then put from the Chair, and on the question that it be agreed to.

Sir, after the speech which has been just delivered by the hon. Gentleman opposite, it seems to me that it becomes imperatively my duty to offer some observations upon the subject. During the delivery of the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, I asked myself more than once, what is the object of the hon. Gentleman in delivering the sentiments he is now uttering. I could not fail to remember that the hon. Gentleman himself is a Suffolk country gentleman, and no doubt entertains suitable feelings of regard to the county with which he is connected, and thinking that it was hardly possible the hon. Member intended by his speech needlessly to fix public attention on those crimes which disgrace that district, I concluded the hon. Gentleman had been impelled to the ungrateful task of making the speech he had just delivered by a severe sense of public duty. The hon. Member stated at the early part of his speech what is quite true. I heard the statement with satisfaction, and if he had not made it I should have felt it to be my duty to communicate to the House the fact, that although a crime so disgraceful as incendiarism has a tendency to spread, and is of a contagious nature, it is rapidly diminishing in the counties where it is said to be prevalent; and this makes it the more extraordinary that the hon. Member, after making the admission, should have felt it to be his duty to address the speech we have just heard to the house. The hon. Member cautions me not to take a chief constable's view of the subject. I certainly shall not take any such view of it in the observations I am about to address to the House; but I think I am bound to observe to the House, that such a Motion as this must have a direct tendency to increase the number of incendiary fires. Discussions of this temper and kind relating to a crime which has become prevalent have generally had the effect of increasing the frequency of the commission of the offence. There is, Sir, such a thing as fanning the smouldering fire into a flame; and it may so happen that the hon. Gentleman, by provoking injudiciously a discussion such as the present, may cast fuel upon that flame, which true lovers of their country, would eagerly endeavour to extinguish. Why, I ask, is it that the hon. Gentleman has introduced so many topics of an exasperating nature, which have nothing to do with this discussion? Why has he introduced this accusation against this House, that the labouring classes are neglected by their representatives in Parliament, when we have been ceaselessly engaged for four days, both in the morning and at night sittings, in devising means to provide more effectual and comfortable provision for the destitute of that class? Whilst we, Sir, were so employed, the hon. Gentleman, as appears from his own confession, was engaged elsewhere in seeking that relaxation and recreation in which we would have gladly joined, had we not been engaged here in attempting, with much trouble and attention, and with more diligence than the hon. Gentleman can boast, to seek out the means of ameliorating the condition of such of the labouring classes as misfortune or indigence may have rendered fit objects of the law. What, I would ask, was the meaning of his allusion to the Committee of Inquiry upon the condition of the aborigines in distant colonies, to the Esquimaux, to the Caffres, and to the Hottentots, and to our comparative indifference to the condition of our own labouring population? What was, I ask, the meaning of his allusions to the cold hearted landlords of this country—what the meaning of his quotation from a rev. gentleman in corroboration of his statements? I may, with the utmost respect for the general character of the Clergy of the Established Church, be permitted to say that there are some indiscreet individuals, nay, unfortunately, there is to be found in the present day some popularity-hunting parsons as well as agitating Members of Parliament—men, who, though filling offices sacred, are unfortunately found arrayed against the charity and harmony and good will which it; is their duty to attempt by all means in their power to inculcate amongst all classes. It can hardly escape the eye of a casual and inattentive observer what are really the objects of the hon. Member in introducing topics so irritating into his speech to night. I will assert, in answer to his assumption, that there is no need of appointing a Committee to inquire into this subject. I have already stated that the assizes, which are holden at this period, would throw, I hoped, some light upon the causes of incendiarism in the eastern counties, and I have had communications from the Judges, who are now on circuit trying these cases; in which they state that there has been no difficulty experienced in administering the law at the assizes in these districts; that witnesses come forward freely to give their evidence; that jurors have given their verdicts with impartiality and with just discrimination, finding the incendiary guilty, and giving to the accused, where there existed a doubt of guilt, the benefit of that doubt. I am told, moreover, upon good authority, that there are no symptoms discoverable of a generally discontented state of the public mind in these districts, and that the crimes which have been brought to light have been attributable to personal malignity, or have been perpetrated by very young offenders. I have been informed that convictions have taken place of four young persons arraigned, whose ages were eight, nine, ten, and twelve years; that a conviction had taken place of one young person at Huntingdon Assizes whose age was not more than eight years, in consequence of which I shall have to propose that the punishment of whipping shall be superadded to the usual punishment in respect to young offenders convicted of this offence. The House may remember that with reference to another class of cases to which I will not more particularly allude, in which juvenile offenders had sought a bad notoriety, this course was adopted with the best effect; and it has been suggested to me to follow the example then set with respect to this class of offences. I am bound to add, with reference to these juvenile incendiaries, that, as far as can be ascertained, they are incited to the commission of these offences by bad example, and by a desire to attain a bad notoriety; but, these circumstances appear to me to furnish no proof whatever of a generally diseased state of society in that district. On the contrary, there exist proofs that the crime of incendiarism for the last two or three weeks has decreased; the law has been vindicated and enforced without difficulty; and the number committed for trial is not so great as to occasion a departure upon the part of the Crown from the usual course of trial on such occasions, by appointing a Commission for the purpose of instituting inquiry into the causes of the crime of incendiarism. In respect to the other topics which the hon. Member has introduced into his speech, I do not apprehend that the course he has adopted, nor the language in which his charges were couched, nor yet the violent invectives which he dealt out so unsparingly upon a most respectable portion of society, I mean the county magistracy, will have the effect of inducing any large number of the Members of this House to countenance either his speech or the Motion with which it concluded. I am, and the House, I trust, will also be of opinion, that the effect of such a speech cannot be to diminish the inducements to the commission of a crime, to check which he affects to be desirous. My thorough conviction that both his ill-judged speech and the success of his Motion must have the effect of increasing the frequency of outrages we all deplore, renders it imperative upon me to give to the Motion my most decided opposition.

said, that other opportunities would be afforded of replying to by far the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester; and he would therefore confine himself to noticing one or two points which, in his opinion, demanded immediate attention. The hon. Member had distinctly charged him with presuming to call in question the exercise of the Royal clemency. He distinctly denied any such intention. The case to which the hon. Member opposite had referred was one of a peculiar nature; it was that of two persons tried for incendiarism, who were found guilty, and sentenced to fifteen years' transportation each, but who a few weeks afterwards received a free pardon. The hon. Gentleman had charged him with being the advocate of vengeance and cruelty; but he was at a loss to know on what ground that charge rested. It was, in fact, the invention of a heated mind. He was convinced that if the hon. Member for Manchester inquired into this question he would find that the fires did not result from the ill-treatment of the labourers. Several charges of incendiarism were now pending in the county with which he was connected, and therefore to them he would not allude; but he might be allowed to mention one or two cases which were past. In one case, a boy eleven or twelve years old was tried for incendiarism on a farm of Lord Stafford's, where he was employed, and where there had been three fires; but the case could not be brought home to him. The next case was that of a deaf and dumb man, who was charged with incendiarism on Lord Leicester's property. He was convicted, but a memorial was presented to the Secretary of State in his favour, and a poor woman who had given evidence against him was burnt in effigy. One of the hon. Members for Sussex could testify that eight fires had been kindled in that county by one man, who had nothing whatever to do with agricultural pursuits, but who was a cooper by trade. It was his opinion that the discontent to which the hon. Member referred was mainly to be attributed to (he could not use a more appropriate phrase) the nonsense circulated by the hon. Member and those who generally acted with him on the subject of wages. When the hon. Member accused him of desiring to interfere with the Royal mercy, the hon. Member had not the slightest foundation for his statement. He gave that charge the most unqualified contradiction.

should not have risen if it had not been to reply to some imputations contained in the letter which the hon. Member opposite had in the course of his speech read to the House with reference to the conduct of the Duke of Richmond. The hon. Member had thought proper to make an attack upon hon. Gentlemen connected with the agricultural interest, by charging those gentlemen with having at agricultural meetings excited the prejudices of that portion of the population against those connected with the manufacturing districts. It was not his intention to say anything in the way of retort to the hon. Member; but he would ask the hon. Member what object he had in view when he and his friends visited the agricultural districts and told the farmers that Her Majesty's Government, contrary to their expressed declaration, intended to alter the Corn Laws? Did that not look like party excitement? The hon. Member had thrown out certain imputations against the conduct of the Duke of Richmond. Only this very Session the Duke of Richmond had attended a large meeting of labourers at Goodwood, with the view of promoting their interest. He felt assured, and he spoke the opinion of many hon. Members in this and the other House of Parliament, no one had paid so much attention to the condition of the labouring class, and no individual was so much beloved by the labourers, as the Duke of Richmond. That was the opinion of every person conversant with the character and conduct of the Duke of Richmond, particularly of those resident in the neighbourhood of the Duke's property. Now, with regard to the Motion which the hon. Member had submitted to the House, he thought that the hon. Member had not selected the most fortunate time for the discussion of such a subject. It was a well-established fact, that the discussion of the causes of particular crimes at the period when those crimes were being committed had the effect of increasing those particular offences. No matter what crime it was, persons conversant with the administration of the law knew that there existed in the minds of many persons a morbid desire to make public statements, and that this publicity invariably led to the commission of similar crimes. It was well known, also, that particular crimes prevailed at particular periods, and that circumstances ought to be taken into consideration in discussing the subject. He was anxious, in connexion with this subject, to bring under the notice of the House a fact which occurred in the neighbourhood of Battle. Eight fires had taken place in succession. It was the opinion of many persons these places were fired by a disaffected person connected with the agricultural districts—that they had their origin in agricultural distress. Such, however, turned out not to be the fact. It was proved that one man, without any concert with any other person, had committed every one of these crimes. This man was tried and convicted. He was found to be, instead of an agricultural labourer, a cooper. He set fire to the stack hoping, as he afterwards confessed, by so doing that he should burn his house and thus be enabled to reside in the town instead of the country. He thought that the hon. Member opposite had exhibited a want of fairness in bringing under the notice of the House a question so general in its nature, and therefore he should consider it his duty to vote against it.

said: I have observed ever since I have had a seat in this House, and also from what I had previously read of its proceedings, that there is always a very strong disinclination to inquire into anything connected with the agriculture of the country, and that the convenient time for such an inquiry never arrives. Why is all this extreme sensibility, except from the fear that inquiry might lead to some explanations on a subject which I deem all important, but which hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think it intrusive to trouble the House with? The right hon. Gentleman refuses to grant the inquiry now proposed by my hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester, and has thought it right to taunt him with the fact of his having been enjoying himself in the country, whilst the right hon. Gentleman was engaged in looking after the interests of the poor, in legislating on the amended Poor Law. It was an excellent occupation, and some legislation is, doubtless, much needed; but it may be just as useful that some Members of this House should be endeavouring to discover the causes of pauperism with a view to its prevention, as that others should be engaged in devising schemes for its temporary relief. The right hon. Baronet has also thought fit to apply the term "popularity-hunting parson" to an authority quoted by my hon. Friend. Nothing is more easy than to use epithets of this kind, and nothing is more common than for persons in a debate to attempt to ride off upon some such phrase, rather than grapple with the facts and arguments brought forward. And who is this popularity-hunting parson? He is a man of aristocratic family, and has the prefix "honourable" to his name; he is a clergyman of the Established Church, and men of such a class are not generally chargeable with a dangerous amount of sympathy for the poor. No one connected with the county of Dorset can fail to know, that Mr. Osborne is a man indefatigable in the discharge of the duties of his office, and anxious to mitigate the sufferings and to better the condition of the poor around him; and he may well afford to despise the taunts and insinuations of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the information he has received from the Judges now on circuit, as a reason why the inquiry is now unnecessary. Doubtless, witnesses may be found to give evidence and juries to give honest verdicts; and it is also true that for some days past the fires have been less frequent than before; but are we to suppose from this, that the cause of these dreadful outrages is removed, and that we may not again be startled by the recurrence of them? Many threatening letters have been received in various parts of the county of Suffolk; and I suppose it was only because my hon, Friend, the Member for Manchester, did not wish to add to the alarm which already exists, that he did not mention some facts which have recently come to his knowledge, and which go to prove that the destructive and vindictive spirit still prevails, and that there is great risk of its assuming even a more dangerous character. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken of the question of wages, so little understood by the labourers generally. Now, I can truly say that among all the meetings held by my hon. Friend, the Member for Stockport, and myself, in the rural districts, there is not one at which we have not endeavoured to elucidate the question of wages, and to show to the farmers and labourers that the amount of wages did not depend so much upon the will of either party, as upon the number of labourers in relation to the amount of work to be done; and if the hon. Gentlemen opposite, in this House, and at their meetings in the country, had taken the same course, much of the ill feeling which now exists between the employed and the employers in the manufacturing and agricultural districts would have been spared. But hon. Gentlemen opposite are unwilling to inquire; we can never catch them in the right mood. One of the earliest questions of the present Session was a Motion of my hon. Friend, the Member for Stockport, for inquiry into "the effect of protective duties on the interests of the tenant-farmers and farm-labourers." The President of the Board of Trade did not strongly object to it on any ground of apprehension in his own mind, but there was a sensibility which recoiled, not only from touch, but from sight, among the country Gentlemen and in order that he might not alarm them he decided to refuse the inquiry. Then, again, the hon. Member for Manchester suggested an inquiry into the produce of the agriculture of the country. You know how much cotton is imported, manufactured, retained for home consumption, or exported, and these statistical Returns are deemed very important; and why should we be kept in total ignorance about the produce of the soil? The Government admitted that the proposition was an important one, and promised some attention to it; but there was evidently a great timidity on the part of many of their supporters. Surely there must be something very rotten and hideous beneath the surface to create all this jealousy and this fear lest any investigation take place. But why is the Motion of to-night refused? The right hon. Baronet says the fires are less frequent, and nobody in the disturbed districts wishes an investigation. Now, at a meeting of the farmers and inhabitants of the parish of Rattlesden, to take into consideration some statements in the Times paper, there was great anxiety expressed that an inquiry should be made; here is one of their resolutions:—

"We are anxious and desirous that Her Majesty's Government should immediately issue a Commission to inquire into the true condition of the poor in the agricultural districts, and into the causes of the alarming and increasing spirit of incendiarism which unhappily prevails."

This is the opinion of persons who do not agree with the Times or with us, but who see the necessity of the case; and I do think that the Government fail in their duty if they allow these desperate outrages to continue without endeavouring to discover the true cause of them, that the true remedy, if there be one, may be applied. I am sure the taunts of the right hon. Baronet, and of hon. Members opposite, will fall harmless upon my hon. Friend who has brought this Motion forward. He is a Suffolk landowner, and a Member of this House, and as such has performed his duty in bringing on this question. For nine months at least have the incendiary fires been raging; some hundreds of fires have taken place, and yet not one of the Members for the counties in which they have chiefly prevailed has thought it his duty publicly to ask the attention of the Government to a state of things so alarming. Why, Sir, if Lancashire or Yorkshire had been thus troubled, if not 250 fires in nine months, but if one fire in each month had occurred, how great would have been the interest taken in the state of the manufacturing districts by Members opposite, and how loud their condemnation of the conduct of the manufacturers to those they employed! I ask the Government if they consider this subject of incendiarism alarming or not? Is it nothing that insurance offices should be at their wits' end, and be losers of sums so large as to make it doubtful if they will continue to insure farming stock? Is it nothing that farmers are in a state of constant alarm, having a watchman to guard every homestead from the torch of the incendiary? Is it nothing that the demoralization of the unhappy peasantry should be completed? Is it possible that one of the worst crimes human nature can commit should be going on over several counties for many months, and that Government should have no concern about it? If, however, the Government refuse to appoint a Commission, the Times and the Chronicle have not forgotten their office. Their reporters differ greatly in one point, but on the truly important one they are perfectly agreed. The Times, says the New Poor Law, is the main cause of incendiarism, and the Chronicle asserts that this is not the fact, because the crime existed under the old Poor Law; but both Reports come to the conclusion that security to property is not compatible with the terrible distress which exists among the labouring population of those counties. It may be true that the New Poor Law is harsh in its operation. Only yesterday I passed through a part of the county of Kent, and met one of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster of the Forces (Sir E. Knatchbull); I asked him if the Poor Law has worked harshly to the poor? His answer was, that the Clause making 25l. a year of rent the qualification for a guardian was very unfair and injurious. In many unions none but farmers could be guardians under this Clause; and thus the labourer when seeking relief had to apply to the very men from whom alone employment was to be had, and was subjected to every description of hardship which farmers and guardians chose to inflict upon him. But if it be granted that the Poor Law is a harsh measure, and I willingly grant that it is, we must never forget that a man has other evils of no light character before he feels the Poor Law. Distress and poverty have attacked and overcome him before the Poor Law finds him, and he must be a miserable legislator indeed who fancies that any change in the Poor Law could secure permanent comfort to the people. The great and all-present evil of the rural districts is this,—you have too many people for the work to be done, and you, the landed proprietors, are alone responsible for this state of things; and, to speak honestly, I believe many of you know it. I have been charged with saying out of doors that this House is a club of landowners legislating for landowners. If I had not said it, the public must long ago have found out that fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport on one occasion proposed that, before you passed a law to raise the price of bread, you should consider how far you had the power to raise the rate of wages. What did you say to that? You said, that the labourers did not understand political economy, or they would not apply to Parliament to raise wages; that Parliament could not raise wages; and yet the very next thing you did was to pass a law to raise the price of the produce of your own land at the expense of the very class whose wages you confessed your inability to increase. What is the condition of the county of Suffolk? Is it not notorious that rents are as high as they were fifty years ago, and probably much higher? But the return for the farmers' capital is much lower, and the condition of the labourer is very much worse. The farmers are subject to the law of competition, and rents are thereby raised from time to time so as to keep their profits down at the lowest point, and the labourers by the competition amongst them are reduced to the point below which life cannot be maintained. Your tenants and labourers are being devoured by this excessive competition, whilst you, their magnanimous landlords, shelter yourselves from all competition by the Corn Law yourselves have passed, and make the competition of all other classes serve still more to swell your rentals. It is for this object the Corn Law was passed, and yet in the face of your countrymen you dare to call it a law for the protection of native industry. The hon. Member for East Norfolk smiles, and probably pities the ignorance which can make statements like these, so contrary to the rules of his political economy. The hon. Gentleman has probably asserted at farmers' meetings that this law is for the protection of native industry. How have you protected it? You have limited the supply of food and the field of employment, but you have not prevented the increase of the population or of the number of labourers. You have protected yourselves only by your legislation. Take the county of Suffolk as an example. I find that in that county for the quarter ending Lady Day, 1843, out of a population of 314,722 persons, there were 39,489 receiving parish relief, being 13 per cent., or more than one in eight of the whole population. In the county of Essex, out of a population of 320,818, there were 44,694 receiving relief, or 14 per cent., or about one in seven of the whole population. In the county of Norfolk, out of a population of 343,277, there 37,666 receiving relief, or 11 per cent., or about one in nine of the whole inhabitants of the county. Is this not a proof that you do not find employment and wages for all your population? And other evidence is not wanting. From the late census it appears that the increase of the population throughout the country has been 14 per cent. during the ten years, from 1831 to 1841. There is no reason to suppose the number of births above deaths to be smaller in Suffolk than in other counties. Now, of this increase of 14 per cent. in ten years how much was maintained upon its own soil? Not more than 6 per cent. of increase, and the remaining 8 per cent. have been driven away to other counties by the necessities of their position. If we look to the chief agricultural counties, we shall find they do not on the average retain half the real increase of their population. The increase of population during the ten years has been, in Buckingham, 6·4 per cent.; in Cumberland, 4·9; Hereford, 2·4; Norfolk, 5·7; Oxford, 6·2; Westmorland, 2·5. These are purely agricultural counties, and, although so many have left them, yet they are the counties which complain most of a surplus population. The following counties have found room for about half their natural increase:—Devonshire, 7·8; Salop, 7·2; Somerset, 7·8; Wilts, 7·7; North Riding of Yorkshire, 7·0; and Essex, 8·6. As it is evident these counties have got rid of some portion of their natural offspring, let us see where the outcasts have found a home. The increase in Monmouth has been 369 per cent.—railroads and steam-engines, and the increased consumption of iron, of course, account for that; Lancashire shows an increase of 24·7; Durham, with its mines, 27·7; Staffordshire, 2·43; Cheshire, north division, with its manufactures, 18·3; Warwickshire (Birmingham and its district), 19·3; and the West Riding of Yorkshire, 18·2. These are manufacturing counties; they provide for their own increase of population, and find a home for those you cannot support in the agricultural counties. If these statements be correct, how dangerous must be a system of protection which diminishes the demand for labour! The free competition under free-trade would stimulate a better cultivation of the soil, and find increased and steady employment, whilst extended and prosperous manufactures would give great additional employment and wages to the people. You mistake altogether if you fancy you have got rid of this question. If the League would even cease to trouble you, there is a more formidable and more unrelenting foe coming upon you. The increase of population will force a settlement of this question; and so long as it remains unsettled, you will have to sustain a constant return of the difficulties which now embarrass you. This House is responsible for the state of things in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Cambridgeshire; it springs from your legislation; and nothing can permanently heal it but a change in your policy, and a common-sense course of proceeding with respect to the trade of farming. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem wholly to forget that property has duties as well as rights. I would not greatly complain if quod tuum tene were your motto and your rule. But you are not content with your own. Your acres are yours, but the labour of the people is not; and you have no right to enhance the value of your estates by a system of spoliation on the estates of all other men. Do you want proof of your disregard of all rights but your own? You have a law to raise the price of the produce of your land, and great fluctuations in the price occur. The farmers are often ruined in great numbers. In one Suffolk paper last year, I saw ninety-eight advertisements of the sale of farming stock, showing how many changes of tenancy were taking place. Prosperous farmers do not change much. Are these changes hurtful to the landlord? To some small extent they may be so; but you have cunningly devised another law, by which, when your tenant can go on no longer, you sweep off everything he has left to satisfy your demand for rent, and often and almost always leave the other creditors without a farthing. Your tenant probably owes money to his wheelwright, his grocer, or his draper; but the landlords' law of distraint for rent sweeps all away, and no dividend is left for them. You shelter yourselves thus from the consequences of the farmer's ruin. He leaves his farm; you see him take himself off along the high road; another tenant succeeds him; a fierce competition makes him give even a higher rent than his predecessor, and he runs the same career of hopeless struggle, and at last sinks into the same ruin. Again, see how you treat the tenantry in respect of preserving game. Have you nothing to answer for on this score? A noble Lord, a relative, I believe, of the hon. Member for East Norfolk, lately spoke of or quoted, in another place, a Mr. Neave, whom he described as a very respectable man. What says Mr. Neave about the game? A letter in the Times says, "The farmers, with much justice, complain of the enormous quantity of game. They say they are quite eaten up by it." I quote Mr. Neave, by his permission, as my authority for saying, that the game in several parishes destroy more food, and deprive the farmer of more means than would keep all the poor of the parish. Mr. Neave instanced one farm to me of 400 acres, on which last year upwards of 2000 rabbits were killed. It is said that five hares consume as much as a sheep (and this is too low an estimate, as a hare destroys more than it consumes); suppose seven rabbits do this, and you have on this farm the rabbits consuming as much food as 300 sheep would. The farmers dare not destroy them; they would forfeit their leases if they did; they dare not even complain, or they would be looked upon as dissatisfied characters, and be got rid of at the termination of their leases. Again, "a rural police is kept up by the gentry, the farmers say, for the sole use of watching game and frightening poachers, for which formerly they had to pay watchers." Is this true, or is it not? If not, let some hon. Gentleman get up and deny it, and prove it to be false, and I for one will never again repeat these charges either here or elsewhere. I say, then, you care everything for the rights, and for something beyond the rights, of your own property, but you are oblivious of its duties. How many lives have been sacrificed during the past year to the childish infatuation of preserving game? The noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, were he present, could tell of a game-keeper killed in an affray on his father's estate in that county. For that offence one man was hanged, and four men are now on their way to the penal colonies. Six families are thus deprived of husbands and fathers that this wretched system of game-preserving may be continued in a country densely peopled as this is. The Marquess of Normanby's gamekeeper has been murdered also, and the poacher who shot him only escaped death by the intervention of the Home Secretary. At Godalming, in Surrey, also a gamekeeper has been murdered; and at Brick-hill, in Buckinghamshire, a person has recently been killed in a poaching affray. This insane system is the cause of a fearful loss of life; it tends to the ruin of your tenantry, and it is the fruitful cause of the demoralization of the peasantry. But you are caring for the rights of property;—for its most obvious duties you have no concern. With such a policy what can you expect but that which is now passing before you? It is the remark of a beautiful writer, that "to have known nothing but misery is the most portentous condition under which human nature can start on its course." Has your agricultural labourer ever known anything but misery? He is born in a miserable hovel, which in mockery is termed a house or a home; he is reared in penury, he passes a life of hopeless and unrequited toil, and the gaol or the union-house is before him as the only asylum on this side the pauper's grave. Is this the result of your protection to native industry? Have you cared for the labourer till, from a home of comfort, he has but a hovel for a shelter, and have you cherished him into starvation and rags? I tell you what your boasted protection is—it is a protection of native idleness at the expense of the impoverishment of native industry. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Colonel Rushbrook) has been understood to advocate a resort to the punishment of hanging for the crime of arson. I confess I am surprised that any man at this time of day should make such a proposition. If there is one thing more clearly proved than another it is this, that capital punishments fail to prevent crime. I have here a return of the number of committals, convictions, and executions for incendiarism, during the six years from 1831 to 1836, and for the six years from 1837 to 1843. In the former period there were 493 committals, 119 convictions, and 58 executions. Imagine, for a moment, the state of things in which not less than 58 human beings had been put to death, and 32 of them in the space of two years, for the single crime of burning. This horrible and most unchristian punishment has since been abolished for this crime. It is the proudest boast of the late Ministry that they did so much to mitigate the severity of our criminal code; and I trust the present Administration may hereafter be entitled to equal praise for similar changes during their tenure of office. From this return it appears that from 1837 to 1843 the number of committals was 344, of convictions 117, and of executions none. It will be observed, that the convictions are more in proportion to the committals in the latter than in the former period, owing, doubtless, to the repugnance of juries to convict when death was to be the penalty; thus choosing the side of mercy rather than give a verdict according to evidence which would consign a fellow-creature to death. I believe there are many persons in the counties where incendiarism prevails, who are anxious for the restoration of capital punishments. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not wish it, but some of those they represent do. This wish arises from the appreprehensions under which they live; cruelty and fear generally go together. They see no remedy, and probably many of them make no efforts to discover one; they therefore turn to this desperate and inhuman punishment as a means of suppressing this appalling crime. The hanging of incendiaries will do no good; their crimes cannot be put down by halters and penal colonies. These have been tried before and they have failed, and they will fail now if tried. You know that your peasantry are poor, helpless, hopeless, and despairing; and yet not one of you has ever proclaimed the sad condition of your labouring population; no, you have left that task to others, to my hon. Friend here, whilst you have done all you could to conceal it. You taunt us with a wish to produce discord in the rural districts; I throw back the imputation with the scorn it deserves. You have laboured long and hard to provoke discord in the north of England; your newspapers and your hired agents have done their worst; whilst, on the other hand, we have had no meeting in your counties at which we have not explained the true principle of wages, endeavouring to soothe the minds of the labourers, and to soften their feelings towards the farmers. But what has been your conduct to your tenantry? Instead of showing them how worthless is the policy of protection, and how rotten and precarious as a resource for their prosperity, you have taught them wholly to rely upon it. Instead of showing them how certainly free-trade was approaching, you bade them rely on the dictum of the right hon. Baronet. You have magnified the difficulties which free-trade presents to them As foolish nurses frighten children with tales of hobgoblins, so you have worked upon the ignorance and the fears of your tenantry, and your conduct in these respects has been as absurd as it will prove itself injurious. Surely your policy has had a sufficient trial; your farmers are not prosperous—"protection to native industry" has placed your labourers in hovels, gaols, and union-houses. Try something else: it is not the halter and the convict-ship, but a little justice, a little fair dealing, a little common humanity, a little common sense, that your peasantry require at your hands. Your labourers are every day increasing in numbers — you have no employment for them—what are you to do? The time is coming when you will know what to do: it may then be too late. Your ancestors 400 years ago were as wise as you, and you are as benighted as they were. From a law passed in 1441, it appears the landowners of that day thought and said, that "the people engaged in husbandry were greatly endamaged by reason of bringing grain from beyond the seas to sell in this country, to keep down the price of the grain of this country." Our ancestors 400 years ago were barbarians compared with our present population, and yet you have not abandoned one of their most childish follies. They had some excuse, you have none; with them restriction was the rule in almost every case, with us it is the rule in almost no case but your own; for them Adam Smith had not written, and political economy was unknown; they had no leaders, as you have in the present Administration, from whom you receive lessons on common sense and common justice as fast as you are able to bear them; and yet, with all your advantages, you have not made a step in advance for 400 years. But here you sit, representatives of the people, Legislators of this great commercial empire, making laws for your own exclusive gain, and denying the most natural and incontestible right of all men, the right to live by their industry, to the great mass of those for whom you profess to legislate. You, the magnanimous aristocracy of Britain, you own the soil, you boast of ancestry, you amuse yourselves with much painting on the panels of your coaches—and yet you make laws in this House to enrich your own class at the expense of millions, to whom you deny all political power; and to whom you give no protection whatever. For all this you must one day answer, and the worst I wish you is, that, when the time of retribution shall come upon the landed proprietors, it may please Heaven to visit them with more of mercy than they have ever shown to the poor of this country.

said, that there were two charges made by the hon. Member against himself and his Colleagues the Members for Suffolk. One was that they had not come forward to suggest any mode for inquiring into or alleviating the distressing state of things at present prevailing in that county. Now, without making any display they had, in fact, had interviews with the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department as to the subject of Suffolk. The hon. Member then said that he wished for the penalty of death for this crime of arson. Certainly, he did echo the expressions of a petition which he had presented, that in consequence of the wholesale amount of these fires it would be better that capital punishment should be held over the heads of these parties, that it might be exercised in extreme cases. Speaking from his knowledge of his own neighbourhood, he should say there was no destitution; what might be the case on the eastern side of the county he did not know. It had been said that lowness of wages was the cause of the fires. That could not be the cause, for near him there had been a number of fires, all of them where the wages were the highest. Then it had been hinted that a deep-laid scheme existed, but no such thing appeared; several of the fires had been the work of mere boys who had no pretence of distress to urge. As there had been no reports for several days of any more incendiarism, he hoped it was over, and he hoped that no one in that House would do anything to fan the flames.

, as Foreman of the Grand Jury of Essex, must protest against the taunt thrown out by the hon. Gentleman on juries and witnesses with respect to these fires. If the hon. Gentleman had shown that there had been any difficulty in obtaining convictions, he would have had a better right to taunt witnesses with giving evidence contrary to their consciences, and juries with returning wrong verdicts. [Mr. Bright: I did no such thing.] The hon. Member at least had said that it would have been very easy to obtain convictions, but if he had not meant to state what he had imputed to the hon. Member, he was very sorry, but he had put what he had thought was the fair interpretation on the hon. Member's words. If a Commission in the spirit of the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite had been sent down, he was sure that they would have had a general conflagration in Essex, the reason he rose was principally to state the opinion of the learned Judge who presided on the criminal side at the assizes for the county of Essex, Mr. Baron Parke, than whom there was no man more able or more respected for his talents throughout the country, said in his address to the Grand Jury that he regretted to find many instances of a crime which had become so common of late in this and the adjoining counties—the destruction by fire of ricks, stacks, hay, and other farming produce; but that it was satisfactory to find that the fires were not caused by the labourers in most cases, but by boys and girls of tender years. In none of these cases was the cause distress or poverty. Though he knew the county he represented would not shrink from any Commission of Inquiry that might be sent into it, yet, believing, that the Commission proposed by the hon. Gentlemen opposite would do more harm than good, he for one deprecated the appointment of it.

, as Member for East Suffolk, and resident in a part of the county where conflagrations were most numerous, and where the greatest kindness had prevailed towards the labouring class, wished to offer a few words. He had felt it his duty to apply to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department on more than one occasion in reference to this subject, and he begged to bear testimony to the willingness and earnest desire the right hon. Baronet showed to promote an investigation into the causes of these unfortunate occurrences. He had not expected, after the speeches which he had heard from the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson), when he used to attend meetings of the landlords of Suffolk, in which they considered the means of benefiting the labourers and promoting their interests, to have heard such a speech from him as the House had heard that evening. The hon. Gentleman must have known in what degree the interests of the labourer occupied the attention of the Gentlemen of Suffolk, and he ought not to have spoken as he had. That the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) could know but little of the history of Suffolk was plain from the tone he assumed in speaking of the Gentlemen of the county. The noble Lord concluded by reading part of a letter from a person in Suffolk, to shew that it was by no means right to say that the fires appeared in proportion as wages were low.

said, that he thought that if the right hon. Baronet had not before regretted the tone and manner in which he had met the Motion of his hon. Friend, when he charged him with calling for a needless and mischievous inquiry, he must feel that he had reason then for doing so, for the noble Lord who sat behind him, and who represented the county of Suffolk, had just disclosed to the House, that such was his apprehension of the state of his county, such was the necessity which he considered the extent of the crime in question had caused for instant inquiry, that he had himself, in the discharge of his duty as a proprietor and a Member of that county, gone to the right hon. Gentleman to request him to institute some inquiry into the causes of its present condition; and he had farther told them, that the only reason why he had not made the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester himself was, that he had implicit confidence in the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. This was the calm, deliberate, Conservative feeling of the noble Lord who represented that county. Why then, he asked, was his hon. Friend (the Member for Manchester) who, in the absence of any investigation having been made, in the absence of any confidence in the right hon. Baronet, a proprietor in the county himself, sharing in the same feeling with the noble Lord, desirous of inquiry—to be precluded from making a Motion to that effect in the House by the fear of the charge or imputation of deliberately promoting crime? The right hon. Gentleman certainly said, that it did not become him to impute motives to his hon. Friend. He wished he had thought it as little becoming in him to insinuate motives, for that was what he did; there could be no mistake as to the purpose of what he said; and, considering the character of his hon. Friend's speech, a more unworthy insinuation he had never heard; for he ventured to say, that a speech more moderate, more confined to the points in question, or more careful in steering clear of those objections charged upon it, he had never heard. His hon. Friend had a right as a proprietor, wishing to live well with his neighbours, as the right hon. Baronet admitted he did, wishing that the truth should be elicited as to the cause of the odious crime that prevails in his county, with a view to its prevention in future—he had a right to ask the Government to attend to it, to set the public mind at ease on the subject—to ascertain its extent, and at least determine, if possible, what was or was not the cause of it. Where would the objection of the right hon. Baronet end if it was good in this case—that to mention a grievance tended to create discontent? It would go to stop agitation on any question which was always said to disturb the public mind; if so, what chance was there of a single evil or grievance ever being removed? Where was the single instance of this House volunteering any measure of public good that did not spring out of agitation, almost amounting to violence? The right hon. Gentleman had taken credit to himself for amending the Poor Law. Why had he done it? Why, he admitted he did it reluctantly, and why? because what he called the evils of the law had been so frequently pressed upon him; and whenever there had been any inquiry into the condition of any portion of the people, or any concessions of any good made by the Government, it had usually been introduced with an apology, that resistance was no longer possible. Everybody had been charged in the same way as his hon. Friend had that night. Was his hon. Friend, moreover, the only person by whom, or was this House the only place in which these matters were discussed? Was there not in the two leading journals — The Times and Chronicle—at least a column and a half every other day referring to the state of these counties, and speculating upon the causes? If the discussion of the state of the poor was so mischievous, why did the right hon. Gentleman not reprove his Friends on his own side of the House, who, in their addresses against the Poor Laws, made speeches far more inflammatory and violent, more calculated to excite discontent among the poor, than any that the hon. Member for Manchester had ever made. The hon. Member for Durham had just explained, that by referring to this peculiar sensitiveness on the score of mischief, whenever the Corn Law is mentioned; touch and attack what else you please, and how you please, and nothing will be said; bat allude to the evils of the Corn Law, and there is no crime that will not be imputed to you. Now, the fact was, the Corn Laws made the application of his hon. Friend to the Government peculiarly in season, for he and all those who complained of the impediments thrown in the way of trade, thereby depriving thousands of their bread, had a right at all times to invite public attention to the condition of the agricultural districts, seeing that the enormous mischiefs which were occasioned by these monopolies were defended, and defended solely on the ground of the great advantages they conferred on the labourers of the country. It was not him and his Friends on that side who introduced irrelevant subjects into a discussion of this kind, if that law which makes food scarce is to be called irrelevant to an inquiry into the state of the poor. It was those who defended this law, who invariably intruded upon a discussion of the Corn Law the blessings it entailed on the agricultural population; and when the whole country was roused by the unceasing and shocking distresses of these people, they had a right to remind Gentlemen opposite of their plea for upholding a law so obviously maintained for their own interest, on the ground of its profit to the poor. Such a plea required to be supported by the strongest evidence to gain the slightest credit, and might well deserve the character it obtained when it was rebutted by every day's and every hour's experience. But the Motion is proper at any time that it may be made, for the condition of the agricultural people in these counties is not new. It is one of the grounds for inquiry that it is traced to causes which have had existence subsequent to the distress in question. It is a common notion, that the discontent of the people is referable to the New Poor Law alone, which is not the whole truth. There was abundant evidence to show that the people were precisely in the condition they then were a few years before the New Poor Law, and that then the evil was traced to the maladministration of the Old Poor Law. He would read a letter addressed from the county of Suffolk to The Times newspaper, in the year 1830, complaining of distress, and alluding especially to the cruelty and hardships of the old law. The letter purported to be from a day labourer, and it seems made a great sensation in the county at the time. The letter says,—

"Sir,—As I hear that you always put into the paper anything likely to do good to poor people, I make bold to write to you. I am told that the great people talk of nothing but the riches, the happiness, and the flourishing state of the country; but, Sir, I see nothing but famine misery, and distress; and I think that if our Parliament men knew the real situation of myself and thousands of my fellow-labourers, they would do something for our relief. I am an industrious labourer, about thirty years of age, with a wife and three young children. I have regular work, which is more than half my poor neighbours can say. How then, it may be asked, come you to be distressed? Why, Sir, because my wages are not enough to put bread into the mouths of myself and family. The wages have been for a long time 7s. a week; and, as it is impossible to live upon this, I am obliged to beg every week at the vestry."

The writer then proceeds to show the way in which his wages are made up out of the parish fund, and how the whole is applied for his maintenance, and says,

"Thus, Sir, after having provided myself and family with a cottage to live in, and about one pound of bread for us to eat, I have 6d. a week left to supply us with clothes, cheese, potatoes, candles and firing. Think, Sir, on the miserable, hopeless, half-starved condition of myself and family; and then, Sir, think of the far worse condition of nine-tenths of my neighbours, who have not such good health and regular work, or who have larger families than myself. Don't you think (he farther says) that for the employers to pay their labourers half their just wages, and to send them to the parish to beg a wretched pittance, is like defrauding them of their hire, and is what is called in the Bible,' grinding the faces of the poor.'"

And after dwelling upon the effect on strength and health of the inadequate requital for their labour, and saying that half of them are supported in beggary, he says,

"He does not understand much about law making, but that he has heard that a law has been passed to keep up the price of corn for the good of the farmers, and that surely it would be but just that another law should be passed to make those who employed the labourer to give him wages in proportion to the rise in the price of food."

Now, the Times of the day in which that letter was inserted invites general attention to its contents in a leading article, and says:—

"We know that the statements which it contains are true, and that they apply to a very large district in a quarter from which the letter comes, and some thousands of parishes in England."

He referred to it to show that this bad condition of the people in these districts was not new, and that, however angry the people might feel with the mode in which relief is given to them now, yet it could not be considered to be the cause of their distress. The Times is right, and does much good in pointing to the wretched state of the rural population; but it points too exclusively to the New Poor Law as the cause of that condition. There was a deeper cause of their deterioration, and one which punishment—which the hon. Member seemed to believe was the care—will be far from removing. It would seem, when the gentlemen connected with the county hear that magistrates dare to commit, and juries dare to convict, that all is done that is required, but that is far from satisfying the question. It is clear that the evil was not mending; for upwards of twenty years before the New Poor Law, the people of these and other agricultural counties had been deteriorating; and unless the great fact of increasing numbers and diminishing employment was met boldly in the face, no amount of punishment, or no amount of caution in refusing inquiries of this kind, would stop the evil. In the year 1824 there was a Committee in this House to inquire into the operation of the Old Poor Law, and persons the most competent to describe the real state of the rural population—clergymen, proprietors, overseers—all agreed in depicting the people as fearfully distressed, immoral, and discontented; the evil, then, existed at that time, continued still, and was getting worse; and it could not be otherwise while a law to impede trade and check the supply of food, and thus lessen the demand for labour, continued. Since the prices became first so high, since it was attempted to continue them so by legislation, without making adequate provision for the wants of increasing numbers, so long have the people been sinking, and so long would the people sink; and hon. Gentlemen opposite should really reflect upon the fact they cannot dispute—that it was just at those intervals when the Corn Law fails in its purpose and there is abundance of food that those very people, those labourers whom they profess to care for, were well of. That the people were ill off in these counties was not disputed, he believed, out of this House, but he had heard it denied this evening. Well, grant it that they were not distressed; was it not ground for inquiry that the contrary was very generally believed; and was there any fear of inquiry, or of increased incendiarism, if they were well off? It was said that these fires were caused by others, and not by the people of the county. Well, then, the people would be thankful to have that elicited, and there was no fear of exciting them to the commission of crime by inquiry. He knew that divers reasons had been assigned for this offence in those counties, and he believed that in the insurance offices there was an idea that some of the persons insured were not so careful as they might be, for being fully insured offered a great temptation to their not being so; but the more conflict of opinion there was, the more doubt as to whether it was an act of despair on the part of the people in the hopelessness of their condition, surely the more reason was there for inquiry. In short, as coming from his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, as a proprietor in that county, he could conceive no Motion more appropriate, more called for, or more likely to be useful, and, presented as it was in a very careful speech as he thought, he should give it his cordial support.

said, that the speeches made that night on the other side of the House were marked by all the characteristics and requisites of incendiary speeches. He had no intention of imputing motives to any hon. Member. He did not state with what purpose those speeches were made. All he would say was, that they contained the characteristics and requisites of incendiary speeches. He himself belonged to that class who were said to be of very obtuse intellects, but yet he possessed sufficient acuteness to see clearly enough the tendency of those remarks which that night fell from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House; for his part he did not pretend to much enlightenment; but though the perceptions of those Members who represented agricultural districts might not be very acute, yet in the present debate those Members were not altogether without the possession of some advantages. He had lately come up from the country, though he had not been, like the hon. Member for Durham, out upon an agitating tour. He repeated, that he had no intention of attributing motives — it would be very wrong to attribute motives — but when the House heard the speech of the hon. Member for Durham they could not fail to remember that he had been acting as a lecturer on the subject of the Corn Laws, and, in fact, that they might consider the present discussion as nothing more nor less than an adjourned debate on the Corn Laws. It was his fate whenever he came into that House to hear little else than debates on the Corn Laws. The hon. Member for Manchester told the House that want of employment was the cause of distress, and that distress caused the fires. He himself had been a farmer for upwards of twenty-five years; and he therefore could not help regarding the condition of the farmer with peculiar interest; but he frequently read the articles on the money-market and city intelligence which daily appeared in the newspapers, and he could not shut his eyes to this fact, that railways and other speculations received the most ready encouragements, though propositions for the improved cultivation of land were always very coldly received. The most hopeless speculation would receive support in the one case, and the most promising be allowed to fall in the other. No matter how wild or visionary the speculation might be, there was always capital enough for anything but cultivating the land; and that caused the want of employment. The hon. Member for Durham referred to the disposition which prevailed in Suffolk to recommend the adoption of a system of severe punishment. It did not happen that he was present at any of the meetings held upon that subject. But it was understood that more children than adults were concerned in those fires; and that in one case an adult was said to have committed the offence from a wish to be transported. It was probably thought by those who recommended severer measures that if such were adopted no one would commit crime for the sake of being punished; at least, that no one would become an incendiary with a view to being hung. To these remarks he wished to add that he was not an advocate for any increased severity.

would avail himself of that opportunity of calling the attention of the House, in conformity with the notice he had given at the commencement of the Session, to the importance of—

"Due provision being made for the University Education of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland, especially of such as are intended for the priesthood, and the inadequacy of the means and system now existing for the attainment of such object, and that steps should be taken by an enlargement and improvements of existing arrangements, either by opening the emoluments and honours as studies of the University of Dublin to Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, and raising the College of Maynooth to the dignity of a theological faculty of the said University or by founding or maintaining a Roman Catholic University, with equal rank, endowments, and privileges with those of the University of Dublin, or by some other means, adequately to supply the deficiencies now complained of, and, as far as may be, effectually provide for the future moral and intellectual wants of the Roman Catholic inhabitants; thus promoting the advancement and happiness, not of Roman Catholics only, but of all classes and persuasions of the Irish people."

On a former occasion, when he took the liberty of moving for Returns relative to this subject, an impression went abroad that it was his intention to alter the character of the University of Dublin, not with the view of extending its benefits to the public at large, but to interfere with its rights and privileges. Now, he had been educated at that university, and no one could appreciate more highly than he did the benefits which he had derived from it; and no one was more anxious to promote its advantages, and to extend its usefulness more than he was. He was one of the first Roman Catholics who had entered that University on its being re-opened to that body, and he could declare, that during the time in which he received his education there, he had no reason to complain of any interference with him as regarded his religious opinions; on the contrary, he could say, that he believed that it would be difficult as regarded the common course of education, to find greater fairness manifested. But in admitting this, he felt bound to say that the system of dial University was not so beneficial or useful as it might be made, to a large portion of the inhabitants of Ireland; and he believed, that the means of rendering it so were not so great or difficult as they were supposed to be. They had arrived at that period, as regarded the elementary education of the people, that it was no longer necessary to argue the question as to whether the Government should or should not take part in the education of the people. The elementary education of the people had within the last few years greatly occupied the attention of the Government, and there seemed to be a general concurrence of opinion, that as regards Ireland it should be carried on. The advantages which Ireland had already derived from the new system of elementary education in that country were very great and manifest, and he only regretted that the plan had not been extended much farther, and that an enlarged system of education had not been formed throughout the country, so as to combine every branch of education. In 1830 he urged the adoption, not merely of elementary education for the people of Ireland, but a general system, of which the elementary part should form only a branch. He shortly afterwards took the liberty of placing before the Government a plan by which he proposed that this should be carried out—he recommended that the elementary education should be carried on by the joint aid and assistance of the Government and local persons—by the Government through a central board, and by local boards, acting as trustees or committees, to carry out the orders or recommendations of the central board. He then proposed that the system should be extended to the establishment of local colleges or universities, and to the formation of literary and scientific institutions, and galleries of arts, and local schools of art. Here then was the Government on the one side, and the people on the other, acting conjointly in promoting the great and important object of national education—the Government directing and controlling on the one hand and the people offering their assistance and co-operation on the other. On that occasion he had suggested the absolute necessity of revising a part of that important institution, the only university in Ireland. The memorial which he drew up upon this subject he placed in the hands of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, who then held the office of Secretary for Ireland; and he in it took the liberty of pointing out several anomalies which existed as regarded the state of the University of Dublin and also the College of Maynooth. He had there shown that the College of Maynooth was excluded from conferring the academic distinctions or rewards which properly appertained to a University, and he then called upon the Government either to open the University of Dublin to those educated at Maynooth or other collegiate establishments, or to establish a new University. He continued also to urge this during the time that he was a Member of the Government of Lord Grey, and he repeatedly solicited the Government which succeeded it still more urgently to do so, as the circumstance which called for interference had become still more pressing. Now, that the system of elementary education in Ireland was found to work so well and was so good, while the collegiate education for the clergy of the great body of the people was so inadequate to the wants of the case, and while the university education was capable of so much improvement, he hoped that the Government would take up the subject with the view to providing a remedy. It was notorious that Maynooth could not lay claim to the character of a university, and still less the Belfast Academical Institution. He would ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government whether any other country was in the same situation as Ireland as regarded the institutions of the higher branches of education? Was there any country, either Catholic or Protestant, either with a monarchical or republican government, where there was a population of upwards of 8,000,000, which had only one university to supply the higher branches of education. In Germany he found on the aggregate that there were not less than forty universities, and in some of the smaller states in that country there were large and flourishing establishments of this kind. Prussia with a population of scarcely 12,000,000 of inhabitants had not less than six universities. Bavaria with a population of 4,000,000, had three universities. Look to Belgium and Holland, and there appeared to be a greater number of universities in proportion to the population of the country than there was in Germany. In Holland, with a population of 2,302,000, there were four universities; and in Belgium, also with a population of 3,816,000 there were also four universities. The number of students in the universities of Holland, was about 1,316, while in Belgium also the number exceeded 1,458. So far, also, from these establishments being considered too large for the circumstances of these countries, and although large public funds were annually expended in their maintenance, the people of both these countries were constantly demanding that they should be enlarged and improved at the public expense. In France, again, they saw a similar state of things, for the University of France extended its ramifications through several of the towns of France, and had a great number of branches scattered throughout the country. In Russia there were fourteen, and in Sweden two. Again, in the Papal territories—the state of education in which had been so much vilified—there were five secondary colleges and two principal universities. Even in the small state of Tuscany there were two universities. Let the Committee then look to America, and they would find universities established in most of the northern and southern states, and the number of them had greatly increased in the older states. In addition, the Committee might look to the state of things in England, where there were the two magnificent institutions at Oxford and Cambridge, and in addition to the University of London, and that of Durham. In Scotland there were four universities, while there were little more than two millions of people. With such a state of things, was it to be borne that there should be only one university in Ireland, with a population of eight millions? About the period of the Restoration it was intended to establish a second university at Athlone, but this was abandoned. But would the House stop and say that there should be only one university in Ireland, and that the higher branches of academic education, with the accompanying honours, should alone be imparted in that country by the University of Dublin? But it might be said that the University of Dublin was Protestant; that it had been established for Protestant objects, and ought not to be made available for Catholic purposes, with any justice. Much misconception prevailed as to the establishment and the original state of the University of Dublin, and as to the opening the fellowships and other offices of the University to Catholics as well as Protestants being equivalent to converting it to Catholics purposes. The University of Dublin was generally supposed to be founded by Queen Elizabeth. No doubt this was the case, to a certain extent; but then, funds for that purpose were derived from former endowments belonging to it, and to certain monasteries, from which it derived the chief portion of its revenues. The first attempt to erect an university in Ireland was made by John Lech, Archbishop of Dublin, in 1312, who obtained from Pope Clement V. a bull for its foundation and endowment. This prelate having died without proceeding in this enlightened national undertaking, left the honour of following up the project to his successor, Alexander de Bickner, described in the letter of the King, recommending him to the Holy See, as "a man of profound judgment, high morality, deep learning, and, withal, the greatest circumspection in spiritual and temporal affairs." He succeeded in establishing a university, attached to St. Patrick's Church, Dublin, and composed rules for its government. The first professor in the Irish university was William de Hardite, a dominican friar. The degree of D. D. was conferred on the above-mentioned De Hardite and Edmund de Kamardin, who was afterwards nominated to the bishopric of Ardfert. If soon declined for want of endowments, but the education of the country was sustained by colleges, of which one of the most, celebrated was that on Usher's Island, distinguished for the learning of its teachers, especially its courses of philosophy and theology. A new attempt was made for the revival of the university. In 1475 a strong memorial was addressed to the Holy See on the subject, and Pope Sextus IV. issued a bull, commanding and authorising the foundation. The reasons given for the re-establishment of this university show the advantages of local bodies. This body continued in existence until the destruction of monasteries. In 1501, Government took up the labour of individuals. Allhallows became the properly of the corporation by grant of Henry VIII., and was given for the university. Elizabeth, at the suggestion of Sir Henry Sidney, enlarged it, or rather founded it anew, and gave it statutes. Amongst, other matters therein mentioned, it was directed that the fellowships should be held but for seven years. It was also much more liberal in religion. During the period of James II. the Rev. Mr. Moore, a Roman Catholic, was nominated fellow and provost, and he, with Mr. Macarthy, another fellow, "being a lover of literature, with a liberal mind," who, he rejoiced to say, saved the library of the college, being converted into a barrack from a savage soldiery. It was also exempted from the effects of the Bill of Attainder. Soon after this period the Catholics were excluded from the University of Dublin. By the Act of 1793 they were admitted for the purposes of education; but they were excluded from the fellowships, and thus, therefore, they were prevented attaining the highest honours in the University. The University of Dublin was governed by a certain number of junior and senior fellows. The junior fellows, by a rule, must take orders in the Church of England, within a certain period. The consequence was that Catholics, by such a rule, were excluded, and by another statute it was declared that before they could be admitted to their fellowships they must take the sacrament in conformity with the Church of England. It was said that this statute could not be changed; then how was it that the statute had been repealed which permitted the senior fellows marrying? He thought that they could easily create an additional number of fellowships in connection with the University of Dublin, which should be opened to both Catholics and Protestants. There were at present four lay fellowships in the university; why might not the number of them be increased, and the election to them be open to both Catholics and Protestants? He might be told that several of the scholarships were open, but this was really not the case, for in practice it was found that no Catholic could be placed in the rank of scholar in the University, unless he abandoned his religion. A case illustrative of this was recently brought before the Courts, in which it appeared that a Gentleman who had obtained a great number of certificates for a scholarship was about to present himself for it, when he was told that he could not do so without he in the first place took the sacrament, and thus showed that he belonged to the Church of England. What were the funds of the Colleges, what its means of extending its usefulness? The landed property of the University extended over 231,000 acres, the value of which, however, he had no means of estimating. Then there were the fees, the amount of which, in 1841, was as follows:—

Doctors in divinity (3), fees	£66	0
law (12)	264	0
medicine (7)	154	0
Bachelors in divinity (3)	41	5
Master of arts (66)	648	0
Bachelors in Laws (21)	246	15
medicine (12)	141	0
arts (24 fellow commoners)	414	0
162 pensioners	486	0
Matriculation (26 fellow-commoners)	390	0
(241 pensioners)	1,807	10
Total	£4,658	10

Upon the whole, he thought that with very little assistance from the Government the college might do much towards extending the sphere of its usefulness. That it might be able to do so, if enabled, was clear from the terms of the Act of Parliament, 14 and 15 Car. 2., which ran thus:

"Provided also, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the Lord-Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of this kingdom for the time being, by and with the consent of the Privy Council, shall have full power and authority to erect another college, to be of the University, to be called by the name of the King's College; and out of all and every the lands, tenements, and hereditaments vested by this act in His Majesty, and which shall be settled or restored by virtue thereof, to raise a yearly allowance for ever not exceeding 2,000l. per annum, by an equal charge upon every one thousand acres, or lesser quantities proportionably, and therewith to endow the said college, which said college, so as aforesaid to be erected, shall be regulated, and governed by such laws, statutes, ordinances, and constitutions, as his Majesty, his heirs, or successors shall, under his or their Great Seal of England or Ireland declare or appoint."

Thus it was clear that the power existed for establishing a new college in connection with the University adapted to the wishes of the Irish people, and there could be as little doubt of the propriety of acting upon the power so given. Ireland had a large Catholic population, and Parliament had repeatedly admitted the principle that this Catholic population ought to he instructed, and given grants, however inadequate for that purpose. Having declared the propriety of educating the people, it followed that Parliament should be most careful to educate the educators, most careful, above all, of the religious education of the educators. Hitherto, how had the education of the Roman Catholic priests been cared for? For a very long period, they had been more indebted to the liberality of foreign countries than to the justice of their own; and when at last Maynooth was established, the building assigned to the purpose was little better than a miserable hovel, and the sum allotted perfectly insignificant, the professors having a salary below that which an ordinary cook would receive for his services. A simple means of remedying much of the present evil would be to annex the College of Maynooth, and that of Belfast, to the University of Dublin; the one the University for Roman Catholics, the other that for Presbyterians; and the third, that for Protestants; all of which classes would be thus united in the bonds of Christian brotherhood, as was the case with different classes of religionists in England and abroad. To each of the former college, he would give the power of conferring degrees in divinity and arts. If this could not be effected, the only remedy would be, to establish at once a Catholic University in Ireland. There were various places in Ireland, where such a University could be established with the greatest advantage. The hon. Gentleman concluded with stating that after having thus brought forward the subject, he would not, at this period of the Session, take a vote upon it, desiring to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, hoping that next Session it would be taken up with energy.

I am sure I shall state what is in conformity with the general feelings of the House, when I say that no Member of this House is better entitled to take up this subject than the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I know no Member of this House who has devoted more time and attention to the consideration of the subject and to devising means by which the advantages of education can be distributed throughout the country. I must also say, that the hon. Gentleman has another qualification besides that of experience on this subject—he has the high qualification of discussing with temper and with moderation, which ensures, amidst all the animosities which may divide us, an impartial and favourable consideration of anything he proposes. I rejoice that the hon. Gentleman has made his observations in a manner which precludes him from taking the sense of the House upon them. He has made those observations not even in reference to a vote for Irish education; for the vote, which we are discussing is one for English education. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman made those observations on this vote, that he might avoid the possibility of our coming to any hostile vote on the subject. I rejoice that the hon. Gentleman does not call for any expression of opinion on this subject. The hon. Gentleman adverted to the state of elementary education in Ireland. I think that he, and those who generally concur with him, will admit that the state of elementary education in Ireland is satisfactory. Her Majesty's Government, I think it will also be admitted, have done something towards that portion of public education. In the course of the present Session we purpose to increase by one-half the amount of the vote applied to the purpose of national education in Ireland. In the course of last year the vote for education in Ireland was 50,000l.; in the present we propose to increase that vote by 25,000l., making the vote of the present year 75,000l. Within a very short period a Report has been laid upon the Table of the House with reference to this subject, the 10th Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, with the following names attached to it:—The Archbishop of Dublin, the most Rev. Dr. Murray, Mr. Sadlier, Mr. Blake, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Macdonnell, and Lord Kildare. That Report gives this account of the progress which has been made in public education as it has come under their superintendence. It is stated, in the first part of the Report, that there were many demands for schools with which they had not the power of complying, and that there were also demands for the inspection of schools, which, on account of the limitation of the vote, they could not grant. They stated, however, that at the close of the year 1842 they had 2,271 schools in operation, which were attended by 319,719 children. At the close of 1843 they had 2,912 schools in operation, which were attended by 355,322 children, the increase in the number of schools amounting in one year to 191, and the increase in the attendance of children in the course of a single year amounting to 35,603. They also add, what I believe to be perfectly consistent with the fact, that "they have the gratification of observing that those unfounded impressions on the subject of education which we have on former occasions had to notice are rapidly taking flight." The Report shows that there is not merely an increase in the number of schools, or in the number of scholars, but the great source of satisfaction is the announcement of this fact—that the hostility and prejudice which were directed against this system of united education are passed away. So far as elementary national education is concerned, then, I think we may congratulate ourselves on the progress that we have made. With respect to that other and equally important subject to which the hon. Gentleman has called our attention, I have the satisfaction of assuring him that it is a subject which has occupied the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman must excuse me if, on this occasion, I purposely forbear from entering into details. It is not because I am not prepared to express an opinion upon the subject, or to enter into detail; but, it being impossible in the course of the present Session to submit any practical measure on the subject, I am sure it is infinitely better that I should avoid altogether entering into details which must be stated, if stated now, many months before any practical measure can be introduced. I think I shall best consult the future importance of this question, by avoiding detailed observations at the present time; but I have no hesitation in stating that the result of the consideration which we have given to this subject is a conviction that the means of academical education in Ireland are defective. There are only three institutions which partake of the character of universities, viz., Trinity College, Dublin, Belfast Academical Institution, and the College of Maynooth. So far as the education of the laity of Ireland is concerned—I am speaking now of academical education—looking at the population of Ireland—at the increase of people—comparing the means of academical education in that country with the Continent, or with those two portions of the United Kingdom with which we are more intimately acquainted, England and Scotland—I must say that I think the means of a similar education in Ireland are comparatively and relatively inferior. The academical institution in Belfast does afford an opportunity of academical education to the north of Ireland, but in the south there is no such institution. The University of Dublin, also, was founded at a remote period, and, though that is an important institution, and is, I think, conducted upon equitable and liberal principles, yet the population of Ireland has certainly outstripped the growth of that institution. I don't at all undervalue that education which is given to the upper classes of Ireland in the universities of this country. I must say, indeed, that I think there are great advantages to be gained from the occasional resort of the youth of Ireland both to the academies and to the universities of this country; and I do hope that we never shall see any system devised in Ireland which will prevent the occasional and frequent resort of Irishmen to the universities of this country. It is a bond of connexion which unites the upper class of society rather than any other bond; for neither the schools nor universities of this country do afford the means of an academical education to those who do not belong to the upper classes. The hon. Gentleman felt all the difficulties of this subject without proposing any decided plan for adding to the means of academical education. He suggested various plans; with respect to none, however, did he express any very decided preference; and, if he, with his knowledge of Ireland and with his experience feels the difficulty of expressing any positive opinion, that is an additional reason why I, without the means of personal communication with those acquainted with Ireland, should abstain from expressing an opinion on any of the points to which he has adverted. I repeat that it is a subject which has occupied the consideration of Her Majesty's servants—that it is a subject to which the attention of my noble Friend, who is about to assume the chief office in the administration of Irish affairs, will be directed immediately on his arrival in Ireland, and I trust that we, shall, at an early period of next Session, propose means for increasing academical education, or we shall have to notify to the hon. Gentleman that our efforts have been unsuccessful, and that we must leave to him to bring on his plan. If we fail in our endeavours, it will not be from want of a desire to do justice. The consideration of the Government will also be directed to the position of the College at Maynooth, for we feel that it is not now in a satisfactory state. The amount of the grant is of no consequence so far as principle is concerned; for, if there be any violation of principle in making a grant for the support of Maynooth, that principle is violated by the sum at present granted. I know all the difficulties of the subject; but I will say no more, other than that Her Majesty's Government are impressed with the conviction that it is not in a satisfactory state at present, and that the position of that College will be one of the subjects to which the attention of the Government will be directed. When I say, that I think I may add that the attention of the Government will be directed to it in such a mode as that the position of that College shall not be less satisfactory to those immediately connected with it than it is at present, I hope I shall not be called upon to say more. I think I shall best consult the importance of the subject by avoiding further details, which, if proceeded with might tend to prejudice the measure, and to raise up objections to the proposition hereafter to be brought forward; and if Her Majesty's Government can propose any measure which shall have the effect of allaying all those feelings of jealousy and animosity which have hitherto existed, we shall consider that we have effected a double advantage—first, by promoting the cause of education; and, secondly, by cementing the bonds of a friendly alliance between the two countries.

said, that the House was deeply indebted to his right hon. Friend the Member for Waterford, not only for the able and excellent speech which he had just made—a speech which was characterised by great temper and moderation—but also for his being the means of drawing from the right hon. Baronet opposite intimations of the most signal importance; intimations which he most unaffectedly assured the right hon. Baronet he most highly appreciated. Among the other incidents of the right hon. Baronet's speech, he had paid a tribute to the labours of his right hon. Friend the Member for Waterford, which his hon. Friend most richly deserved. His right hon. Friend had been labouring in this cause for years, always useful but sometimes unavailing. He knew that the plan of national education adopted by the Whigs in Ireland was sketched out by his hon. Friend, and that when it was carried into execution, due praise was not awarded to his efforts. His right hon. Friend had referred to the Act of Charles II. in explanation of his views; but there was another Act—the first Act of Catholic Emancipation, passed in 1793—to which he had not referred, and which, in his opinion, was still more important. There was a very important Clause in that Act relating to the University of Dublin. In that Clause it was enacted that nothing contained in the Act should enable any Roman Catholic to hold any office of profit or emolument in Trinity College, Dublin; but there was a provision in another Clause that in a College to be established Roman Catholics should be admissible to every office in it. The College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity was only one College in the great University of Dublin; and to that University other Colleges might be and were intended to be added. By one Clause, it was provided that—

"Papists might take degrees in, or be masters, or fellows, or scholars of any College in this kingdom, provided that it be a member of the University of Dublin, and that it be not instituted exclusively for the education of Papists."

That Clause would evidently exclude Maynooth. The object then in view was to make Maynooth an ecclesiastical institution of the country for the education of the Roman Catholic Clergy. At the same time, it was evident that the Irish Parliament intended to provide that there should be a College in Ireland unconnected with the University of Dublin, If the Imperial Parliament should determine to carry into effect the spirit of this Act in the temper announced that evening by the right hon. Baronet, it would establish a College in Ireland in which young men of every religious sect would be admissible to scholarships and fellowships. And if any one, acting in a spirit contrary to that displayed by the right hon. Baronet, should say to him, "You are sapping the foundations of the Protestant Church," the right hon. Baronet had only to refer to the Clause which he had just read, for a complete refutation of such an assertion.

said, that no man was more impressed than he was with the importance of this subject. It was unworthy of the country that the education of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, if undertaken by the State, should be anything but national. He pointed out the insufficiency of Maynooth to supply the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland with the means of education; and said that either the whole number of them or none should be educated under the auspices of Government. He looked upon the intimation which the right hon. Baronet had made that evening to be important, not only in its immediate, but also in its future results. It would be found useful in enabling the Government to carry on the Administration of the country without offending the feelings of the Roman Catholic clergy, or exposing them to the imputation of sordid motives.

returned his most cordial thanks to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government for the announcement which he had just made of his intentions upon the subject of academical education in Ireland. He hailed it as the earnest of a better, a more consistent, and a more conciliatory line of policy towards that unfortunate country. He hoped that it was a proof that the Government of England was at last awake to the necessity of governing Ireland on the only system on which a country so closely allied to us ought to be governed. He hoped that the system which the right hon. Baronet had just indicated would be speedily carried into full effect, and that it would be as prosperous and successful as the most sanguine supporters of it could wish. He thanked the right hon. Member for Waterford for the very conciliatory tone in which he had brought the question forward, and shared in the gratification which the right hon. Member must have felt on hearing of the line of policy which the right hon. Baronet had just indicated.

trusted that Her Majesty's Government would exercise due caution in commencing a work of this importance, on which the peace of Ireland would henceforward materially depend. Hopes had been entertained that the Government system of education would have been the harbinger of peace to Ireland; but that system had not been attended with that success which, after the lapse of eleven years, the country had a right to expect. In recent years it had been deemed expedient even in this country that greater facilities should be provided for academical education; two colleges had been founded in this metropolis—University College and King's College—which together formed the University of London. He did not wish to say anything invidious, but he thought that, even in the years which had elapsed since their institution, enough had transpired to show the comparative utility of those two colleges. Their bases differed widely, and the consequence, that one of them was thriving, and the other the reverse. Whenever this great experiment should be tried in Ireland, he hoped that the result to which he had just alluded would be borne in mind. Whatever principles this new college might be founded on, he hoped that the principles of the Protestant Church would be adhered to.

had reason to complain that certain Returns connected with the system of National Education in Ireland, for which he had moved last Session, had not been accurately furnished to the House; for these Returns did not give the whole of the schools which he wished to have mentioned. The hon. and gallant Member then proceeded to complain of the number of the so-called national schools which were connected with monastic institutions in Ireland; and which schools could not, under such circumstances, be regarded as national. On one occasion an inquest was holden in a school-room, under the direction of the National Board of Education, but when it became necessary to swear the witnesses, not a Bible or Testament was to be found in the building. It was perfectly well known that the system of education in Ireland was established for the purpose of inducing parents of all religious persuasions to allow their children to attend these schools. The letter of the noble Lord, which might be considered almost as the charter of the system, recommended that all idea of proselytism should be abandoned, and that religious instruction and the reading of the Testament should not be introduced during school hours. Now had these regulations been strictly acted upon, he had no doubt that good would have resulted; but, unfortunately, the Board did not obey the instructions, and, in consequence, at this moment the patrons of schools had the power of introducing the doctrines of the Established Church, or the Scotch Church, or even the Church of Rome; the only impediment to their doing so being the objections which might be made by the parents. If the Board really wished to do good, let them fall back upon the original instructions contained in the noble Lord's letter. Let them exclude from the schools, during school hours, every description of religious instruction, and also take care that the Scriptures were not read in those hours. He did not see that the Protestants would object to that; but he feared that, constituted as the Board was at present, there was no prospect of this desirable object being carried into effect. It was true the Protestant Clergy of Ireland were told that they might join the National Board; so they might if they pleased join the "Loyal National Repeal Association;" but what would be thought of them if they did so? In his opinion the increase of the grant to the Board of National Education in Ireland was proposed at a time and under circumstances that rendered it very improper. The Clergy of the Established Church felt that they could not reconcile it to themselves to join in the National Board as it was now constituted, and under the existing system; and he maintained that if any addition were made to the grant it ought to be for the purpose of enabling the Church Educational Society, or some other society of that description, to give a proper education to the Protestants of Ireland. He was certain that it could not be the intention or even the wish of the Government that the education of the children of Protestant parents should be placed in the hands of Roman Catholics. Could they expect that Protestants would send their children to be educated at schools under the direction of Roman Catholics? He wanted the same justice for the Protestants that they proposed to give the Roman Catholics. The latter were undoubtedly a majority in Ireland, but the Protestant Church was the Established Church of that country, and its Members were as deserving the consideration of Her Majesty's Government as any other class of people in the Empire.

could not help thinking that, if the Protestant Clergy of Ireland had considered it their duty to co-operate with the Government in the plan of national education, and if the Protestant Church of Ireland had fortunately received that plan in a good, kind, and cordial spirit, the evils to which the gallant Colonel had alluded, which have been very much abated, and the abuses which, no doubt, did exist, would have been prevented by the careful supervision and co-operation of the Protestant Clergy. If education in Ireland was practically left in the bands of the Romish Clergy, and if the Protestant Clergy thought it to be consistent with their duties as the pastors of the people to retire from that great charge, it could not but be expected that advantage would be taken of their retirement, and that abuses would take place, which otherwise might be avoided. Having always felt the deepest interest in the question of education in Ireland, he had very great pleasure in expressing his entire concurrence in everything that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. He did so the more because it was evident that the right hon. Baronet felt the immense difficulty of the task he had undertaken. It was indeed a question which required all his mind, all his knowledge, and all his sense of justice to settle.

said, that it appeared that the present vote was to be increased from 50,000l. to 72,000l. The right hon. Gentleman below said, that he understood from the opinions of the Commissioners that the hostility which had prevailed to this grant had very much diminished. Of course the right hon. Gentleman had ample opportunities of learning the state of feeling on this subject; but he must say, that as far as he had had opportunities of learning the opinions of the Clergy of the Church of England in Ireland, he believed the dislike to this vote continued as strong as ever. He had had repeated opportunities of knowing this from men in whom he placed the highest confidence—from men who moved throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, and who were, therefore, in a situation to know the feelings of the Protestants of Ireland on the subject. If it was thought right by the Government to increase this grant for what was called a national purpose, but which he could not consider as a national purpose, but rather for the benefit of a particular class, he could only express his regret that they had not, in justice to the Protestants of Ireland, made some special grant to them, as suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend near him, for the purpose of education. This additional grant, made on the old principle and to be expended in the old manner, would, he believed, deeply wound the Protestants of Ireland, who could not but feel that they had been neglected. The right hon. Baronet had received the congratulations of Gentlemen on the other side of the House, in regard to an intimation which he had made—not very clearly it was true—of the intention of Government to consider this subject. He could not concur in those congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, and he was afraid that the intimation which had been given, indistinct as it was, would not be received by the Protestants of Ireland in the same spirit in which it was received by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who congratulated him. He should always speak of the right hon. Baronet with courtesy, but his own principles were still the same, and if he professed to be a Protestant he also professed to consider Protestantism to be something more than a name, and that he ought not to be called on to favour and encourage principles which he detested and abjured. He did not know whether it was intended to take the vote for Maynooth to-night. He had always conscientiously opposed that vote, and would, as usual, divide the Committee whenever it was brought forward.

had great pleasure in supporting the present vote, and the greater because it was not accompanied by the exclusive grant which the hon. Member for Kent wished to be given as a counterpoise to it. He rose, however, chiefly to express the satisfaction he felt at what had passed on a former vote, although not immediately connected with it. Those who heard the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Waterford must have felt that the subject to which he so ably drew their attention was one of the greatest importance in every point of view. Nothing could evidently be more essential than that those whose duty it was to instruct so large a portion of the inhabitants of Ireland as the Catholic population should themselves receive an education such as would fit them for the performance of so very important a task; and it afforded him the greatest satisfaction to hear what fell from the right hon. Baronet opposite in reply to his hon. Friend. It was perfectly natural and proper that in treating a subject of this kind the right hon. Baronet should confine himself to a general indication of future intentions. It would have been impossible to expect that he should on the present occasion have gone more into detail. He was perfectly ready to wait till the right hon. Baronet and his Colleagues should have matured their views on this subject, and he trusted, from the very liberal tone in which the right hon. Baronet had spoken, that he would be able by next Session to settle and arrange some plan calculated to attain those very great objects pointed out by his hon. Friend. Of course, from what they had seen to-night they must expect that the right hon. Baronet would have some difficulties to contend with, but he trusted he would be sufficiently conscious of his own strength to feel that if he arrived at a just conclusion and a good measure he would be enabled to carry it into execution. The right hon. Baronet might calculate on every fair support from both sides of the House; and he was sure the Government could not turn their attention during the recess to any subject of more pressing and practical importance than this subject.

had heard with great satisfaction the tone and spirit with which the right hon. Member for Waterford introduced the subject; but at the same time he must express great regret at what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet—not that the right hon. Gentleman had expressed to-night opinions inconsistent with those he had formerly avowed, but that he had given expression to opinions certainly altogether inconsistent with the expectations many of his hon. Friends had been led to entertain. He would not, by remaining silent on the present occasion, appear to acquiesce in a Motion which he thought would be repugnant to the feeling of the great Protestant community. It became a man who had formed an opinion not to forget his principles for the sake of party; and, as he had to express an honest opposition to the Government on this subject, he felt the more called on by a sense of duty to do so. He did not deny that the national system of education in Ireland had been making great progress. How was it possible that the result should be otherwise, when that system had been supported by a grant of 50,000l.? But might not the Government have anticipated greater results with regard to education, if, while continuing this grant, they had also given a grant to the other Society—the Church Education Society in Ireland, which received support from the exertions of the clergy. He knew of a clergyman giving even as much as 1,000l. for the support of the Church Education Society. The right hon. Baronet had acted, he would not say inconsistently with himself, but still not consistently with the expectations of the heads of the Church.

heartily rejoiced in seeing the progress of education in Ireland, through the means of which a vast amount of young persons in Ireland were brought up in habits of decency and self-respect, and were taught this great principle—to respect the opinions of their neighbours, and not to dislike any member of the community on account of religious differences. He too must express his satisfaction at the statement of the right hon. Baronet.

said, that as he had always opposed this grant, he should not hesitate to divide the House on it, without further discussion.

before they went to a division, must take the liberty of saying a few words regarding Education in Ireland. He hoped those measures to which the right hon. Baronet alluded would be as successful as he could wish, but there was a point in connection with them to which the right hon. Baronet had not adverted, and which really required some consideration; namely, whether some support should not be given to the Church Education Society in Ireland? Surely similar sympathy ought to be shown to that society, which was shown to other societies. It was supported by persons high in the State, several dignitaries had joined it; and, if no assistance was to be afforded to it, whilst other societies were to be aided with grants, it must of necessity be extinguished because of its inability to contend with the money granted elsewhere. If the Church in Ireland was fit to be the established church of that country, she was fit to be intrusted with the education of her own children; and therefore when the right hon. Baronet brought forward his scheme for the extension of education in Ireland—a scheme the success of which was much to be desired—he hoped that he would give some attention to the claims of the Established Church.

observed, that the education grant was intended equally to apply to Protestants and Roman Catholics. It should be recollected, too, that the Protestant Church in Ireland possessed a revenue of 800,000l. a-year, some parts of which might surely be applied to the education of the children born in her faith.

thought it would be well if each of the societies were to have a grant. It would then be seen which was the most compatible with the tastes of the people of Ireland. For his own part, he did not believe that the sympathy of the people of that country was universally in favour of the education of the National Board — on the contrary, he knew of many Roman Catholic children who absolutely passed the National School to go to the Church School; and considering the opportunities it had had, and contrasting the effect of its operations with that of the other society, he must say, that he thought it had in effect proved decidedly a failure.

was afraid that the vote to which the observations of the noble Lords referred had been passed. The proposal now before them was for the usual annual vote for the College of Maynooth; but as the opinions of no Members of the House were entitled to greater weight than the opinions of the noble Lords who had lately spoken, and as the vote had, perhaps, been passed somewhat too hastily, he would take the opportunity of making one or two observations upon the subject. Her Majesty's Government had not been inclined to propose a vote of money to the Established Church system in Ireland, because they found that by so doing they would be practically creating three different systems of education in one country—a Roman Catholic system, a system in connexion with the Established Church, and, no doubt, a Presbyterian system, which would also be demanded. The effect of this would be that the youth of Ireland would be brought up under different systems, and that that union which it was so desirable to promote among the subjects of Her Majesty in that country would not be promoted. It must be remembered, too, that the number of Protestants for whom a gratuitous education was required in Ireland was comparatively small. Generally speaking, the Protestant class in that country could afford to pay for the education of their children. The present system, moreover, was designed for the establishment of joint education, and it was sincerely hoped by the founders, that the children both of Protestants and Roman Catholics might receive the inestimable benefit of a common education. He did hope the hostility which was shown to the system at its earlier stages had much abated. Several clergymen who had formerly opposed it were now ranked amongst its supporters, and he believed that very erroneous impressions respecting it had been happily removed. They were not, denying any fair claim of the establishment to consideration in this matter, but really only acting from a desire not to sow the seed of further discord. He must express a hope that hon. Members would not draw too sanguine conclusions from what had fallen from him in the earlier part of the evening. What he had said was simply this—that Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that the means of academical education in Ireland were defective, and that they intended to apply themselves to the consideration of that subject in a friendly and kindly spirit, and in the hope of being able to hold out—not to Roman Catholics only, but to the people of Ireland generally, a system of academical education in which all classes might alike participate. He had said also that the Government did not think that the situation of the College of Maynooth was satisfactory, and that that part of the subject would not be excluded from their consideration.