rose to bring under the consideration of the House the claims of the medical officers of the Army and Navy to military rewards and distinctions. He observed that though the Motion had no party attractions and little public interest, it concerned a body of 2,000 gentlemen engaged in the service of their country. His object was, that medical officers should be placed on the same grade as they held in the armies of the continental Powers, It might be said they were civil officers; but this was no ground for depriving them of the distinction now sought. Previous to the last war, the naval and military exertions of this country were only transient and intermitted; and hence it had probably arisen that the claims of those important officers had been overlooked. There were other classes of officers who might equally well be excluded from the distinction, because of their non-military character. The engineers, though employed to superintend and direct, and even to lead in storming parties, were not commonly engaged in battle; and the same remark applied to the commissariat department. He would refer to the Baltic expedition, to former wars in India, and to the Peninsular war, to point out the benefits which had been derived from the services of the medical officers. He asked nothing special or peculiar for these officers, beyond the rank they enjoyed in every other European army. Napoleon had included the medical officers in his decorations, observing that it was impossible for their important services to be performed with zeal and efficiency unless they enjoyed the same honours as the rest of the Army. The civil officers in the Army had a greater ground of complaint than ever against the Government in consequence of some recent alterations which had been made. He thought it a matter of reproach to the country that no military distinctions had been conferred on such men as Sir James M'Grigor, Dr. Howell, and Mr. Guthrie. He trusted the Government would now be disposed to give a favourable consideration to the claims of medical officers. In 1847 Sir Howard Douglas bore the highest testimony to their eminent services. It was true they did not go to fight in the front rank, but they were often called there in the performance of their duties, and on such occasions they were never found wanting. Mr. Guthrie had been twice wounded in the Peninsular war. If his resolution was favourably received by the Government, he hoped that the services of eminent medical men who were now living would not be forgotten.

seconded the Motion on the principle which had been laid down by Napoleon, that every man who served his country, and who served in the army, ought to be considered all equally useful, and entitled to the same rewards. In former times the value of a good commissariat, or of a good medical staff, was scarcely ever considered, and instances had occurred of whole armies being destroyed for want of a good commissariat department. So, on the other hand, in earlier periods of our history, more armies were destroyed by disease than by the sword. A change had happily taken place, though England was behind other countries in these matters. Thus France was the first to see the vast importance of making the two departments of the commissariat and the medical perfect. During the last twenty years our army abroad had been reduced by five-sixths. Perhaps it would be scarcely believed by some hon. Members who did not recollect the fact (as he did), that by the mortality in the army in Jamaica and Ceylon respectively, it was ascertained there was a loss of from seven to eight men out of every ten formerly. But by a better system of medical superintendence, British troops were now maintained in Jamaica with as little loss, he believed, as the Foot Guards in Westminster. This blessing was owing to the science of medical men, and the erection of barracks in elevated and healthy situations. He thought that by neglecting the claims of the medical profession a stigma was cast upon science and learning.

Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That efficiency and economy in respect to Armies in the field considerably depend on the ability, energy, and zeal of the Medical Officers attached to them:

"That the history of every war proves that this class of Officers while so employed have been killed, wounded, or made prisoners, and that the nature of their duties unavoidably exposes them to those casualties:

"And that as they thus share in the dangers and fatigues of war, as well as in some of its most essential duties, it is not expedient or just that they should be excluded from a share of honorary distinction or reward, in proportion to their relative rank and the relative importance of their respective services."

said, his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War was more competent than he was to enter fully into the subject which had been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Officer. But as his right hon. Friend was not present, he would beg to say a few words upon the Motion. In the first place, he admitted most fully the great merits of the medical officers of the Army and Navy; and he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had only paid a just tribute to the value of those officers' services. He had stated most truly that the mortality among our troops had greatly decreased; and that this was owing chiefly to the reports and the science of the medical men in the service of the Army. He should be sorry, therefore, if anything he (Lord J. Russell) said was considered as doing away with or taking away from the state- ments by his hon. Friend with regard to the value of those services. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster, in making this Motion, had better have placed it on the ground that those officers were non-combatants, who performed their services admirably, though of a different nature, rendering the utmost steadiness of nerve indispensable; and, therefore, the country was deeply indebted to them for the saving of many lives which would otherwise be lost in consequence of wounds received on the field of battle. When the hon. and gallant Officer said that the officers of the Engineers were non-combatants, and that when they were ordered to mount the breach they had not to fight, he must say it appeared to him that this was the most dangerous service to which an officer could be exposed. With regard to the case of medical officers, he thought the House could hardly say that they were excluded from all rewards, because it was well known that when medals had been awarded they had been awarded to medical officers as well as to other officers who were present. Nor would it be just to say that other civil rewards were withheld from medical gentlemen who had distinguished themselves in the medical department of the service. Thus Sir James M'Grigor had been made a Baronet; Sir Charles Forbes and others, from time to time, had received the honour of knighthood. But he quite agreed in thinking that as the Order of the Bath had been established with regard to companions and knights to apply equally to military as to naval services, it might be a question whether those honours might not be conferred on the medical officers of the respective services. He would rather take an opportunity of conferring with the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Secretary at War, before he said in what way this could be done. He knew that there had been a consideration of the case of distinguished medical officers, and it was felt that something might be done. But he thought this was more properly a subject for the Executive than for that House to deal with. Therefore if his hon. and gallant Friend persisted in pressing his Motion, he should move the previous question.

The Question having been again put with the Amendment,

said, that whatever might be the decision of the hon. and gallant General as to putting the question before the House, he thought the officers of the medical service would feel much indebted to him for bringing the subject forward; and he was sure there was no military man who would not join the hon. and gallant General in the eulogy which he had passed upon the medical officers. A question had been raised as to whether these officers were placed in the same situations of danger and peril as other officers. He, as a military man, maintained that they were. He hoped that the claims of those officers who had seen a great deal of service, although they might not have been actively engaged, and who had not hitherto been rewarded, would be considered entitled to receive some honorary distinction from the Government.

was not disposed to resist the proposal of the noble Lord; and he hoped the claims of the medical officers would not be neglected by the Government. Four officers in India had recently been made Companions of the Bath, for specially civil services, a circumstance, he thought, that made the case stronger with regard to the medical officers.

said, the answer of the noble Lord had been so satisfactory to every Member who took an interest in the subject, that he was sure they would each of them have been glad if the ceremony of putting the previous question could have been dispensed with. Whether the forms of the House would now allow it or not, he was glad to have had an opportunity of expressing his feeling.

thought the services of the medical officers of the Navy, especially in time of war, entitled them to share in the same honorary rewards as the other officers of the service enjoyed.

hoped that the claims of the medical officers of the Royal Navy, although they had not been taken much notice of in the course of this discussion, which had been chiefly confined to the medical staff in the Army, would not be allowed to be prejudiced by that circumstance.

certainly never intended to slight the medical officers of the Navy, whose claims he had no doubt would be considered by the Government conjointly with those of the medical staff of the Army. After the assurance he had received from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he would consent to withdraw his Motion.

Whereupon Previous Question proposed, "That that Question he now put."

Previous Question and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

having presented a number of petitions in favour of the Motion of which he had given notice, said, that he was aware that this subject might not be considered a very inviting one, especially at that hour, when invitations of a more agreeable and convivial character attracted the attention of hon. Gentlemen. But at the same time the question was one of no small national importance; and he must crave the indulgence of the House whilst he endeavoured, as briefly as the nature of the subject would admit, to lay his own views with regard to it before them. Great inequality and grievous hardship to the ratepayers and all classes of the community resulted from the present mode of levying the rate collected for the support of the poor; but he frankly admitted that he would have no right to ask for an inquiry unless he could point out a means by which that inequality and these hardships could be removed. His object would be, first to point out the hardships arising under the existing system; and then he would take the liberty of suggesting the plan by which he believed they could be redressed. He would point out first the grievance in the present mode of rating, and he believed he should be justified in dealing with it as an acknowledged grievance. Before doing so, he begged to call attention to the principles of the Poor Law Amendment Bill of 1834; but he was not at all disposed to say, that any of the grievances of the present system were imputable to the law of 1834, further than must always follow in the wake of any law that gives to the contributions for the poor a local instead of a general character. There was one subject on which he feared he would be found holding a different opinion, in some respect, from most of the petitioners whose petitions he had had the honour to lay before the House, most of them being petitions for retaining a local supervision and control over the administration of the funds. The guardians of the poor were considered, whether justly or not, by the poor who are the objects of relief, as persons actively employed in bringing down that relief to the lowest practical minimum. The guardians of the poor were considered by the poor, he thought not without reason, and he did not say so disrespectfully or invidiously, to be guardians of their own purses as well as of the ratepayers', and as such to be jealous scrutineers of the demands that were made upon them. The representative system in the board of guardians had been likened to the system of representation of that House; but nothing could be more untrue, nothing could be more opposite to the fact. They sat in that House, or were supposed to sit in that House, delegated by a class, all of whom were equally interested; but the board of guardians represented the ratepayers only, and were sent by the ratepayers to act between them and the poor. That arose because there was in operation a system of local, parochial, and district contribution, instead of a system of general contribution. As long as they had a system of settlement and removal, so long they must retain their system of local contribution, and so long must they have a system of local government. In the next place, he would refer to the difficulties that exist in generalising the contributions for the relief of the poor; and, thirdly, he would suggest the means by which he thought those difficulties would be removed. With regard to the inequality of the rates, he would say that the rate of assessment—the per centage on rateable property, which ought undoubtedly, supposing property to be fairly rated to he equal—varied to the most enormous extent throughout the area of rateage in this country; it varied in no less a degree than from a farthing in the pound to 14 s . in the pound. He would next call attention to the fact, that in the metropolitan unions, in 1847, the indoor maintenance of all the poor of all the unions constituted by the Poor Law Amendment Act, amounted to a sum of 769,690 l ; and in the year ending Lady-day, 1848, it had increased to 955,700 l . The establishments and salaries in 1847 cost 672,420 l .; and in the year ending 1848, 970,988 l . The establishments and salaries alone, in the latter case, then, exceeded by 15,000 l . the whole charge for the indoor maintenance of all the poor, under the Poor Law Amendment Act. He would next call attention to another paper, which presented a still more astounding return. He found by it, that the rates expended in England and Wales, during the year ending 12th March, 1848, amounted to 8,047,489 l .; of this sum, about 6,108,765 l . was expended for the relief of the poor, and the residue of nearly 2,000,000 l . was applied to the payment of various items. This was one of these items to which he begged particularly to call attention. It appeared that 214,711 l . was expended under the head of "money expended for other purposes," The poor parishes were more heavily taxed than the rich ones, as would be found by the report of Mr. Hall, then one of the Poor Law Commissioners, in the sixth report of the Committee of 1847. In Bermondsey, the rate was 3 s . 5 d . in the pound; in West London Union, including Saffron-hill, &c., 2 s . 9 d .; in East London, 2 s . 4¾d.; St. Saviour's, 2 s . 10 d .; Bethnal-green, 2 s . 3¾d.; but in the parish of St. James, Westminster, the rate was only 1 s . 1½ d . in the pound; and in St. George's, Hanover-square, 9 d . in 1847, and now only 7¾ d . in the pound. Less than one quarter of the amount in one of the four parishes specified, much less than one-third of the amount in two others, and less than one-fifth of the amount in Bermondsey Moreover, the rate was always less in proportion to the value of the property rated. He would not pause to comment on the subject of royal residences, universities, or cathedral precincts; nor would be dwell upon the fact that there were two pretty large commercial establishments—one in Leadenhall-street, the other in Thread needle-street—known as the East India House and the Bank of England, neither of which contributed to the support of the poor. Why was this? Because those are rich parishes, and there are very few poor in them. He had obtained a return laid before the House last Session, from which it appeared that there are in England and Wales 1,650 parishes and townships rated between a farthing and 6 d . in the pound; 3,327 rated from 6 d . to 1 s .; 8,380 from 1 s . to 4 s .; and 383 from 4 s . to 14 s . Here was a difference in the rating of no less than from a farthing to 14 s . in the pound, and that not taking into account the extra-parochial parishes, of which, when the census of 1841 was taken, there were 536, containing 17,585 inhabited houses, all rated "nill," for the support of the poor. In the country places, as in the metropolis, the same anomaly existed—the heavier contributions fell proportionably upon the poorer parishes, and the lighter upon the richer, because the great landlord delivered himself from a greater number of poor in his parish by quartering them upon the neighbourhood that was less wealthy; and because the great landlord, he would not say got himself rated, but at least saw himself rated very much lower in respect to the value of property than his poorer neighbours. And why was this so, both in town and country? Principally and mainly, he believed, on account of that most unnatural, pernicious law—the law of settlement—a law that precluded that general circulation of labour which, above all things, was most desirable. Of course, the repeal of the law of settlement must be part of any system that would strike at the root of the evil of which he complained. It was said that the boards of guardians would be but bad economists if there was a general tax; but whether that was a sufficient objection to a general system of supervision they should leave it to a Committee to determine. He believed that it would be much less difficult than was generally supposed, to place the whole amount of the poor-rate under the general supervision of the Government. The whole of the present machinery might remain as at present, the boards of guardians appointing their own officers, representing the wants and wishes of the parishioners, and enforcing or opposing the claims of the different persons in their parishes; but the whole control and distribution of the funds must be left entirely in the hands of Government officers, or officers appointed by that House, each of whom would be placed at the head of a group of unions. By such an arrangement, he firmly believed a considerable saving would be effected in the expense attending the administration of the poor-law. Under the present mode of administering the poor-law, there were employed—

The expense of the establishment which he proposed would be—

Thereby effecting a total saving of 30,560 l . per annum in the machinery of the poor-law alone. In addition, however, to this, a great saving might be effected by the abolition of the laws of settlement and removal; by getting rid of the enormous costs of litigation on questions arising out of those Acts; by giving a free circulation to labour, and diminishing by so much the necessity which at present existed of supporting the poor without labour. His belief was, that it would be possible, under such an improved system, to reduce the whole charges of the poor-law by nearer one-half than one-third, and that reduced charge spread equally over all property. There could be no doubt whatever as to the great benefits to be derived from applying the labour of the poor to the cultivation of the land. He had seen the allotment system carried out upon a large scale upon productive land; but it was not to be supposed that, without the advantage of capital and skill, and the facilities of obtaining manure, that the poor man employed in cultivating his allotment could be expected to show a crop as against the large farmer possessing all those advantages of which be was deficient. Another serious evil attending the operation of the present poor-law arose from the mode adopted of affording relief. When a poor man was not able to get work, he went to the relieving officer and applied for relief. The first question put to him, upon his so doing, was, had he applied for labour, or if be had got any. He would state, in passing, that labour was not the thing which the poor man required, and the great fallacy in the poor-law lay in the use of the word "labour." It was not "labour" which benefited the poor man, but the wages of labour. That was a question very much neglected by the relieving officers and boards of guardians. They did not trouble themselves to inquire as to the rate of wages which he might receive; the only object with them was to get the poor man work. He would give the House an instance of how this law was made to operate in an agricultural district. A poor man who applied to the relieving officer, having been refused relief and directed to apply for work, went to a farmer in the neighbourhood, and stated to him that unless he could obtain employment he would be compelled to apply again to the relieving officer on the following Wednesday. The farmer, upon hearing his intention, stated that he would employ him at the rate of 7 s . per week—a small sum for the support of a man, especially if he had a family to support: the man, however, accepted the offer on the Friday, the board met on the following Wednesday, and on Wednesday the poor man was discharged, and the board would not meet again till that day fortnight, so that he had no opportunity of again applying for relief; and even when he did apply, be would be told by the relieving officer that he had been employed by such and such a farmer, and he would be told to go and seek again for work. Thus they would continue to act for a length of time, the poor man only being able to get three or four days' work in the fortnight. The effect of the law, with respect to removals, was also most injurious. The poor were obliged to travel about from union to union, and were constantly told when they applied for relief that they had no claim upon that union, till finally, by breaking windows, or doing some other mischief, they were sent for a fortnight or so to the gaol, and at the end of that time the poor man came out a better fed and a stronger man, only to go through again the same course of proceeding. In order to remove these evils to which he had referred, his impression was that it was necessary, not only to have a more equitable rating of property in parishes and in unions than at present existed, but to have a system of universal chargeability upon all property whatsoever. The 43rd of Elizabeth, and the other early Acts upon the subject of the relief of the poor, recognised the principle of an equal charge upon all property; and the Bill which was annually passed by the Legislature, exempting stock in trade from rating, was a complete admission of the existence of a principle of universal rating. He trusted that the Government would not be allowed to remain another year doing nothing more on the subject than laying upon the table voluminous documents and bursting blue books, full of statistical information with respect to the evils of a system which were most unjustly and rapidly increasing year by year upon the country, and which, from the very nature of things, would continue to increase. He would leave the matter in the hands of the Government, and earnestly trusted that the provision for the destitute poor of the country would be made upon a principle more just, economical, and beneficial in every respect than that which at present existed.

Motion made, and Question put—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the practicability of better providing for the maintenance of the indigent Poor of England and Wales, by an equal and general apportionment of the burthen of the same."

seconded the Motion, which he believed to he recommended by every consideration of justice, humanity, and sound policy. It was a solemn duty which the Government owed to the country, to institute an inquiry into this most momentous question. The feeling was becoming every day more widely diffused, that the pressure of the poor-rate was iniquitously unequal, and that something ought at once to be done to remedy the evil. The present system was felt to be most severe in its operation, not only in the agricultural districts, but also in the great manufacturing towns. It was the duty of the Legislature to see that a burden so ruinous as that which was entailed by this tax, should be imposed in as equal a manner as possible on the community. It was their duty to see that it was levied in strict conformity with the provisions of the 43rd Elizabeth, c. 2. By that statute it was ordained that certain rates for the support of the poor should be raised in each parish. They were to be a burden upon all who, within the provisions of that Act, were held rateable; but it was not enjoined that the amount or mode of raising a rate in one parish, should conform with that in another. By that statute the overseers of a parish were required

—"to raise weekly or otherwise (by taxation of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other, and of every occupier of land, houses, tithes, impropriate, propriation of tithes, coal mines, or saleable underwoods in the parish, in such competent sum or sums of money as they shall think fit), a convenient stock, &c., to be gathered out of the parish according to the ability of the same parish."

In Sir A. Earley's case, 2 Bulstrode, 354, it was held by Justices Hutton and Cooke, that amounts for the relief of the poor were to be made in an equal manner upon the inhabitants, according to their visible estates which they had and enjoyed, real and personal; and whenever personal property was rated, an equal mode was adopted. This was a question, not of local or partial interest, but of national importance. Equality of pressure was the main principle of the Act of Elizabeth; but it was a theory which had been entirely lost sight of in modern times, for he found that whereas some counties paid from 2 s . 2 d . to 3 s . in the pound, others paid only from 1 s . ¼ d . to 1 s . 2¾ d . The twelve counties in England and Wales paying 2 s . 2 d . to 3 s . in the pound were—Carnarvon, Anglesea, Merioneth, Oxford, Buckingham, Wilts, Bucks, Dorset, Southampton, Norfolk, Suffolk, Brecon. The twelve counties paying lowest, from 1 s . ¼ d . to 1 s . 2¾ d ., were—Salop, Chester, Derby, Lancaster, York (North Riding), Stafford, Cumberland, Westmorland, Lincoln, Northumberland, York (East Riding), Monmouth. In the union of Stafford there were some parishes which only paid 4½ d . in the pound, while others paid 2 s . and 3 s . in the pound. In Leicester, Norwich, Warwick, Nottingham, and other towns, and in various districts of the metropolis, the rate generally fell with most severe pressure on the very persons who were least able to bear it. It frequently happened that the largest ratepayers were men of the smallest revenue. In this there was gross inconsistency. Nor could he understand on what principle buildings erected for commercial purposes should be exempted. The Bank of England paid 30,000 l . a year in income tax—a fact which sufficiently attested how enormous must be their profits—and 20,000 l a year was paid by the Gresham Committee on account of the Royal Exchange; and yet neither of these great establishments contributed one farthing to the poor-rates. They escaped scot free on the plea that they had no poor around them, and that they provided for the support of their own servants. Mr. C. H. Bracebridge, of Atherstone Hall, Warwickshire, in addressing a meeting which was held a short time since on this subject, mentioned one or two circumstances which curiously illustrated the evil of unequal rating. He was sorry that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was not in his place, as a portion of the statement made by Mr. Bracebridge—a statement which he (Alderman Sidney) would take leave to read to the House—had reference to that portion of the country with which the right hon. Gentleman was connected.

"I now come (said Mr. Bracebridge) to the inequality in the rating in the parish in which I reside, which is Atherstone, in Warwickshire. In a draft of a petition ready to be presented to Parliament, and adopted by a meeting held the other day, it is stated that we in our parish pay 8 s . 9 d . in the pound, that the next hamlet pays 6 d ., that another pays 1 s ., and that an adjoining parish pays 10 d . I have the honour to reside near a union which is known to most of you—the far-famed Tamworth. I went a short time since to my friends of the Tamworth union, and said, 'I think you have a case as good as ours; give it to me, that I may tell it to the Committee of the House of Commons.' And this is the history of Tamworth. Some thirty years ago Sir Robert Peel, then Mr. Peel, came from the neighbourhood of Manchester to that of Tamworth. He came to my father and to other people for water-power. He did not find what he wanted, and he afterwards went to Fazeley, an adjacent district, where he obtained what the Americans call 'water privilege.' He bought a fine park in the neighbourhood, cut down the old ancestral trees, and set up a number of mills and factories—a very considerable act, and one, no doubt, by which the nation has benefited. The result was, that in process of time a great amount of population arose at Tamworth. Sir Robert Peel in time grew rich, and left the factories, and the wealth of the parish has never grown up since. At the same time, Peel (the father), like a prudent man, bought a tract of land called Castle Liberty—the ancient park and plaisance of the castle—but it was not thickly inhabited with retainers or by paupers, whose presence might be unpleasant to the eyes of nobility. Sir Robert had no great admiration for rural cottages with woodbine and honeysuckle. He raised, at least, no such edifices. There are fields, hedges, water, and occasional floods on the property; but no habitation of man. To come to figures, the result is, that in the township of Tamworth, the property, whose rateable value is 5,044 l ., pays 1,383 l ., for what is called the poor-rate, though the whole of it does not go to the poor. But in the Castle Liberty—that agreeable pasturage—the rateable value of which is 865 l . per annum, a rate is levied of 18 s . a year. Nor do the 18 s . go to the poor, because there is the expense of union-house, and, of course, the officials who attend, to be paid out of the rate. There is another old gentleman living in a township in the neighbourhood, the property of which is worth about 1,000 l . a year, and it has been so managed—not by the wisdom of Sir Robert Peel, but with that degree of cunning and acumen which belongs to some of the gentlemen and farming proprietors in the country—that upon this 1,000 l . 2 l . 12 s . is paid to the poor-rate. There are two cottages on this property. A poor man in one of them was sick, and applied to the union for relief A discussion arose as to whether the man belonged to one place or to another, which I will not name, when the relieving officer went to the chairman and whispered to him, 'Don't make him belong to S—, because, if you do, the cottage will be pulled down.' I could mention many cases of this kind."

If Sir Robert Peel's parish had been assessed at the same rate as the adjoining parish of Tamworth, Castle Liberty, instead of paying 18 s . 6 d . a year, would probably have paid 200 l . a year. It might be that very sound and potent reasons might be assigned why Sir R. Peel and others equally fortunate should be exempted from the poor-rate; but it was at least due to the community, and indeed he would add to the cause of justice, that there should be an explanation of those reasons. In the agricultural districts it usually happened that a parish which belonged to a single individual was subject to some very inconsiderable rate; but a parish divided among several proprietors was in general much less fortunate. He would not undertake to say that the best remedy for the evils of that case were to be found in a national rate. For his part, he should prefer a county rate, which he thought presented the most advantageous plan that could be adopted. It might be said that under such an arrangement the sense of individual interest would not operate so powerfully as at present among the guardians in preventing unnecessary expenditure. But it was well known that the guardians had, under the existing law, very little power, as the Poor Law Commissioners decided, he believed, who were the parties to be admitted into each workhouse, and what was the dietary they were to adopt.—[Mr. BAINES and other Hon. MEMBERS: No, no!] However that might be, he could not help thinking that in large unions in which the poor-rate amounted to several thousands of pounds yearly, the guardians had very little individual interest in the mode in which they discharged the duties intrusted to them. Another source of great pressure and inconvenience to the ratepayers of this country was to be found in the present law of settlement. In Norwich, Leeds, and other large towns, that law had operated most unfairly. It appeared to him that to compel a poor man to reside in a locality, the trade of which was on the wane, was a most injurious arrangement; and he could cite a case in proof of that statement. In the city of Norwich the camlet trade had some years ago been exceedingly flourishing; but that trade had since been almost annihilated, and the article was at present replaced by others manufactured in Manchester. Under the law of settlement, however, the operatives of Norwich were prevented from following the trade which had left their city, much to their own disadvantage and that of their fellow-townsmen. The poor-rate in Norwich at present amounted to from 5 s . to 6 s . in the pound. The feeling of dissatisfaction at the unequal mode in which the rate was levied, was becoming every day more widely spread. The worst of it was that the rich were the gainers by that inequality. It was the poor who suffered. The parish of St. Bride was assessed to 3 s . in the pound, while that of St. George, Hanover Square, was assessed to 7¾ d . Six of the largest and most opulent parishes in the metropolis did not pay more than 11 d . in the pound; while six others, the poorest and most destitute, paid 2 s . 5¾ d . In stating these facts he was sure he had said enough to justify an inquiry.

said, he hoped that the noble Lord who had brought forward the Motion, and the hon. Member who had seconded it, would not think that he was guilty of any personal disrespect towards them if he declined to follow them in a large portion of their arguments. The Motion itself was in its terms sufficiently large; and he should not therefore follow either the noble Lord or the hon. Member into any discussion with respect to the law of settlement, or the Poor Removal Act of the year 1846, or the cost of the poor-law establishment, or the misconduct of poor-law officials. Those were subjects which had no immediate connexion with the question then before them; and he could at that moment only say, that he should be prepared to discuss such subjects whenever they might be brought separately under the notice of the House. The proposition now placed before the House by the noble Lord the Member for Aylesbury was very different from that originally put upon the Notice-paper by him. Before Easter, now two months ago, the noble Lord gave notice of his intention to move for a Committee to consider the question of charging the maintenance of the destitute poor on the general revenue of the country. On the 10th of May, he believed the Motion stood for a Committee to inquire into the practicability of charging the maintenance of the destitute on the general income of the country. On the 7th of June, a further alteration was made, and the Motion was for a Committee to inquire into the practicability of charging the legal relief of the destitute in England and Wales on the general revenue of the country; and then, on Monday last, the Motion of the noble Lord assumed the shape in which it now stood on the Paper. It was perfectly clear, not only from the noble Lord's notice on the Paper, but from the whole tenor of his speech, that his aim was—no doubt with the most conscientious and benevolent, though, in his opinion, most mistaken views—to throw the whole burden of relieving the destitute poor upon the general revenue. There could not be the slightest doubt that such was the intention of the noble Lord. Anything more mischievous than to create a belief in the public mind that any doubt existed as to the impolicy of such a scheme, could not, in his opinion, be conceived. And yet such must be the result of granting this Committee. Independently of this, he believed that even if granted, the Committee would prove utterly abortive for the object in view. The noble Lord must assuredly have overlooked the fact that two years ago a Committee of that House did sit to investigate the subject of settlement and poor removal, and in the course of its most elaborate inquiry went into an investigation of those very subjects which the noble Lord had been discussing that night. The noble Lord would find in the very complete index of the six or seven reports on the subject—he would find under the heads of national rate, payment out of the Consolidated Fund, union rating, parochial rating, and rating generally, every one of the questions discussed to which he had referred in his speech. Before that Committee were examined witnesses most competent to state facts bearing on the question, and pronounce opinions as to probable results. That the Members of that Committee were eminently qualified to conduct such an investigation would be admitted by all, when he stated that it was presided over by his late lamented predecessor Mr. C. Buller, and that it numbered among its Members Sir C. Wood, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Bankes, Mr. E. Denison, Sir G. Grey, Mr. T. Duncombe, Sir H. Vane, Mr. Henley, Mr. P. Scrope, Mr. W. Miles, and others. This inquiry was gone into when the Committee had the whole Session before them. Did the noble Lord believe that a Committee appointed on the 23rd June, would have an opportunity of going more thoroughly or satisfactorily into the matter? Upon this ground, therefore, he asked the House to negative the Motion. If the noble Lord had come forward with any specific proposition founded on the facts elicited at that time, or on the opinions then ox-pressed by the intelligent witnesses examined before the Committee, his course would have been more satisfactory; but instead of this, he asked for a fresh inquiry into the same facts and the same questions. As to the propriety of charging the relief of the destitute poor on the general revenues of the country, he thought it his duty to state in the most distinct terms his firm belief that it was a proposition which it would be mischievous and dangerous in the highest degree to adopt, or even to countenance in idea. His lamented predecessor, whose name could never be mentioned without eliciting marks of that high admiration which was due to his character and talents, during his short presidency, had submitted to him by the most able men propositions similar to those made by the noble Lord, and yet they only served to strengthen his conviction that nothing could be more dangerous. The noble Lord, as he understood him, admitted that the natural consequence of the adoption of his plan must be to get rid of all local administration; and this, in his (Mr. Baines') opinion, furnished a very strong, nay, an absolutely conclusive, argument against the project; for the principle of local self-government which had so long prevailed in this country, whatever might be its drawbacks and disadvantages, had been productive of the most salutary effect on the national character, and there was no part of our institutions with which they ought to be more loth to part. If the principle of charging the general relief of the poor on the general revenue were carried into effect, one of two consequences must follow. The administration of this general relief must either be confided to local boards of guardians, or local administration must be got rid of altogether. What would happen in case the former alternative were adopted? How could it be expected that under such a system as that proposed by the noble Lord, men would apply themselves in the same patient and industrious manner to the discharge of their duty? What motive would they have to exercise a careful and vigilant control for the purpose of preventing undue expenditure? At present the expenditure was their own, which was the strongest possible spur to exertion; and yet even now it was difficult in some parts of the country to secure the steady weekly or fortnightly attendance necessary for the proper administration of the law. How would it be under the state of things contemplated by the noble Lord? Would it not have a tendency to make men supine as to a national rate, of which they would have to pay so small a portion, and unwilling to act in its administration, unless tempted by the hope of serving the interest of some friend? and the result would be that a system of jobbing and peculation would be too apt to start up. It would, in short, tend to bring back part of that system which existed previously to the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834—a state of things clearly not to be tolerated. What, then, was the alternative? That which the noble Lord manifestly con- templated as the consequence which must flow from his measure—namely, to get rid of local self-government altogether. When it was recollected that there were 15,000 places maintaining their own poor, and that officers must be named for the distribution of relief in all those places, some idea might be formed of the patronage which such a change would confer on the Government. And if it were understood that the Government held the strings of the purse out of which relief was to issue, he should like to know whether, in times of distress and general difficulty, there might not be the greatest possible pressure brought to bear on them—a pressure which it might be dangerous for any Ministry to resist. From the time of Henry VIII., relief had always been given out of local resources; and the only change in the system was one of recent introduction, by which the cost of relieving certain classes of paupers had been thrown on the union. From the earliest times the system of local self-government had been regarded as an object of national policy; he had heard no valid reason assigned for changing that system, and therefore felt it incumbent on him to resist the Motion, by moving a direct negative.

Sir, after listening attentively to the observations of the noble Lord, and considering his Motion, I must be allowed to say that I form an entirely different conclusion from the one he has made. If he will give me a few moments' attention. I think I can show him that the doctrine he has laid down very much resembles that of the socialists in France, and that it will prove most injurious to the best interests of civilised society. The principle of the poor-law, as laid down by the 43rd Elizabeth, which is the foundation of the poor-law in this country—this foundation of the poor-law is, that every person shall be supported by the produce of the land where he first drew his breath. Now, if you go beyond this principle, let us, before so doing, just consider where it will lead us. I will only observe, that the poor-law in England has prevented too great an increase of population, as every individual in the locality or parish where a birth takes place, feels an interest in keeping down the poor-rate. There can be no reasonable doubt that the overabundant population in France and Ireland would not be so great as it now appears to be, if a poor-law had been established in those countries, say half a century from this time, or say, 100 years back. My noble Friend is aware, that both in the animal and vegetable creation there is a constant and invariable tendency to increase and multiply. Let us look at this tendency in mankind: we find in every portion of the globe population pressing on, or rather going beyond, the means of subsistence; and how is this increase of population, beyond the means of support, checked? It is only prevented by one of these preventives—moral restraint, vice, or misery. To exemplify my position, I should say that the too great increase of population was checked in Scotland by moral principle; in larger towns by vice; and in Ireland and sonic other countries of Europe, by misery. In England, as I have said, the pressure of the poor's-rate, or rather the apprehension of an increase of the poor's-rate, has done much in localities to prevent the evil. Now, admitting the doctrine proposed by the noble Lord to be adopted here, what would be the consequence? The salutary check given to an increase of a pauper population by the parish authorities would be at an end. If a poor-law guardian, or a parish overseer, could draw on the public purse, the natural feelings of a desire to relieve would overcome his prudential considerations; the public purse would yield supply, and an immense increase of pauper population would be the natural and inevitable result. The funds gained by the toil, the assiduity, and the labour of the industrious and thrifty man, would, in that case, be expended on the idle, the thoughtless, and the needy; the active and indutrious would cease to exert themselves, when they found their industry and labour only went to support the idle and thoughtless; in fact, the funds of the community would be taken from those who had saved something, and divided amongst those who had nothing; in short, pure and perfect socialism would be the result, exactly the same doctrine as that propounded by the socialists in France, and thus M. Ledru Rollin would be supported, and M. Proudhon's communism advocated, by my noble Friend: Ledru Rollin and Proudhon supported by one who is supposed descended from the Plantagenet kings—by no means, in my opinion, a suitable association of persons. Having given the outline of my ideas, I need go no farther. Sir, before I down I must explain that I feel strongly for the sufferings of the poor, and think they ought to be treated in the most indulgent manner. Every man, I think, has a right to be supported by the produce of the land where he was born; and so long as this principle is adhered to, an over-abundant population, and the misery that is the consequence, may be obviated. But if by any extraordinary means you create or give encouragement to an overpopulation, society is not secure, civilisation is endangered, and sooner or later social convulsions may arise, causing the destruction of private property, and mankind to retrograde a step towards barbarism. Snell would precisely have been the result in France, if the late attempts at insurrection had not been quelled in time. I hope and trust, in making these remarks on the impolicy and danger arising from this proposed alteration in the poor-law, not to be misunderstood, or have it imagined that I am not fully sensible to the grievances and wants of the pauper population of this country. Quite the reverse: there is not, I hope, any man amongst the hon. Members I see before me who is more anxious to alleviate the distress of Ids fellow-creatures; but I think communism would create ten times, ay, one hundred times, the misery and distress that is now in existence; indeed, without further comment, this is a self-evident proposition. I will, therefore, conclude, having given my reasons, by giving a decided negative to the proposal of my noble Friend, and feel confident, had lie been aware of the real consequences of his Motion, lie would not have brought it under the consideration of the House.

expressed his hearty concurrence in the view taken by the hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Commission. Such a Committee as the one proposed would have a most pernicious effect; and he believed it would be most unwise to give any countenance to such a measure. He thought the payment of the poor-rates out of the Consolidated Fund would operate most injuriously, inasmuch as it would destroy that local self-government and supervision of expenditure which it was most essential to preserve. If the expenses of prosecutions were charged on the Consolidated Fund at the discretion of magistrates and attorneys, those expenses would rapidly increase. If the poor-rates were paid out of the national fund, we should be compelled to take the Irish into partnership, and this would occasion a heavy pull on the Exchequer. On these grounds he considered it most unwise to give any countenance to such a system. At the same time, he must admit that there were great inequalities in the present system. In the township in which he resided, the poor-rates were only 1s. in the pound, while in the adjoining parish they were 6s. He would mention one fact which would illustrate that inequality, and tend to show the necessity of having a union instead of a parish rating. In the township in which he resided, a large mill was last week destroyed by fire: upwards of 1,000 hands were thrown out of employment, and, as they were not permitted to live in the parish, they were thrown as a burden on the adjoining township. He had stated in that House, in 1834, that it would be much better to have a regular, uniform rate on all the parishes of a union. The guardians would then feel it their interest to watch over the whole union, instead of confining their attention to their own particular townships. At present the poor had to support the poor; but under such a system as he had suggested, the rich would have to contribute a fair proportion to the rates. In the township in which he resided, no cottages were permitted to be erected under 35l. a year. Of the 12,500 assessments in Salford, 9,000 were under 10l. a year. Of course that township was much burdened, and the surrounding townships much benefited. On these grounds he should certainly resist the Motion of the noble Lord for a national rate.

said, although he differed from some of the opinions expressed by the noble Lord, he would vote for his proposition on this ground alone—in the novel position in which the country was placed by the adoption of the policy of 1846, he thought that a revision of the public burdens was absolutely necessary. It was impossible to doubt that fact if they looked over the mass of statistical information which had been placed upon the table of the house through the instrumentality of the Poor Law Board, and owing to the energy of the late lamented Mr. Charles Buller. In the early part of the Session he placed upon the Order-book of the House a notice of a Motion in which he had embodied a proposition similar to that which had been suggested in the other House—namely, that it might be desirable to charge the expense attending the poor-law administration upon the Consolidated Fund. He believed that the subject of medical relief was in a most unsatisfactory state. He thought that if such a proposition was carried out, national education, which was now entirely at a stand, might be promoted. The Government must now be prepared for remonstrances in every shape. He had had this day a paper put into his hand by a near relative of a Gentleman now absent from this House on account of a domestic affliction. By this paper it appeared that a Mr. Tubb, who was chairman of a union in Cambridgeshire, applied to the vice-chairman to know the truth of a certain paragraph that appeared in one of the local papers, in respect to a proposed contract with a French house. The answer he received was, that it was perfectly true, and appended to his letter a note which had been received from these French gentlemen in Calais—Messrs. Laroche, Chaplie, and Thompson. It was to this effect:—

"Upon receiving a favourable reply, we are prepared to make a distinct offer on the articles named before, at a price that cannot fail to be satisfactory, as no English house can compete with us—the articles to be sent by Folkestone (being the most convenient route) every week."

And then comes the enumeration of the articles referred to, which they are prepared to provide, namely—

"Bread (4 lb. loaf), flour, biscuits, groats, candles, raisins, brandy, beef; mutton, &."

They were now placed in a novel position, and they must remonstrate in every possible shape. So far as this Session was concerned, it was beyond their reach; but in the next they must take every opportunity to prove to the Ministers how seriously the country had been affected by their recent legislation. Although he did not mean to express any distrust or want of confidence in the board over which the hon. Gentleman opposite presided, he should still vote for the Motion of his noble Friend, if he pressed it to a division, under the conviction that it was absolutely necessary to revise the public burdens, if Parliament had the slightest desire to do justice under the circumstances in which the country was at present placed.

:Sir, I feel that the nobl Lord the Member for Aylesbury would have done well to have confined his Motion to a Committee of inquiry into the inequality of the rating throughout the country, to the desirableness of abolishing the law of settlement, and the repeal of the Poor Removal Act of 1846. The city and county of Norwich were formed into a union in the reign of Queen Anne, and comprise the city within the walls and the parishes immediately around it. When the Poor Removal Act was proposed for the consideration of the House in 1846, a deputation from the city protested that its working would be most injurious to its interests, and gave such facts as, in my opinion, warranted the suspension of the measure until further inquiry was made. They stated their belief that it would add 5,000l. per annum to the rates. Now, what has been the working? In the year 1846, was paid: Non-settled poor, permanent, 28l. 10s.; non-settled casual poor, 75l. 2s.: total, 103l. 12s. In 1847: Non-settled poor, permanent, 3,266l.12s. 6d.; non-settled casual poor, 651l.6s.: total, 3,917l.8s. 6d. There were inhabiting the city, in houses of the value of 6l. and under, 22,052 persons; of these 13,546 did not belong to the city. In the fourteen parishes around the walls, 8,003 belonged to Norwich; 7,371 did not. And here I must ask the House to consider that the city is now paying one-third of its entire rental in poor's-rates; and are they paying it to those who may be considered its own poor? Far from it. In the agricultural parishes around, very many cottages have been pulled down. The inhabitants, forced to come into the city to reside, if they become chargeable and are removed, are brought back almost as soon as the parties return who have taken them to their legal parish. The city has, within a short space, removed 351 paupers, and found upwards of 320 immediately return. Can they continue this class of contest? What will be the result? Certainly, that my constituents will eventually have to support them; and if the rates are now 6s. 8d. in the pound, what, Sir, may they be when the five years of the Poor Removal Act are expired? I may mention to the house one circumstance illustrative of the feeling prompting this class of action. One landowner in an agricultural county has seventeen acres of land in an adjoining parish; he has pulled down every cottage in the parish, which belongs entirely to himself, and settled his poor where they may have a legal, but can never have a moral, claim to support. And I feel, Sir, that the poor themselves, as well as the ratepayers, have grievous reasons to complain of all this experimental legislation and its fruits. It can be proved in Committee that very many labourers have to walk four to five miles to their daily labour. What would hon. Members say of the agriculturist who allowed his horses to walk some nine or ten miles per day in reaching and leaving their daily work? and shall the peasant be denied the care that the brute beast, in the economy of labour, is insured? I might, too, ask hon. Members if the courts, the narrow alleys and lanes of a city—house abutting on house, absence of ventilation, imperfect drainage and scanty space—are calculated to add to the health, the happiness, the well-being of the poor? Where is the local government, the paternal care, of which we hear so much from the advocates of the present state of things? Is the proximity of vice calculated to promote the virtue of the poor man's family? Can such a want of the comforts of home do other than render him indifferent to all those things which must in their exercise make him a useful man? The law of settlement is a curse to the poor man. It was intended kindly by its original framers, and might have been useful then; but now it limits the field of his exertion, confines and cramps his energies, and makes his master anxious to place the burden of his support on other parishes than the one in which he has all his life long laboured and lived as an honest man. I could mention, Sir, the case of two men who brought up large families—who received in two successive years prizes for bringing up the largest families without parochial aid. The Poor Removal Act was mentioned to their master: they did not belong to his parish—their large families were now an object of fear—they were both discharged; the one became the inmate of a gaol, the other of a lunatic asylum. I trust I have shown enough, Sir, to prove there is not only ground for inquiry, but immediate inquiry. The present Session is too far advanced to permit a Committee to be appointed with advantage; but I feel, Sir, the interests of my constituents will not allow me to let the subject sleep. Unless the Government take it up, or any hon. Member do so, I shall, at the commencement of the ensuing Session—and I trust the sympathy and anxiety of the House for the welfare of their country will not allow that Session to pass without these crying evils being thoroughly corrected.

said, the rates in Leicester had risen within the last eight years from 12,000l. to 37,000l. The rental was about 105,000l., and last year the rates were 37,000l. In one parish in that town, the rates for the last quarter were 2 s. 8 d. in the pound, while in another parish they were only 6 d. , and in one portion of the town there was no rate at all. He was a partner in a factory that was situated in that district, where they did not pay a single penny to the poor. There was a vast deal of extra-parochial land in his neighbourhood that did not pay a shilling; and it was quite time that it should bear a share of the burden in some way or other. This was a great question, and should be considered in the most deliberate manner. He was not prepared to suggest any measure now, lint he believed the Government were anxious to look into the question. He believed that a Committee, at this time of the Session, would be of very little use; and, deeply as he felt the importance of this subject, he could not vote with the noble Lord for "a pull at the Exchequer" to remedy the evils of the existing system.

observed, that the evils of the present system were not only great, but were growing and increasing every day. Fully admitting the objections against a national rate which had been so forcibly urged in the debate, he yet thought that the evils of such a system could not be greater than those which prevailed at present. He hoped that the Government would devise some general remedy by the next Session of Parliament.

said, he did not rise to discuss the merits of the question before the House, but merely to prevent an opinion going abroad that the result of free trade had been to throw operatives in the glass trade out of employment. The hon. Member for Stafford stated. that in the discharge of his magisterial duties, a woman had called on him that morning, who stated she was in distress from her sons, who were glasscutters, being thrown out of employment in consequence of the reduction of import duty on glass. No doubt such a representation was made to the hon. Member, but it did not follow that was the cause of their being in want of work; they might be indifferent workmen; the times we were passing through might account for their being out of labour; and this statement was quite at variance with one he (Mr. Brown) had received from a highly respectable glass manufacturer in Essex—Mr. Howard, of Plaistow—showing that in consequence of the removal of the import duties, the number of hands employed in his branch of the trade had increased from 1,200 to 3,000. He (Mr. Brown) spoke from memory, having given Mr. Howard's statement to the right hon. Member for Perth, and might not be quite accurate in the number; but it was very considerable, and surprised him. He was sorry to hear the complaint made by the hon. Member for East Norfolk, that La Roche and Co., of Calais, could supply us with many articles from thence cheaper than they could be obtained in England. He (Mr. Brown) really rejoiced to hear this, for it put within the reach of the poor many of the luxuries and necessaries of life, which otherwise they might not be able to obtain; and it gave employment to them to make returns.

thought, that Government had acted wisely in refusing this Committee; but he must say that the result of the proceedings of the Committee which sat a few years ago went to this fact, that the time for inquiry was passed, and that the time for legislation was commencing. Having served on that Committee, he fully agreed in the proposition assented to by the majority of that Committee, and he trusted that the Government would take the matter into their own hands, and at as early a period as possible produce a general measure which should satisfy public opinion. The effects arising from the inequality of rating in different parishes, were so notorious that it could not be allowed to continue. It had led to labourers being forced to reside in other parishes to which the owners employing the men did not contribute. Sound principles would lead them to extend the rate to a union rate. Tim Legislature having within the last ten years taken the management of the poor from the parishes and given it to boards of guardians of the union, it followed naturally that they should take the taxation from the parishes and put it on the union. That would remove all the objections to parochial taxation; it would remove the tendency to clearances; it would create an equality in the taxation of parishes, and save the removal of the poor between parish and parish. If the unions relieved their own poor, it would be no longer necessary to have removals or any law of settlement. It had been objected that it would not be fair suddenly to equalise the rates; and he proposed that year by year they should be made gradually to approximate. He thought the whole of the medical relief and the vagrant charges might be taken out of the Consolidated Fund, and in that way the local taxation of parishes might be materially lessened, and the burdens on land greatly reduced. Both the schemes of the equalising the burden of the rate, and the relieving real property from the unequal and unfair pressure which it now suffered, might be adopted without interference with local responsibility or local management.

said, he hoped that the discussion now raised upon this subject would give satisfaction to the House of Commons and to the country. If lie collected rightly the sense of the House from the speakers, and from the manner in which their speeches had been received, it appeared probable that this Motion would not be pressed to a division. At this period of the Session it was manifestly impossible that a Committee could meet and discuss all the complicated questions that must arise upon the subject now before the House, and present any report worthy of them. But, on the other hand, there had been a very full discussion in the House of many of those grievances which Members representing large constituencies well knew were pressing heavily upon them. He thought that that was a satisfactory result. Then, if his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hull would allow him to say so, he thought a great advantage had arisen, upon which he might congratulate the House, from the opportunity having been thus given of hearing the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject. When lie (Mr. Cardwell) first heard of the appointment of Ids hon. and learned Friend to his present office, he at once estimated the advantages that must arise from that appointment; and he was glad that the House and the country had now had the opportunity of bearing his sentiments. Those who complained of undue pressure of taxation, who brought forward cases of grievous inequality, and who desired a practical remedy, would feel that they were more likely to attain their object, if his hon. and learned Friend, taking upon himself the responsibility which fairly belonged to hint—that responsibility from which he was not the man to shrink—promised to direct his attention and bestow his faculties upon the details of this question, and to remove all the evils which by their nature were capable of being removed, than they would be likely to attain by turning the question loose among the fifteen Members of a Select Committee, who would, probably, after the lapse of time, produce a report equal in size to the last upon the subject, but which would, perhaps, end in much discussion, but little practical result. He did not, therefore, rise to prolong the general discussion; but there was one part of it which he was sure his hon. and learned Friend would not think irrelevant to bring under Ids notice. He wished to point out the manner in which this feeling of injustice in the increase of the poor-rates operated in particular localities—those localities having derived no advantage, but, on the contrary, sustaining, in their moral and social condition, the greatest possible inconvenience and disadvantage from the increase of population which they had involuntarily sustained. Those Members who were connected with the west of England, the principality of Wales, and the western parts of Scotland, would all feel the justice of the remarks he was about to make. And if there was one place which inure than another fell within the category of this grievance, it was the town he had the honour to represent (Liverpool). By the official return, it appeared that more than 29,600 immigrants—unhappy, miserable immigrants—from the sister country had landed in Liverpool within a given period. He would presently read front the official record itself. It was manifestly no blame to the sister country that these immigrants should come to those particular parts of this country which were most accessible to them; but what he said was, that this immigration affected particular places with local taxation, which belonged not to those places, but to the community at large; that a sense of injustice was thereby created; and whenever that sense existed, it immeasurably increased the difficulties of all taxation. The return showed that within twelve months 300,000 immigrants had landed at the port of Liverpool from Ireland—that of this number 120,000 were positively destitute—an average of 10,000 a month thrown from the sister country upon the parochial rates. What had been the consequence? To hear that the poor-rates had been doubled could not cause surprise. But the pecuniary burden was not all. The wretchedness and loss of life among these miserable creatures was most appalling: hundreds of them perished, and the lives of many who attended upon them had been sacrificed. The return stated that—

"Ten Roman Catholic and one Protestant clergyman, many parochial officers, and many medical men, who devoted themselves to the task of alleviating the sufferings of the wretched, died in the discharge of their high duties."

The evil that all this produced to our own labouring population it was impossible to describe. What could these 120,000 destitute immigrants become when they were landed? It was in no spirit of blame to them that he used language which might be construed into reproach: their lot was forced upon them. But what, he asked, could they become? The House would observe that he was speaking from an official document, and not detailing his own impressions. They might become three things: they might become paupers; they might become vagrants; or they might become thieves. They had discovered the provisions of the law by which they might be retransported to Ireland, and they would not put themselves within the power of that law. Then, they must become vagrants or thieves. The return showed that they swelled the annals of crime to an unprecedented extent. It would be hard to throw an imputation against Ireland upon that account; but it was one of the miserable circumstances of this miserable case which he felt bound to bring before the House, and one of those circumstances which he thought the House and the Government were bound to entertain. He hoped none would think lie used unkind language, but he deemed it his duty to state these facts. In the year 1846, it appeared, from this return, that 18,171 prisoners had been brought before the magistrates in Liverpool; that in 1848 the number had risen to 22,036. In 1845 the number of persons committed for trial and summarily convicted for felony amounted to 3,889; and in 1848 the number had risen to 7,714. It also appeared that the Irish formed only one-fourth of the population, and yet they gave very nearly half the criminals. The gaols, calculated to hold no more than 500 prisoners, contained, when the return was made from which he was quoting, 1,100 within its walls. Imagine the misery that this inflicted upon the whole community. The industrious classes could not obtain employment, by reason of the competition in the labour maket. The manner in which the Irish immigrants were crowded in the steamers which brought them over, was greatly to be deprecated. He held in his hand the report of Captain Denham, who had been sent by the Government to in- quire into the circumstances, and there-fore he was reading no exaggerated statement, but the grave, calm, and most sorrowful report of a gentleman in an official position as to the actual condition of these poor Irish people; and he urged the House to listen to the extracts he was about to read, for both the House of Commons and the country at large ought to be in possession of the facts. Mr. Coppen stated that—

"He had carried as many as 300 deck passengers at a time on passages of twenty-four hours—kept a space below for about 100, but reserved no space on deck if cattle offered. Such passengers then disposed of themselves as they best could, but at last were necessitated to herd with the cattle and their mire."

Captain Denham himself said—

"I measured the actual deck-space which I found between the cattle pens at different parts of the deck, where the deck passengers of both sexes had endured the previous night, and which space did not yield an area of more than one square yard to two persons, with not enough tarpaulins to cover more than a fourth part, whilst the whole deck was afloat with animal mire."

One commander of vessels of this kind said—

"We have been this winter as long as twenty-eight hours crossing from Dublin; the only portion of the deck open to nearly 400 passengers measures 28 feet by 13; but in case of emergency, from weather, the fore part of the poop-deck is given up to them, 28 feet by 19; but they have no right there, and such tarpaulins as can be spared are given to them. The general deck-layer for such passengers to rest upon is common to the cattle, pigs, &. It is true they are penned off, but the drift of the cattle-soil causes them to be in filth."

Another commander exclaims—

"If it would make the heart ache at the sight of the state of deck passengers in paddle steamers, what would it do when beholding them on the deck of a screw vessel, where the leeward portion of them are washing about the lee scuppers, night and day, as she heels over under canvass?"

Another says—

"There is no space below to which a decker has a right to go, but in eases of exigency, such as "—

and let the House remark this—

"such as women in labour, they are admitted to the engine-room; and when horses are not on board, the stables on deck are opened to the poor people."

He had marked other passages describing a state of things even more deplorable and wretched. There were accounts of the people crowding between the cattle, for the sake of the animal warmth, amidst a floating mass of salt water and animal excrement. In a word, these poor people came over here subject to every conceivable hor- ror and misery in the passage. The House was familiar with the case of the Londonderry steamer, and it would be well if it were. But this report spoke of dead bodies frequently brought on shore, and women brought to bed on the passage. Police constables stated that they had seen persons frozen to the deck, and

—"altogether we never witnessed human beings in such a state of wretchedness front causes admitting of amelioration."

Such, then, was the state of the case. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had power, by the Act of last year, in some degree to interfere, and had promised that that power should be to a certain extent exercised. He (Mr. Cardwell) commended the case to his consideration and that of his right hon. Friends. Of this he was assured, that without pressing unjustly upon or increasing the sufferings of these poor Irish immigrants, the Government must be prepared to deal with this case. An average of 10,000 destitute persons a month could not be endured; he said utterly destitute persons, for in the figures he had given he had excluded the emigrants to America, and persons coining here on their own business and paying their way, and had limited himself to those positively destitute. Thus, then, an average of 10,000 destitute persons per month had landed within a year at one port alone. But the evil was not confined to Liverpool; the same thing was going on at Glasgow and the whole of the western coast, and the evil was spreading over the neighbouring counties. This was the state of facts of which Members who represented large constituencies had to take cognisance; and he pressed the case upon those whose official duties best enabled them to deal with the whole subject. He agreed in the propriety of his hon. and learned Friend assuming the responsibility, and he deprecated the confusion and delays of a Committee. While he recommended the details of this case to the consideration of his hon. and learned Friend, he admitted that many of the difficulties appeared insuperable; and with these he could not expect his hon. and learned Friend to deal. But he felt confident that his hon. and learned Friend would satisfy those who were the sufferers that the whole subject should have his careful consideration—that if no remedy were proposed when Parliament again met, it was only because the evil was insuperable, but that a remedy was provided for such as were capable of amelioration.

said, that as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool had taken this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the statements contained in the report of Captain Denham to the Board of Trade on the condition of the passengers on board of these Irish steamers, the House would excuse him (Mr. Labouchere) for offering a few observations. It was true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that in consequence of representations which had been made from his district, he (Mr. Labouchere) had thought it right to request Captain Denham to visit Liverpool and examine into the facts, in order that such steps might be taken in the matter as might appear best. He had done so, not with the desire or intention of limiting, the transmission of passengers or immigrants from Ireland; for his opinion was that if this influx of paupers was an unjust burthen, other means should be taken to check it; but he would not consent, by artificially raising the price of the passage, indirectly to check the passage of Irish immigrants into this country. He held the opinion that the Irish poor, great numbers of whom came over here not as paupers but in order to work, had a right to be conveyed in the cheapest manner possible, so that it was compatible with a due regard to humanity and to the public good. In his instructions to Captain Denham he had requested him not to look at the interests of Liverpool alone, or that of any other port, but to the common considerations of decency and humanity; and he agreed with the hon. Gentleman—indeed, every one who had read Captain Denham's report must agree—that a case had been made out for the interference of the Government with respect to the manner in which these passengers were conveyed. In the spirit and intent of that report, he, on the part of the Government, would deal with this question. There were limitations which the Government had the power of imposing as to the number of passengers; but it was important it should be clearly understood that these limitations, whatever they might be, would be imposed, not for the purpose of checking the number of Irish immigrants, but with a view to the interests of those immigrants themselves, and of preventing the recurrence of scenes revolting to humanity. The question was, indeed, one of great difficulty—it was a balance of difficulties. While he would not consent to adopt any limitation of this kind, with a view to check immigration, he felt that proper regulations should be made as to the manner in which the people were brought over, as, for instance, to secure at least a proper separation between the passengers and cattle. He assured the hon. Gentleman that his best attention should be given to the subject. He agreed with the spirit and intent of Captain Denham's report, and lie should be prepared, when the proper time came, to impose such limitations and restrictions as would prevent the evils upon which the hon. Gentleman had commented.

,agreeing in everything which had fallen from the hon. and learned Chief Commissioner, did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the debate, but for the purpose of entreating the noble Lord not to divide the House, for in its present temper it was clear that he would be in a minority. He had gained his object by the discussion which had taken place.

said, the Motion of his noble Friend was no doubt conceived with the humanity he always exhibited on other subjects; but he thought the arguments with which he had supported it had been answered so distinctly and clearly by the hon. and learned Chief Commissioner, that it would be impossible to add to the refutation. But it appeared to him that while the attempt on the one hand was to shift the burden from one shoulder to the other, and upon the other hand to shift it off altogether upon a third party, no one had asked him how it was that while the upper classes of this country were advancing in their comforts and enjoyments, and while the middle classes were also rising, the labouring classes were actually in a more depressed condition. The reason of this depression was, that they had not given to them the advantages which the other classes seemed to enjoy. He asked the House to consider that subject with a view to a remedy, for he believed that the evil which all admitted to exist might be remedied by measures calmly conceived, which, without injuring property, would increase the comforts of the poor, and add to the benefits and the security of the classes above them. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion stated that the strongest grounds for bringing it forward were because property was so unequally rated; but he (Mr. Slaney) thought the reason of that unequal taxation was, that in one part the rate was better and more economically managed than in another. He asked, therefore, whether counties which were guilty of a malad- ministration of the law had a right to throw the consequences of that upon other counties by a rate in aid? He thought they would not sanction any such injustice. The hon. Member for Norwich had complained that parties were in the habit of taking down the cottages on their estates, and so driving the poor into the workhouse, that they might get the advantage of their labour; but he (Mr. Slaney) thought it was bad policy, inasmuch as a man who had to walk four miles could not do so good a clay's work as the man who lived only half a mile off. He said that, having heard the statements made by the noble Lord and by the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Liverpool, he must advise his noble Friend to withdraw his Motion, as the numbers that would divide with him on it would not be worthy of his object.

said, he could not allow the discussion to close without thanking his noble Friend for having introduced it. The debate which had occurred would benefit the Irish no less than the English poor, with this additional advantage, that the question had been discussed entirely on English grounds. He confessed, however, he was surprised to hear the arguments of noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen against the propriety of a national rate for England, who had but lately given their vote for imposing just such a rate upon Ireland. And he would only remark, that what was unjust for England, could not be justice to Ireland, where all local administration of the rate was entirely taken away. He said, as the hon. Member for Liverpool had alluded to the great increase occasioned in the rates of that town, for the purposes of emigration to America among the Irish poor, he only desired to remind him that the merchants of Liverpool had been in the receipt of 20 and 30 per cent on the food imported for the Irish poor during the years of famine.

then replied. He said his Motion had been totally misunderstood by the hon. Members for Hull, Norwich, and Liverpool, who had assumed that his object was to carry out certain opinions, which, in all frankness, he felt bound to state were his own, and to which the Committee, if the House proceeded to a Committee, would in no way stand pledged. The hon. and learned Member for Hull said his objections were twofold. He objected, first, to a general equalisation of the rate being cast upon property; and, secondly, he objected, on the ground of the mischievous effects as he called them, of in any way interfering with the power of local administration. He (Lord Nugent) must beg the House to take his Motion in the words in which lie had proposed it. He said he was not opposed to local administration, but he had merely stated that, in taking up the grounds on which he supported his Motion, his proposal must necessarily be inconsistent with local administration. He hoped, then, the House would consider the words of the Motion without any reference to questionable opinions as to details in the application of the principle.

Question put and negatived.

said, that, in discharging what he felt to be his duty, in bringing before the House the important subject of education in Ireland, as regards the clergy and members of the Established Church, he was glad to be able to state that it would not be necessary for him, on the present occasion, to go at any great length into the subject. He had last year occupied the time of the House with a very detailed statement—and he would now do little more than recapitulate some of the arguments which he had used then. He was, however, desirous of assuring the House, in the first instance, that on this, as, indeed, on all occasions, he was most anxious to avoid any language calculated, in the most remote degree, to revive any of those party or religious differences or animosities which happily lied so much subsided of late; and he begged to assure her Majesty's Government, that he brought the subject forward with the most earnest desire—and in saving this, he spoke not his own sentiments alone, but the sentiments of the clergy and laity of the Established Church in Ireland—to promote, if possible, such an adjustment of this difficult and most unpleasant subject as might be felt to be reasonable and fair by all parties. In adverting last year to the state of the education question in England, he had complained that the toleration with regard to education, which is extended to every denomination of Dissenter, and which, as regards Roman Catholics, has been carried to the extent of sanctioning even a departure from a scriptural basis, in deference to their religious scruples—and the principles which here are recognised as the only practical ones for the education of the lower classes, are not extended to the clergy and laity of the Established Church in Ireland. He had endeavoured to show, what he firmly believed to be the case, that every denomination of Christians, however differing from each other in essential and fundamental doctrines, mere agreed in this country, that no system of education could be tolerated that was not based on religion. He had shown, on high Roman Catholic authority, that the Roman Catholics entertained just as strong opinions as Protestants on this subject; and he had then adverted to the fact that the State, after haying frequently attempted, and always in vain, to establish in England a united system of education, comprising children of different denominations, and sinking and superseding all religious distinctions, had arrived at the conclusion, which, in truth, had been forced upon them, that it was better to acknowledge the principle in which all denominations were agreed, that religion must be made the basis of education; and, taking security that each denomination would fully carry out that principle practically, had consented to afford the utmost toleration to the conscientious scruples and opinions of all, and to assist all in promoting the secular part of education, requiring, however, that in all Protestant schools the Scriptures should be read daily by every child, and going the length of permitting, in deference to the feelings and opinions of Roman Catholics, that even the Roman Catholic religion might be made the basis of education in Roman Catholic schools. He (Mr. Hamilton) was not giving any opinion of his own on the propriety of this; he was only stating the fact, and adducing it as a proof of the extent of which toleration, in matters of education, were carried in England. Now, while this was the state of things as regarded education in England—while the State, dealing only with the secular, portion of education, accommodates itself to the views, and scruples, and conscientious opinions of every denomination as regards religious instruction, a principle is rigidly maintained, as a condition of all aid from the State to education in Ireland, which has always been thought so objectionable by the great majority of the clergy and laity of the Established Church—so contrary to the principles of the Reformation, and so much at variance with the construction which most clergymen put upon their ordination vows, that they had found it impossible to take any share in education under the national system. This was to be found in the rule which places the Bible on precisely the same footing with all other books, and which compels all patrons of national schools in Ireland, either to exclude the Bible from the school, or the children from the Bible, unless their parents or guardians should permit them to use it. It had always appeared to him (Mr. Hamilton) so clear, that the unrestricted right of access to the word of God, at all times and in all places, was so peculiarly and pre-eminently the fundamental principle of the Reformation, and one which every Protestant must feel it so peculiarly incumbent on him to maintain in Ireland, that he had often wondered how it could be expected or supposed that the Protestants generally, or the clergy of the Established Church, especially, could sanction the system. The house would observe, he was not now encumbering the subject with any matters of detail or management, or making any charges against the National Board—he was not even saying that there might not be, in point of fact, many schools in Ireland, under the National Board, in which the Scriptures, or scripture extracts, were used—he was simply placing before the House the grounds, on principle, which created, in the deliberate judgment of the great majority of the clergy and laity of the Established Church, a conscientious objection to the system. He would put it to the plain sense of every Protestant who heard him, would a clergyman of the Established Church, in England, or the minister of any Protestant Dissenting congregation, consent to become the patron of a school, if the use of the Bible in that school, by any or all of the children, was to be made contingent upon the caprice or opinion of the parent or guardian of any child who might attend it? and the argument which he founded upon it was this, that, while in England you tolerate conscientious objections, in which many of you cannot concur, and modify your system so as to meet them, in Ireland you refuse to tolerate the conscientious objections of the members of the Established Church, though as Protestants you cannot deny their force. If it was necessary for him (Mr. Hamilton) to sustain the validity and reasonableness of the objections to the national system, he could support them on very high authority. The Bishop of London had declared recently, in another place, that if he was a clergyman in Ireland, he would be unable to give any sanction to the national system; and he (Mr. Hamilton) thought it was impossible for any one who read the speech recently made at the meeting of the Church Education Society, by the Bishop of Ossory, in which most able speech that distinguished prelate had brought his powerful intellect to bear upon the difficulties on both sides of the question, and not feel convinced that there were strong and reasonable objections which might operate upon any conscientious mind, and render adhesion to the national system impossible. The next objection which was entertained to the national system was one in which he believed he was joined by a considerable number of Roman Catholics—namely, the tendency which that system had, supposing its rules to be fully and fairly carried out, to secularise education—to make education merely secular, and deprive it of all religious character. For his (Mr. Hamilton's) own part, he believed it to be impossible that any system, founded and carried on upon the principle of united secular and separate religious instruction, could be otherwise than secular in its character. In fact, such a system supposed secular instruction to be the main point of education; and although in a model school, perhaps, you might exhibit children engaged in a common school room in secular instruction, and then retiring to their separate rooms for religious instruction, he believed it to be impossible to carry out such a system generally. It was a very true saving that the master makes the school; and if the business and object of the master is to instruct in secular matters, the school will inevitably be secular in its character. Now, it was his (Mr. Hamilton's) opinion and firm conviction, that a system of that kind, a mere secular system, could not, and ought not, to succeed either in this country or in Ireland. Such a system might perhaps succeed in a country where no strong religious convictions or feelings existed; but he thought in these countries it would be equally repugnant to the feelings and principles of Protestants and Roman Catholics. He would take the case of England first, and would quote the opinions of Roman Catholics on this subject. Last year he had read out some remarks in which he fully concurred, made on this subject by Dr. Briggs, one of the Roman Catholic bishops, at a meeting at York. Much had occurred since which confirmed the argument he had then founded on Dr. Briggs' statement, namely, that Roman Catholics will not sanction anything in education which compromises its religious character. Since he (Mr. Hamilton) had last addressed the House, all the arrangements in reference to the education of Roman Catholics in this country had come out; and if the House would bear with him he would be able to show that in the concessions made by Government to the Roman Catholics, and the requirements of the Roman Catholics as the condition of their receiving aid from Government, there was much which bore directly upon the Irish question. The whole would be found in the first report of the Catholic school committee for the year 1848. This Catholic poor-school committee is appointed by the vicars apostolic; and when he (Mr. Hamilton) stated that the noble Earl the Member for Arundel was one of the trustees, he would say nothing stronger to entitle its proceedings to respect and consideration. The committee state, in page 7 of their proceedings, what had taken place in relation to Government and the Parliamentary grant for education, and they state as follows:—

"In relation to Government, the committee are happy to be able to report progress. On the 18th December, 1847, the Committee of Council passed a Minute defining the conditions of aid to Roman Catholic schools. These conditions are as follow:—1. That the Roman Catholic poor-school committee be the ordinary channel of inquiries. 2. That Roman Catholic schools receiving aid from the Parliamentary grant be open to inspection, but that the inspectors shall report respecting the secular instruction alone. 3. That inspectors be not appointed without the previous concurrence of the Roman Catholic poor-school committee."

The committee then proceed to state for themselves—

"Nothing can be more straightforward and intelligible than these terms of Government aid to Catholic schools. The Catholic school committee appointed by the bishops for this very purpose, with others, is recognised as the official organ of communication, and such of our schools as receive aid will be open to inspection, like the schools of all other religions; but the inspectors cannot be appointed without the concurrence of the poor-school committee, neither do they report upon the religious instruction. Priests teaching schools cannot receive aid from the Parliamentary grant, being in this respect in the same situation as Protestant ministers of all persuasions; but an exception may be made in favour of the superior at a normal school."

It is not unimportant to remark that the exclusion from participation in the advan- taxes of the grant, extends to schoolmasters and assistant teachers who are in holy orders, and to them alone. There is not a word in the Minute against religious teachers not in holy orders. The committee proceed to state—

"Shortly after the Catholic Minute had been sanctioned in the way recorded, Mr. Kay Shuttle-worth, the secretary to the Committee of Council on Education, requested Mr. Langdale, the chairman of the Catholic poor-school committee, to meet him at the Council office. This interview was held at the desire of the Lord President of the Council; and the general principles of the Government grant were then communicated to the chairman, who at the time took a written memorandum of them. The third of these rules or principles are as follows:—Local management of the school to be in a committee composed partly of clerical and partly of lay members, whose authority will be limited to strictly secular education. Religious instruction, or where partly of a religious character, as in questions of historical controversy, the clerical members to be the sole authority. In cases of questions arising of a religious character, an appeal to be made to the Catholic bishop of the diocese. In questions purely secular, the Lord President of the Council will appoint as his arbitrator an inspector of Catholic schools, and the Catholic bishop of the district will appoint his arbitrator, and these will appoint a third."

And it is observed, in a note, that all the arbitrators must be Catholics. Now, he (Mr. Hamilton) had read these extracts for the purpose of showing the great and, as he thought, most commendable jealousy which the Roman Catholic body had shown, in their dealings with Government., for the preservation of the religious character and principles of their schools in England, and of the length which Government had gone in making concessions to their scruples in this respect. But the committee was not satisfied to let the matter rest even here; they take further steps to secure the distinctive character of their schools; they state, in page 15 of their report, the general regulations under which grants have been made are as follows; and the 10th regulation runs thus:—

"Every school receiving aid from the committee, if placed by its managers under the special patronage of our blessed Lady, may, by application to the secretary, obtain the present of a beautiful image, prepared expressly for this purpose."

And, in reference to this, the committee remark

"In addition to grants of money, the committee have undertaken to present every school, aided by them, and placed by its managers under the patronage of our blessed Lady, with a beautiful image of the Madonna. This image has been universally admired, and will, it is hoped, increase the devotional element in the schools which have applied for it. At a time when our schools are newly admitted to privileges, shared alike by professors of various religions, it is right openly to avow that Catholics, while they cherish love towards all men, yet can never, in the education of their children, abandon or conceal the distinctive truths of the faith. Of this determination the committee's Madonna is a very appropriate symbol."

There were only two other very short extracts, which he would read to the House. The first was from the address of the vicars apostolic to the committee, and it is as follows:—

"We, the undersigned, the Catholic bishops in England and Wales, respectfully address the chairman and members of the acting committee of the Catholic institution, on the important subject of religious education of the children of the poor. We have sought, and still seek, our due share of aid from the Government of the country to assist us in this holy work; but to obtain this aid we cannot compromise in any way, or to the smallest extent, either our most precious faith or that salutary discipline which surrounds and protects our religion: while we study and desire to have peace with all men, we do not forget that we are watchmen on the towers of the city of God. "

And the last quotation is from the letter of the Catholic bishops in England and Wales, to the chairman of the Catholic school committee—

"We recognise your committee as the organ sanctioned by us of communication with the Government, and we have every confidence that your committee, in your communications and negotiations with Government for any Government grants, will be hilly aware of our determination not to yield to the Ministers of the day any portion, however small, either of our ecclesiastical liberty, or of our episcopal control over the religious education of the children of the poorer members of our flock."

He (Mr. Hamilton) had read these extracts for a twofold object: the first was this—he put it to the House whether, when the Roman Catholics in England evince such a commendable jealousy as regards the principles of their religion, and as regards religious education, and for the distinctive characteristics of their schools; and when their scruples had been so fully conceded to—is it just or right to find fault with the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, and to place them under a ban of exclusion, because they are equally jealous with regard to the maintenance of the great principles of the Reformation? And his second object was this. He would ask the House whether it was likely, considering the boldness with which the principles of religious education, and of clerical control, had been put forward by the Roman Catholics in England, whether, he would say, it was likely that a system differing so essentially in principle as the national system could be really carried out in Ire-land by the Roman Catholic clergy? Last year he examined the list of schools under the national system, and compared the list of patrons with the names of the clergy of different denominations in Ireland, and the result was then as follows:—There were, in the whole, 4,088 schools in Ireland under the national system; of these, no fewer than 2,505 were under the patronage of clergymen of the Roman Catholic church, 384 under Presbyterian clergymen, and 96 under clergymen of the Established Church. Now, after what he had quoted from the committee of the Catholic poor schools as the opinion of the highest Roman Catholic authority, can any reasonable man hesitate to believe, that in the 2,505 schools under the patronage of Roman Catholic clergymen, and many of them in connexion with Roman Catholic chapels and religious establishments, the peculiar tenets of the Roman Catholic religion are made the basis of education, and that, in point of fact, those schools are Roman Catholic schools to all intents and purposes? On the other hand, take the 384 schools under Presbyterian clergymen—can any one doubt but that scriptural instruction is made the basis of education in these schools? So that in point of fact, instead of a united system, which the national system purports to be, you have two classes of schools in Ireland—the one scriptural, by straining the rules of the board; the other Roman Catholic, by also straining the rules of the board; and you have at the same time the clergy and laity of the Established Church excluded from all share of State education by reason of their conscientious convictions. He would ask the House was that a right or a sound state of things? He (Mr. Hamilton) would now state very shortly what the nature of the society was which was excluded from all share of State favour. The second of the fundamental rules of the Church Education Society states, that its object is to afford to the children of the Church instructions in the holy Scriptures, and in the Catechism, and other formularies of the Church, under the direction of the bishops and parochial clergy, and under the tuition of teachers who are members of the United Churches of England and Ireland. The holy Scriptures shall be used in the daily instruction of every child in attendance who is capable of reading. The schools of the society shall he open to all children whatsoever belonging to the parish in which the school may be situate, and having the parochial minister's approbation for attending it; and no child shall be excluded on account of the inability of its parents to pay for its instruction. This was his (Mr. Hamilton's) case. He wanted to know on what principle it was that, while Government in England support and assist Roman Catholic schools, who gloried in their distinctive marks, and who for the purpose of preserving their peculiar distinctive religious character, used symbols which rendered them inaccessible to Protestants, all aid is refused to schools in connexion with the Established Church in Ireland? He wanted to know on what principle it is that, while in England you have such regard to the conscientious opinions of Roman Catholics, that you assist their schools notwithstanding those distinctive characteristics of which, as Protestants, you must disapprove; in Ireland you make no allowance for the conscientious convictions of Protestants on a matter involving, as they think, a fundamental principle of the Reformation, and refuse to assist schools the rules of which require that the formularies of the Church should be taught to the children of the Church, and scriptural instruction given to all. He (Mr. Hamilton) earnestly hoped Her Majesty's Government would take these matters into their consideration. It ought to be an object with all parties in the House to place a subject so important as education in Ireland on a satisfactory footing. He did not believe there would be as much difficulty in effecting this as was generally supposed, if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would take up the subject with a view to a satisfactory adjustment. The Established Church only claimed for themselves the freedom which was allowed to others. The system was such as to enable all other denominations in Ireland to establish schools without offence to their conscientious convictions. Enable the clergy of the Established Church to do the same. Where parties are desirous of establishing scriptural schools, enable them to establish them, and let children attend them or not, as they or their parents might think proper. There was one argument used in support of the national system, which probably he should not have noticed, if it had not come from a very high authority. The national system was defended upon the grounds of an analogy supposed to exist between that system and the plan of education adopted in the University which he (Mr. Hamilton) had the honour to represent. But surely an analogy could scarcely be sustained between a university for the completion of the education of young men, and schools for the education of the poor. In the former case it must be presumed that the Christian religion, or at least its leading principles, had been taught to each student before he entered the university. In the latter it must be obvious that, inasmuch as the children of the poor, if they go to school at all, they must go at an early age—they must be taught religion in school, and must depend upon their masters for religious instruction; and that consideration alone, he thought, was sufficient to overthrow the analogy. But, in point of fact, the system of Dublin resembled much more nearly the system of the Church Education Society than that of the National Board. At the preliminary examination on entrance, all the students were obliged to pass an examination in portions of the New Testament, with the view of ascertaining their knowledge of the Scriptures. So far you have the scriptural principle; and several books of a religious character constituted also a part of the undergraduate course for every student; Roman Catholics, it is true, are not compelled to attend chapel, or to learn any of the formularies of the Church. In this respect also it resembled the system of the Church Education Society. But there was no prohibition with regard to any student seeking or obtaining religious instruction from his tutor; on the contrary, if he sought it, his tutor would be bound to give it. Very different from that was the system of the National Board, which subjected the master to dismissal if he instructed children in the Bible contrary to the rules of the board. He (Mr. Hamilton) would now conclude. He had that day presented a petition, signed by 64,000 of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland; he had also presented a petition, signed by 1,587 of the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland; the petitioners in both state their conscientious objections to the national system; they pray for toleration—they pray that the principles which you apply to education in England may be applied in Ireland—they complain that, because of a conscientious conviction, which, through evil report and good report, they hold, and must continue to hold, they are debarred from all advantages in the educational grants in Ireland, while they see all other denominations in both countries freely admitted to it. It is strange, in these times, that such a petition should be necessary on the part of the members of the Established Church. It is stranger still that the prayer of it should be opposed by those who set up so preeminently as the advocates of the principles of education and of civil and religious liberty. Whatever might be the result of his Motion on the present occasion, and however it might suffer from the feeble advocacy of the individual who was then addressing the House, he felt the strongest confidence that the question only required to be understood by the people of England, in order to induce them, by the force of public opinion, to compel Government to do justice to the conscientious feelings of the Protestants of Ireland. He believed that a love of justice, toleration, and fair play, were pre-eminently the characteristics of Englishmen. He believed further that a regard for the fundamental principles of the Reformation was deeply rooted in the English mind, and that they would be disposed to sympathise with the Protestants of Ireland in the anxious and zealous regard with which they held those principles, from the maintenance and advancement of which, in Ireland, he (Mr. Hamilton) conscientiously believed the moral, social, and physical improvement of Ireland, more than upon any other cause, depended.

Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that such a modification of the system of National Education in Ireland may be made as may remove the conscientious objections which a large proportion of the Clergy and Laity of the Established Church entertain to that system as at present carried into operation; or otherwise that means may he taken to enable those of the Clergy and Laity of the Established Church, who entertain such conscientious objections, to extend the blessings of Scriptural Education in Ireland."

seconded the Motion.

said, his hon. Friend had kept the word of promise with which he opened his speech, namely, that he would indulge in no observations or remarks calculated to give offence to any Gentleman who might hold different opinions from himself, If he (Sir W. Somerville) were inclined to take exception to any part of his hon. Friend's speech, it would he to the part wherein he intimated that upon this question he was giving expression to the feelings and convictions of the Protestants of Ireland. His hon. Friend forgot that the Protestants who differed from his views were equally conscientious with himself, and that they did not agree with him. He denied that a majority of the Protestants of Ireland was opposed to this system. The great objection, however, which he had to the Motion was, that, let it be proposed under what aspect it might, it went to the abolition of the national system of education. The moment that system was divested of its character of universal operation—the moment its distinctive character was banished—it would become a system which would recognise only a sect. It would not be national education, and there must be a grant for the education of every religious denomination. For these reasons he did not think the Motion would be conducive to the interests of Ireland, and therefore he could not consent to it. The question was one of extreme difficulty and of extreme importance. He need go no further back, to show the difficulty of the question, than to the year 1832, when Lord Stanley founded the present system, and when the educational progress of the people was very limited. Let the House remember the number of commissions issued in progress of the inquiry; and that in one of them several prelates of the Established Church recommended to Parliament the adoption of the present system. The system had been in operation now for sixteen years, and it had been eminently successful. They had upheld their course through good report and through evil report, and their efforts had been crowned with success; and he believed the system was daily recommending itself more and more to the people of Ireland of every class and creed. It was a system that was free to all—that coerced the consciences of none—and that held out the blessings of education equally to every part of the community. His hon. Friend stated, that no system of education was tolerable that was not based on religion. If the phrase had any meaning, it was, that no system of education should exist which did not require from those who took advantage of it, submission to the religious education established in the schools. Was that the case in England? Did not the hon. Gentleman know that the students of Trinity College, Dublin, were allowed to take advantage of the education which it afforded, without attending a particular form of worship? The hon. Gentleman said, that the Roman Catholics were ready to support his view of this question. He believed his hon. Friend must be under a mistake; or, if not, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had very materially altered the views formerly entertained by their body. He found in Plowden's History of Ireland , that in the year 1795, while the Catholic College Bill was under consideration, Mr. Grattan presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of Ireland against two provisions contained in the Bill, the second of which was, that by which no Protestant, or child of a Protestant father, should he permitted to receive education in that college; and the ground of their opposition was, that it tended to prevent that harmony, union, and friendly intercourse through life which might he extended through different persuasions receiving their education together, and the happy effects of which had been felt from the permission that had been given to have Roman Catholic youths educated in the University of Dublin. He thought he was right, therefore, in stating that the Roman Catholics of Ireland must have altered their opinions very much, if they were now opposed to a united system of education; for this petition, it should be observed, was described as being from the Roman Catholics of Ireland generally. His hon. Friend had stated, what he was sure he would hereafter regret having said, that any support to the national system of education was contrary to the ordination vows of the clergy. He believed that his hon. Friend had greatly underrated the support which the national system received from the Protestant clergy in Ireland. He believed that he did not overstate the number at 500 of that body, as being in favour of the national system; and, as regarded the laity, a much larger proportion entertained similar views. It was well known that the Presbyterian clergy were, almost to a man, or at least considerably the larger portion of them, in favour of the system; so that, taking the whole Protestant population of Ireland, it would be found that a majority of them was in favour of the national system of education. Coupling that fact with the circumstance that the system was supported and taken advantage of by the great majority of the Roman Catholic population, it was not too much to say that the system of education as now carried on in Ireland had a fair right to be declared and received as a national system, and as receiving the sup- port of the great majority of the Irish people. If hon. Members had read the fifteenth report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, they would see that the system was extending itself. On the 31st of December, 1847, there were 3,825 schools, having 402,632 pupils, under the board. At the close of 1848, the number of schools was 4,109, and of pupils 507,469, showing a total increase in the schools of 284, and in the enrolled pupils for the year ending the 31st of December, 1848, of 104,837. Now, looking to the condition of Ireland at the present moment—looking to the amount of misery and distress that had overtaken that unfortunate country—it was, he would say, an extraordinary fact that there should be at this moment 500,000 children attending the schools of the National Board. And he would caution the House not to be hasty in disturbing a system which must eventually bring forward good fruits, and be the means of regenerating the social system of that country. He did not complain of this Motion being brought forward. He was convinced that his hon. Friend was actuated by the most conscientious motives in bringing the question before the House, and he was also satisfied that the large proportion of the Protestant clergy of Ireland were likewise influenced by the most conscientious motives in their hostility to the system; but at the same time he believed that that opposition of the Protestant clergy was diminishing, and had materially decreased since the first introduction of the system. He believed it was every year becoming less, and he therefore regretted the more that his hon. Friend should have thought it necessary to reopen the question on the present occasion. He hoped they should never forget the services of those who had been instrumental in establishing this system. While they had been engaged in that House in the more exciting pursuits of politics, others in Ireland, under much obloquy, had been instrumental in forwarding this system. He thought that Ireland owed a deep debt of gratitude to Lord Stanley and the Government by whom the system had been introduced; but there was one individual whose motives had been impugned, and made the subject of obloquy and reproach—he meant his friend Dr. Whateley, the Archbishop of Dublin, to whom, from his steadiness in upholding this system, they owed a debt of gratitude they could never repay, or never sufficiently acknowledge. In the last paragraph but one of the last report of the commissioners, he perceived an allusion to the death of a dear and regretted friend of his, who was equally entitled to the gratitude of the Irish people. He meant his lamented friend the late Anthony Richard Blake, who had marked his devotion to the system by the munificent gift of 1,000 l ., to be expended in forwarding the system of national education. He would not enter more in detail into this subject. The House would see that the system was established throughout the country, that the number of schools was increasing, and that they had every reason to hope that as the system progressed the education and well-being of the people would increase. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that the House would pause before it did anything to shake the confidence of the people in the permanence of the system; and, entertaining that view, while he gave every credit to the motives of his hon. Friend in bringing the subject forward, he hoped the House would agree with him in rejecting the proposition that had been made.

said, that, as representing the opinions of a large number of the clergy and laity of the south of Ireland, he felt it his duty to express his regret that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland should have been led away by the mistaken assertions of the commissioners, with regard to the progress and increasing popularity of the national system of education. It was only this very day that he had presented a petition signed by ninety-one Roman Catholic heads of families in the west of the county of Cork, describing the benefits which they enjoy from the scriptural education afforded to their children by the Church Education Society, and praying for an extension of that system. He objected to the national system of education, because he believed it to be wrong in principle, and dishonest in practice. He objected to it, because it had utterly failed in its objects, and because its promoters had never adopted any honest mode by which the united system of education could be effectual. An analogy had been drawn between the workhouse schools and the national schools, though in the former a neutral board of the laity was present to settle any disputes that might arise; while in the latter there was no appeal except from the Roman Catholic schoolmaster to the Roman Catholic priest by whom he had been ap- pointed. Upwards of 100 years ago, Archbishop Boulter, in writing to the Duke of Dorset, in 1734, said—

"I have no doubt the King would grant an annuity to us for education, but it would cause a clamour in the House of Commons."

And the very same objection to a grant appeared to exist at the present day. He believed that a more determined advocate of scriptural education never existed than the distinguished prelate who now presided over the Church of Ireland. He considered that the national system had utterly failed in the attainment of the objects which were sought for, and in proof of it he would read the following opinion of the pious Bishop Jebb, Bishop of Limerick, who said—

"Plans have been submitted of generalised education; with these, the clergy have manifestly nothing to do; of such plans the fate is to be decided by parliamentary wisdom and discretion; but specific church-in-Ireland education is a subject in which the clergy feel the deepest concern: and feeling this concern, they naturally wish that it should at once engage the attention and elicit the bounty of Parliament."

In the year ending December, 1847, the increase in the number of schools in connexion with the National Board in the county of Cork was sixteen, while the increase in the number of scriptural schools for the same period was nineteen. In the national schools there was a decrease in the number of pupils of 12,339, while in the schools of the Church Education Society there was an increase of 5,835. The average expense for each scholar under the national system was 15 l 10 s ., while under the Church Education Society it was 3 l . 10 s . The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the increase in the number of scholars in a time of distress and famine; but he ought to have added that this increase was owing to the workhouse schools, and to the number of children who had been forced to become inmates of the workhouses. In the year 1847, there had been a decrease of 53,788 pupils in the national schools, while, for the same period, there had been an increase of 20,000 in the schools of the Church Education Society. How was it that in that report they heard of agricultural schools about to be opened, the rules for the regulation of which schools were to be laid upon the table of the House next year? How was it that the right hon. Baronet did not promise to have the rules ready before next year? But, in fact, he (Viscount Bernard) thought that the national school system could not last in Ireland much longer. Ultimately, the consistency, the piety, and the devotedness exhibited by the Protestant clergy of Ireland must be triumphant. It would prevail, notwithstanding the attempts that had been made to corrupt them by Government patronage—notwithstanding the return to the ancient policy of Ireland, in excluding men from benefit on account of their conscientious opinion. He appealed to, English Gentlemen, if it were right that men of great and distinguished learning and piety should be excluded from all patronage, because they would not adopt a system which he had never yet heard any one say was favourable to the Protestant Church? He asked pardon for so long occupying the attention of the House, but he was only discharging what he considered to be his duty. They had attempted by penal laws to suppress the feeling of the people of Ireland. They had attempted what they miscalled conciliation. He begged of the Government now, for once, to abandon a system which had sown as it were the fabled dragon's teeth, and to adopt a system of scriptural education for the Irish people, which would instil into them doctrines of harmony and peace here, and lead them to eternal happiness hereafter.

said, he regretted that the Motion of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin should have been couched in such sectarian terms, for he believed there was a large body of the clergy of both denominations in Ireland who saw much to find fault with in the present system of national education. He believed, likewise, that many of the clergy of both denominations supported it, not because they thought it the best system that could be adopted, but simply because they thought it better than no system of education at all. But the most stern of both denominations opposed it altogether, on the same grounds and under the same religious convictions—because they thought that a system of education conducted without religion was essentially a system of irreligious education, and that the attempt to teach a neutral religion tended to confound the limits of truth and falsehood—because it seemed to be founded upon the principle that the points upon which men differed were less essential than those upon which they chanced to agree. The hon. Member for Fermanagh, in the irregular and indifferent manner in which he threw aspersions about, had charged a prelate of the Catholic Church with op- posing education altogether; but he ought to have known, and he might have known, that that most reverend prelate only opposed that which he thought was an irreligious system of education, and that he only opposed that which the clergy of the Established Church opposed, and for the very same reason—that he only opposed that which the hon. Gentleman himself was, he believed, ready to oppose by his vote that night. He (Mr. Moore) should be most happy to assist the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin in any large and comprehensive proposition for such a change in the system of national education in Ireland as would meet the views of all religious denominations. But a resolution expressed in the sectarian terms in which the Motion before the House was couched, he could not support; for, besides the sectarian views of one side being put strongly forward, there was something like covetousness and greed in those two resolutions. What could be thought of the second of them, which asked for funds from the State for the benefit of the Established Church system of education, when it was considered that the vast funds placed at the disposal of the Church in Ireland in Roman Catholic towns for the support of the clergy and the poor, and the education of the humbler classes, had been appropriated at the time of the Reformation to the Protestant Church entirely—that those vast revenues were now taken from both the purposes for which they were originally intended, and appropriated entirely by the Established Church—and that this Established Church was now asking Parliament for further funds in order to provide for religious education? It was such a proposition as he, at all events, would not assent to.

begged to explain. The hon. Gentleman had referred to some observations made by him on a former occasion, the exact terms of which he really could not recollect. But as the hon. Member had charged him with being in the habit of making statements in an irregular and inconsiderate manner, he could only say that he should endeavour for the future to imitate the hon. Gentleman, who was certainly a model of propriety. As far as he could recollect, he drew a comparison between the relative condition of education in the provinces of Ulster, where the schools were, for the most part, under the management and direction of the Church Education Society, and of Connaught, where they were under the National Board. And he said that Dr. M'Hale had done his best to check the spread of education under that board. He stated, in furtherance of his argument, that in Ulster there were 1,528 schools, whilst in Connaught there were only 439; and that the majority of the educated over the uneducated in Ulster was 600,000, whereas the majority of the uneducated over the educated in Connaught was 400,000, making a difference of exactly 1,000,000 of educated in Ulster over uneducated in Connaught. He said that Dr. M'Hale had so far succeeded in checking the spread of education; and it was to that they could attribute the miserable, uneducated, uncivilised, and hackward state of Connaught, and the want of proper feeling which prevailed there. And he now told the hon. Gentleman who belonged to that province that it would be well for the people if in Connaught the same system were established as prevailed in Ulster.

said, that he had hoped, from the commencement of the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo, that he was about to support the Members of the Church of Ireland in their complaint of the grievance under which they laboured; but the hon. Member had said that the resolution partook of a sectarian character. The answer to that was that the hon. Member for Dublin University did not propose to deprive the Roman Catholics of any benefits which they enjoyed under the national system; he only asked, on behalf of the Protestant Church, the same toleration which the Government had extended to the Roman Catholics. He begged the House to consider the great concessions which had been made to the Roman Catholics in Ireland; and then to remember that this system was opposed by two-thirds of the Protestant clergy, hacked by the petitions of 64,000 of the laity; and when it was said that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was favourable to the national system, the conduct of that hierarchy respecting the proposed colleges was a sufficient answer. In England the Government based their alterations of the system upon their experience since 1843; but, in Ireland, they always reverted to the year 1831. Had they then no experience of national education in Ireland? Had not the complaints of the system been gradually growing more general, until now the Roman Catholic clergy participated in them? Lord Stanley's authority had been quoted in support of the system, but it must be remembered that vast alterations had been made since it left Lord Stanley's hand. It was very well to say that it worked well amongst the Presbyterians; the Presbyterian system was more arbitrary than that of the Church, notwithstanding its democratic basis; and the Presbyterians adopted the grant of the Government only where the preponderance of the population gave them complete control; and then, availing themselves of the Government grant in those places, they could apply the funds raised by subscription to other places differently circumstanced; but it was impossible so to appropriate the funds of the Church; each locality must provide for itself. He would not further trouble the House, except to express his cordial concurrence in the prayer of the Church of Ireland.

said, that as this was a subject in which his constituents felt a deep interest, he could not allow this occasion to pass without a few observations. He had listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, but it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had managed to avoid the difficulty of the case. The right hon. Gentleman appeared not to be in the least aware of the grounds upon which numbers of persons were seriously opposed to the present system and operations of the National Board, although they were ready, as he himself was, to agree to the principles professed by the board, but which were not carried out. The right hon. Gentleman was pleased to assume the adhesion to the present system of a very large majority both of the Presbyterian ministers and ministers of the Established Church. He thought that no Gentleman hearing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and who had not given his attention to this somewhat difficult subject, could be aware of the position and constitution of a vast number of the schools founded under the National Board. It was the fact that two-thirds of those schools were not bound by the rules of the board; they were then called non-vested schools, the patrons having delegated to them the power of giving what religious instruction they pleased, and at such hours as they thought proper, or of giving no such instruction at all. Any one would have supposed, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the system was an united one: but that was a delusion, and, in fact, no other system in Ireland exhibited so great a want of unity. The 14th report of the Commissioners on National Education, Ireland, would show that the contrary was the fact. It would appear that there were 423 Presbyterian ministers who were acting as patrons of national schools; but then all these schools were not under the control of the hoard. Of the 423 schools, only 28 were vested, and under the control of the hoard. He challenged contradiction to those facts; if they were disputed, he would substantiate them by documentary evidence. So that there were 395 patrons of non-vested schools. Now, the number of non-vested schools as compared with vested schools is as two to one—but the number of Presbyterian ministers acting as patrons in the respective schools is, fourteen in the non-vested to one in the vested schools. This exhibits clearly that the Presbyterian clergy as a body have not, as it has been sought to prove, at all modified their views on scriptural education, and have only joined the board in a manner that enables them to exercise their own discretion. If any thought that the Presbyterian body would give in their adhesion, without stipulating that they should have free action with respect to their scholars, they very much mistook the pertinacy of that body. The Presbyterian body certainly availed themselves of the privilege of obtaining books at a reduced price; but they would admit of no interference with respect to the religions instruction which they conscientiously thought should he administered to their pupils. With respect to the Established Church, it had been said that out of 2,000 of the clergymen of the Established Church, 500 had given in their adhesion to this system; but after a rigid examination of the number of patrons, it would appear that there were only 127 clergymen of the Established Church patrons of non-vested, as against 48 patrons of vested schools. To that small minority the course of patronage had been mainly diverted. For years it had been felt that it was a bar to a man's advancement in that profession if he had not given in his adhesion to the National Board. The first question addressed by Government to an applicant was as to his opinions on the subject of the Board of National Education. He would now shortly state the grounds upon which he was opposed, not altogether, but to a great extent, to the way in which the National Board carried out the duties they had undertaken. He must, however, first state that he thought their training schools worthy of all praise, and their books most excellent; in fact, the latter were most extensively used in the Church education schools. But what he did complain of was, that the hoard wholly failed to establish a united system of education, embracing the children of all denominations, and that it did permit scriptural knowledge to he excluded entirely from hundreds of schools. No doubt the system had been undertaken with good intentions; but what he insisted upon was, that the hoard had not fulfilled the pledges held out to the public, and that it never could do so until the system was based on a principle of scriptural education. By a return partly moved for in 1843, and to which an addition had been made in his Motion in the last Session, it would appear that in spite of the recommendations of the commissioners more than one quarter of the whole number rejected and repudiated the scriptural extracts—that they would not admit them within the walls of the schools, or allow them to be read. Perhaps the House was not aware that a work was compiled called Scriptural Extracts, which received the sanction of high dignitaries in each Church, namely, Archbishops Whately and Murray, and the approval of distinguished laymen of both creeds. This work was repeatedly and earnestly recommended to he used as a class book—it was allowed to he read in school-houses—not only on its own merits, but as a preface to the reading of the holy Scriptures, which the commissioners of the board profess to believe to he the only true basis of all sound knowledge. Yet with these recommendations, they allow it to be wholly excluded from more than a quarter of the whole number of schools. Now if that were the case, he thought the House would agree with him, that there must be some fault in a system which allowed the recommendations of such influential men to he set at nought. He found it stated in the public papers that Lord Clarendon had paid a visit to the training schools. He expressed his high gratification at the visit, but also expressed his regret that so large a number of persons were carrying on a crusade against the system. His Excellency alluded to the charge that bibles were not given to be read in the national schools, and said that if there were any such rule laid down by the board, or if no time was given to reli- gious instruction, there would not be found a more uncompromising opponent of the system than himself. He said also that the class books and scripture extracts were, to his own knowledge, used in the schools in Dublin; but would Lord Clarendon have expressed this opinion if he had known that in no fewer than 1,250 of the schools under the board, or more than a quarter of the entire number, all religious instruction was utterly excluded, and the class books and scripture extracts completely rejected? How were these things to be explained? He knew that, in his own neighbourhood, these extracts were excluded; and how, then, could it be said that this system was based upon religious instruction? Sir Robert Peel, in writing to the Primate of Ireland a few years ago, said that the national system ought to have a religious basis; and the supporters of the system treated as a libel upon the Education Board the allegation that they excluded religious education. What, then, must be said to the fact, that 1,250 of the schools excluded even the scripture extracts? and as the average number of scholars in each school was 104, there must be about 130,000 children who were being educated in these schools in total and entire ignorance of anything in the shape of scriptural knowledge. Was that not a most monstrous state of things for a Christian country? He did not want to force upon the children of Roman Catholic parents any doctrine unpalatable to that Church; but he would appeal to the authority of Archbishop Murray, who had all along said that the scripture extracts ought to be made a class-book. It was neither politic nor economic to bring up the Catholic youth in this state of darkness; and it would be a wiser policy to adopt a more expensive system of education, which should introduce religion, but in no sectarian or exclusive spirit. Such a thing could not be contrary to true liberty of conscience. They might trace the progress of crime to be in the direct ratio in which the Scriptures were excluded from the schools. In Ulster, crime was, with respect to the total number of the population, represented by one offence to every 1,629 persons; in Munster, the proportion was one in 745; and in Connaught, one in 360. And these numbers represented, with sufficient accuracy, the proportion of schools in those provinces in which the Scriptures were excluded. And did not that show how dangerous it was to leave the people with- out the benefits of scriptural training. It had been entirely assumed for the last few years that the present system was the only system that would answer and accord with the feelings of the people; but this assumption was altogether unwarranted by the fact. There was another society in Ireland which really did give a united and a scriptural education; and the success it had met with proved how popular it was with the parents of all denominations. But every attempt had been made to crush the system of the Church Education Society; but this was in reality the only united system in existence in Ireland, and it would be more fitly named the Scriptural Education Society of Ireland, for the present name led many to suppose that all the children were instructed in the catechism and formularies of the Established Church. Such was not the case. The House might be surprised to learn that in numbers of cases the system of education pursued in these schools was infinitely preferred even by Roman Catholics. He knew of cases where the children of Catholic parents travelled miles, and passed the door of the national school on their way to attend the school of the Church Education Society. The total number of children educated in the schools of this society was about 120,000, of whom about 62,000, or the majority of the whole number, did not belong to the Church, and of whom there were 46,000 Roman Catholics and 15,000 Presbyterians. Now, in great numbers of the schools under the National Board, the children were either all Roman Catholics, or all Presbyterians; while the schools of the Church Education Society exhibited a combination of children of all creeds. The Church Education Society invited the strictest investigation, and it would be found on inquiry whether the system they practised was not the one recommended in the blue books—namely, that of a really national system. He hoped the House would suspend their judgment, and not believe, when they supported the National Board, that it was the only system under which the children in Ireland were at present being educated. They did not ask for Government influence in favour of their schools; they merely wished to receive a share of the public support, and considering that there were 120,000 children educated in these schools, and 46,000 of them Roman Catholics, he thought the Church Education Society might fairly ask to be allowed to participate in that grant which was given by the British public avowedly for a national and religious system of education in Ireland. At present it was entirely supported by voluntary contributions—and be appealed to the House whether the best test of merit was not that of competition. Let the parents of Ireland decide which system they prefer; but do not allow any set of men to assert that the parents of Ireland do not wish their children to read the Scriptures, but let the parents speak for themselves, by giving them a choice, which could only be done by strengthening the hands of the Church Education Society.

said, that having heard the objections of the noble Lord, he must still say that this system—having been adopted in 1831 and 1832, and having been pursued from that time under different Governments—having now arrived at that point at which, by the last official report, it had 4,000 schools established under it, and educated upwards of 500,000 children—he thought that there ought to be a strong case made out to induce the House to say, "We will put an end to this system—we will adopt another which may be better, but which shall uproot that which has continued for seventeen years, and given education to so many children who never had an opportunity of receiving it before." The noble Lord was, he thought, most inconsistent in his objections to the system. He (Lord J. Russell) did not mean to say that this was a completely perfect system of education, or the very best which, were circumstances other than they were, might be adopted. What the original authors and promoters of these schools—established first under Lord Stanley—said, was, that various attempts had been made to diffuse the benefits of education, all of which had failed, from the impossibility of overcoming the obstacles which appeared in the way, so that it became necessary to suit the mode of conveying it to the capacities of those who were to receive it. Now, one of the first objections made to the promotion of a scheme of education was, that Roman Catholic parents would not agree to the instruction of their children in the Protestant Scriptures. He said Protestant, meaning the version authorised and adopted by Protestants, but not the version which the Roman Catholic priests or laity believed to be the true version. Now, it was not giving them religious instruction according to their belief, if you say you make it compulsory that they should receive education in a version of the Scriptures which they do not believe to be a true and complete one. But then the noble Lord said that, after all, there was a great number of these schools which were non-vested, which were not completely in upon with the National Board, and which did not adopt its regulations. Now, he would have thought that the noble Lord would have approved of schools of that kind, for they did not adopt in many respects the scheme which he advocated. It was not, however, true to say that these schools did comply with the regulations of the board. In some particulars only they were not subject to these regulations, and the patrons of the schools in question were allowed to take their own course. A patron connected with the Established Church might say, that from ten o'clock till eleven o'clock instruction should be given in the Scriptures, the Catechism, and the peculiar doctrines of the Church of England; but from the latter hour to that at which the school rose there should be no instruction which could not be given to Roman Catholics as well as to Presbyterians and Episcopalians; and therefore the Roman Catholic scholars were not obliged to attend the religious instruction during the first hour of school. But the patron could say, beyond that, that no religious instruction would be allowed except that of the Church of England; that power, he should have thought, would have rather diminished the objections of the noble Lord opposite, than have increased them, because it showed a very considerable latitude in the plan of the National Board. It showed that it had no objection to such schools being connected with it. But then the noble Lord took another objection, and one which seemed to him (Lord J. Russell) of a very different kind from the others. It was, that the scripture extracts were not read in a great number of the schools; and he estimated that out of 4,000 schools there were 1,200 in which they were not read, leaving about 2,800 schools in which the extracts were read. But then the noble Lord here showed that there were a great number of schools in which the extracts were read. Now, the objections made on that head by the Church Education Committee were two. The one was, that these scripture extracts were very partial—that they showed a bias towards Roman Catholic tenets; and the next, singular to say, was, that the National Board did not insist on the compulsory reading of those extracts in every school under its direction. The first objection was, in fact, that the extracts never ought to be read at all, and the second was, that they were not read everywhere. Now, it appeared to him that the board had taken a very judicious view as to those extracts. He owned that when they were first set on foot, in the year 1831 and 1832, it seemed to him impossible that a Roman Catholic archbishop could agree to extracts of which a Protestant archbishop was the chief author and compiler. But, however, with regard to 2,800 schools, that difficulty had been got over, although the Roman Catholics in general conceived that the extracts had a Protestant bias, just as the Protestants were of opinion that they had a Catholic bias. But the noble Lord was wrong in saying that it followed that because scripture extracts were not read during school hours, that there must be a necessary absence of religious instruction. The principle first adopted—having in view the strong objections of the Roman Catholics to the reading of the authorised version of the Scriptures—was founded upon a desire to give as much secular instruction as possible during school hours, and to leave to the religious teachers of the several religious bodies the duty of imparting religious instruction to the children belonging to these bodies. He might add, that he believed that the Roman Catholic clergy were most anxious that the children of their persuasion should receive religious instruction. It was not, therefore, true to say that these children received no religious instruction. But the question was, what was the alternative proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member of the University of Dublin, who made the Motion before the House. He proposes the adoption of a modification of the system. He said, "Let us have a modification in which everybody can agree." Modification was a very gentle term; but as he (Lord J. Russell) understood the word, it meant the institution of a compulsory reading of the Scriptures by Roman Catholic children. To this their parents would object; and the result would be, that of the half million of scholars, a great proportion would be at once driven from the schools. They would not succeed in teaching the children the Scriptures, and they would fail in giving them secular education. They would take away one part of the instruct- tion, and not leave the children the other. Now, he, for one, would be very unwilling to do this. They had heard of the benefits which Ulster had received from a widely-diffused system of education; of that system Connaught was deprived, or at all events it was only making very slow progress there. He entreated them, therefore, not to come and plant an additional obstacle in the way—not to establish a system of education from the benefit of which every Roman Catholic bishop and priest would think that they were in conscience bound to debar the children of their persuasion. But the last alternative mentioned was, that there ought to be some grant made to the Established Church, in order to enable it to instruct its children according to its own doctrine. Now, to this there were two objections. The first was, that the House could hardly adopt it without consenting to extend a similar beneficence towards the Roman Catholic Church. The House had heard the terms on which the Committee of the Privy Council extended aid out of the national fund to the Roman Catholic schools. These terms, in fact, gave to the Roman Catholic Church the complete education of the children, making the schools religious ones, and only providing for the inspection of the secular department. But then, if they were to make education exclusively Roman Catholic, he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who supported the modification now proposed, would be the first to assail us with the charge of teaching religious error, and would object at least, as strongly to education being entrusted to Roman Catholics, as they did now to a system of general education. The other objection was, that it appeared to him that the funds of the Established Church in Ireland ought, without any grant, to be sufficient for such purposes. The noble Lord who had last addressed the House, had spoken of the schools to which he was attached, and which he favoured, as if they were under some degree of persecution—as if they were hardly allowed to teach the catechism according to the doctrines of the Church of England, so sorely were they oppressed. Now the party of the noble Lord had perfect liberty to establish such schools as they thought proper. If Roman Catholics were eager to partake of the benefit of scripture instruction in the Church of England schools, the latter might be established by individuals. The Church of England, as established in Ireland, was a rich Church. The laity of that Church, as individuals, were in possession of a great part of the property of Ireland, and were therefore not the persons who ought to complain that they had not the full means of establishing educational institutions if they thought proper. He was reminded by all this of a saying of a Protestant bishop of the last century, who, when he was accused of distributing Roman Catholic books—books of religion and morality—amongst the people of his diocese, and disseminating error, said, he should be very glad if all the people of his diocese were good Protestants; but as he could not make them good Protestants, he was glad to have good Roman Catholics and good Christians, and therefore it wag that he circulated books of religion and morality amongst them. That was a most charitable and most wise sentiment. This law had been adopted for nearly seventeen years, and he trusted the House would not consent to its abrogation.

said, as a sincere and conscientious Protestant, he should express his disapprobation of any member of that Church who would seek to undermine the religion to which he belonged; but he did not entertain the same sentiment towards a conscientious Roman Catholic. There was one sentiment of the noble Lord which he would proceed to grapple with. The noble Lord had said that the Protestant clergymen of Ireland were wealthy enough to support their own schools. ["Divide, divide!"] At that late hour (a quarter to one) he would not trespass long on the attention and patience of the House; but he would just observe with respect to the clergymen of the Protestant Church in Ireland, that if the property they possessed were divided, it would leave them on an average an income of about 170 l . a year, and deducting poor-rates and other expenses from that, would leave them very little for the support of education. The question before the House was simply this. There was a large number of schools in Ireland, conducted on principles with respect to which a considerable section of the community say they could not conscientiously avail themselves of the grant. They asked for a part of the grant, but it was refused them, unless they subscribed to conditions which were in opposition to their conscientious views. If it was thought right to give a grant of public money for educational purposes, why not give aid to those on whose behalf he appealed? It was said that Presbyterian schools, that Roman Catholic schools, that Protestant schools were to be established. Before the year 1831 there was an exclusive system in operation; that system had been enlarged; what they now asked was to enable those who thought scriptural education ought to be encouraged, to carry out that system which was in accordance with their conscientious views. Surely they did not mean to exclude those from the benefit of the grant, who thought the present system was a wrong one. Lord Stanley had written a letter on the subject of the scriptural extracts used in the schools; but although that letter was published in the annual reports, a certain passage in it advocating the necessity of scriptural education was omitted since the years 1836 and 1837. The extracts which had been made were objected to by some because they were considered favourable to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, but yet they were put into the same category with the Bible itself. It was contended that because some of those extracts were read in certain schools which the Lord Lieutenant had visited, that, therefore, there was no exclusion of the Bible. He should conclude, by observing that the present system practically excluded the Protestants from participating in its benefits. All they wanted was common justice; and the House might be assured that they would not cease their efforts till they had obtained it.

thought, when he read the notice of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, that he intended to propose a modification of the system; but he found, at the tail-end of the notice, another feature, which he might construe thus—"If you don't modify the system, give us a separate grant, give us a pull at the Exchequer." The noble Lord the Member for Tyrone had attacked the entire system; and it appeared to him (Mr. Reynolds) that he ought to have delivered his speech when the grant was under consideration. He (Mr. Reynolds) thought it was a grievance to the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, to vote a penny out of the Exchequer for education purposes in Ireland, because he thought that all the funds required for education purposes ought to be taken out of the funds of the Protestant Church. The hon. Baronet the Member for Fermanagh had spoken of the enlightenment of Ulster, and the ignorance of the people of Con-naught; but he forget to tell the House that the province of Connaught had but five counties, and 1,400,000 inhabitants, while the province of Ulster had nine counties, and 2,000,000 inhabitants. That made a difference in the population of something about 1,000,000. He (Mr. Reynolds) begged to call attention to the last report of the Board of Education, from which it appeared that in Ulster there were 1,674 national schools, in Munster, with 155,000 pupils, 909; in Leinster 1017, and in Con-naught 509. So that the province of Ulster had more schools under the control of the board than any other province in Ireland. But that was not Church education; and he had to congratulate the people of Ulster that they had the additional blessing of Church education, and they should be the most enlightened people in the world. The revenues of the Irish Church amounted to 600,000 l . per annum. ["Divide, divide!"] He would be most happy to divide it with them. He would remind hon. Members that Ireland was a Catholic country, with a population of 7,000,000 of Catholics, and but 750,000 Protestants; and, to superintend the spiritual wants of these Protestants, there were two arch-bishops, ten bishops, and not less than 2,800 clergy. ["Question!"] He would give hon. Members notice that this was but the beginning of the discussion on this subject; and he hoped that in the beginning of July his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Middlesex would be permitted to bring on his Motion for an inquiry into the appropriation of the property, and all matters connected with the pecuniary abuses, of the Protestant Church in Ireland. The National Board, as at present constituted, in Ireland, afforded education to upwards of 500,000 children, without religious distinction; and the children received in those schools a much better and more valuable education than was given in their large universities. It was now sought to go back from that system to the old Kildare-street proselytising and exclusive system. ["Divide, divide! "] The hon. Member then moved, in consequence, as he stated, of the continued interuptions, the adjournment of the debate.

said, that there was not a single sentence the hon. Member had uttered which had not been listened to with the greatest attention; and what more could he expect of the House?

stated, that the in- terruption he had received was principally from the hon. Member the president of the Peace Society. The hon. Member then proceeded to state, that the Kildare system was one which was repudiated by every sensible person in Ireland, and that the system which at present existed in Ireland was one that ought to be placed in the very foremost rank in the cause of education. In conclusion, he trusted that the House would pay no attention whatever to the Motion before it, beyond that which was due to the personal character of the hon. Member who had introduced it to their notice.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate he now adjourned."

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 162: Majority 60.

said, he entertained strong objections to the measure, and having pledged himself to his constituents to oppose it, must protest against its being proceeded with at that hour of the morning (near two o'clock). He moved that the Chairman do report progress.

Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 59: Majority 35.

On Clause 1,

moved the omission of certain words, but eventually the Motion was withdrawn.

The other clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, with certain verbal amendments, and the House resumed.

The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.