brought up a report from the Committee on public petitions. Special report brought up, and read, as followeth:—

"Your Committee have to report to the House, that Mr. Henley, one of the Members for the County of Oxford, having stated to the Chairman, that a Petition from Charterville, in the parish of Minster Lovell, in the said county, presented by him to the House on Thursday, the 14th of February, and ordered to be upon the table, had not been reported by the Committee;

"The Committee have to submit to the House, that they directed inquiries to be made into the said matter, the result of which is, that the said Petition was taken from the Table of the House by Mr. Feargus O'Connor, one of the Members for Nottingham."

said, that the report had been agreed upon yesterday morning, and would have been brought up at the sitting of the House, had the hon. Member for Nottingham been in his place. He (Mr. Thornely) understood, that last night the petition had been restored to the table, after having been absent from the House for eleven days.

said, he could plead, in extenuation, his thorough ignorance of the forms and practice of the House with regard to petitions. A petition had certainly been presented by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, which he did not know until after its presentation contained very extensive abuse of himself. He thought that, under the circumstances, the best thing he could do was to give it the widest circulation through the country, and he accordingly took it, and sent it to his own office, where he had it printed and published in his newspaper. In a few days after its publication, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire reminded him of it, and he then told his secretary to go to the office and get it. The secretary went, and brought it down on Thursday evening last, but left the House with it at half-past seven o'clock, supposing that he (Mr. O'Connor) would not come that night. On Friday evening, at an early hour, and not, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had stated, at a late hour last night, he came down to the House, brought the petition with him, and gave it to the clerk; and if, in taking it away, he had violated any of the rules or orders of the House, he begged, through the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker, to apologise. He was not aware that he was doing anything contrary to the rules or orders. He believed there were very few hon. Members present who would circulate, as he had done, the gross abuse of himself which this petition contained; and he begged to add, that if he were going to present a petition which reflected on the character of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he would give that hon. Gentleman notice of his intention, and of its contents, before he presented it: Now, the hon. Member for Morylebone had very properly given him notice that he was going to present a petition or two on Friday night, which reflected on his character; and this was the course of proceeding which hon. Members ought always to adopt in cases of the kind. He (Mr. O'Connor) should be ashamed to pursue any other course. He could only say, as he had said before, that he regretted he had so far violated the rules of the House as to take the petition away, but he had brought it back in the same state as when it was taken.

said, the petition in question had emanated from a number of parties in the county of Oxford, and that it appeared to express the opinions of the petitioners against the land scheme of the hon. Member for Nottingham, and not personally against the hon. Member himself. In fact, all the inquiries which had been instituted had pointed to the scheme, and not to the hon. Gentleman personally. Had the petition been of a different character, he would have given the hon. Gentleman notice; but, as it was, he had privately explained to him the nature of the petition on the very day he presented it.

said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government proposed advances to the distressed Irish unions, he (Mr. Bright) had made some statements with regard to the difficulty of collecting poor-rates, in the west of Ireland, from persons moving in the upper ranks of society. Among these statements was this one—that he learned, while in the west of Ireland, that an hon. Member of that House, the representative for an Irish county, had made over to a near relative certain goods and chattels, the furniture of a house—that was what he meant—for the purpose of saving them from the seizure of the parties authorised to collect the poor-rates. The authorities on which he made this statement were, he had every reason to believe, competent and well qualified to give correct information. He had not had an opportunity since to communicate with them as he should, of course, hereafter do. But he had had a communication with the hon. Member to whom he had referred, who had laid before him facts, and allowed him to see documents, from which he was bound to believe that that part of the statement which referred to the transfer of any portion of this property to his relative at all, or for any such purpose, was not founded on fact—that, therefore, his informants were either ignorant, or they had misapprehended the facts. He came forward, therefore, without communicating with the gentleman from whom he received the information, relying on the statement of the hon. Member, and anxious, the first moment it lay in his power, to retract that which would detract from any gentleman's character, to make this public statement. The last thing he desired to do was to say anything unnecessarily to offend; and on the occasion in question he had studiously avoided names, and simply brought what he conceived to be a public grievance before the notice of the noble Lord. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with this retraction of the statement.

said, the hon. Member for Manchester had certainly come forward in a very candid manner to explain that portion of his statement which had reference to an hon. Member of that House. He (Mr. Herbert) was not aware that the hon. Member was about to make the explanation, otherwise he would have read a letter from a gentleman of large property in the district of Ireland alluded to, controverting other portions of the hon. Member's statement. But, at the proper time, when the Bill was again under discussion, he would controvert that statement.

seconded the Motion.

said: Towards the close of last Session he had occasion to bring before the House the grievances of the journeymen bakers. He then expressed a fear lest, Parliament being so much in the habit of considering questions of a superior magnitude, he should experience some difficulty in obtaining its attention to one involving the interests of what, comparatively speaking, was a small section of the community. Upon the present occasion, he was about to request the attention of the House to the case of a still smaller class: he meant the attorneys and proctors of this country, by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the certificate duty which was now annually levied upon them, and which they considered to be unjust and oppressive. Upon the former occasion to which he had alluded, he had no reason to complain of the kind attention which the House afforded him, but he addressed a very select audience. Upon the present occasion he perceived a very different state of things, and he was not then likely to speak to empty benches; and he was not surprised at it, for if any class of the community ever realised the aphorism, that "knowledge is power," it was that whose cause he was then advocating; for what had been written of them was, he believed, true, that if all the secrets of all the confessionals were laid open to the public, not nearly the same amount of wide-spreading mischief and ruin would ensue, as would be caused were the confidential communications made to the attorneys and solicitors of England to be divulged; and he would mention, in passing, that he thought it highly creditable to their countrymen engaged in that profession, that so few breaches of trust came to their knowledge—a fact which surely entitled them to our respect and consideration. Were the whole of that fraternity united in their endeavours to get rid of this tax, by an equally suffering sense of grievance, there could be no doubt of the result; but it was so injuriously framed, as he should have occasion to show, that the wealthier members of the profession had by no means the same interest in its removal with the less fortunate; yet notwithstanding this circumstance—notwithstanding the prejudice he must encounter—notwithstanding the feebleness of the advocate—so great was the confidence which he had in the justice of their cause, that even should his noble Friend oppose him, which he trusted he would not do, with the whole strength of the Government, he had every hope of obtaining the sanction of a majority of the House to his proposition. With this preface he would endeavour shortly to lay before the House the origin, the nature, and operation of this tax. Towards the close of the last century, Mr. Pitt, driven to his wit's end to discover resources to meet the exigencies of the times, induced Parliament to impose a tax upon shops, which it was supposed would realise a considerable sum; however, it was so unpopular that he was obliged to modify it, and it was soon discovered that the sum likely to be derived from that source would fall far short of the calculation. New expedients must therefore be devised; accordingly, Mr. Pitt proposed a tax upon housekeepers and ladies' maids, which was met with such a torrent of ridicule from the Opposition of the day, that he was compelled to withdraw it; and it was then that he, for the first time, took into his serious consideration the plan of taxing this branch of the legal profession—he said his serious consideration, because, on the 23rd of May of the same year, Mr. Mainwaring, the then Member for Middlesex, had made a similar proposition, which Mr. Pitt had himself rejected as inconsistent with the principles of taxation; however, as necessity know no law, so he presumed it recognised no inconsistencies, and accordingly Mr. Pitt shortly after proposed the annual certificate duty, and also a tax upon warrants. When Mr. Pitt proposed this duty, all Parliamentary difficulties vanished; the House (notwithstanding a caustic remark of Mr. Fox, that they Would perhaps find that this tax would be paid out of their own pockets) seemed in an ecstacy at the idea of plucking an attorney, and some language not very complimentary to the profession was made use of in the debate which followed. Sir E. Astley observed, that—

"He rose because his tax upon dogs had been alluded to. He owned he should be indeed well pleased to see both dogs and attorneys subject to duty. He coupled them thus together, because he thought them both articles of luxury, and that those who made use of them ought to pay for it; indeed he had long wished to see a tax put upon hairdressers and men-milliners, and all those engaged in effeminate occupations."

With the certificate duty, Mr. Pitt also imposed a duty upon warrants, and he (Lord R. Grosvenor) begged the attention of the House to Mr. Pitt's observations in proposing the impost. Having no real reason to give for proposing the certificate duty, except that he wanted money, and must have it from some source, and being obliged to say something, he remarked that he thought there were too many of these gentry, and that this would lessen the number. But, in reference to the warrants, his language was, that this was to ascertain the amount of business done by the several attorneys, so that each man should pay according to his gains and this—mark!—would free the tax from partiality. Since that time, the tax upon warrants, which was to free the tax from partiality, had been repealed; but the former part, the annual certificate duty, not only had not been repealed, but it had been augmented till it amounted to 12l. in London, and 8l. in the country, at which sum it then stood. The produce of it in round numbers was 90,000l. for England, 30,000l. for Scotland and Ireland—in all, about 120,000l. The reason why he sought the repeal of this duty, was the same that originally induced Mr. Pitt to reject it—that it was inconsistent with the principles of taxation. The true principles of taxation he apprehended to be these:—That the tax should be as general as possible, and that it should be as equal as possible in its pressure; but that if it did fall heavily anywhere, it should be upon those best able to bear it. A few minutes would suffice to show that this duty directly contravened every one of those principles. Its very name denoted that it had nothing general in its nature, and that it was in fact a duty upon one portion only of the profession. And, with regard to its equality, the income tax, after exempting entirely a large bulk of income under 150l. a year, proceeded to charge the remaining income of the country at so much per cent, according to the amount of the property enjoyed—on the profits made—and although objection had been taken to taxing all sources of income alike—and be it observed, those very profits of professions were considered as exceptional—yet at least they had an ostensible equality; but in the assessed taxes Parliament carried the principle still farther, for not only were vast numbers exempted, but the duty actually increased in amount according to the supposed ability of the individual to bear it, tested by the number of taxable articles he made use of. But how did the House deal with the attorneys? It first taxed their profits with those of all other professions and trades 3 per cent, and then coolly proceeded to lay an additional duty upon them, equivalent to 4 per cent, levied in such a manner that whilst the wealthiest paid scarcely½ per cent, the neediest paid 12. But the tale of injustice was only half told: not content with that, the House then mulct them in larger stamp duties than those imposed upon any other class of the community. 1201. articles of clerkships; 25l. on admissions, producing another annual sum falling not far short of the former: in England alone by the last return it amounted to upwards of 68,000l. So that they literally paid an annual amount of 10 per cent upon the profits which they earned with great mental exertion, levied in the partial and unjust manner he had described. But a reply might be attempted, that this was not a duty, but a licence to practise, which they paid in common with auctioneers, pawnbrokers, and one or two other callings; or that the attorneys were wealthy, and levied large contributions upon the public, and were well able to pay it; or that, in fact, they did not pay it, but it came out of the pocket of the employers. He would answer these objections in the order in which he had placed them; and, first, with regard to its being a licence. They might call it a licence, although it was not so called in the Act of Parliament; but call it by what name they pleased, they cauld not diminish its injurious and oppressive operation; and with regard to the auctioneers, and one or two other callings paying annual duties, there was no strict analogy between those cases; and oven if there were, the fact of there being two unfair imposts levied, unless two negatives made an affirmative, could never justify such a tax as that. But it was said the attorney levied large contributions upon the public, and, therefore, should pay. If they thought so, the duty was an illegitimate method of reducing his gains; other and better ways were open which they had not hesitated to make use of, and which he hoped they would carry still further. But if it was said that, after all, the attorney need not complain, because it was not he who paid, but the suitor, then, granting, for argument's sake, that the supposition was true—and he should presently show it was not—how perfectly inconsistent it would be, after repealing the duty on warrants as a tax on the administration of justice, and doing all in their power to diminish legal expenses, were Parliament to retain this tax, because, in fact, it was not the attorney but the suitor who paid it. But if it were true that the suitor paid the tax, and not the attorney, how happened it that hundreds of petitions had come to Parliament praying for its abolition? and that last year, 600 attorneys, being unable to continue their payments, were struck out of the law list, and rendered incapable of earning a farthing, and some indeed had been reduced to so great distress, that, in one instance which had come to his knowledge, a man who had contributed, in the various methods he had described, 600l. to the revenue, which, paid into an assurance office, would have secured him a comfortable provision for his declining years, and guaranteed him against all contingencies, was absolutely compelled to resort to public charity, if not to the very workhouse itself, to save him from starvation? No doubt at one time the profession did make great and undue profits; but times were changed—Parliament was daily reducing them. Amongst other measures which had already been passed with this object were the Acts for the abolition of fines and recoveries, of leases for a year, and of outstanding terms; there were also the Acts called the Law Amendment Act, and the Uniformity of Process Act, by which the pleadings were reduced from thirty to three folios. Then there was the County Courts Act, which he saw there was, in that very night's Paper, a notice to extend; and actually last year, by one stroke of the pen, the Legislature deprived them of a revenue amounting to 40,000l. a year, by discontinuing the discount formerly allowed on the purchase of stamps above the value of 10l. And there was another Act which would greatly tend to reduce attorneys' profits, and simplify proceedings, which he hoped to live to see passed; and he only trusted that his friends the Protectionists opposite would not do as they did upon a former occasion—try to perpetuate one of the greatest burdens of land, when it was proposed to remove it—he meant a register of all deeds and intruments affecting real property. The Member for Bucks, in the course of several able orations which he delivered to several justly-admiring, though he must think somewhat bewildered audiences, said much about cheap capital, by which he (Lord R. Grosvenor) presumed he meant that the landowner should be able to borrow at a moderate rate of interest. In the desirableness of that, he most fully concurred; but he confessed he was surprised at the cumbrous machinery by which the hon. Member proposed to effect his object, when so simple a method was at hand, for he (Lord R. Grosvenor) was convinced that with a good registry, a landowner would be able to obtain money at 3 per cent instead of 5, and that not to a little more than half, but to the full value of the property he desired to charge. He would not, however, then pursue that subject further. He had shown what the legitimate means were which they possessed, if they so pleased, of diminishing the profits of the attorneys; they had already made use of those moans, and the attorneys themselves, he presumed, did not much admire this process of elimination, but they made no complaint. What they did complain of, and that most bitterly, was, that Parliament continued to subject them to this most unjust tax, whilst every day they were making them less able to boar it. Were it necessary, he could show to the House some curious specimens of the manner in which this, like all other unjust taxes, operated injuriously to the comfort, the independence, and morality of the managing clerks, and other subordinate functionaries of the profession; but independent of his desire not to weary the House, he thought he had already established a case for his clients, which would insure a verdict in their favour, and he should sit down, were he not desirous to combat an objection which he knew existed in the minds of some Members, namely, that this duty operated as a check upon an undue influx into the profession of a low class of men. In the first place, let him observe, that if the tax deserved the character he had given of it—and it could not be refuted—it was bad policy to do evil that good might come of it; but there was another consideration which, perhaps, might have still greater weight, namely, that like almost every other specimen of such crooked policy, it did not answer its end. The grandees of the profession once thought so too. They had since altered their opinion, and they had found that in this, as in all other cases of unjust and immoderate duties, temptation begot the illicit trader, who stepped in and made a profit at the expense of the honest and conscientious practitioner. He called on them to listen to the language of Mr. Maugham, the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, and executing the office of registrar of attorneys, a man perfectly cognisant of the facts to which he deposed, and the whole status of the profession. He says—

"The Incorporated Law Society have received numerous complaints that attorneys, practising in a limited and inferior class of business, derive emoluments from other attorneys, who are unable to take out their certificates, and who practise in the name of such certificated attorneys, and participate in the profits of the business, contrary to the express provisions of the statutes, and to the injury of the public. By these means, they not only evade the payment of the duty, but commit act" of malpractice, and of oppression, against the poor suitors of the court, and generally escape punishment. For, if complaint be made against the attorney, in whose name the malpractice took place, he denies that he authorised the use of his name, and, generally, there is no sufficient evidence to contradict him."

But besides that, had they no other guarantees for the respectability of the profession?—had they forgot the 70,000l. a year that they would still levy upon the profession after the certificate duty was gone? 120l. for articles, 25l. upon admission, not to mention 200l. or 300l. premium, five guineas in fees to the courts on admission, and, above all, a strict examination into their general knowledge, as well as their legal attainments. Why, if this were not enough to secure the selectness of the profession, additional precautions in the shape of pecuniary barriers would only have the effect which this duty had already effected, of encouraging illicit practice, from the temptation it held out, of the profits of dishonesty. In a former part of his address he had demonstrated the abuses of the tax, he had then shown that it had not even the meagre uses which some had imagined to belong to it; and he had only to advert to the considerations of revenue involved in its repeal. A very few words would suffice: although some doubt was thrown, in the course of a recent debate, upon the actual amount of two million surplus, which was announced the first night of the Session; yet it was quite clear that there would be more than an ample margin for the revision of this tax, without in any way at the same time prejudicing that calm consideration of all the interests of the country, which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department claimed the other evening, when the financial statement should be made. But even were that not the case—even were the state of the revenue such as to require the substitution of some other means of taxation on the repeal of this, his case was equally made out. He had shown that it was unjust in principle, and most oppressive in its operation—in short, as Mr. Pitt-truly said, that it was inconsistent with every principle of taxation. And, however pardonable such an impost might be, when the country was surrounded with difficulties and perplexities, it was high time, after thirty-five years of European peace, that these war taxes were swept from the Statute-book. He was well aware of the imperfect manner in which he had performed the duty entrusted to him; but at the same time, so strong was the conviction he entertained of the justice of the case, that he had no fear of the result. He therefore moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the tax.

trusted he should stand excused to the House if he abstained upon the present occasion from entering into any discussion with regard to the merits of the question which the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex had been pleased to bring before the House, and that the House would concur with him in the suggestion he would venture to make. It would be in the recollection of the House that the noble Lord (the First Lord of the Treasury) in the course of yesterday stated that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared on the 15th to lay his financial statement before the House. Now, the question which the noble Lord had introduced involved in itself directly a diminution of annual income. The noble Lord had stated, and correctly, that the amount received in respect of these certificates was upwards of 120,000l. a year; but he must permit him to say that there were other considerations involved in the discussion of that question, and which would be materially affected by a decision in favour of the Bill. There was a vast variety of personal taxes, for licences and permission to carry on businesses which affected many branches of industry in this country. The decision on this question would have a material, or at any rate some, effect on the question of how far these should be continued. Now, the amount that was received by the revenue in respect of certificates and licences together amounted to more than a million and a half of money. This was too large a consideration to enter upon at the present moment, and while there was an uncertainty with respect to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But this was one of the evils of having a surplus, that a thousand interests were putting in their claim for relief. His right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester proposed to abolish at once all the taxes on knowledge. Another hon. Gentleman had given notice for the abolition of the duty on bricks; and the hon. Member for Bridport was desirous that all the duty should be taken off timber. And they had had a Motion proposed which some Gentleman might think had not been decided rightly, which would have absorbed the whole surplus. Under those circumstances he trusted that the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex would postpone his Motion, or rather that the House would permit him to suggest that the wiser and better course would be to adjourn the present debate until after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been enabled to lay his statement before the House, when all the claims on the surplus could be made at the same time, and those who made out the best case would be successful. He proposed, as an Amendment, that this debate be adjourned till Friday, the 22nd of March.

said, although he certainly felt it would be almost useless to resist the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, yet he could not help fearing that if the noble Lord yielded to it, his Motion would be indefinitely postponed, and he would never obtain the justice to which those whose interests he had advocated were entitled. He therefore hardly knew under the circumstances what course to adopt; but if the noble Lord desired to press his Motion, he (Sir F. Thesiger) was quite ready to go on and support him by the arguments which occurred to his mind. Yet he could not help thinking the most prudent course for the noble Lord to adopt, would be to accept the suggestion to adjourn the debate till after the financial statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had very properly stated that a Chancellor of the Exchequer with a surplus was a much more lamentable object than a Chancellor of the Exchequer with a deficit; because a Chancellor of the Exchequer with a deficit had no rival claims for relief to puzzle and perplex him, but had only to go to the attorneys or some other good easy class of people, and lay whatever new taxes he required upon them. Mr. Pitt, in laying on a tax, experienced not so much embarrassment as his successors would probably find in taking one off. Possibly, under the circumstances, the noble Lord would accept the suggestion made by the Secretary to the Treasury and adjourn the debate.

replied, that he should be glad to hear the opinion of independent Members as to the question of adjournment. Private Members were placed under great disadvantages in cases of this kind. This was the third time that he had given notice of the present Motion, and it was the first occasion upon which he had any opportunity of being heard; he should therefore have been better satisfied if a decision could have been come to, but as the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last recommended adjournment, he had no alternative but to accept the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose junior he was upon this occasion, and who must understand better than himself the feelings of the profession, and to acquiesce in the Motion for postponing the debate.

had come down to the House prepared to support the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex; but he quite concurred in the impossibility of pressing the Motion after the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Se- cretary of the Treasury. He trusted that in the interval the Government would take the matter into their most serious consideration, for the tax was one of the most unjust and oppressive at present existing. The attorney paid the income tax upon his income, and taxes on consumption—which other people paid; and yet the Government compelled him exclusively to pay an additional sum on account of his profession, from which every other profession, be it that of barrister, physician, clergyman, architect, or any other, was entirely exempt. Therefore, although there might be numerous applicants seeking to divide the surplus which the financial statement would disclose, on the other hand, the Government ought to remember that it was their duty to be just before they were generous, and first make remissions of burdens that were unjust and oppressive, before they came to consider remissions of mere policy and expediency.

was prepared to support the Motion, but he perfectly agreed that it would be better now to defer the discussion.

hoped it would go forth that the Motion had not been met by a negative, but that the debate was merely adjourned.

begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to promote the secular education of the people in England and Wales. He said he could not approach this subject, to which he had undertaken to call the attention of the House, without a deep sense of its difficulties. Those difficulties were indeed not the same as in former years. There were many points he was now entitled to take for granted with which he need not trouble the House. It was no longer necessary to prove that education was good—good for the individual, and for the community; that it leads to the abatement of crime and to improvement in manners and morals. Now, although it was held by many that on the one hand it was the duty of Government to educate the people, and on the other that education was a religious question, and that religion was voluntary, and should not have the interference of Government, yet between these extreme opinions there was, he apprehended, a large number of persons who held that although the Government should not educate the people, yet they would exercise a legitimate function in providing that the people should educate themselves, and it was on that view that he had constructed the measure which he should have the honour to submit to the House, The difficulties that attended the educational question, he had said, were not the same now as formerly. They formerly arose from indifference, but they now arose from zeal. Different religious bodies regarded it as something which they might connect with their peculiarities, to which they might make it subservient. The consequence was, that parties avowedly engaged in the same work of instruction and enlightening the public mind, were continually quarrelling with each other. The efforts which had been made for the promotion of education were most honourable to all parties concerned. Of late years the Church had put forth a magnificent degree of fervour and influence in these matters. Dissenters had been the tried friends of education from the very beginning of those efforts which in modern times had spread it so much among the poorer classes; and he believed that the Committee of Privy Council on Education had end eavoured, with great judgment and tact, to encourage those great bodies who have an earnest interest in the cause, to promote their efforts, to stimulate them when lagging, and to guide them when zealous. But what was the state of those great bodies? That they were in collision with each other; that a large section of the National Society repudiated grants of the public money; that a large body of Dissenters, and the British and Foreign School Society, also repudiated these grants; that the Committee of Council had striven in vain to bring together these jarring elements; and that as a consequence the progress of education had been stayed, and he thought in some respects a retrograde movement had commenced. Now, this was a state of things most earnestly to be deplored. He found that the dissenters, the congregational dissenters, who a few years ago declared that they would have nothing to do with Government in this matter—that they could raise a sum of 200,000l., and show that their denomination, at least, could educate itself, had failed in that purpose—instead of raising 200,000l., they only reported that 60 per cent, or 120,000l was known to have boon expended for educational purposes within this period; that only 7,000l. had passed through the hands of the board; and they had announced, though with hopefulness as to the future resumption of grants, that for the present their grants to poor schools were suspended. While that was the case with them, how was it with the National Society? He found by the last publication of their annual report, that

"the support of schools continues a matter of greater difficulty than the building of schools, as it is found easier to rouse men to one great effort than to induce them to give a steady and lengthened support."

And as an evidence that this was not the only difficulty, he found in one of the reports of the Inspectors that in the northeastern district the attendance of scholars was much less than it might be; that with accommodation for 33,656 scholars, an average of only 14,791 children had been attending instruction there. In one of the monthly papers published by the National Society during the last year, it is stated that

"the state of its finances had become more depressed, and the Committee had been compelled to suspend their operations for the present in building and enlarging schools. They had also considered it prudent to make reductions in the instances of St. Mark's College, Chelsea, and the Battersea training institution; and they also fear that they will be compelled to diminish the supply of teachers at the very time when the exigencies of the Church require that they should be increased."

Now he took these statements to be good reason for calling again the attention of the House to this subject. He knew it was but three years since it was discussed, and very freely discussed; but when they found that the machinery had got into such disorder, and that instead of progressively increasing they were in danger of diminishing their usefulness, it was surely time to inquire what means could be taken to stay this downward course. There were other reasons why the subject could with advantage again be brought under the consideration of the Legislature. During the period that had elapsed, a variety of important documents had been published. In the reports and minutes of the Committee of Council, and in the evidence afforded by the inspectors, there was very much indeed which bore both on the extent and on the quality of the education as now administered in this country, and showed that in both particulars there was great reason for prompt and careful attention to the subject. As an additional reason for calling so soon the attention of the House to the subject, he might also mention that in various parts of the country there was an educational movement which the Legislature should recognise, and which imperatively demanded attention. The people of Lancashire, with that energy which distinguished them, had formed a scheme for the complete education of their entire county—he alluded to the proceedings of the association for the secular education of the county of Lacanster. In Scotland, highly advantageous as its position had generally been supposed, in consequence of its ancient parochial system, there were complaints; and these complaints took the same direction, and adopted the same tone. That religious country—a distinction which it had always so honourably earned—felt that more secular education was necessary to give religious education its full efficiency. They had circulated a declaration through the country to that effect, and had backed their opinion with the venerated authority of the late Dr. Chalmers. Besides this, in the metropolis and other places the workpeople themselves were showing a lively interest in the education of their offspring. They had associated themselves for the purpose, if they could, of obtaining it. Many individually had made great sacrifices for the accomplishment of the object. But feeling that they could not in that way fully realise all they desired, they had combined—still adopting the same principle, and pursuing the same object—of more secular education than was furnished by the schools at present in operation. This feeling had been yet further tested by the establishment in London of a number of schools, whore the training of the faculties of children was carried considerably further than was usual in schools. They were not charity schools; they were self-supporting, and had even become profitable; many hundreds of the children of the working-classes attended—the boys paying 6d., the girls 4d. a week; and these schools had attained considerable popularity with the class for whose advantage they were designed. Thus, both the discouraging circumstances and the popular movement acted in the same direction and led to the same result, namely, that the time was come, short though the interval was, for taking some further stop, for making some advances in this matter. But there were reasons stronger and more urgent even than these. No person could consider the comparative condition of this country and other countries as to education, without feeling that the nation to which we belonged was not supporting its high character and its ancient prerogative. It appeared from some statistics which were furnished by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and printed in the Minutes of the Council on Education, that the proportion borne by the children at school to the entire population in various countries of Europe, and in some of the States of America, was as follows:—in Prussia, 1 in 6; in Bavaria, 1 in 7 at day schools, and, reckoning every kind of elementary school, 1 in 5; in Holland, 1 in 8 at public schools, besides those under private tuition; in Belgium, 1 in 9; in Pennsylvania, 1 in 5; in Massachusetts, 1 in 6½. The very highest estimate of the most sanguine calculator of this proportion in England—he meant Mr. Baines—only gave it at 1 in 8½; but if to make out this proportion every kind of school, day and Sunday schools, were reckoned, still there was great reason to believe that it was very inaccurate, and that 1 in 13 would be much nearer the mark. Not only would be direct attention to the general deficiency of education, but to its exceeding irregularity. It was not the same in any two counties, nor in different parishes of the same town, nor in different classes of the working people. In the localities where most attention had been paid to this subject, it was reported that in the district of Vauxhall, Liverpool, the proportion attending day schools was 1 in 11½; in Blackfriars, Salford, 1 in 36; in the diocese of Chester, 1 in 20; in Sheffield 1 in 11; in Manchester, 1 in 14½. Taking the different counties of England, a most enormous variation from the average of instruction was found. In Mr. Fletcher's statistical tables, it was stated—

"Taking the men's signatures by marks in the marriage registers in England and Wales (1844) as indicative of ignorance—Middlesex, Surrey, and Cumberland, are above the average of instruction by 59·7, 53·2, and 52·1 per cent. Bedford, Monmouth, and Hertford are below, by 53·0, 53·3, and 53·8 per cent. Nearest the average are Warwick and Chester, being above 0·3 and 0·4."

So that the map of England had its light and dark spots, and they continually intermingled in the strangest manner. While, according to recent returns of the Registrar General of England and Wales, one-half the population did not know how to write their names, it appeared from well-authenticated returns from 474 cotton mills in Manchester and the surrounding district, that no less than 82¼ per cent of the whole number of factory operatives could read. The disparity extended even to the sexes. In the National schools in London and the neighbourhood, there were three boys educated to two girls; but in the British and Foreign schools in the metropolis and its neighbourhood, there was only one girl to two boys. Everywhere was found disparity, irregularity; and that called for some such measure as he had endeavoured to provide—namely, to excite the localities to exertion, to call forth the principle of emulation between different districts, which should make each anxious to vie with its competitors, and to produce at least as good, if not a better and more complete, system of general and efficient instruction. There was yet something more to be considered—the efficiency of education as well as its extent. How had it succeeded in that which was most confidently anticipated to raise a barrier against criminality? He was aware he was touching an argument which those who were disposed to take any logical advantage of an opponent might endeavour to turn against him, and that it might in appearance, but in appearance only, be made to recoil upon education itself. He should endeavour to guard against such an inference, which was altogether unwarranted by the facts. From tables presented to this House, the abstracts of various returns, he derived these very striking and impressive results, showing that education as now administered had had comparatively little effect in the abatement of crime. He took the years from 1837 to 1848 inclusive, and would adopt the classification of criminals now generally used under four heads, namely, of those who were unable to read and write; those able to read and write imperfectly; those able to read and write well; and those who had received a superior education. During the years above mentioned the gross amount of crime had undergone great fluctuations; it had risen, fallen, and risen again; but, in the relative proportions of the criminals classified as above, there had been no such diversity, but a continuous process, teaching the lesson it was adapted to convey most impressively. For instance, the first—the least instructed class—had not become more criminal; it had been placed under more beneficent influences than in former years, and those influences had operated. During those twelve years the per centage of those unable to read and write had de-creased from 35·85 to 34·40, 33·53, and so on—down at last to 31–93. In the same time the per centage of criminals who had received an instruction superior to reading and writing had also decreased from ·43 to ·27 per cent. Thus the two extremes showed a decreasing proportion; whilst in the intermediate classes, those who could read and write imperfectly, and those who could read and write well—that was to say, those trained according to the system of instruction now generally practised in our schools—there had been an increased percentage; of those who could read and write imperfectly, from 52·08 to 56·38; and of those who could read and write well there had been an increase also, but a very slight one—only from 9·46 to 9·83 The great increase in the relative proportion of criminals had been in those who could read and write imperfectly—children who had been at the schools which now furnished the great mass of instruction to the poorer classes. It was shown by the able papers of Mr. Fletcher, the inspector of the British and Foreign Society's Schools, that a similar result obtained. He said—

"While the total increase of commitments from 1837, 38, and 39, to 1842, 43, and 44, was 23 per cent, the increase in the wholly ignorant was only 11·6 per cent; and while the decrease in the total commitments from 1842, 43, and 44 to 1845, 46, and 47, has been only 13·2 per cent, the decrease in the wholly ignorant has been 15·6 per cent."

There had therefore been an advance in criminality amongst those who enjoyed the instruction of the schools as they at present existed. Though feeling, with the great majority of the House, that religious instruction was the most important that the child could receive, he had also a conviction that to make that instruction produce its genuine results, there must be a proportionate admixture of that communication of knowledge, and of that training of the faculties which, in common parlance, was designated secular teaching. To the want of this he ascribed whatever there might be of failure in the efforts that had been so extensively made to benefit the rising generation. Without this, the religion they gave the child was mere words, whose meaning he did not feel or comprehend; he might repeat them, but they did nor sink into his mind. They required the atmosphere of other instruction, and the stimulus of his own reflective faculties. The results of the gaol returns were also of a kind to hear out this conviction, and to increase our dissatisfaction with education as now generally administered. He would take the gaol returns presented in 1848—the last he had seen; and he would take the test generally applied by the gaol chaplains—whether the parties committed could repeat the Lord's Prayer—a very legitimate test to apply in this case. The children whose parents taught them that prayer were not generally the children to find their way into gaols—while those children who had been abandoned entirely, the children of reprobate parents, who had not been to school, would not he able to repeat, even as a dry form of words, that symbol of devotion which was so dear to all Christians. He took, therefore, this test to separate the children who had been at the existing schools from those who had not. Of course there were exceptional cases, but they were not numerous enough to affect the argument; and he assumed, if a child could repeat the Lord's Prayer, that he had been at some school or other, British or national, public or private, day or Sunday school. In the county gaol at Reading, out of 631 prisoners there were only 204 who could not repeat the Lord's Prayer, leaving 427 who had gone through a nominal education. In Cambridge county-gaol, 61 out of 229 were unable to repeat the Lord's Prayer, leaving there 168 who had gone through a nominal education. In the Cornwall county gaol there were 684 prisoners, of whom 139 could not bear this test, leaving 545 there who had gone through a nominal education. Of 674 prisoners in the Dorset county gaol, only 57 were unable to repeat the Lord's Prayer, leaving 617 nominally educated. In Lancaster county gaol, out of 603 prisoners 115 were in this predicament, leaving 488 nominally instructed. In the Sussex county gaol, out of 522 prisoners, 80 were ignorant, leaving 442. These returns bore out to a large extent the assertion he had made. He could follow them up by other calculations of a similar description. Returns procured by individuals from a great number of the governors of gaols showed that out of 9,387 prisoners, 5,875 had been at Sunday schools, to say nothing of other schools. He was merely giving specimens of the different classes of evidence, the whole of which would fill volumes. Let them take report after report, and they would find analogous results. The impression which this evidence conveyed—of the needful accompaniment of secular instruction and intellectual training to render religious education valuable, and enable it to produce its fruits—seemed to have been imparted in a greater or less degree to the minds of almost all the parties concerned. The statements of gaol chaplains, governors of gaols, inspectors of prisons, inspectors of schools, all tended in the same direction. They might give it more or less explicit utterance, but still this was clearly in their minds. The chaplain of the Pentonville prison said in his last report—

"I am compelled again to confess that the proportion of convicts who have been educated in some sort, as compared with those totally uneducated, is fully as high as that which exists between those classes in the general population—a fact which should lead to the inquiry wherein the popular education is defective."

The same chaplain, in his report for the year, said—

"Of the 500 prisoners 178 had attended some sort of school upwards of four years; 58 less than four; 193 less than three years; and 71 not at all, being a little more than four years' schooling on an average to each. Their attainments, however, will show the miserably defective character of the instruction which they received; for I do not think that the scholars, with some exceptions, were of much inferior intellect or much worse disposed than the generality, whilst their position as criminals, convicted of most serious offences, seems to argue that their moral and religious training was oven more discreditable. Only 359, upon admission, could read with any degree of intelligence an ordinary book. A larger number could follow another person reading, as in divine service, with the Bible and Prayer-book in their hands, but in the way of learning to read rather than with understanding or ease."

The prison inspectors had borne similar testimony. In the 14th report of the Exeter county gaol, the inspector stated that he had examined 120 prisoners, of whom 21 could not repeat the Lord's Prayer, 43 could repeat it, 51 could repeat part of the Catechism, and 5 could repeat the whole Catechism.—giving 99 nominally trained prisoners to 21 altogether untrained. The 14th report from the county gaol at Bodmin showed that of 684 prisoners, 4G5 could repeat the Lord's Prayer more or less correctly, and were acquainted with the simple truths of religion, and 80 had a good general knowledge of the Scriptures. Thus, 545 out of 684 had gone through the training of the schools. Mr. Fletcher, the inspector of the British and Foreign Society's Schools, appended this remark to his last report—

"However essential such a training may seem to any course claiming the name of education, it has yet to be commenced for all the children in our schools, except a few in the top classes of the best of them. And grateful indeed as we ought to be for the degree of instruction which has been spread among the poorer classes, their 'day-school education' is still in its infancy, even in the most favoured places; while in remote, though often not less densely populated districts, its existence is little more than nominal, whatever may be the exceeding number of infants 'kept quiet 'in the kitchen of the dames, or of uneducated and untrained teachers earning a scanty pittance under permission to assemble a few children on weekdays amidst the superfluous desks and benches of the Sunday schools."

The Rev. Mr. Moseley, whose reports were always deserving of the very closest degree of attention, had generalised more his remarks on this subject in the last report of the schools in the Surrey district. He said—

"It is consistent with my own experience, and, I believe, with that of all other inspectors, that there is most religious knowledge in those schools where the reading of the Scriptures is united in a just proportion with secular instruction, and where a distinction between the functions of the day school and the Sunday school being observed, something of that relation is established in the school between religious principles and secular pursuits which ought to obtain in the after-life of the child. This is a grave error which confounds religious knowledge with a religious character, and that no ordinary sacrifice which is made of the veneration due to the word of God, when it is constantly applied to a secular use."

Another inspector, the Rev. P. Cooke, of the metropolitan district, said—

"Religious instruction is advanced in proportion to the proficiency of children in other studies, and so far as outward observation goes, the best effects are produced upon the moral principles and conduct."

The Rev. J. Blandford, school inspector of the East Midland districts, said—

"Out of 12,786 children who were present at the examination, I find that 2,891 can read the Scriptures with ease, and that 651 can read books of general information with ease and fluency." "In a large proportion of them the books in general use are of a religious kind; and even when others are introduced, the supply is generally very scanty. I need scarcely say that it is impossible for a teacher, however earnest and intelligent, to raise the standard of instruction in his school, and to have it in an efficient state, without an adequate supply of books and apparatus." "I cannot speak favourably of the actual amount of knowledge possessed by the children, or the general efficiency of the schools. The standard of instruction is very low. Upon the whole, they possess a fail amount of Scriptural knowledge."

School after school reported "no secular reading hooks," "deficiency of books, and that the children were receiving religious instruction, that was to say, they re- peated prayers and catechisms, but that there was a great deficiency of secular books. The Rev. Mr. Thurtell, inspector in the north-west district, stated that—

"Very few of the teachers were able to read well, and that it was manifest the state of instruction in these schools was in general very imperfect."

The Committee of Council itself was aware of the deficiency; for in their Minutes they observed that while the managers of schools—

"had been enabled to procure a sufficient supply of Bibles, Testaments, religious formularies, and books of religious instruction, other lesson and text-books were often either not found in elementary schools, or only to a very limited extent."

The National Society itself seemed to perceive that it had laboured under some mistake on this ground. The inspector said of the teachers training at St. Mark's College—

"They will be men, I think, fond of study and desirous of self-improvement. Whether in the estimate they may have formed of the subjects proper to the education of the industrial masses of the country, or in the knowledge they may possess applicable to it, they will be found equal to the exigencies of the times, remains to be proved."

The deficiency as to the exigencies of the times was pointed at in the 37th report of the National Society. After mentioning some comments on the Scriptures, which were required, it said—

"To this list of books required may be added a work on the elements of political economy for the use of teachers; and a very simple book on the same subject might be advantageously put into the hands of the children. This is a topic which is now beginning to be discussed among all ranks; and it is impossible to over-estimate the importance of early imbuing the minds of persons with some maxims on this subject, in order to prevent their imbibing any of the false and pernicious theories which are now broached. How to foster the accumulation of capital in a country, and protect it when accumulated, and at the same time to prevent the manual labourer from being unduly ground down and oppressed, is felt to be one of the great problems of the day; and if the science of political economy cannot solve this problem it can at least prove to the capitalist that it is always, in the long run, his interest to care tenderly for his workmen; and it can demonstrate to the workmen that they are equally dependent on the capitalist."

To these evidences he would add the testimony of an intelligent American observer, Mr. Horace Mann, so well known for his exertions in Boston, and so long connected with schools there, who, not very long ago, had made an educational tour throughout Europe. In his remarks on the schools and the religious teaching of this country, he said—

"After the particular attention which I gave to this subject, both in England and Scotland I can say without any exception that in those schools where religious creeds and forms of faith and modes of worship were directly taught, I found the common doctrines and injunctions of morality, and the meaning of the preceptive parts of the gospel to be much less taught and much less understood by the pupils, than in the same grade of schools and by the same classes of pupils with us,"

To these observations of an intelligent American traveller, he would add those of a not less intelligent English traveller on the state of education in America. Sir Charles Lyell, in his recently published work on America, said—

"The clergy are becoming more and more convinced that where the education of the million has been carried furthest, the people are most regular in their attendance on public worship, most zealous in the defence of their theological opinions, and most liberal in contributing funds to the support of their pastors and to the building of churches."

His inference from these varied testimonies was the same—not that religious teaching should be in any degree checked, restricted, or abated; but that care should be taken always to accompany it with such training and instruction as would give it its full force on the mind, and ensure its best results on the heart and character. He would now endeavour briefly to explain the provisions of the Bill which he should ask leave to introduce, and in which he had endeavoured not to supersede any existing education, but to render it all available, as far as possible, for calling forth, in supply of the undeniable deficiency, local exertions, in connexion with that central superintendence which would render them most efficient. He proposed that the deficiency in the supply of the means of education in any parish, or combination of parishes, should be ascertained by Her Majesty's inspectors. In estimating those means, he would have them take every item of educational machinery into account—national schools, British and foreign schools, schools connected with religious denominations, schools without any such connection, public schools, private schools, if they submitted to inspection; be would have them report on any and all as affording the means of instruction for the people of that district, subtracting the exclusion which might arise from too great costliness in some instances, and from exclusive religious peculiarities being enforced upon the children, or expected of them in other instances. The amount of the deficiency of education being thus ascertained, he proposed that the locality should be invited to supply it; that the inhabitants of the district should be summoned to elect an education committee, who should have the supply of the deficiency for their peculiar work, and be empowered to rate the inhabitants for the expense necessarily incurred in carrying out their plans. He would have continued regard to the existing schools. There were two means by which the wants of the parish or district, as regarded secular education, which should be peculiarly the province of the committee, might be met: first, as in the old schools and schools already existing, by the remuneration of the teacher for so many pupils as the inspector should report him to have efficiently instructed in the elements of secular education; and, secondly, by the formation of new schools, to be properly free schools—schools to which any inhabitant of the parish or district should have the right of sending his children, between the ages of seven and thirteen, without charge, without distinction in the treatment and training of the children, with no religious peculiarities inculcated upon them, but with the right reserved and inalienable—the right of the parents to have, at certain convenient times fixed by the master, their children instructed as to religion where and by whom they pleased. He also proposed, that, on leaving the school, each child, having conducted itself to its master's satisfaction, and in his estimation deserving by its attainments, should have a present of books made, of which the Holy Scriptures should always form a portion—thus putting that volume into the child's hand at a time when his mind was most fitted for appreciating its grandeur, and for coming under its moral influences. He proposed that the teachers in these schools should be made as independent as possible. That they should be appointed, paid, and dismissed by the local education committee, giving them in the latter case an appeal to the Committee of Privy Council. And should an instance occur where the locality was so careless, indolent, and neglectful of its duty as not to undertake to provide for the deficiency, he would call upon the Committee of Council on Education to step in, and not to allow that locality to become a sink of ignorance, prejudice, and vice, to its own disgrace and misery, and a nuisance to all the surround- ing country. The masters he proposed to remunerate by salaries, fixing the minimum at such an amount as should ensure them some considerable degree of respectability in their social position. This was of the very utmost consequence. He relied on the schoolmasters for the advancement of education. It was only through their means that we could have any hope of better and brighter results than some we had witnessed. He would stimulate honourable rivalry by the publication by the Committee of Council of a complete report, from year to year, of the state of education in every district in the kingdom, those reports finding their way into the usual channels and to the table of that House; and thus publicity and opinion would give their sanction, and would be found available for all purposes, for encouraging the meritorious, and for shaming the indifferent out of their culpable neglect of duty. He trusted he had said nothing in the course of his observations which could be fairly construed into anything offensive towards the various religious bodies who, undoubtedly, did so much for education. He proposed to put no restraints upon them. Schools might still be erected and endowed in the strictest principles of Church education; they might be put under the entire control of clergymen, and have bishops for visitors. He interfered not with any of these. On the contrary, those schools, of whatever kind, which had assisted the State in sending out, year after year, a certain number of pupils, qualified to take their place in civilised society, would, under his scheme, receive their reward according to the work they had done. The religious bodies would have the opportunity of giving instruction as heretofore, accompanied with their own peculiar religious opinions, and would have the power of making the imparting of education subordinate to what appeared to them a paramount purpose. He did not think the Dissenters would be found objecting to his proposal, because their schools would be left equal freedom. And here he would observe, that he adopted the distinction so finely drawn by the hon. Member for West Surrey, between "education" and "instruction." By education, he meant the complete training and drawing forth of the mind. This could only be accomplished by the highly-gifted teacher or the affectionate pastor or parent. Instruction, or the mere attainment of knowledge, was a lower task, which was to be accomplished by the agency of the school, and the efforts of the schoolmaster. He used the word education, however, for instruction, as the one most commonly used to signify that which was properly expressed by the word "instruction." But there was another class of persons whose co-operation was of the utmost importance in carrying out any system of education—he meant the working people, whose children were to be instructed and trained. Unless they were with the plan—unless they coincided with it, and received it kindly, and as a privilege for their children—although it should have the sanction of the Church and of different religious denominations, it would not have that effect which it was most devoutly to be wished it should have. Amongst that class, whose intelligence was underrated by those who had not the advantage of personal communication with them, a sturdy intellect and moral sense prevailed which recoiled from charity; and whatever they might think of their feelings, rights, and privileges, he thought this sturdiness of intellect, which was invariably the result of self-cultivation, though it might not be accompanied by external culture, was entitled to respect. These people were indisposed to send their children to schools when they found them used for the purpose of proselytism; and thus a suspicion of their intentions was generated which he regretted to say was not always unwarranted. He would read to the House a passage from the manifesto of the working men of London on this subject. They say—

"We cannot consent that our children should be apportioned amongst the religious sects—that their plastic minds and nascent judgments should be subjected to an external pressure which would give them a permanent bias towards peculiar notions. This appears to us to be the very way to foment and cherish those theological distinctions which already so unhappily divide mankind. Religion is intended to prepare men for Heaven, where the society of the blessed will be united in peace and love. Why should it be made on earth the pretext for cutting up the community into sections, and separating them from one another by unpronounceable shibboleths? We have now for several years been spectators of the dispute going on between the denominations on the subject of popular education. We have noticed that they all agree as to its urgent and imperative necessity; each party has vied with the others in eloquent descriptions of the frightful condition of the working classes. We have been called 'a multitude of untutored savages,' and the places where we dwell have been designated as 'great and terrible wildernesses.' We have sat still, expecting that the religious denominations, in holy charity and pity for our sufferings, would for once lay by their peculiarities, which they themselves confess are not essential to salvation, and agree upon some plan by which the resources of the State might be employed to rescue us from our awful condition. But we have waited in vain; the controversy has waxed hotter and more furious; our little ones have been forgotten in the fray, and their golden moments have been allowed to run irrecoverably to waste,"

He believed these words to be the genuine opinion of the real working men, and their willingness to receive instruction fairly offered, gave an assurance of success to be derived from no other source. It would be expected that he should say something of the cost of the experiment he proposed; but it would be idle affectation to produce any figures on such a subject. He would remark, however, that first impressions were likely to lead to a much overrated estimate of the outlay. The association for education in the county of Lancaster made a calculation with great care, and they found that they could erect schools for the entire education of the county by a rate of 4¾d. in the pound. The expenses of sustaining and managing their schools for children and adults were expected to be covered by a rate of 6d. in the pound. Such was the estimate for providing education for the entire county; but it must be borne in mind that he proposed by his present scheme to provide merely for the deficiency of education. Then he asked to have a reasonable allowance made on account of the diminished crime which would result from education and moral training, and for abatement of the enormous cost of unrestored property lost by theft. The poorer ratepayers would also find themselves repaid, and overpaid, for what they would be called on to contribute for teachers, in the instruction which would be given to their children. Beyond this general view, it would be absurd to attempt to calculate the expenses of the plan with any degree of accuracy. He had already trespassed too long on the patience of the House, but he would ask their attention for a few minutes longer. He depended on the character of the teachers for the success of his plan. In that view he was warranted by a sound observation of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, made three years ago, when this same topic of education was under discussion. The noble Lord then said—

"It has always been my view that you can never effectually raise education in this country till you raise the condition and prospects of the teachers of schools."

That was what he (Mr. Fox) wished to do by the salary he recommended in the measure for the masters of free schools. And if any one questioned the essential importance of the masters of schools, he would refer him to the Isle of Man, where the most perfect system of education to be found in the world existed on paper, for every parish had its school, the ratepayers had a share in its management, and every parent was made to send his children to school; yet, notwithstanding all this, these children were in a more forlorn condition than any children in the country. This was owing to the want of proper and efficient teachers. The bishop, writing on this subject to the Committee of the Privy Council on Education, says—

"That unless some plan was adopted for raising the character of the schoolmaster, they would be outstripped by the inhabitants of any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, and they would not have good schoolmasters unless they earned their position. It was not enough to have convenient school-rooms; they must also have a sufficient salary and comfortable houses to reside in."

The fact was, that the profession of schoolmaster did not receive that encouragement in this country which was necessary to enable persons to devote themselves heart and soul to their calling. He believed that persons well qualified for the work existed in great number throughout the country. He believed that it might be said of the schoolmaster, as it had been said of the poet, Nascitur non fit. He believed that there existed by nature, in some minds, a disposition which enabled them to sympathise with children—to feel the difficulties which obstructed children, and to accelerate their progress, for which no amount of learning, classical or otherwise, could compensate. He would, therefore, throw the competition for masters perfectly open, without regard to training schools. He would invite true men to come forward; he would make aptitude for teaching the great test of fitness, and would reward them accordingly. The function of the teacher was one of great difficulty; it required time and patience, and it was deserving of the best honours which society could bestow. He trusted the House would judge this subject on its own intrinsic interest and importance, and not from the imperfect manner in which it had been brought forward. He prayed the House to think of the condition of thousands upon thousands of children in this country, to think of the crime which had thriven on soils from which they had hoped it was entirely banished, and which they wished to see preoccupied by better seed, to think of those localities which continued to send forth their "hordes of untutored savages "upon society, who seemed to derive from civilisation itself facilities for becoming more unwholesome annoyances to it—he would have them think of the overcrowded gaols, the hulks, and the reluctant colonies—he would have them think of the peace, quiet, and good order which would spread amongst the homes of the well-disposed, by the general training and moral culture of the people—he would have them look to the higher motives of patriotism, and consider that the intellect and moral lustre of their country had been a glory superior to that even of its supremacy in arts and arms—he would have them look to the highest objects of all, which, when the purposes of civil society had been accomplished, still remained to be realised in the individual, who, by the means which they could afford, would be better qualified to fulfil the great purpose for which he had been formed by a beneficent Creator.

would not have ventured, after the able, temperate, and eloquent speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, to address the House, had he not been one of those Members of that House who, in 1837, were appointed to make inquiries into this important subject. After a careful consideration of the evidence which had been laid before the House, he believed that the hon. Gentleman had not overdrawn the picture of the destitution of the poorer classes of this country with regard to education. The conclusion which a Committee, chosen from both sides of the House, had come to was, that it was absolutely necessary that education should be provided for at least one in eight of the population. They said in Manchester that 1 in 30 was educated; in Leeds, 1 in 27; and in Birmingham, 1 in 26. So that if they took the average of the most populous towns in the kingdom, it would be found that instead of one in eight of the population being provided with education, only one in twenty-six or twenty-seven was provided for; and if the calculation was applied to London, the deficiency was very little less. He ventured to say that the increase of population having gone on so rapidly, he did not believe that any greater proportion of the humbler classes were now provided with an adequate edu- cation than when the Committee made their report. The generality of schools were of a most indifferent character with regard to the quality of the instruction given in them. And in the schools of the poorer classes there was an utter absence of that discipline which was most necessary for them, viz., a regular system of self-control and self-denial; their minds were not sufficiently impressed with all the importance of the great practical doctrines of Christianity, kindness, and courtesy to one another. He was grieved to find that, in consequence of the lamentable want of education in this country at present, crime was increasing ten times more rapidly than the population. He hogged to suggest that an enabling statute should be passed whereby each parish might, on the mode which they should deem best, give instruction to the poorer classes in their district. Such apian, if brought forward in a good-tempered spirit, would prevent any tyranny being exercised over the minority. He tendered his thanks to the hon. Gentleman for having brought forward this measure.

said, that after the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham—the temper and ability of which he readily acknowledged—he had waited in respectful silence to hear the opinion of some Member of Her Majesty's Government upon the proposed measure.

rose, and the hon. Baronet resumed his seat; Sir, as my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford seems to have expected that some Member of the Government should rise and state what view he took of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, I do not hesitate to say that I should hope the House will not refuse permission to the hon. Gentleman to bring in his Bill. I think no one can doubt, in the first place, the importance of the subject, and, in the next place, no one could say that education is in such a state in England that no further measures are required—that there is not much to be lamented in the present deficiency of the means of education—that there is not much that good men deplore, even in the education that is given, though perhaps there is more to deplore in the absence of education amongst the great masses of people whose instruction, and still more whose training and religion and morality, deeply concern the welfare of the whole community. If such be the case, the only question that remains is, whether the hon. Member for Oldham has approached this subject in a fitting spirit—for he has been deeply impressed with the importance of the task he has undertaken—and whether the object he has in view is to provide a hotter education, not of one portion, not of one sect, but all classes of the people of this country. I think every one must acknowledge that the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman approached this question was worthy of the subject; that he stated fully and ably the deficiency of education; that he seemed clearly to perceive what the wants were; and, whatever may be the merits of his plan, his inclination was to produce a plan which should not excite jarring contentions, but should rather tend to unite the various opinions that prevailed on the subject. If that is the case, I think there is fully sufficient before the House to induce them to agree to the request of the hon. Gentleman, that he should lay his Bill on the table of the House. As to the further question—what the difficulties are of providing a general plan of education—whether the general plan which the hon. Gentleman proposes will overcome those difficulties—what may be the manner in which it will be viewed by public opinion—what view those who are at present engaged in education, and whose services the House I think is bound to honour—those who are engaged, whether in the great societies of this country, or whether individually in promoting and carrying on education—will take with regard to the plan of the hon. Gentleman when it is in the shape of a Bill;—that is a further question, upon which I think it better not at all to enter, than to give any imperfect opinion, perhaps not correctly founded, on the measures which the House means to adopt, perhaps not conveying what may be my ultimate judgment with respect to this plan. I, therefore, decline altogether to give any opinion as to the plan of the hon. Gentleman. I think that a far better course than that I should cither prematurely commend the plan, or make to it objections which should appear to be not founded on the merits of the case itself. This I would say only that I think, perhaps, of the whole statement of the hon. Gentleman that the part which I rather doubt is as to the present state of the different societies that are carrying on education, and their failures of late years to extend that education. My impression is rather that, although the great efforts proposed to be made three or four years ago, have not had the result of so large an ex- tension as was contemplated, both by the Church societies, and societies belonging to different religious bodies, yet that in fact the result of those efforts, as compared on the whole with the state of education a few years before, will show a considerable increase in the means of education in this country. Whether or not there are failures at present in the measures or means to carry on that education, that again will be matter for subsequent discussion. All I wish further to say is, that I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he has brought forward his plan, and I cannot but hope that frequently as I have been disappointed in discussing this great question, whether the hon. Gentleman's plan be adopted in the manner in which he proposes it or not—I cannot, I say, but hope that such a plan of general education, discussed in such a spirit in this House, may tend to advance that great cause in which society is deeply interested, and I shall cordially concur in giving my assent to the introduction of this Bill.

said, that when he rose before, he admitted most willingly the ability and temper in which the hon. Member for Oldham had introduced his plan, but he could not adopt the principle upon which it rested, or the object at which it aimed. The hon. Member began by stating that the subject was no longer surrounded with those difficulties which formerly encompassed it. No longer, said the hon. Gentleman, was it a question whether it were or were not right that education should be given. But what was education? And what was the proposal of the hon. Gentleman? According to the views of the hon. Gentleman, he limited the instruction of man which the nation ought to provide, to those branches of learning which terminated with man in this world, omitting all consideration of his eternal destiny, for which this world was only a fleeting preparation. Again, with reference to the quality and tendency of education in different countries, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) would ask the hon. Member to reconsider his statement that education was less advanced in England than in any other country in Europe. The hon. Gentleman took his statistical tables, and said there were fewer people educated in England than in Prussia, Saxony, or France. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) asked the House what practically was the character of the education of the people of England? Would the hon. Member for Oldham wish to change it for that which Prussia had two years ago, when she burst forth into revolution. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Oh, oh!] The hon. Member for Middlesex said "Oh, oh!" He should like to hear the hon. Member give a more distinct and definite answer. He would ask the hon. Member whether, on the 10th of April, 1848, he had not reason to thank God for the character of the people of this country? The hon. Member need not be ashamed of his own constituents who behaved so nobly on that day; and in the face of that day the hon. Member would take little credit either with present time or posterity when he undervalued the state of education from which such results followed. Whatever might be the numerical difference between the number of people who could read and write in England, Prussia, France, and Saxony, the moral conduct of the people in this country was such as to reflect credit on their education, whatever might be the amount of it. Then, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham in some of his domestic statistics, referred to the different counties as showing the difference of education as compared with the number of the people. But he (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed that those statistics were imperfect. He knew a parish from which there was no return as to education, because the schools were maintained by the resident proprietors, and received no support from the national grant. The hon. Gentleman, taking his statistics from the blue books, would contend, that in that parish there was no education whatever, whereas he (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed there was hardly any parish in which there was more. The late Mr. Canning said, on a memorable occasion, give him figures, and he would use them in such a way as to come to any conclusion whatever; and if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham's figures were subjected to a scrutiny, not severe, but ordinarily critical, it would be found his conclusions could not be satisfactorily borne out. But these were questions of detail on which he (Sir R. H. Inglis) would not trouble the House. He would only ask the House to bear in mind that they were asked to give their assent to a Bill which sought to promote the secular education of the people of England and Wales. The hon. Member for Oldham admitted, and he (Sir R. H. Inglis) fully concurred in the opinion, that religious education was the greatest boon which a child could receive; but the hon. Member for Oldham proceeded to state that, notwithstanding this great boon had been extended so far, the only practical result had been a great increase of crime, and that the religious acquirement of persons was, therefore, no evidence of their morality.

said, that what he had stated was, that real religious instruction could not he properly conveyed to the mind unless so much of other knowledge was imparted as to allow of religion taking a deep root in the soil so prepared. If that preparatory step were not taken, it would be religious forms only, and not religion, that would be retained by the pupil.

had no wish to misrepresent anything which had fallen from the hon. Member, but certainly understood him to have expressed himself in the manner he had alluded to. He would, however, appeal to the present state of the majority of the schools where religious education was given to the children, to prove that already secular was imparted coincidently with religious education. The hon. Member appeared to suppose that nothing but religion was taught in those schools. He contended such was not the case; but that, on the contrary, in the greater proportion of the schools with which he was acquainted, there was as large a proportion of secular education given as could be obtained in any schools in England established for similar classes of the population. Look at the teaching of the National Society, and see how much secular education, how much general knowledge, how much history, how much geography were already given there, the great foundation, on which all were laid, being religion. He would recall to the Government a proposition which he made a few nights since, with respect to the propriety of the Government making up their minds at once as to what amount of encouragement they would give to amateur Members introducing Bills of their own upon any particular subject. By their so doing, a great portion of the time of the House would be saved, and he felt assured that no hon. Member ought to feel himself aggrieved by the Government saying, when any measure of a private Member was proposed to be introduced, "this is a good Bill, we will take it up;" or "it is a bad one, and neither you nor we will waste the time of the House by uselessly discussing it." Under the actual circumstances of the House, he did not intend to oppose, by a division, the introduction of the Bill; but earnestly trusted that the ultimate assent of the House would not be given to any measure which gave to its recipients a system of education only which terminated with this world, leaving them to obtain from their father or mother, whom the hon. Member himself admitted to be extremely ignorant, and whose ignorance was indeed the ground of his Motion, the only means of enlightening them upon subjects upon which their ultimate and eternal happiness depended.

said, that were he to set about replying to the observations of the hon. Baronet who had last addressed the House, it might have the effect of provoking a general discussion, which, in the present stage of the measure, was not at all necessary. He took it, that on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill full and ample opportunity would be afforded hon. Members of expressing their opinions in reference to the important question—the establishing more universally than heretofore a system of secular education. He felt certain the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the measure, as well as many others who would support it, could not but feel aggrieved at the imputation that they disregarded religious education ill the measure then submitted to the House. However, they did consider that religious and secular education rested upon different grounds; that one was capable of enlargement, and susceptible of encouragement, whilst the other was not; and that the State might interfere with one when it could not with the other. He wished to place before hon. Members the case of the Lancashire School Society movement, which, he believed, originated with a few private gentlemen, but which nevertheless progressed until it found an atmosphere wherein it expanded and flourished. Looking at the beneficial results that were likely—he might say certain—to result from the Bill, and also considering the able and temperate manner in which it had been introduced to the House, he should declare that he would be prepared to give the measure his most full and cordial support.

was most anxious that no difference of opinion should then be raised on the Bill, which had been so ably introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham. However, he could not refrain from declaring his conviction that his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had largely misstated, probably not understanding, the nature of his hon. Friend's proposition. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford assumed that secular education was the sole object of the Bill; whilst he (Mr. Hume), on the contrary, understood his hon. Friend to embrace in his plan religious as well as secular education. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford said, there existed a difference in the minds of many as to what education was. He did not know what the hon. Member's definition of education might be; but he (Mr. Hume) considered that mental training which fitted a man to be a good and useful member of society, no less fitted him for being a good and religious member. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford also alluded to State religion and State education, though his hon. Friend, in introducing the measure, gave no ground whatever for any such supposition, but merely wished that Parliament should make it compulsory on property to supply the educational deficiency that at present existed. He pointed out the lamentable results of vice and crime that arose from ignorance, and suggested that Parliament should adopt the best means of remedying such evils, which were deplored by every man in the community who valued life and property, or the well-being of society. Let them remove the ignorance that at present prevailed, and substitute information in its stead; and they might rest assured they would soon have good and moral citizens. If ever there was a time when the question of education might be brought forward with advantage, that time was the present. From end to end of the country there was a strong desire that ignorance should be abolished, and that could only be effected by the instrumentality of education. Allusion had been made in the course of the debate to the Lancashire Association. He hoped every Gentleman who then heard him had read the proceedings of that society. Let them go further north, let them look at Scotland, where a very general and universal desire existed that a similar principle should be applied as that in Lancashire in reference to secular education. Very few were more able to appreciate the results of such a Bill as the present than the Scotch. Within the last fifty years, the character of the Scotch had very much deteriorated, for want of attention formerly bestowed to educational training, which, unfortunately, the criminal statistics too fully proved. However, measures were lately adopted, under which they were again aspiring to the position previously enjoyed by them; and therefore he hailed the present moment as one most propitious to the success of the object of the measure introduced to the notice of the House that evening. He sincerely thanked his hon. Friend who introduced the measure for the able yet mild and temperate manner in which he had done so. He thanked him, because in every point of view in which it could be considered, social, political, or religious, it was certain to act well. Therefore on that ground he likewise approved of the course taken by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, whose statement that night was what he expected from one who had paid so much attention to these matters. No person could deny the necessity of education; and therefore he hoped there would be a general concurrence on the part of the House, as well as of the country in general, so that they might attain the object which they, in common with the masses, desired—the enlightenment and education of the great majority of their countrymen.

understood the hon. Member for Oldham to have stated that only one child in every thirteen in England received any education.

explained that his statement was, that one in thirteen of the population went to school.

At all events, it was evident that the hon. Member thought the means provided for the education of the rising generation were very defective, and that point he (Mr. Plumptre) was not inclined to dispute. The hon. Member stated that he did not intend to meddle with existing schools; his object was evidently prospective—to fill up the gaps observable on the face of the educational-system by the erection of new schools. These new schools, as he understood, were to be open to persons of all religious denominations, but in them no religious instruction whatever was to be given. [Mr. W. J. Fox: No, no!] That, in fact, religion was to be systematically excluded. The religious instruction of the children was to be left to their parents, or such other persons as might think fit to interest themselves in the matter. Not only that, but the inhabitants of a district in which a school was established were to be taxed to the extent of 4½d. or 6d. in the pound for its support. If that were the hon. Member's plan, he must solemnly and religiously protest against it.

agreed with the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government that they would best do their duty by, the Bill on the present occasion by not entering generally into its details. In fact, the Bill was so misrepresented and so misunderstood, which, he doubted not, was the cause of the misrepresentation, that they were not in a position to discuss it. However, he could not sit still without paying his tribute of gratitude—humble as that tribute might be—to the hon. Member for Oldham, for the manner, the able and statesmanlike manner, in which he addressed himself to the question that evening. It had seldom been his lot to listen to a speech with such unmitigated satisfaction, or to one which would tell more powerfully throughout the country. It was necessary he should apologise to the hon. Member for the University of Oxford for having interjected an "Oh" whilst he was speaking; but the fact was that he was surprised to hear the hon. Baronet attempt to draw a contrast between Prussia and this country. It was because the people of Prussia were highly educated, without possessing a representative system, because, in short, taxation without representation prevailed in that country, that the recent political convulsions there naturally occurred. It was a pity that the hon. Baronet should have revived the old worn-out topic of the 10th of April, which the Secretary for the Home Department had worked so unmercifully on many occasions. The rebellion of the 10th of April could be paralleled by no other rebellion on record except that of Lord Grizzle's in Tom Thumb. The hon. Baronet had taunted him (Mr. Osborne) with the ignorance of his constituents, but he would remind him that in Middlesex; education stood at the highest point as regarded England; and the hon. Baronet ought to accept it as a proof of the intelligence of the inhabitants of that county that they unanimously supported the Government on the 10th of April. The hon. Baronet said that there was a difference between education and instruction. True; and the hon. Member for Oldham drew the distinction. He (Mr. Osborne) had, he was going to say, the honour of being educated at a university; but he would not say so, for he was sorry he had ever boon placed at one. There was no portion of his life on which he looked back with more regret than that which he had spent at Cambridge, for there he was instructed in all the vices for which the place was notorious. He looked upon the universities as hindrances to education. As long as the university system continued, education would be in the hands of particular classes, who would not let it out of their clutches. The hon. Member for East Kent had appealed not only to the religious feelings but to the pockets of hon. Members opposite, by tolling them that the owners of property would be called upon to pay from 4½d. to 6d. for the support of the schools which the hon. Member for Oldham wished to establish. That statement was not correct. The hon. Member for Oldham referred to a 4½d. rate as that which was calculated for the whole district of Lancashire, not the one which would be required to fill up the gaps in the existing system. The plan propounded by the hon. Member for Oldham was an assimilation to the best system of education in the world—the national system of Ireland; and on that ground it should receive his support. For his part, he suspected the philanthropy of those men who would deny the humbler classes education, unless they could make it the vehicle for disseminating their own religious notions.

was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Middlesex fasten on the University of Cambridge the bad habits which he appeared to have acquired. Although the hon. Member might have found opportunities for indulging in vicious pursuits, he might also, it was to be hoped, have found occasion for the development of virtuous habits. The hon. Member had adverted to the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford's observation as to the conduct of the population of Middlesex on the 10th of April; but perhaps the intelligence of that district might be judged of by the representative they turned out, and the one they put in. The House would have an opportunity, on the second reading of the Bill, of fully discussing the whole system of national education; and he trusted that the same spirit would be preserved which had marked its introduction. He concurred in some part of the hon. Mover's views, but differed from him at that point where he wished to separate secular from religious education. The proceedings of the Lancashire Association were of great importance. He had looked into its proceedings, and had derived much advantage from it, because, although there were many things with which he could not agree, still he thought it best to do like the bee, and extract all the food there was to be found there. In Manchester a meeting was called a short time since, for the purpose of discussing this very question, and a proposition was submitted to it in the spirit of that brought forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, and yet, after full discussion, an amendment was carried of a very opposite character. He hoped sufficient time would be given for full discussion, and he thought it better that a Bill of this kind should be brought forward by a private Member than by the Government, as the latter might perchance invest with a party character a question which ought to be calmly and patiently considered on its own merits exclusively. In conclusion, he could not but express his satisfaction to see an endowment proposed and advocated by the advocates of the voluntary system.

thought that this was a question which ought to be considered irrespective of personal matters, and therefore he regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last should have thought it necessary to allude to the choice of a representative made by the electors of Middlesex in the manner he had done. This he would say, that whoever the electors of Middlesex might have rejected, they had good reason to be satisfied with the integrity and intelligence of the hon. Member by whom they were represented. He protested against the proposed measure being considered, as the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had misrepresented it, as simply a plan of education which had regard only to this world and to this life, and having no reference to a future state of existence. The hon. Member for Oldham appeared to be as deeply impressed as any one in or out of the House with the importance of a religious education. He fully concurred in the desirability of uniting as far as possible secular with religious education. But, looking at the vast number and infinite varieties into which religious opinion in the country was divided, it was perfectly impossible to combine secular and religious education, as a State measure, into one system of education. It could not be done. What would the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford adopt as a system of religious State education? Of course his plan would be that of having the religion of the State inculcated as a part of education. But that system would exclude all that numerous body of persons who did not adopt the religion of the State as their religion. That would at once prevent and preclude the possibility of having a measure of national education which should adopt the State religion as a portion of education. And if the religious views of the Dissenters were to be inculcated in the schools, those persons who belonged to the Established Church would not allow their children to be sent to schools of that kind; a great portion of the influential classes, and above all, the clergy of the country, would set their faces against such a system, and it could not be expected that the State would establish any such system as that. What then remained to be done? They could not by possibility have a system of State education into which religion could enter, and if they wished to have a system of State education at all, they must adopt secular education as the basis of it, and confine it simply to that. It was said that religious education was far more important than secular. He fully conceded that point; but if they could not be taught religion by the State, that was no reason why they should not be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic, which would enable them to promote their interests in this world at least. By establishing a system of State secular education, they would not interfere in the least with any of the establishments supported by private contributions, or prevent the continuance of those efforts which were at present made for the religious instruction of the rising generation. At present there was no system of religious instruction in schools provided by the State. The matter was left to private exertion, and was carried out by voluntary contributions. That system would continue in force should the scheme of the hon. Member for Oldham be adopted. It could not be denied that education was at a lower point in England than in Prussia and other countries, and that was a circumstance which no Englishman could contemplate with satisfaction.

thought that the allusion which the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had made to the hon. Member for Middlesex, had been provoked by the latter hon. Member saying that all persons educated at universities contracted vices. [Mr. OSBORNE: I didn't; I only said that I had.] He begged to bestow his humble tribute of praise on the hon. Member for Oldham for the temper and application which he had devoted to the subject. He recollected, however, that in 1839, a course had been pointed out to Parliament for separating secular from religious education. But what did the country say to that? Was there not a cry against it from one end of England to the other? Did not both the members of the Church of England and the Dissenters come before that House with petitions against the plan? Did not a noble Lord, who was now in the other House of Parliament, bring forward a Motion in the House of Commons on the subject, which, though in a minority, he nearly carried; and did not the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the other House, bring forward a Motion condemnatory of the principle of that kind of education? He could hardly think that the country would now look with more favour on a system of education which conveyed secular knowledge alone. But it was not his intention to enter into the subject generally. He should be happy to examine the Bill, and to judge of it by its merits. He should look at the system now promulgated in this country, and consider it in combination with the Bill of the hon. Member. He was convinced that nothing was more likely to do good than a discussion on the system of education which ought to be pursued. He should like to have the question settled by Act of Parliament, and the hon. Member for Oldham might depend on it that he should be quite willing to enter upon the subject with temper and forbearance.

was glad that, as leave was to be given to introduce the Bill, an opportunity would be afforded at the different stages to inquire how far a body not immediately responsible to Parliament should interfere with the education of the Church. He did not collect from what the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to convey any censure on the hon. Member for Middlesex, even to the extent to which the hon. Member for Middlesex censured himself; for he did not understand the hon. Member for Middlesex to say that the education at Cambridge was not good in itself, but to adduce himself as an instance that a good education might be thrown away. It was gratifying to find an hon. Member who confessed he had thrown away great advantages had had great advantages since, for he could not have enjoyed the confidence of the electors of Middlesex, unless he had taken great pains with himself to become at a later age what he might have become at an earlier period.

begged to inquire whether he was right in understanding that under the Bill an inspection was to take place with respect to the secular education of every school of every kind and denomination; and that on the report of the inspector that the education given to the children of a certain district by those schools was not sufficient, it would then be competent for the Government to establish schools on the principle proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham, and rate the inhabitants for the establishment and support thereof?

, in reply, said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had, in part, misunderstood him. His plan was founded on a general view of the deficiency of education in different localities through England. The materials for ascertaining that deficiency, he apprehended, did already exist to a large extent in documents which the Privy Council had accumulated by means of its inspectors, so that it was not a difficult matter to ascertain in any locality to what degree it was necessary to supply the means of education. There would sometimes be cases such as had occurred in the parish of King's Sambre, Hampshire, in the school under the charge of the Rev. Mr. Dawes, who had so conducted his national school, that it was attended by children in and out of the parish, the children of labourers and of farmers alike, all of whom paid, the poor according to their-poverty, the farmers according to their better circumstances; but, by his conduct of that school, he had brought those children to it, and especially by the judicious intermixture of secular and religious instruction, as appeared from the report by the inspector, who said the children were not only well instructed in secular knowledge, but well instructed in religion, which he attributed to their being better informed on general subjects. If there were a parish where the church, or any one sect, had so recommended itself as to be the religion of the entire population, they would be at perfect liberty to interweave religion as much as they pleased with the entire course of instruction. But in cases where the parents and guardians of children were of different sects, it was impossible so to interweave secular and religious instruction. There they must he content with the provision he proposed, giving not half an hour a-day, as had been alleged, but stated times, continuous with secular education, and all through, for such religious education as the parents should desire. With reference to what had been called secular education, he did not believe that the mountains and the stars taught infidelity, or the waves and winds heresy. He should not press the second reading till after the Easter recess. His object was, that localities should make arrangements for themselves; and he should be satisfied to see as many varieties in those arrangements as there were counties in England. Opportunities would be so given of comparing one system with another. As to the question of expense, this country had borne many a heavy load—England sustained without murmuring the splendour of an ancient monarchy; she kept 100,000 men in arms; she maintained a fleet which preserved the dominion of the ocean; she had large and costly establishments of every description, and it could not be said that she was so far beggared as to be unable to teach her own poor and helpless children. But the objection of expense amounted to nothing, for it was not, in truth, expenditure, but the very best economy, and those who retrenched in everything else ought to be most liberal in that. To obtain an orderly, enlightened population, who would see the necessity of maintaining the institutions of the country, and of suppressing anarchy, was surely of all other objects the most desirable. He thanked the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the House generally for the kind attention with which they had listened to him, and for the fair and candid spirit in which they had received his proposal.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts to 50l. It was not his intention to trespass at any length on the attention of the House. There seemed to be no special reason why 20l. should have been fixed upon as the limit in affording the cheap justice which was intended to be given in establishing the county courts as they now existed. It was desirable, however, that in the first instance the sums recoverable should not be very large, in order that sufficient experience of the working of these courts should be acquired before their jurisdiction should be extended to sums beyond 20l. But it was within the knowledge of every gentleman acquainted with the working of the system, that the result had been most satisfactory to all parties; and the verdict which the public, who must be the best judges, had decidedly given in favour of these courts, was shown by the fact that the number of suits tried in them within the last three years considerably exceeded 1,000,000l., and the proportion they bore to the suits at Westminster-hall was in the proportion of four to one. The objections and opposition to his Bill would be almost exclusively raised by a very influential body from whom so many petitions on another subject had been presented in an earlier part of the evening, and, who might find their profits diminished, if his proposition were adopted. Although it was not to be desired that the profits of a learned profession should be unduly diminished, he thought no one could affirm that the interests of these gentlemen ought to stand in the way of further legislation—especially if those interests depended upon charges so multifarious and enormous as practically to prevent the great majority of the community from vindicating legal rights. He could not believe that in a great commercial community like this, that protection, which had been extended to the creditor to the amount of 20l., and which had been found to work so beneficially, would be attempted to be withheld from the creditor for 50l. He would quote one or two cases to show the ruinous expenses attending an action for even small sums in the superior courts:—

"There is now before the court at Colchester a person who has petitioned for protection as insolvent. He was plaintiff in an action at the last spring assizes at Chelmsford. Unfortunately, his case stood at the bottom of the list; his attorney and witnesses, twelve in number, were kept there a whole week. The consequence was, that though he succeeded in obtaining a verdict for 32l., and the plaintiff's costs, which were charged to the defendant, amounted to 120l., his own attorney's bill for the trial was 182l., thereby leaving the successful plaintiff loser of 30l. This, with 20l. more, the expenses of an inter-pleader, arising upon execution, reduced him to insolvency. How much better for him to have abandoned 12l., of what a jury decided was his just claim, and sued for the remainder in the county court!"

Mr. Amos, when upon this subject, gave the following instances:—

"The author wrote to a friend, whom he knew to have been recently a successful defendant in an action brought against him to recover 42l., desiring particulars of his costs. The question in dispute was, whether the plaintiff had or had not sold to the defendant a certain quantity of a chemical preparation? The gentleman replied, that his own taxed costs (which the plaintiff paid) were 80l., and his extra costs (which he, the successful defendant, paid) were 67l, The author's friend writes that he was afterwards told by the plaintiff (probably the parties to the suit were restored to amity by their common misfortune) that the lawsuit cost him 300l."

Here was the case of another action for 42l.:—

"The defendant paid 25l. into court, which had been previously tendered; and thus the sum in dispute was reduced to 17l. The plaintiff called eleven witnesses, and the defendant four. Nearly all, if not quite ill, the witnesses would have been dispensed with had the parties to the suit been examinable; nor would either of these parties have hesitated for a moment to abide by the other's statement of the facts within his knowledge. The jury, after a noisy altercation for two hours, found that 40l. was due to the plaintiff, and that 25l. had been tendered. The costs were taxed the day before this page is written. The plaintiff proved on oath costs to the amount of 158l. 1s. 9d. After a hard struggle in the Master's office, these costs were taxed at 103l. 1s. 7d.; thus leaving the plaintiff to pay 55l. 0s. 2d. on the issue found for him."

He might be asked, "Why stop at 50l.—why not make the operation of the Bill unlimited?" He should himself be prepared to try all actions of this description in the county court; but it must be patent to every one that if there were to be a limit it must be arbitrary, and he had fixed it at 50l., simply because he believed that by so doing he should obtain the support of some who did not think that an unlimited jurisdiction would be desirable. He asked, would any respectable solicitor advise his client to go into a superior court to recover 50l.? So strong was the feeling of the public in favour of these courts, that the number of cases was almost beyond belief in which the sums claimed had been reduced from 30l., 40l., and even 50l. to 20l., in order to bring them under the county court jurisdiction. Some observations appeared on Monday in the leading journal of the day in reference to the alteration of the law in India, which were so pertinent and so applicable to the present case, that he could not help quoting them. The Times upon this subject said—

"There is not a single county court throughout the kingdom in which justice is administered in civil matters without the technical rules of special pleading, in which judgment is not also daily pronounced against that system. If these rules be unnecessary in actions for value under 20l., why are they necessary in actions where 50l. is at stake? It is a very great affliction to a country where the cost of obtaining justice is so great, or the chance of obtaining it so precarious, in consequence of the prevalence of a technical system, that the subject is debarred from maintaining his rights, and seeking redress from his wrongs. But in England no prudent man, if he can avoid it, will meddle with legal proceedings; he will submit to any extortion within his powers of bearing, rather than be dragged into Westminster Hall."

In reference to this subject last Session, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said—

"The measure establishing the county courts had given great satisfaction to the public at large; but he deemed that it would not be safe, with the experience they had yet had, to extend the jurisdiction of the courts to 50l., without giving an appeal from the decisions of the judges. If the jurisdiction were so far extended without an appeal, he believed these courts, instead of giving great satisfaction, would create a perfectly opposite feeling."—Hansard, cvil. 406.

He (Mr. Fitzroy) might mention to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that in the Bill which he now asked leave to introduce, there was a clause giving the power of appeal. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department stated upon the same occasion—

"Although he admitted that the courts had fully answered public expectation, he still doubted whether they would work as satisfactorily to that class of suitors who had hitherto resorted to them, in order to obtain a speedy remedy, after their jurisdiction should have been enlarged."—Hansard, cvii. 407.

He thought the right hon. Baronet could scarcely be aware of the practical working of these courts if he thought that a "speedy remedy" was the principal bonus to the suitors who resorted to them. The principle of paying by instalments was an important clement in the county court practice, from which defendants were wholly debarred in the superior courts, and he knew that many honest debtors allowed themselves to be proceeded against in the local courts, in order that the opportunity of payment in that mode might be afforded them. He should not further trespass upon the time of the House, but ask for leave to introduce the Bill.

said, that as it scorned to be the desire of the House to accept the measure of the hon. Gentleman, he was not inclined to interpose any objection to the introduction of the Bill. But he felt it to be his duty, though he was aware that in so doing he exposed himself to some degree of unpopularity, to point out the objections which he entertained to the introduction of the principle contained in the Bill. He could understand one who was adverse to the jurisdiction of the superior courts in matters of this kind bringing forward a proposition for removing all restriction as to the amount of debts to be recovered in these courts; but the hon. Gentleman did not profess anything of the kind. The cases which had been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman applied to sums of 30l. and 40l.; but suppose that his Bill were passed, and why might not cases of similar hardship be mentioned in reference to sums of 512. and 52l.? The hon. Gentleman said that there was no reason why a limit of 20l should be taken in the jurisdiction of the county courts. There was, however, a strong and pointed reason; 20l. was the amount laid down by the courts of law and the Legislature as the limit below which parties could not he arrested. Another reason was, that it had long been laid down as a rule in the courts that when the sum recovered by a man in an action was below 20l., that they would not grant a now trial, although the judge who tried the case might be dissatisfied with the verdict, because the expenses would swallow up the whole of the proceeds. His hon. Friend had even agreed that the present county courts were an experiment. They had been between two and three years in practice, and they had given great satisfaction. But as regarded the effect on credit, or on the conduct of persons incautiously incurring debts, the experiment had not been sufficiently ascertained. Why not take upwards of 50l., why not take 100l., 500l., 1,000l., or 5,000l., and see what effect could be produced? If they gave no appeal in the higher courts, it was impossible that the courts could work satisfactorily, as public opinion could not be satisfied respecting them. There could be no bar present to express an opinion on the proceedings, and no press to publish reports of the cases, therefore there would be no efficient check to satisfy the public mind. Then, again, were the parties to be examined in their own causes? If this was to be allowed, it would be seen that they would appear under the most excited feelings, and would hardly abstain from giving a colouring to their respective cases. In cases of arbitration, the arbitrator was authorised to examine the parties interested, but this was never done unless under very extraordinary circumstances. He thought this would be a very dangerous experiment for large sums, although the system had acted effectively as regarded small sums. If they gave appeals above 20l., they would altogether destroy the object of these courts. They were established that the proceedings might be summary, simple, and attended with as little expense as possible. If they gave an appeal, the result in all such cases would be the reverse of this. His hon. Friend said there should only be appeals in cases above 20l.; but in that case you make the bulk of the suitors in the court dissatisfied, for there was no reason why a man sued for 19l. 19s. should not have an appeal as well as he was sued for a little more than 20l. Every reversal order in a case of appeal, would shako the confidence of the public in these courts. If his hon. Friend gave an appeal only where a man could pay the costs, they would give it only to a rich suitor. He might be told that he was professionally interested, but he could safely stand there and declare that he had no interest whatever in the matter. He repeated that it was a most dangerous experiment, but he would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, as it appeared to be the wish of the House to sec it, but he must protest against it.

thought the hon. and learned Attorney General had been very facetious, and had thumped the red box in an extraordinary manner; but he (Sir G. Pechell) had not been able to understand any of the reasons why he opposed the Bill. When, fifteen years ago, he (Sir G. Pechell) introduced his Bill for the extension of the jurisdiction of the Sheriffs' Courts to 50l., the most determined of his opponents was John Jervis, the then Member for Chester, and one of the chief grounds of that Gentleman's opposition then was, that the measure would take the business out of the courts in Westminster Hall. The proposition met the approval of the present Lord Chancellor, and he (Sir G. Pechell) received the support of Mr. Baron Rolfe, who was then Solicitor General, and the Bill was carried through both Houses. He was quite unable to understand why the hon. and learned Attorney General should oppose this measure; the county courts had worked most satisfactorily; and if they wanted proof of the fact, it was fully afforded by the general demand for the extension of their jurisdiction to 50l.

said, with reference to an observation which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that the only reason why the bar and the press should not be represented at the county courts at present was, that the cases were of so insignificant a character as not to pay for their attendance; but that might be remedied by enlarging the jurisdiction. It was said that they would destroy the county courts if they introduced the right of appeal. He (Mr. Clay) did not understand what possible objection there could be to such an appeal as at present lay from a decision at quarter-sessions. If he was told that these appeals would burden the superior courts with too great an amount of business; his answer was, that the amount of business of which this Bill would relieve the superior courts would more than compensate for any addition that would be imposed upon them in the way of appeals. But his belief was that the real reason for opposing the Bill was the fear of the superior courts losing business, rather than that it would overburden them with additional business in consequence of appeals.

regretted to find that the hon. and learned Attorney General had given his sanction to the introduction of the Bill. It would be only consuming another night in discussing its principle, if the Government was prepared to throw it out at a future stage. It was admitted on all hands that these courts had worked extremely well; and so sure as the sun was in the heavens, if they extended their jurisdiction they would destroy their utility. It was on that ground that he opposed the measure. He wished to know whether hon. Members who were disposed to do away with imprisonment for debt for all sums under 20l. were disposed to extend it to 50l., or to all sums? If they did so, where were they to stop? He regretted, under these circumstances, that if the Government had a strong objection to the Bill, they had not at once thrown it out.

said, that the doubts entertained by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General referred not so much to the expediency as the practicability of the measure, and that was the reason he was not prepared at once to move its rejection. He (Sir G. Grey) stated last year the grounds upon which he opposed the proposition for the extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts from 20l. to 50l. He still entertained the opinions he then expressed. At the same time it was impossible to deny that there was a strong feeling in the country in favour of the extension of the jurisdiction, and he thought the House would discuss the measure with much greater advantage when they had the Bill before them, not, as last year, containing the mere substitution of 50l. for 20l. as the limit of the jurisdiction, but accompanied by a right of appeal, the nature of which, however, the hon. Member had not yet stated, and with the admission of the bar, at least so he understood the hon. Member. He (Sir G. Grey) believed that the popular favour in which the county courts were held had arisen from the fact that justice was administered in them under circumstances which were only compatible with the existence of a small stake. With reference to the right of appeal which the hon. Member now proposed to allow in regard to sums between 20l and 50l, he (Sir G. Grey) owned he was curious to see how that was provided for in the Bill; whether the appeal would involve a new trial in the court where the former trial took place, or whether it would be transferred to the courts at Westminster; for if so the whole value of the county courts would cease; for he feared the result would be, that however the cases were decided, the losing parties would always appeal.

thought it creditable to the Government that they had given permission to the hon. Member for Lewes to introduce the measure. They had withdrawn their objections to its consideration, and it was possible, when the Bill came to be farther discussed, that the Government might give way still farther, and allow it to be made law. The country desired that the jurisdiction of the county courts should be extended—whether it was right or not was another question—and he thought the Government were perfectly right in taking the course which they now proposed to adopt. The Secretary of State for the Home Department and the hon. and learned Attorney General had asserted that this was a most dangerous measure. Now, he held in his hand a return which showed that very few causes ranging between 20l. and 50l. were tried. It was the return of causes tried in 1830 by the Court of Queen's Bench, in its sittings in London and Middlesex. In the latter there were 83 causes tried, 34 of which were under 20l., while between 20l. and 50l. there were only 9. In London, 103 causes were tried, 36 of which did not exceed 20l., and between that sum and 50l. there were only 8. He thought the county courts had worked well, but he did not believe that they gave entire satisfaction. The administration of justice might be made much cheaper than it was at present. Some of the officers of the courts, who had a great deal to do, were very much underpaid, while others, who had but very little to do, received a very disproportionate remuneration. The whole subject of the county courts demanded great attention, and the Government would do well to take it into their consideration. He should wish that such a Bill as the one under discussion had been brought in by the Government rather than by an individual Member. The Government ought to take up the question. It might be necessary to send the Bill to a Select Committee upstairs; but if it should be thrown out, he should advise the hon. Member for Lewes to move for a Committee to inquire into the whole subject, as one deserving the attention of the House. He felt sure that great advantage would arise to the country from its being thoroughly inquired into.

could not feel satisfied that this proposed extension of the jurisdiction of these courts would not have the effect of setting aside the present courts altogether. He confessed he entertained great fears on the subject. He was very doubtful whether it was possible to admit the bar to practice in these courts without altering the nature of the judges who presided in them. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would not yield an inch from the position taken up by the hon. and learned Attorney General.

, as a retired practical lawyer, would give his cordial support in favour of bringing in the Bill. He did not, however, agree with the hon. Mover, that all the great expenses incidental to the superior courts went into the pockets of the attorneys. The pleadings alone were enormous to bring the case to an issue. The parties went down to the assizes with all their witnesses, having previously given enormous fees to their counsel. They were then often obliged to wait for several days before the cause could be tried. For all these proceedings the attorney did not get one farthing beyond the money he expended; and, at last, he perhaps had the pleasure of recovering 50l., after having incurred an exipenditure of 60l or 70l., while the unhappy plaintiff had probably to pay 40l. or 501. by the way of extra costs. He thought that these county courts had conferred the greatest benefit upon the country, and that benefit would be considerably increased by extending the jurisdiction of them to claims of 50l. He hoped that the proposed measure would also go so far as to bring in equitable matters, which, in the ordinary course of things, did not come within the cognisance of a court of law. He did not think that there would be any difficulty in allowing appeals, provided the party so appealing was required to give security for costs.

said, it was not an uncommon thing in the trade to which he belonged to sue persons owing 30l. or 35l. in the county courts, the claimants thus consenting to abandon the excess over 20l., in order to render it recoverable in that way. But the effect of this was to give encouragement to fraudulent debtors to refuse payment until they were compelled by these courts, being thus assured of being able to get rid of their liabilities in an easy way. Great injustice would be done to all such claimants if the jurisdiction of these courts was not increased.

hoped that the same unanimity which had prevailed in the House with regard to the last two measures would be extended to his Motion. Those who had been in Parliament some time knew that when there was a surplus in the Exchequer, a great number of appeals were made to the Government for relief from pressure. He had stated on the first night of the Session that he conceived some relief for the labourer was more called for than any other, and urged upon the House the necessity of adopting some measures for the amelioration of the condition of the labouring classes, and more particularly as regarded the improvement of their habitations. He had alluded to the strong desire which had been manifested by the higher classes during the last two or three years to increase the comforts and promote the health of the labouring classes. With this view also, they had established boards of health, and had directed the removal of nuisances, and had passed Acts of Parliament to promote to a very great extent the carrying out similar objects. Among other improvements they had effected, was the putting a stop to the making cellars in Liverpool, and other places, human habitations. A great number of reports from all parts of the country had been printed as to the manner in which the labouring classes were lodged. He would not trouble the House by reading extracts from these documents, for he hoped hon. Members had made themselves acquainted with these papers. Up to very lately the condition of the labouring classes had been shamefully neglected, and, above all, by the Government. It appeared from statements received from various quarters, that the expense of building cottages for the labouring classes was so much increased by the duties on timber and bricks as to operate in many instances as a positive prohibition to their erection. These duties then operated directly as a positive check on the social comfort and happiness of the labouring classes. He had recently visited several cottages, and was much struck with one in which were a man and his wife and eleven children, and they were huddled together without regard to decency or comfort. He was convinced that the great impediment to the erection of comfortable cottages for the poor was the high duties levied on timber and bricks. The consequence had been, that the proprietors or builders of these cottages had been prevented from using foreign timber. It was almost impossible to estimate the effect produced by the brick duty upon the erection of these cottages; but he had been informed that 10 per cent on the cost was about the average increase of cost. There was no one who would not regret the uncomfortable state of the homes of those classes upon which so much of the welfare and prosperity of the country depended. One effect of it might be traced in the consumption of spirituous liquors, and in the resort of those classes to public-houses, which offered those comforts and relaxations of which their dwellings were destitute. Discomfort alienated a man from his home, and it was probable there would not be such a consumption of ardent spirits by the population if the dwellings of the poor were better adapted for health and comfort. It was for reasons such as these that he had put in a word to the Government at the early part of the Session, as to whether some relief could not be given in regard to those taxes which operated counter to the general wishes and intentions of the country for the improvement of the abodes of the poor. Instead of making the poor man's abode comfortable, where he might spend his leisure hours, he was permitted to be drawn to the public-house, where he contracted habits of inebriety. It was impossible to account for the state of the country with regard to the consumption of spirituous liquors, when from 30,000,000 to 36,000,000 of gallons, diluted as it was, of ardent spirits, were consumed by the population of this country, upon any other ground than that of the working people having no comforts at home, no enjoyments at their fire-side, the most happy and comfortable situation in which they could be. They were expending a large sum of money; but of what value was it if they found that, instead of rendering the poor man comfortable, they put it out of the power of proprietors to build cottages for them, by not remitting these taxes? How few of the working classes, who received 8s. or 12s. a week, could afford to pay 50s. or 3l. for a single cottage. A cottage could not be built for less than 50l or 60l. Labour was cheap, but the taxes on building materials pressed so very hard that he would be glad to have the duty on foreign timber removed; and in mentioning it he saw that notice was given by an hon. Friend behind him to bring the question of the remission of the duty on timber forward, for in his opinion timber and bricks ought to sail in the same boat. He was met by all sides of the House with the question of how he could guard against fraud, and what security could be given that a cottage, let at a rent of 3l. in order to get a drawback, may not be lot to the next tenant at a rent of 5l. or 6l.? He confessed there were difficulties in the way, and the only way to get rid of these difficulties was by taking off the duty on bricks altogether. He, therefore, wished the House to express an opinion on that subject. The following was the amount of net receipts for the last ten years:—

Years.		England.	Scotland.	Ireland.
1840	…	£504,881	£18,498	Nil
1841	…	431,256	11,762	Nil
1842	…	383,700	9,350	Nil
1843	…	348,177	7,104	Nil
1844	…	439,183	10,792	Nil
1845	…	545,202	16,665	Nil
1846	…	619,752	18,670	Nil
1847	…	661,815	19,514	Nil
1848	…	445,672	10,173	Nil
1840	…	444,552	11,900	Nil
		£4,813,190	£134,428	Nil

The average amount of the brick duty during that period, according to the Excise return, was, for England, 481,319l. a year, and for Scotland 13,442l., while the expense of collecting it was 20 per cent. Take that 20 per cent off the price, and they conferred at once a boon upon the poor man. When they looked at houses for agricultural purposes, they would find this tax stopped every improvement that would otherwise take place. By removing the duty on bricks, the benefit would not he confined to cottages; they could scarcely tell the advantages that would accrue from it. The benefit would be such as that arising from the remission of the duty on glass. They were spending money for the comforts of the poor; but while those taxes remained, they were stopping with one hand what they bestowed with the other. He was sorry the noble Lord the Member for Bath was unable to bring forward that evening the Act for the repeal of the window tax, for the tax on windows and bricks interfered with the progress of those important improvements that tended so much to the health of the country. It was scarcely possible not to pity the poor man who came to a damp cottage, and yet the homes of the poor were neglected from day to day and month to month; and when the small quantity of fuel which they could afford in the winter months was considered, it was astonishing how they sustained themselves. Taking into account, also, the smallness of their wages—for Parliament could not interfere with wages, nothing could regulate that but supply and demand—it was a want of humanity in the higher classes that these taxes should have been allowed to remain so long. He confessed that great relief was conferred by the measure of 1842, which remitted many of the taxes upon industry, the removal of the tax upon bricks would be an important addition to that relief, and would add to the comforts which all should be desirous to confer upon the working classes. He hoped the House would express its opinion that this tax should be repealed, for the time was coming when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make up his mind how to bestow the surplus. That was one of the modes. But he would go further, and say that if there were no surplus the Government ought to reduce the expenditure in order to relieve the country from those taxes which were injurious to the health, and in every way pressed upon the labouring classes. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That this House, taking into consideration the condition of the cottages of the labourers of this Kingdom, and the want of adequate accommodation for their families, is of opinion that a Drawback should in future be allowed on the Bricks and Timber employed in the construction of cottages, as a means of lessening the expense of their erection."

said, that his hon. Friend had very frankly stated what his object was in bringing this question before the House. Had he not so stated that object, it would have been difficult to collect, from the terms of the Motion itself, what his intention really was. His hon. Friend said he wished to obtain the expression of an opinion from the House in favour of a repeal of the duty on bricks, and therefore he (Mr. Labouchere) would address himself to the speech of his hon. Friend, rather than the exact terms of his Motion. The House would remember that but a short interval would elapse before his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must state the views of the Government relative to the taxation of the country, and what questions of taxation they were prepared to entertain; and he thought they would agree with him that it would not be expedient, during that interval, to discuss any specific proposals with respect to particular taxes. On that ground alone he should be prepared to resist the Motion before the House; but even if his hon. Friend's proposal was thought expedient—if it should be the opinion of the House that the best use of the surplus would be to devote it to the repeal of the duty on bricks, he should still object to the expression of that opinion in the terms proposed by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend, seeing the difficulties in the way of placing his proposed limit of 4l. per annum, which would obviously give rise to fraud—for how could it be certain that a man would not add a story to his cottage and make it worth 10l.?—had withdrawn those words; but the test which remained was no better. Who was to define what was the cottage of a poor man, as distinguished from a house? Many would be built under the protection of his hon. Friend's proposition, which would have little claim to the proposed exemption. He could not conceive a more dangerous test could be admitted. Moreover, if the House adopted the principle of drawbacks, they would open the door to fraud. How, when bricks were taken out for building a cottage, could the certainty be obtained that they were not applied to some other purpose? It had been of late years the policy to discourage the principle of drawbacks, but if it were applied at all, there were other classes who would prefer their claims. The gentlemen connected with the shipping interest would have a very strong claim to a drawback on the duty on timber used for the building of ships. Again, with respect to the timber employed in mines, there was a notice on the paper for a drawback upon that article when so used. His only object in mentioning these things was to point out what a large principle the House would admit if they affirmed a proposal of this kind. He must also say that he doubted the policy of encouraging the building of a very low class of houses. The House had already discussed that question on a Motion by the hon. Member for Stroud, and the general expression of opinion was, that while it was for the interests of the poor to improve their dwellings as much as possible, it was not with reference to their interests advisable to encourage the erection of a very low and inferior class of habitation. He contended, however, that even if the House should think that it was desirable to express that these duties ought to be remitted, the mode proposed by his hon. Friend was not the way they should do so. He therefore addressed himself to what his hon. Friend avowed to be his object—the repeal of the duties on bricks and timber, and he should act inconsistently with his official position if he expressed any opinion for or against the remission of those duties. Until the financial statement was made, the Government would reserve their opinion, and say nothing which could lead the public to suppose that they were in favour or against the remission or continuance of any particular tax. He hoped, therefore, the House would excuse him from arguing the expediency of repealing or keeping up this or any other tax until that time. On these grounds he should object to the House coming to any resolution upon the general question of remitting the duties upon timber and bricks before his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his financial statement; whilst, with regard to this particular proposal, he held it to be quite inexpedient upon its own merits.

admired the wisdom of any Minister of the Crown who abstained from expressing an opinion upon a question like the present before the financial statement of the Government had been made: but the conduct which it might be proper for a Minister to pursue under such circumstances might by no means be wise in an independent Member of Parliament; for he well knew that as soon as the financial statement was made. Ministers could say "the case is now made up, and we cannot reopen the question." It was on this ground he ventured to offer some observations upon the tax on bricks. Notwithstanding certain speeches which had been made elsewhere, he did not believe that a majority of that House had any intention of doing injustice to the labouring classes. At the same time he was sure injustice was done to the labouring classes owing to the House not being aware of the way in which this tax operated. The hon. Gentleman opposite informed the House a few nights ago, that he would make his Motion, for repealing the duties upon timber and bricks, a national question. He (Mr. Drummond) confessed he had never heard a great national question, which this was to be, built upon so narrow a foundation. For his own part, whilst he advocated not merely a remission or drawback, but a total relief to the manufacture of bricks from the interference of the Excise, he admitted that the relief would only be partial, and that it would be confined to certain parts of the country. Where stone was plentiful, the tax on brick was not severely felt; but where stone was scarce, or difficult to be obtained, there was a natural anxiety among those who were building cottages for the occupation of the poor that bricks should be obtained for that purpose as low as possible. Many hon. Gentlemen had no idea how the tax on bricks worked in other ways. Gentlemen in the country were anxious to build cottages for the poor. They could not erect them for less than 100l. each. But if a tradesman could get hold of a piece of land he built cottages very little larger than those which cost the country gentleman 100l. each, which he let for 10l. a year, and the occupier made his rent by letting off each room to a whole family. The consequence was, that whilst one party was endeavouring to provide one cottage for one family, the other was perpetuating the evils of overcrowding. The abolition of the brick tax would enable proprietors to remedy this evil to some extent; and there was another way, too, in which it would afford immense relief. It was his certain conviction that a great change in the occupation of land must take place. It was impossible, he knew, that farmers could continue to occupy so much land as they did now. They would be obliged to give up one half, and employ all their capital in cultivating the remaining half. There must, therefore, he a great increase in the number of farm buildings. In those parts of the country where there were no building materials, naturally the expense of bricks was far greater than the Government seemed to suppose. The tax, it was said, increased the cost of bricks one-fourth, but the real and practical effect of it was to increase the price two-thirds. The benefit of a remission might be said to be small. Certainly in many parts of the country it would be as nothing; but there were other districts where it would be very great; and he was happy to find that those who approved of a remission were not met with sneers about "ulterior measures," and that in voting for a repeal of the duty on bricks they were not taken to be voting for overturning the Government. The fact was, they were voting for that which they believed would essentially promote the interests of the poor; and there they left the matter to stand upon its own merits. He should oppose the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath for a repeal of the window tax, upon the ground, that before you could have windows you must have a house. On the same principle he should oppose the remission of every tax except those which pressed directly upon the poorest classes; but he would not have it thrown in his teeth that, a so doing, he wanted either to embarrass or to get rid of the Government; for he held, as he had said over and over again, that if they wanted money, they ought to raise it by taxing property.

could not help assuring the House that it was perfectly useless to attempt to improve the condition of the poorer classes by education, unless at the same time attention was given to the means of improving their habitations. In Norfolk and Suffolk the state of the houses occupied by the agricultural labourers was, really and truly, one great cause of the evils under which they suffered; for he could undertake to prove the existence of cases of whole families, comprising in some instances eighteen or twenty individuals, living in no more than two rooms. Under such circumstances classification of the sexes was impossible; and as a magistrate he could bear testimony to the evils of indiscriminate admixture. A repeal of the duty on bricks would, to a certain ex- tent, remove one of these evils by encouraging the erection of cottages; and he would press upon the consideration of the House the duty of thus placing the working classes in a position where their morals and comfort could be promoted. The labours of the clergy, and other ministers of religion, however zealous, could not be productive of any great benefit so long as their flocks were in a position, by the nature of their dwellings, unfavourable to comfort and morality. He therefore, entertained a strong conviction that it was the duty of the House to alleviate the condition of the poor in respect of their dwellings by all practical means.

approved of the views of the hon. Member for Montrose, but regretted that he should have taken an opportunity of introducing the subject, hardly calculated to do justice to the importance of the cause he had undertaken. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman should have adopted so limited and partial a view, because the question now before the House was not the whole that the working classes had a right to expect during the present Session. No question bore so strongly upon the moral and social well-being of the industrious classes as those connected with the materials for erecting their dwellings. For this reason he again regretted that the hon. Gentleman should have confined his attention to that which did not meet the case, whilst the evasions which might be the result, as pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade showed how dangerous it was to deal with such a question partially. He hoped, then, that the hon. Member would not think that those who opposed the present Motion would not vote with him in the ulterior measures which he might expect to carry.

concurred with the view taken by the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone, because justice could not be done by the Motion. Still if it were pressed to a division, he should support it. He had risen, however, principally in consequence of some remarks from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade from which he must dissent. The right hon. Gentleman considered it the duty of Members not to bring forward any question affecting taxation until after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his financial statement. This was expected to be on the 15th March. But suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to bring it forward then from ill health, it must be deferred till after Easter, and, in the meantime, every Member having a Motion affecting a remission of taxation, must withdraw it. If the budget was not brought forward till the end of April or beginning of May, the Government would immediately take every night in the week except one, and on that night there was always a crowd of subjects from independent Members, so that it would be almost impossible to get a Motion on. The practical result was that the Government had entirely their own way upon the subject. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had a surplus, he fixed the items of taxation which should be removed or lessened, and his opinions were law. With regard to the Motion itself he did not apprehend any practical difficulty would be found in its operation. At various times and for various reasons there had been drawbacks upon timber; and, at the present moment, there was a drawback allowed upon all timber used in the construction of churches. For many years there had also been a drawback upon timber used in mines and collieries. He was not aware that the system of drawbacks in those cases gave rise to any fraud. He should give his hearty assent to the Motion.

agreed with the noble Member for Tyrone, that it would not be prudent at present to press this Motion to a division, and, looking at the state of the House, he did not think that any vote at present given would indicate the general sense of that branch of the Legislature. Not long since the hon. Member for Montrose had asked him if the present proposition would be a good agricultural Motion, and he admitted that it might be; and as the hon. Member inquired if he thought that Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House would support such a Motion, he replied that they might; and as the hon. Member for Montrose was now about to build some cottages himself, he thought such a Motion would be paving the way to make it a good speculation. As to the value of the cottages, the bricks of which he would exempt from duty, he did not see how that could be satisfactorily ascertained; and, further, he wished to know what was the definition of a cottage—how many rooms must it contain? With respect to drawbacks, the principle was not new, and he thought that the whole matter might, at a future time, be brought forward in a more general way.

supported the Motion, and hoped the time would speedily arrive when duties would be taken off all articles which entered into the consumption and occupation of the people. He contended that the removal of the brick duty would conduce to employment, and the expansion of trade and commerce.

replied: He said, he had obtained his wish—that of ascertaining the feeling of the House upon this most important question. The House had ox-pressed itself decidedly in favour of the entire repeal of the brick duty, and he should hereafter move its total repeal, in lieu of the present half measure, and expected that he should then be successful in conferring a still more general benefit on all classes of the people.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for promoting extramural interments. As this title did not disclose the nature of his proposal, he had thought it right to communicate with the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade upon the subject, and would now explain to the House that what was to be proposed in this Bill was, that, under certain limitations, railway companies should be allowed to establish cemeteries; that having called their shareholders together, and got their sanction to it as a commercial speculation, they should be at liberty to buy waste land at a distance from London; and, if the Railway Commissioners, after hearing parties likely to be affected by it, gave leave, that they should open cemeteries there, not expending more than a certain sum upon the project. He could not see how it would be possible to take all the inhabitants of this metropolis to one national cemetery down the river; and if each of the London railway companies saw it to be a good speculation, it would be convenient to all parties that there should be five or six cemeteries. The railway companies would have the advantage of the remuneration from the conveyance of persons to the funerals. He hoped the House would not be alarmed at the violation of the abstract principle, that such companies should keep to their own business, but would allow the Bill to be brought in and considered.

said, he did not very clearly see the principle of the proposed measure of the hon. Member. It appeared, however, as far as he could gather the purport of it, that railway companies were, under certain circumstances, to become also cemetery companies. As, however, the report of the Board of Health Commissioners had only just been printed, and was scarcely yet in the hands of hon. Members, he thought the hon. Gentleman would hardly venture to legislate on a question of so much difficulty and importance as that of extramural interments before the report in question should have been some time before them. The hon. Member would have the opportunity, at a future period, of submitting his views to the House on this question; but he (Sir G. Grey) thought they were not yet in a position to adopt any suggestion on the subject without first having had time to consider the recommendations of the Board of Health respecting it.

would remind the House that Parliament last year devolved upon the Board of Health the duty of preparing a scheme in relation to this subject. That scheme had now been prepared, and on the next day, or Thursday, a sufficient number of copies would be ready for Members. It was the result of much and anxious inquiry, and surely it would be very undesirable to proceed with any Bill upon the subject before Members had had an opportunity of considering that scheme.

merely wished to bring in this Bill, in order that it might be seen and considered side by side with the report of the Board of Health. He believed that the House would find, upon consideration, that without such a measure as he proposed, they would never be able to carry out any compulsory Act for preventing interments in cities and towns.

said, the hon. Gentleman proposed by this Bill to make available railway communication, by which means cemeteries might be established ten or fifteen miles from London; and he was surprised that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State should oppose the Bill. The report of the Board of Health could not interfere with it. In that report, they proposed to have a large public cemetery on the banks of the Thames, which was a revival of the project of Mr. Chadwick.

said, it was always an ungracious task to oppose any hon. Member laying his plans before the House, particularly when that hon. Gentleman had devoted great trouble to it. He was aware that the hon. Gentleman had taken great trouble with this Bill, and he had done him the honour to inform him of the contents of it; but what he had informed him certainly led him (Mr. Labouchere) to think that the Bill ought not to be introduced. He believed that the House had laid down a useful rule, that where there was no chance of carrying a Bill, it was better to refuse to allow it to be brought in than to allow it to go to the second reading.

had listened with some anxiety to know why the Bill should not be allowed to go to the second reading. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman, there was no provision for the compulsory taking of land; it was merely permissive. He did not see any use in waiting for the report of the Board of Health, as they knew perfectly well what the report said.

suggested that a private Bill should be brought in for each railway, when the House could see what property was required to be taken. Another point to be considered was, that the Sanitary Commissioners had a plan in preparation which would shortly be laid before the House. Under these circumstances, he should recommend the withdrawal of the Motion.

brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice. He said, in making this Motion, he had no intention to cast any slur upon the Board of Trade, but some alarm was felt in certain quarters in consequence of new and very extraordinary powers having been assumed by the Board of Trade with respect to the mercantile marine, and a desire was therefore felt to know who it was who really constituted the Board of Trade, and what were the functions of the board.

said, that if he objected to the return now moved for, it was not because he had the least desire to refuse information respecting the constitution and functions of the Board of Trade, but because there were no Parliamentary grounds made out for the production of this return, and because, if agreed to, it might form an inconvenient precedent. The functions of the Board of Trade had been very fully described by Mr. J. Lefevre in his evidence before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, and the information sought by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartmouth was, therefore, rather to be sought for there than furnished to the House in the shape of a return. At the same time, he would admit to the hon. Member that it was not the practice of the Board of Trade to transact business ordinarily as a board, following in this respect the practice of the Board of Control and the Poor Law Board. A great deal was done on the single responsibility of the President, and for ordinary purposes it consisted of the President and Vice-President of the Board; but on great and important questions the advice and assistance of the leading Ministers and other Members of the Government were called in.

thought that the explanation just given by the right hon. Gentleman precluded the necessity for the return being made.