said, he now begged to introduce a Clause of which he had given notice. He contended that it was never intended by the Legislature that the Poor Law Board should have con- tinuous existence, and that, now the Act was in full operation, and uniformity was established, there was no necessity for continuing a Board which entailed on the country an annual expense of 250,000l. If the existence of the Board was considered necessary at all, it should be for one year only, in order that Parliament might have the opportunity of fully considering the matter next year, which, in the present state of the Session and the public business, it could not do. In all the large parishes like those of the metropolis the Parochial Board were fully competent to manage the whole business of the poor relief without any interference from the Commissioners; and though the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trollope) had thought it right to describe the members of the Parochial Boards as illiterate and ignorant tradesmen, he (Sir De L. Evans), having had the honour of acting with those bodies, had not the vanity to suppose himself superior in any respect to those gentlemen of whom they were composed. The question raised by his clause was as to the right of the Parochial Boards to appoint their own officers, and whether the anomalous powers claimed by the Poor Law Board, of interfering with that right, should be allowed? For more than a century the parochial officers in the metropolitan parishes had been appointed annually by the vestries at Easter, and until lately the Poor Law Board had made no attempt to interfere with that which was understood to be the established law; but now, because the Poor Law Act gave the Board the power to issue regulations, they held it to be within their duty to make such regulations as should entirely annul the powers of the local Boards. It had been said that the ratepayers did not take the same interest in the matter as the vestries; but in the large parish of St. Pancras a meeting of 2,000 ratepayers had passed resolutions asserting the right of the parishioners. There was something anomalous in the powers given to the Poor Law Board. They had no power to appoint officers, but they had the power to retain or to dismiss them after they had been appointed by the Board of Guardians, and also to make regulations regarding their appointment, which in effect annulled the powers which the Poor Law Guardians now possessed of appointing their own officers. Although the Board did not claim the right of appointing, but when, as in the case of the master of St. Pancras Workhouse, they interfered to prevent the dismissal of an officer charged with grave offences, they effectually prevented the free exercise of the legitimate power of the vestries. If the Boards of Guardians were liable to error, the Poor Law Board was not free from mismanagement. It was notorious that the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners in regard to the Andover case was so unsatisfactory that it led to a total change of the constitution of the Board. He looked upon the present attempt to continue the powers of the Poor Law Board as part of that objectionable system of centralisation which of late years had been the policy of almost every Government.

said, he should content himself with opposing the clause on the ground of its being extremely inconvenient to enter into a discussion upon the subject at this period of the Session. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have a seat in the next Parliament, he or any other hon. Gentleman might move for a Committee of Inquiry, or take any other appropriate course with the view of remedying any improper exercise of the powers of the Poor Law Commissioners. At the fag-end of the Session the subject raised could not be satisfactorily dealt with. The hon. and gallant Member had stated that the Poor Law Board cost the country 250,000l. a year: that statement was a considerable exaggeration. The whole Estimate did not amount to more than 221,361l. a year; and the whole amount paid to the Poor Law Board of England was 33,604l. The other items of the Estimate were for Ireland and Scotland, and for various charges incident to the management of the poor. With regard to the charge of the hon. and gallant Member, that he (Sir J. Trollope) had on a former occasion aspersed the members of the metropolitan vestries, and had spoken of them as a body of illiterate tradesmen, he utterly and entirely denied having done any such thing, it was true he had read a letter which was addressed to the Board, in which dissatisfaction was expressed at the manner in which those vestries were composed, but he himself had not given any opinion whatever on the subject. The very principle of a Poor Law Board was to secure uniformity in the administration of the law, and that could not be effected if Hoards of Guardians had the power to dismiss their officers without the sanction of the Poor Law-Board. There was no desire on the part of that Board to interfere with the Guardians in the election of their officers; but it would he a great evil if these officers should he made elective every year, or on the change of every Hoard of Guardians. It would be the means of converting those officers into the obsequious tools of each successive Board of Guardians, and would be a great prejudice to the public service. Upon every ground, therefore, he must resist the clause. If the clause were adopted, it would destroy uniformity of practice, and the independence of the officers by whom the law was to be carried into execution.

said, he should support the clause, and he would beg to observe what a strange state of things it would be, where the Board of Guardians had thought fit to discharge one of their own officers, with whom they were in the habit of having daily and hourly communication, for the Poor Law Board to step in and say, "No. you shall not dismiss that officer; you shall continue to tolerate him and communicate with him every day!" Such a system could not possibly last. It would be impossible for things to proceed at all if the Poor Law Board were to exercise such an authority. Therefore the parochial bodies ought to have not only the power of appointment but also that of dismissal. It was never the original intention of the law to allow of any interference by the Poor Law Board with parishes governed by local Acts. He (Lord D. Stuart) considered that he was called upon, after what had passed, to defend the management of the poor of the parish of Marylebone, and also the autho- rities of that parish, in respect to the unwarranted attacks which had been made against them by the right hon. Baronet. [Sir J. TROLLOPE: I only read a letter.] Did not the reading of that letter amount to an adoption of its contents? It was stated in that letter that owing to the manner in which the Board of Guardians were elected, all sensible and reflective men were overborne and put down. But was that the fact? The brother of Mr. Grote was a member of the Board of Guardians; the brother of an hon. and gallant Member of that House also belonged to the Board; as did the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Bell). Were not these men capable of managing the parochial affairs without the control of the right hon. Baronet and the briefless barristers of Somerset House? It was said that the opposition to this interference of the Poor Law Board emanated exclusively from the parochial authorities, and that the great bulk of the inhabitants were not averse to it. But that assertion was contradicted by the fact that a meeting was held last week in St. Pancras, consisting of 2,000 ratepayers, who, with one single exception, were unanimous in their determination to resist what they considered an encroachment by the Poor Law Board, and to do everything in their power to maintain the local rights of the parish. Before he concluded he should like to say one word in favour of the poor themselves. In the first place, he considered that the Unions were too large, and it subjected the sick and the aged to great suffering, and sometimes to the loss of life itself in seeking relief at the workhouse. The subject had been mooted before in Parliament—

It does not require an Act of Parliament to lessen the size of the Unions.

thought that arrangements might be made that would ameliorate the evils that now existed. Then as to the forms of giving medical relief, they were unnecessarily cumbrous. If a poor woman obtained an order for the medical man to attend one of her children, and when he came she said to him, "I have another sick child, will you attend to her?" the answer was, "I cannot, without an order from the proper authority." This was a most unnecessary proceeding, and ought to be altered. Then, again, as to the confinement of the aged in the workhouses. According to the present system, the workhouses were converted into so many prisons. Why, when a man had given all the labour he could to society, and had become old, decrepit, worn out, and not worth a shilling, why increase the misery of that man by turning the workhouse, to which he had been at last obliged to go, into a prison? Had he not done as good service to the country by his labour as those who had fought their battles in the Army and in the Navy? and yet what a different system was pursued towards the pensioners at Chelsea and at Greenwich! He hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend would press his Amendment to a division, in order that the country might see who were for the ancient parochial constitution of the country, and who were not; who were those who, whilst on the Opposition side of the House, had supported those rights, had now, that they had passed over to the Ministerial benches, entirely abandoned them.

said, he thought it unnecessary for him to attempt to answer all the points which had been urged by the noble Lord; and he would therefore pass on to what he conceived would be the practical operation of the Proviso proposed. It must be evident to any hon. Member who was present during the debate on the second reading of this Bill, that the question now raised, though apparently differing in terms, was substantially the same as that then disposed of by the House by a majority amounting to nearly three to one. The Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) might appear to be more limited than that of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord D. Stuart); but the object was indentical. The proposal of the noble Lord in opposing the second reading was to exempt from the jurisdiction of the Poor Law Board every parish in England in which the affairs of the poor were now managed under a local Act; and the design of the hon. and gallant Member, by his Amendment, was indirectly to neutralise the decision which was then come to by the House, to confirm and perpetuate that authority, by withdrawing the only means by which it could be effectually maintained. It must be apparent to the House that it would be a mere delusion to continue to the Poor Law Board a nominal power to issue orders and regulations for the proper administration of the poor, and of the funds for their relief, if at the same time they were to be divested of all control over the officers by whom their orders were to be executed; the real question at issue was, should the power hitherto confided to the Poor Law Board, to exercise a prudent and a salutary supervision over the administration of the poor in places under local Acts, be continued as it had been for the last eighteen years, or should it be abolished? It was no narrow or unimportant issue which was raised by this Amendment. If carried, it would effectually annul and render void the authority of the Poor Law Board in upwards of 350parishcs in England, which were now under local Acts. It would affect not alone the parishioners of Marylebone and of Westminster, but 2,000,000 of the inhabitants of England and Wales, and withdraw from its accustomed control no less than 800,000l. per annum, or nearly one-eighth of the rates collected throughout the Kingdom for the maintenance of the poor. This sweeping and momentous change came not from those 350 parishes, nor from those 2,000,000 of the population, but from a few of the metropolitan parishes of London, and from three other places—Chester, Chichester, and Alver-stoke—which alone had petitioned the House in its favour; in all, but six petitions. Looking to the Reports of the Commissioners of Poor Law Inquiry, which formed the basis of legislation in 1834, and bearing in mind at the same time the object of uniformity, which was the leading purpose of that legislation to establish, it must be obvious that that object would have been more effectually retained by a general repeal of every existing local Act, and the inclusion of every parish in England under one large and comprehensive system for the assessment of rates, and the humane and economical management of the poor. But so tenacious was the Legislature of venturing on a measure so summary, such was the axiety to consult the feelings, and even the prejudices, of these localities, that, leaving the local Acts unrepealed, Parliament was contented to invest the Poor Law Commissioners with a power of supervision and direction, confiding the actual administration of the law to the local directors, in whoso hands it was resolved to continue it. Such an arrangement was no doubt irregular and exceptional. It defeated, pro tanto, the original object of extended uniformity, and it exhibited the anomaly of contiguous parishes differing in no essential particular in their internal condition and circumstances, yet administered under different Acts and by officers with different functions and titles. But the retention of this anomaly was in itself a concession to popular feeling, and in that spirit of conciliation the law had since been administered by the Poor Law Commissioners and their successors, the Poor Law Board, with such public contentment and satisfaction, as was attested by the absence of petitions and complaints. He by no means wished it to be inferred from this that the interference of the Board in places over which the locally constituted authorities had been left in the exercise of their own powers, had not occasionally been disputed, and attended with more or less of irritation on the part of those to be controlled. The very discussion now in progress was evidence to the contrary; and, in fact, to intimate this would be to imply that in parishes under local Acts the administration was so perfect as to exhibit none of those irregularities which were only to be kept in abeyance by perpetual vigilance, even in Unions constituted under the Poor Law Amendment Act itself. The records of Parliament were demonstrative of directly the reverse; and the Reports from time to time laid before the House, showed that mismanagement and abuses were as liable to occur in places under local Acts as in Unions administered under the uniform system of the Board. But these records attested at the same time that the authority vested in the Poor Law Board, for the control of that mismanagement, and for the correction of those abuses, had been exercised with such discretion as to insure the general concurrence of the public, and, when appealed to, the confirmation of the Courts of Law. If a parish was to be left for the administration of the poor solely to the unaided operation of its own local Pour Law Act, it must be presumed, first, that that Act was itself a perfect code, including every necessary provision for every possible emergency connected with its object; and, secondly, we must be satisfied that the local Act so to be perpetuated was the best of its kind that the Legislature could provide; at least, better in all particulars than the Poor Law Amendment Act, of the benefit of which the locality was to be deprived. On both points he would beg to direct their attention to a passage in the Ninth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission, which struck him as so conclusive as to dispose of the question of transferring these places to exclusive local management. The Report said, that to argue in favour of such a project was

—"to assume that the constitution of the Board of Guardians in a parish under a local Act is of itself a sufficient guarantee against all abuses of Poor Law administration. But if any such constitution could have been found, the Legislature would probably have selected it, and made it universal. The very circumstance of the constitution of a Board of Guardians being confined to a single parish, and not being thought worthy of imitation, raises a presumption against its goodness. On the other hand, the constitution of a Board of Guardians under the Poor Law Amendment Act was deliberately preferred by the Legislature to any of the constitutions under local Acts, from all which it differs, and it could only have been so preferred because it was considered to be better. It may, therefore, he presumed to afford greater security against abuses than any one of the various constitutions under local Acts. Moreover, if any one of the constitutions under local Acts afforded that security, they could not all afford it, inasmuch as hardly any two of them are alike, and, in general, they differ as much from one another as they do from the Poor Law Amendment Act itself."

Now that was a fair argument against the efficiency and quality of those local Acts, even so far as their limited provisions extended. With regard to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, although the powers possessed by the Poor Law Board over the officers employed under local Acts were numerous, yet the hon. and gallant Member sought only to deprive them of one, leaving the others undisturbed; but the removal of that one was not without design, as the withdrawal of the power to dismiss would effectually neutralise all the rest, though left apparently intact. To the Poor Law Board it was of importance that it should continue to be invested with this power for the enforcement of its orders. Were the authority of the Board to be practically weakened by the ascertained wishes of the local guardians in opposition to them, the result would be that the pressure of pauperism would speedily break down every precaution of prudence, and sweep away the whole resources of the ratepayers. But to the Guardians themselves the continuance of this power in the hands of the Poor Law Board was a matter of no slight importance. It not unfrequently occurred that an order issued by the Poor Law Board might be highly approved of by the local Guardians, although opposed to the popular feeling of the ratepayers and the public. Its execution, under such circumstances, was always a matter to them of embarrassment and difficulty—a difficulty which at once was surmounted by an appeal to the fact that executive officers in such a case were under the direct control of the Poor Law Board, and bound to execute their orders irrespective of any local interference. A still more frequent and not less important case was that in which the Guardians themselves, although duly sensible of the incompetence or demerits of an officer, might still shrink from his dismissal, in opposition to political or other influences which might be exerted in his behalf. Here, again, the interposition of the Board was at once a protection to the ratepayers, and a relief to the local embarrassment of the Guardians. The best security which the poor and the ratepayers now had for obtaining the service of men of ability and integrity as local officers, was derived from the certainty which these men felt as to the permanence of their employment, and the assurance which they had that good conduct would lead to promotion and reward. Even now, with every prudent precaution for the protection of such men, they were exposed to perpetual attacks and frivolous charges. The Poor Law Board within the last few years had had to resist numerous attempts made by Boards of Guardians to reduce the salaries of their officers below a proper amount for their subsistence. But this protection of the officers in the enjoyment of a just remuneration for their labour, would be obviously incompatible with a power to be vested in the Guardians of dispensing arbitrarily with their services in the event of opposition or disappointment. It must be borne in mind that one-half the salaries of schoolmasters and medical officers to Unions was now defrayed from the Consolidated Fund, and that consequently the public possessed an effectual check upon the selection and retention of competent persons, through the responsibility of the Poor Law Board, who must account to Parliament for its proceedings in relation to such officers; and his opinion was that the safest and most beneficial depositary of the power of dismissal was the hands to which it was now intrusted. The Poor Law Board had exercised the power of control of which it was thus sought to deprive them, for nearly eighteen years. During that period they had had under their authority continually upwards of 14,000 paid officers engaged in the administration of the Poor Law, of whom 1,000 had been attached to places governed under local Acts of Parliament. During the entire of that period but twelve persons out of that number of 1,000 had been removed from their employment, and in no case did the removal take place in opposition to the wishes of the local Guardians; and in every instance such dismissals had been ordered on the ground of fraud or peculation, of incompetence, or of proved neglect—of cruelty, or oppression of the poor. Under these circumstances, it was difficult to discover a reasonable ground for the impatience of this exercise of authority as exhibited by the Guardians of the metropolitan parishes, from whom alone the present proposition proceeded. He (Sir E. Tennent) believed that in all the long period he had alluded to, since 1834, but one officer in any metropolitan parish bad been dismissed by the Board, and that took place with the entire concurrence of the local Guardians; and, so far from the power being objected to by the numerous Unions throughout the length and breadth of the Kingdom, applications were constantly made to the Poor Law Board to exercise its authority in the case of delinquent officers, with the full knowledge that dismissal must follow as the result of inquiry and the substantiation of the charge, Without, therefore, attempting to conjecture a motive for a Motion which, by itself, appeared unaccountable, he would content himself with inviting the House to resist it as unjust towards the officers whom it would affect, unwise as regarded the Guardians themselves, and totally inconsistent with the exercise of those powers which the House had already decided to continue in the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners who were responsible to Parliament for their application.

said, the only question was whether the Poor Law Act should be allowed to work well in the metropolitan parishes, as it had hitherto done, or whether it should be prevented by such interference as that which at present existed. The hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Tennent) said that the salaries of the officers with whom they wished to interfere were partly paid out of the Consolidated Fund; but he could assure him that the officers of the discontented parishes did not receive a shilling from that source. What be wanted was that they who had the power of appointing officers should, if they misbehaved, have the power of dismissing them, for unless that wore so great, insubordination must be the result. He hoped the Poor Law Board would not exercise the power of interference in the metropolitan parishes. The clause in question had always remained in abeyance until the question had been raised in St. Pancras, and it had been productive of suits at law and litigation. He hoped the Government would allow his hon. and gallant Friend to insert the clause.

said, he thought it very imprudent on the part of the hon. Member (Sir E. Tennent) to challenge those Members who represented parishes that were under local Acts by saying the present opposition only emanated from the metropolitan parishes. The truth was that a great majority of parishes in the country were equally opposed to the interference of the Poor Law Board, but they left the question to the metropolitan parishes, because of their having more experience on the subject. With regard to a parish in Gosport which was under a local Act, it had been favourably reported of by Lord Courtenay, and the people there were at a loss to know why the Board should interfere, unless it were to give employment to their own establishment; for, in consequence of the present peaceable and prosperous state of the country, the Poor Law Board had hardly sufficient for one half of their staff. But why was the Bill to be continued for two years instead of one? He was aware that some persons proposed to continue it for five years. But Government only asked for two. What was their reason? Their reason obviously was, that they wished to leave to their successors the difficulties attending the question, for they well knew that their opponents would be in office before the expiration of two years, and then they would have thrown upon them all the odium and all the burden attending upon the subject of the Poor Laws.

would only say that when charges were made against the parish to which he belonged, he did his best to refute them, and he would now support the clause of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster.

said, that the powers of the Poor Law Board were very limited as regarded Unions, and it was only when now and then they caught an officer who was guilty of maladministration, that they were able to dismiss him; but the main power was in the Guardians. He could not avoid expressing his surprise at the present proceeding in the metropolitan parishes, when it appeared that the aver-ago increase of mortality in the workhouses of those parishes was from about 19½ per cent in 1850 to about 23 per cent in 1851; and in the workhouse of St. Marylebone from about 24¿ per cent in 1850 to about 30 per cent in 1851; and in that of St. Pancras from about 23½ per cent in 1850 to about 26 per cent in 1851. The House ought to hesitate to add to the power of such bodies who had failed in their duty, as was proved by the frightful increase of mortality in the workhouses.

said, that it was notorious that the increased mortality in the metropolitan workhouses spoken of by the noble Lord, arose from the casual poor who were received from the street, and had nothing to do with the working of the Poor Laws with regard to the real poor of the parish.

said, that the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) had made very sweeping charges against the Poor Law Officers of the metropolitan parishes. The noble Lord was always opposed to any measure for the benefit of the metropolis, such as the Burial Bill and the Water Bill, unless they were introduced under the auspices of the Board of Health and Mr. Chad-wick.

said, he would urge on those who had charge of this measure not to continue this system of interference with the metropolitan parishes, which had never occurred during the presidency of the Poor Law Board by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Hull (Mr. Baines).

said, that the litigation with St. Pancras had been found by him in the office when he succeeded the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull, on whom so many encomiums had been passed.

begged to say, that the present subject of litigation with the parish of St. Pancras arose in 1846.

said, he would beg to move the addition of these words:

"Provided, that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to continue during the continuance of the General Board of Health the appointment of the additional member of such Board authorized by the said Act, and the salary of such member fixed as in the said Act mentioned shall be paid as by Section 7 of the Public Health Act, 1848, is directed concerning the salaries therein mentioned,"

begged to ask for an explanation of the Proviso.

said, that it was found necessary to have the signatures of two members of the Board to all documents; and it therefore became necessary to continue the salary of Dr. Southwood Smith, who acted as a second Secretary to the Board of Health. It would be unreasonable to expect him to discharge the duties required of him without remuneration.

said, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works to a provision of the Bill now about to be repealed, namely, that inspectors should be appointed to prevent persons keeping dead bodies in their Houses beyond a certain time. He saw no such provision in this Bill. He hoped a similar provision would be introduced.

said, the principle of the present Bill was permissive, and not compulsory; it was therefore im-impossible to enforce the removal of bodies, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. But power was given to erect reception houses for the bodies of the poor, and to appoint persons to superintend the removal of those bodies.

said, they were about to pass an Act in haste to repeal an Act which had been passed after great deliberation. The Government was now in the possession of a large piece of ground which was available for a burial ground, and which would enable the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) to shut up immediately 100 places of burial in this metropolis and its vicinity. By availing themselves of this for a temporary purpose, passing a temporary Act, if necessary, to give the requisite powers, they might reserve the main question of metropolitan interments until the next Session of Parliament.

said, he would beg to remind the Committee that the question immediately before them was whether the salary of Dr. Southwood Smith (for it was to his salary that the clause alluded) should be continued or not. That gentleman was appointed under the Metropolitan Interments Act of 1850. That Act was to be repealed by the clause then under consideration; why therefore, he asked, should Dr. Southwood Smith have his salary continued when he would have no further duties to discharge?

said, that Dr. Southwood Smith was originally appointed under the Act of 1848.

said, he must beg leave to correct the noble Lord: Dr. South-wood Smith was first appointed under the Act of 1850.

But Dr. Southwood Smith was acting under the Board previously to that period, and as it has been found in practice convenient to require that two members of the Board should be present, and should sign all documents issued by the Board, and as Dr. Southwood Smith was one of the members of the Board whose signature was generally required, it was but fair that he should be remunerated for his trouble. If Parliament should be pleased to determine that the act of one member of the Board should be sufficient, then the objection of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) would be fair. It was a fact that he, as President of the Board, could seldom attend to take part in its proceedings.

said, there was considerable inconvenience in the constitution of the Board itself. Although he, when President of the Board, was responsible to Parliament for the proceedings of that Board, yet when he attended the Board and made a proposal, it was seldom he could get a seconder, for Mr. Chadwick and Dr. Southwood Smith, forming the majority of the Board, carried the question against him. He had told the Government that it was impossible to go on in that way. He thought it would he far better if some Lord of the Treasury were to assist Mr. Chadwick, so that the Government might have some possibility of controlling the Board, and preventing the inconvenience and delay of business which now repeatedly occurred.

said, his impression was, that Dr. Southwood Smith first acted under the Nuisance Removal Act; and, if he were not mistaken, it was the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) who first proposed that some medical gentleman should be appointed to the Board of Health. He agreed in that proposition, and that it was proper some medical man should be connected with a Board having to deal with questions of a medical or a quasi medical character.

said, according to a return he had himself moved for, Dr. Southwood had received 1,200l. for his services under the Interments Act of 1850. That Act was to be repealed. The functions of Dr. Southwood Smith would therefore cease; why, then, should he continue to receive 1,200l. a year? All that Dr. Southwood Smith had done for the Board of Health was to go to Paris and to assist in writing 10,000 letters. But the Board of Health having proved a dead failure, was about to be repealed, he hoped the Doctor would follow the Board.

said, he must repeat, that as long as two members of the Board were necessary to the transaction of the business of the Board, they must be paid. He agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) that the constitution of the Board required revision, and the whole question must come under revision within the next two years. All he now asked for was a temporary arrangement during that period, in order that injustice might not be done to Dr. Southwood Smith.

said, that from the manner in which the noble Lord had explained the matter, he considered it was not worth while to divide the Committee on the subject.

moved, that instead of the words "after a time mentioned," the words "after one year of making the order" should be inserted, thus enabling proprietors of existing burial grounds to provide themselves with new ones after the issue of the closing order.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

said, by the clause it would be compulsory on the parties to close the burial grounds, but it would be optional with them to open new burial grounds; now suppose they should refuse or delay opening new burial grounds, what was to happen in that case?

said, he must admit that he had already foreseen this difficulty, and thought that it ought to he equally compulsory on the parties to provide a new burial ground as well as to close the one directed by the Secretary of State; but this was but a temporary measure, founded upon a permissive principle—therefore, in the first instance, perhaps, it might be better to leave the parties to act permissively.

said, he must object to so long a period. Everybody knew the serious dangers arising from burial grounds during the hot summer months. He thought it would be desirable not to precipitate the matter, but to pass a temporary Act, calling into employment as burial grounds the 150 acres or more that were stated to be unoccupied immediately around the metropolis, and to defer the subject for future consideration.

said, he begged to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General if he would state the reasons which induced him to accept the sum of 2,000l. in satisfaction of a sum of upwards of 7,000l. due to the Brentwood school and charity from the estate of the late head master. The affairs of Brentwood school bad been in Chancery for the last twenty-five years, and had been recently placed by the Master in Chancery under a master and two wardens. During the process of the Chancery suit the rent of the school had been received by the late head master the Rev. Mr. Tower; and at the time of his death he owed the charity a sum of not less than 7,000l. About two years ago the late Attorney General offered to take the sum of 2,000l. in commutation of the debt; but the representatives of the late head master would then only offer 500l. A prosecution was instituted, and 2,000l was finally agreed to. He wished to know whether a proper inquiry had been made as to whether the estate of the late head master would not have yielded more?

said, he entertained very considerable doubt whether he ought properly to answer the question, because this was a case in which a Chancery suit had been instituted, which was still pending; but inasmuch as his discretion had been impeached by the question of the hon. Member for Colchester, he should be very reluctant indeed to shelter himself under any circumstance of that kind, and he would endeavour to explain the nature of the case as clearly as possible. The hon. Gentleman had omitted a very important circumstance in the consideration of the question. There were in Brentwood two charities—one a school, and the other almshouses. Mr. Christopher Tower was the patron of both school and almshouses, and his right to the patronage had been decided by the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. Christopher Tower appointed his brother, the Rev. William Tower, head master of the school. The school fund proper was not sufficient to support an efficient school; but there was a considerable surplus in the almhouses, and the Rev. Mr. Tower appropriated to his own use the surplus revenues of the almhouses, that course being justified by Statutes which were made in 1622, and also by the practice of his predecessors. A bill was filed against him, and in 1833 there was a decree, not for an account but for a scheme for the administration of the revenues of the charities. No receiver was appointed at that time, and Mr. Tower continued to receive the surplus revenues of the charity as he had been in the habit of doing till 1847, when he died. Probate was taken out of his will, and the property was sworn under 7,000l. A supplemental bill was then filed against the new master, and in 1849 the Master of the Rolls decreed an account against Mrs. Tower; but he stated that it was a case of great hardship, and he strongly recommended the Attorney General to deal leniently with her. The Attorney General of the day, in November, 1849, agreed to let off Mrs. Tower for the sum of 2,000l.; but the grand object which the Attorney General had in view was to secure the consent of the patron to apply the surplus of the revenues of the almshouses to making the school more efficient; and the only hold which he had upon the patron was this account which had been received against Mrs. Tower. Ultimately Mr. Christopher Tower, on the understanding that the account would not be pressed against Mrs. Tower, agreed to a scheme by which the surplus of the almshouses is to be applied to the upholding an efficient school at Brentwood. The present master and wardens had nothing to do with this arrangement, and they opposed it in every possible way. They were entirely in error in supposing that there was only one charity, and that the question was only whether the estate of the Rev. William Tower was sufficient to pay the amount due from him. Acting entirely in the liberal spirit which was recommended by the late Master of the Rolls, he had consented to take this 2,000l., at the same time imposing on Mrs. Tower a liability to which she was not subject un- der the former arrangement, that of paying her own costs. At the same time, if that arrangement was not a proper one, it could he renewed by the Master.

said. he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the case of Mr. Murray, now lying under sentence of death at Ancona, and he wished to ask the noble Lord if the Government had received any intelligence from Rome which led them to suppose their efforts in his behalf would meet with any success? The petition of the English inhabitants of Rome, praying for the remission of Mr. Murray's sentence, admitted his guilt, or at least threw no doubt upon it; but he was induced to call the attention of the Government to that question because he had received letters from Italy from persons who stated their entire belief in his innocence.

said, that Mr. Murray was still confined at Ancona, but that there was now every reason to hope that his life would be spared. With regard to the question of his guilt or innocence, that was one on which he could not give any positive reply at this moment. He could only say that both Sir Henry Bulwer at Florence, and Mr. Moore at Ancona, were using their utmost exertions to obtain such information on the real facts of the case as might enable them, and through them might enable the Government, to form a well-grounded opinion whether Mr. Murray were guilty or no. At present neither they nor the Government were in possession of sufficient information to enable them to decide that point.

said, the next question he had to put was, whether the Government had taken, or would take, any measures to obtain the proceedings on Mr. Murray's trial, so as to enable the public to judge of his guilt or innocence?

said, he must remind the noble Lord that he was now putting a question of which he had given no previous notice whatever. The noble Lord had given notice that he intended to ask what information the Government had received respecting Mr. Murray's probable fate. To that question he had replied; and he could now only repeat that Government were taking every means in their power to get at the real facts of the case. Further than that he could not say.

said, it was always with great reluctance that he trenched upon the privileges of independent Members but he now put it to the House whether they would allow the Government to proceed to-morrow afternoon as well as in the morning with the Government measures. On looking at the subjects which were to be brought before the attention of the House to-morrow by hon. Members, he perceived that, though they were all of an interesting, they were not of a very urgent character. The hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) was to move for a Select Committee upon the Police Force of England and Scotland; then, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson) was to call the attention of the House to the position of the Sugar Trade; and another notice stood in the name of the same hon. Member with respect to the trade of Scinde. Now, these were not matters of a very urgent character. Although the Government were arranging the business with a view to the consummation of that which was of all things wished for, there were certain unavoidable accidents, like that of to-night, for instance, and that of last Monday, which raised debates tending to interrupt the course of business, but the importance of which no one could question. The Motions to which he alluded, however, were not, he must say, of that nature; and he put to the House, therefore, whether the Government might not take the whole of Tuesday for Government business?

said, he had a Motion upon the paper for to-morrow, but, being very anxious for the consummation alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, he should give it up.

said, his observations in moving for a Committee would only take five minutes, but if it was the wish of the House, he would not occupy their time.

said, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr.J. Wilson) was not present, but the hon. Member would, he was quite sure, agree, under the circumstances, to withdraw his Motion.

in order to facilitate the progress of public business, wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. He found on the Notice Paper that evening a Dill called the Irish Valuation Bill, and no less than sixty-nine amendments were to he proposed. Now, this was a Bill to set aside all previous valuations in Ireland, and to introduce a new system; and, seeing that very few Irish Members were in town, he thought the present was no time to bring it forward. He (Mr. V. Scully) had abstained from putting any of his amendments at all upon the paper; but if the Bill was proceeded with, he should feel it his duty to propose some amendments and to make some short observations. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to persevere with that Bill, the discussion of which, he was sure, would delay for two days the termination of the Session?

said, that after the menacing observations of the hon. Gentleman he should certainly pause, and if he had reason to believe that the sixty-nine amendments would be pressed, and that two additional days would be thereby lost, he should not press the Bill. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Hardcastle) had a Motion on the paper for to-morrow night on the subject of Church Rates, and he should like to have his opinion as to its postponement.

said, the hon. Member was not present, but he (Mr. Bright) should certainly urge him not to proceed with his Motion.

said: It has been usual, when the votes before the House in Committee of Supply are taken, for the Government to give explanations with respect to the Vote for Education; and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) has more than once called on the Government to explain to the House what has been the progress of education, and the nature of the Votes connected with education. My right hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Sir G. Grey), when he held the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department, made that statement to the House; and last year, during his absence in consequence of indisposition, I stated to the House the sum required, the application intended to be made of it, and the general progress of education during the year. I understand that in the present year the Vote has been taken without any par- ticular explanation having been given; and this circumstance is the more remarkable as a Minute has been issued relative to many very considerable and important alterations on the subject of what are called the management clauses. When I took the opportunity, a few days ago, of calling the attention of the House to the alteration made in those clauses, the Minute had not then been placed upon the table of the House, and I stated that I thought it would have been better, considering the importance of this subject, if the Government had taken further time to deliberate, and had not, after such deliberation, proposed till next year any change. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer then stated that there was no intention on the part of the Government to act otherwise than according to the ordinary course on such occasions; he quoted several precedents to show that Minutes had been agreed upon which were not laid immediately upon the table of the House; and he declared that nothing at all unfair or dishonourable was intended towards the House. Now, Sir, I am quite willing to leave that part of the question as it stands; I don't wish to revive that part of it. The right hon. Gentleman stated what I have said, that I accept his declaration that he did not intend to act with any degree of concealment towards this House in preparing the Minute upon the subject of this change. But, Sir, the subject is of so much importance that I think it is desirable the attention of the House should be turned to it before the Session ends. In calling the attention of the House to it, it is necessary that I should refer for some time both to the general proceedings which have taken place upon this subject of Votes for Education, and likewise to the particular subject of the management clauses, with regard to which the alteration has been made. The House will recollect that after some 20,000l. or 30,000l. had been voted for several years, from 1832 to 1839, for the purpose of aiding education by giving assistance to the National and the British and Foreign School Societies, it was proposed in 1839 to make the members of the Privy Council a Committee who should undertake the application of any grants which should be made by Parliament, and should divide those grants, under the superintendence and supervision of Parliament, in such a manner as might tend to promote the education of the people generally. The proposal, when made, excited a good deal of jealousy and hostility, both throughout the country and in Parliament, and the present Prime Minister brought forward the subject in this House, not supporting those who then formed the Government, but imputing to them every kind of dishonourable motive for introducing that change with regard to education. The Motion which he proposed, altogether refusing any power to the Crown to appoint a Committee of Council on Education, was rejected only by a majority of five, and the vote afterwards proposed by the Government was carried only by a majority of two. However, the matter was placed in the hands of the Committee of Council, presided over by the Marquess of Lansdowne, and I have the satisfaction of stating that, notwithstanding the jealousy and hostility which were raised to the measure, and notwithstanding the obloquy to which the Government of that day were subjected, not only then but for several years afterwards, as to their propositions, that hostility and that jealousy have been greatly allayed, and by general consent great improvements have been made in popular education in consequence of the appointment of that Committee of Council. That result is, in a great degree, to be attributed to the judgment, to the temper, the discretion, the resolution, and the forbearance which were shown by the Marquess of Lansdowne in all his acts and in all his correspondence with respect to this important subject. He took it up with great zeal, with great determination to further the object contemplated, but at the same time he listened most attentively to all the objections which might be made by the various parties interested, both by the Established Church, by those who represented the British and Foreign School Society, and by various other bodies representing those who dissent from the Established Church. After a very long series of conferences with the late Archbishop of Canterbury, arrangements were made (of which I am not able to state the exact date), by which inspectors should be appointed, and by which those inspectors should visit the schools in connexion with the National Society. In 1831 Sir Robert Peel succeeded to office, and immediately—although he was one of those who had felt the objections to the original appointment most strongly—yet, seeing by its means the progress of education was in a fair train to be success- ful, he reappointed the Committee of Council on Education, and placed at the head of it the late Lord Wharncliffe. I am sure I can say that no person who has filled the place of the Marquess of Lansdowne did so with greater ability, with greater judgment, or with a greater spirit of fairness to all parties, than did Lord Wharncliffe. Accordingly, the British and Foreign School Society received grants on terms not dissimilar to those which were already settled for the Church of England, and the progress generally made in education throughout the country was still satisfactory. In 1846 other Minutes of the Council were agreed to, by which the plan of education was, as I believe, greatly improved—by which certain gratuities were to be given to the teachers, by which pensions were to be allowed for deserving schoolmasters disabled by age or infirmity from pursuing their avocations, and by which the most meritorious of the scholars might become pupil teachers, and supply in a more beneficial way than had hitherto been the case the place of the monitors employed to assist the schoolmasters. In 1847 the Marquess of Lansdowne, in a Minute issued in the beginning of the month of February, stated the arrangements which had been made, and called the attention of the House most pointedly to that subject. Like the change made in 1839, however, very great opposition was made to the change which was carried out at that time. That opposition was made, however, principally by the upholders of the system of voluntary education, but it was overcome in this House, and since that time I may say that the progress of education has been undeniable, and even those by whom objections were then raised, have acknowledged that very great advantages have accrued by the course adopted. With respect to the money grants, they have advanced from 20,000l. a year to 150,000l. a year during that period; and with respect to the arrangements made, I think the Church of England have had no grievance to complain of as to their share in these grants, for 78 per cent of the sum voted was granted to schools in immediate connexion with the National Society, or with the Church of England. Arrangements for inspection were made in such a manner that no inspectors should be appointed to Church schools without the consent of the archbishop, and the inspector might he removed upon the decision of the archbishop of the province. Arrange- ments were also made that the reports of these inspectors should he sent to the bishop of the diocese, and there were likewise arrangements that if on any subject relating to religion there was a difference between the committee that should be appointed to manage the school and the rector or curate, or the clergyman who had the general superintendence of religious education, that that question should he referred to the decision of the bishop, and that the bishop's decision should be final. I think, therefore, that the Church of England has no reason to complain of the arrangement which has been made. On the other hand, it was very satisfactory to find that there was not, on the part of the Dissenting bodies, any complaint that the Church of England had this very large proportion of 78 per cent of the grant. But, while it was allowed that the inspectors of Church schools should be appointed only with the consent of the archbishop, and while every security was taken that the religious instruction in those schools should be under the direction of the minister of the church, and of the bishop of the diocese, those who in the Committee of Council deliberated on this subject made with respect to one question a condition which they considered essential to the working of the system. A question had arisen at the time when Lord Wharncliffe was President of the Council in various cases with respect to local committees of management. It had been found, according to the former system, when a grant was distributed by the Treasury, that, after the money had been spent, the arrangements were frequently put an end to, and the school discontinued, and so the whole cost incurred was incurred for no purpose. It was suggested by the Committee of Council that permanent arrangements should be made by which the committee of management should be permanently established. This committee was to be duly formed according to the population of the place in which the school is situated—in some places it was to consist of a certain number of laymen, in others of a less number, and in some, where it was impossible to find a committee of laymen sufficient to fulfil the duties, the management was left in the hands of the clergyman of the parish. But it was decided that there should he no absolute power in the hands of the clergyman of the parish; and Mr., now Sir Kay Shuttleworth, in one of his letters, says—

"On these grounds, their Lordships must finally declare that they cannot consent to permit the permanent constitution of the school, in so important a matter as the establishment of an appeal to the bishop of the diocese in matters not relating to religious instruction, to be determined by the local subscribers to schools, to the establishment and support of which it is now provided that the State should so largely contribute."

That was the decision made by the Committee of Privy Council. I do not wish to enter now into any discussion with respect to the wisdom of that decision, but it certainly appeared to us to be founded on fair and impartial principles. There has been, however, from that time a great desire on the part of a certain portion of the clergy to overturn that part of the arrangement, and to obtain complete power over the secular instruction of the schools. That this portion of the clergy was not a very large one, appears, I think, from a statement which was produced, I believe, in consequence of a Motion made by a right hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite, the President of the Board of Trade. By this document it appears that there had been, I think, about 370 schools which had applied for grants in connexion with the National Society, where the grant had not been finally made, and I think upwards of eighty in connexion with the Church of England Schools, and out of the 370 there were but eight to which the grant had been refused, on the ground that they objected to the management clauses; and with regard to the Church of England schools not connected with the National Society, there were but two to which the objection was made. It was obvious, therefore, that it was not a very large proportion of the Church which asked for this power to be given into the hands of the clergy. At the same time, although it was not a very numerous body, the activity shown by them on this subject was exceedingly great. At one time it was recommended by this party that there should be an agreement between the schoolmaster and the clergyman that upon receiving notice from the clergyman the schoolmaster should, in the course of a week from the period of notice, give up his situation. That would, of course, have placed the whole management in the hands of the clergy; but that course was not, I believe, finally recommended by the National Society itself. At other times various clergymen have proposed alterations in the clauses of management, to some of which there certainly was no conclusive objection, but they were at variance with the general arrangements made with respect to the management of the schools. In this condition the matter remained. Archdeacon Denison had, I believe, proposed some alterations at the meeting of the National Society, but his proposal, whatever it might be, was rejected, and the Committee of Council and the National Society remained on the same amicable terms as before. Well, Sir, things were in this condition, much good having been effected, and agreements having been made with the various bodies who were conducting education in this country, and who each had separate reasons of distrust, or a wish to carry particular measures of their own; but all these difficulties had been generally overcome when the noble Lord at present at the head of the Government came into office. I own it appears to me that it would have been wise, considering the difficulties there would be in the first introduction of this alteration—considering that, altogether, both the Established Church and the various Dissenting bodies seemed to be satisfied with what had been done—it appears to me that it would have been wise, inasmuch as the Ministry did not profess to bring forward any but measures of urgency, to have left this question so far untouched as only to carry on the ordinary business, to entertain the applications made by the different schools, and not to have altered the general rules. However, such was not the view taken by the present Government. They appointed a Committee of Education of the Privy Council, who were, I suppose, composed of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. I do not know that there has been any formal document stating the names of that Committee. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The names were published in the London Gazette.] They were, I suppose, published in the London Gazette, but the Government have not in any document laid before this House given the names of the Committee of Education. But without finding fault with those appointments, and without precisely recollecting who were the members of that Committee, it appears that they came to a very important resolution on the 12th of June. I have stated that up to the present moment, if there is any difference between the local committee conducting the school and the clergyman with respect to religious instruction, there is then an appeal to the bishop of the diocese, and that he has the sole power of determining and deciding that difference, and, if necessary, the schoolmaster must yield to that decision, and abandon his situation. But, if there is a difference between the clergyman and the committee upon any other subject than religion, then in that case it was provided, after a great deal of communication and correspondence with the parties, that the Lord President of the Council should name one of the inspectors of schools, that the bishop of the diocese should name a clergyman, and that, if the two should not agree, then that a magistrate of the county should be chosen by them—[Sir JAMES GRAHAM: Who must be a layman]—and that by these three the question should be decided. Now, seeing that the Lord President was restricted in his choice to an inspector of the Church of England schools, and that those inspectors were in almost every case clergymen, and must be first approved of by the archbishop—that the bishop, in his turn, named a clergyman, and that thus two out of three arbitrators were clergymen of the Established Church, it appeared to us that there was no ground for apprehension that cases of this kind would be decided with any unfair bias as against the Church by the clergymen appointed. But it appeared to the present Committee of Education that this was not security enough, and they have inserted a clause which enable teachers to be dismissed on other grounds. It was said in a former Minute that in the event of any difference respecting the "dismissal of any teacher on account of his or her defective or unsound instruction of the children in religion," an appeal should lie to the bishop, whose decision should be final. But the Committee of Education, in the altered Minute, have inserted the words, "or on other moral or religious grounds." Now, it is quite clear that this alteration places the schoolmaster in entire dependence upon the bishop. There can be no doubt as to that, because it depends upon the view which the clergyman takes of what may be "moral grounds," whether he may think proper to continue the schoolmaster in the charge of the school. It is impossible not. to see that these words include every possible objection that can he taken against a schoolmaster. It will be impossible for the schoolmaster to satisfy the clergyman who may wish to remove him. There arc different parties in the Church whose views are exceedingly different with respect to the moral conduct of the schoolmaster. One clergyman may object that he is too lax, and that he gives too much recreation to his children, while another may think that he is too puritanical and strict. There is no ground of objection that can be taken to a schoolmaster that may not be said to be a moral ground, and therefore the schoolmaster must at once, under this alteration in the Minute, feel himself dependent on the clergyman. I have before stated in this House that it is in my opinion most reasonable that the status of the schoolmaster should be raised, that he should have a competent salary, and that his social rank as an instructor of youth should be recognised and elevated in the view of this House and of the country. Now, the consequence of this altered Minute is to degrade and lower the condition of every schoolmaster; and I was not surprised that some gentlemen called upon me this morning to represent the effect of this Minute. They said there had been a meeting of Masters of Charity Schools, that it was not attended by many, for that not more than thirty teachers in these schools had been collected; but that they had no doubt, if a meeting had been advertised, there would have been a large meeting of schoolmasters of Church of England schools, because they all felt that their situation was changed, and that any opinion on the part of the clergyman to his disadvantage would at once deprive the schoolmaster of his situation, and that he would no longer have the opportunity of earning his bread and maintaining his position. There is, it is true, an appeal to the bishop; but there could be no doubt that the bishop would not, in the majority of cases, go through the particulars of the complaint, but that he would be disposed to take it as he heard it from the clergyman, and that in nineteen cases out of every twenty he would decide the complaint in accordance with the previous judgment of the clergyman. That is the first objection I have to this Minute. The next objection is, that its effect is evidently to weaken the influence of the lay members of the local committee. It appears to me to be of the utmost importance to have a body of lay members to manage these schools, and that you should induce them to take a part in their management, to watch the conduct of the schoolmaster, and to promote the well-being of the school. I am fully aware how much attention the parochial clergy- men have devoted to these schools, and that they have, both by giving their money and their time to an inquiry as to the best mode of education in their respective parishes, very much facilitated the cause of education. Yet I think it will be much better for the clergyman himself that the lay members of the school committee should likewise take a very great interest in the school. But if they can be told by the clergyman that upon "moral grounds" the schoolmaster in whom they have confidence, whose conduct of his school they approve of, is to be dismissed, this cannot fail to diminish their motives to exertion, and seriously to weaken their zeal, and the lay members will, in consequence, be disposed to leave the school altogether in the hands of the clergyman. I think, with regard to the clergyman himself, it is of no small importance that the laity of the Church should co-operate with him in works of this kind. Sir, the Church of England has its elements of strength, and it has also its elements of danger. I am of opinion that its elements of strength are very much greater than its elements of danger. Its elements of strength are, when it carries with it the co-operation, the confidence, and the affection of the lay members of the Church; and its element of danger is, the being separated from the laity of the Church, seeking other means of gaining power and authority, and not resting its power and influence upon that general concurrence of sentiment on the part of the laity that has hitherto proved its best strength. The effect of the alteration in the Minute is, in my opinion, to diminish the strength and increase the danger of the Church. Its effect is to diminish the natural disposition of the clergy and the laity to act together, and to induce the clergyman, by the mere exercise of his authority and will, to direct the education of the people of this country. I think this alteration in the Minute very objectionable on these grounds. But I do not think it will be very pernicious for some time to come. I have heard it said that in six or seven years, by the force of this Minute, the laity will be excluded entirely from the management of these schools. I doubt whether so great an effect will be produced. But it is a beginning on the part of a Government which has newly come to power—which owns itself not strong as regards the present Parliament, who acknowledged that their position die- tated this Session measures which were humble and useful, but who have begun with a measure of education which has neither humility, utility, nor advantage for its characteristic. But if this is the case now, what will the Government do when they have greater confidence and greater power—if the people of this country should give them greater power to proceed further to an alteration of the Minutes of the Privy Council? Why, Sir, the consequence would be nothing less than this, that a series of Minutes will be introduced totally destroying the system of popular education as it now exists, placing it upon another basis, and thereby endangering the whole system of education as it has been approved of by Parliament and by the country. Having been the person who recommended this system to Parliament, and who in office watched the greater part of its operations, I cannot but express my apprehension at this beginning of changes commenced by the Government in the shape of an alteration of the Minutes of the Council of Education. And, Sir, let me, before I conclude my observations, place before the House what has been the consequence of this step. As I have said, there was no danger to be apprehended, no inconvenience, if the Government had gone on listening to particular applications, but had not during the present year changed the general rules by which these grants were to be applied. But no sooner was it announced, and announced from a most important quarter—announced by the voice of Archdeacon Denison at the National Society—that the Government had given way on this subject, and that the society would have to yield to a greater authority, namely, the authority of the Government, in this particular—no sooner was that stated, and stated by Archbishop Denison, I must say on full and sufficient grounds, than a general alarm took place amongst all who had been the society's supporters. It was stated by some that the Charter of the I National Education Society had been altered; that it did not at present give the subscribers powers enough in the election of its functionaries and its Committee; that the Committee was unfairly constituted, and that there must be some alteration in its elements; that an appeal must be made to the Crown not to issue the Queen's Letter, and that, if it were issued, those who distrusted the present operations of the society must refrain from contributing to its funds. I do not desire to say whether these parties were right, I only say that this distrust and dissension and division, if it were not caused, was aggravated by the appearance of this Minute. It is said on the other hand, in the first place, that after all it is hut an alternative to the local school committees to choose in what form their own subscriptions shall be given, and under what management they wish their schools to be conducted. If so, there would be great force in such an argument; but that is not precisely the case. Take the case of the promoters of a school who, with the assistance of the public funds, intend to maintain it. By means of this permanent trust-deed, or deed of settlement, they have the power I have described as being given by this Minute, and that permanent trust-deed will affect all subscribers to the school hereafter. It may happen that, in the course of five or ten years, the great body of the subscribers to the school may not wish this management clause to be enforced. But this trust becomes a permanent trust, and the subscribers to the school in all time hereafter have no power to alter it. It is not a ease where the local subscribers have year after year the power to alter the arrangements, but the promoters of the school at the present moment will have the power of deciding in what manner the school in all future time shall be carried on. Another observation has also been made. It has boon said that the late Government, with regard to the Roman Catholic schools, made a similar provision. But with regard to that Minute upon the Roman Catholic schools, what was conceded to the founders of these schools was, that the bishop and priests of the Roman Catholic Church should conduct the religious instruction of these schools, and decide for themselves what it should be. That is a difference between the Roman Catholic schools and those of the Established Church. But the principles of the Roman Catholic Church are very different from those of the Established Church of these realms. Into the nature of the constitution of the Roman Catholic Church I will not now enter; but the Established Church consists, not of the clergy alone, but of the clergy and laity. Now, this is the point which I think it most desirable to keep in view, and which I think the people of this country will keep in view. So long as the Church exists they will think that the Church of England consists of the clergy and laity, and that with regard to all these questions of education the clergy and the laity together should decide. I have now, Sir, stated my views, hut this is not a question as between one party and another in this House. I believe that many hon. Members who sit upon the opposite benches think with me with regard to the principles which I now support. I believe they think with me, that the strength of the Church of England docs consist in its having the support of the laity as well as of the clergy, and in securing the general affection of the people. But if that is the case, I say that the Government of this country ought to be most careful in making any alteration in the mode in which these grants have been distributed, or in suffering the impression to go forth that hereafter the schoolmaster in all Church of England schools is to depend upon the will of the minister of the parish and the bishop, without any interference on the part of the laity. I understand that the Earl of Derby has given an assurance that the grants shall not be distributed according to this altered Minute until some fresh grant from Parliament shall be made. That, so far, is a security for the present. I hope that in the interval the matter will he considered by the Government and by the people of this country, and that they will see how important it is not to disturb a system which has been working harmoniously, and which is working great good, and that they will rather maintain those principles than seek to overturn them.

Sir, this question is of so much importance that, notwithstanding the close of the Session, and notwithstanding the amount of business that has weighed down hon. Members during the last three weeks, I am glad the noble Lord the Member for the City of London has brought it forward, and given us the opportunity of removing those illusions which have prevailed respecting this Minute. Some of those illusions have even prevailed in the noble Lord's own mind; for I do not think the noble Lord has fully understood the nature and effect of the alterations which have been made. One thing, however, is now clear, and that is, that the noble Lord no longer finds fault with us for not changing this Minute without previously coming to Parliament and stating that it was to be made before the Vote upon Education was taken. Indeed, the last words of the noble Lord acquit the Government of any intention to apply the grant to any other purpose than that for which it was voted by Parliament, for he quoted the statement of my noble Friend at the head of the Government in another place that it was not his intention to apply any portion of the grant under this altered Minute until it was brought under the consideration of Parliament. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) draws attention to the change that has been made in the management clauses, or rather, I should say—for there is a fallacy in the expression—to a relaxation which in particular circumstances is hereafter to be allowed. Before I follow the noble Lord in considering this change in the management clauses, the House will allow me to go back to a more distant period, because the noble Lord has done so himself, and, by going back to that period, I think it will be clear that we are merely restoring the arrangement which Parliament sanctioned, which was always intended, and which, up to 1846, I think the Church, with the approbation of Parliament, had heretofore enjoyed. For several years, that is from 1836 the grant for education was 20,000l., and it was divided among the British and Foreign Schools, as the representatives of the Dissenters, and the National Schools, as the representatives of the Church of England. But this sum was given without any interference or control, except as to the audit of accounts and the number of schools, until 1839. At that time, however, many material alterations were suggested by the Government of which the noble Lord was a most conspicuous Member; one of which made a great stir and storm in Parliament and in the country, since it was ascertained that the Government intended to put the managers of these schools under the control, not of the voluntary societies, but of a Committee of the Privy Council. The storm was so great, that the intention of the Government was soon afterwards abandoned, and actually given up by the noble Lord himself. In consequence thereof an arrangement was made, or an understanding was come to between the Committee of Privy Council and the Church, and that arrangement or understanding was satisfactory to both. In using the word "Church," I, like the noble Lord, intend to include the laity as well as the clergy. But I must, in passing, express my surprise at hearing the noble Lord's declaration, that the Church of England was composed of clergy and laity, while the Church of Rome consisted of clergy alone.

I said I would not enter into the question of the constitution of the Church of Rome.

Then, notwithstanding the noble Lord's former observations, I presume we both agree, that as a matter of fact the English and Roman Churches, or any other Christian Churches, consist of laity as well as clergy. Well, then, the intentions of the Government having made this stir and storm in the Church to which I have adverted, an understanding was come to with the Committee of Privy Council and the then existing Government, that the Church of England schools should be subject to no further control than was necessary for the inspection and examination of the schools in relation to the application of the money granted by Parliament. In the Minutes of Council, and in the correspondence which subsequently took place, it was distinctly stated that no control should be exercised over the internal management or internal discipline of the schools. Thus matters continued from 1840 until 1846; that is to say, as long as the Conservative Government remained in power; and no complaint was urged against the manner in which the funds were applied during the whole of that period. During the whole of that period, too, the promoters of schools had the fullest and freest liberty of action to constitute schools in the way they thought proper. When, however, the noble Lord's Government came into power, in 1846, an entire change was effected. And how was this change brought about? Not openly—not by announcing it to Parliament. The change was intimated in private letters, and the persons thus addressed were told that this most important change had been unostentatiously effected. The change was no other than the introduction of the "management clauses," as they are called; and the adoption of these clauses was urged, nominally by way of recommendation or suggestion, but, in point of fact, they were imposed as an obligation on members of the Church; for the promoters of Church of England schools were plainly told that if they did not accept the clauses they should not obtain a shilling of the Parliamentary grant. Now, the members of the Church justly complained of this proceeding. The National Society, in all their correspondence with the Government, urged that they ought to have the selection of one out of the four clauses, or, at all events, that they were entitled to perfect freedom of action in the constitution of their schools. This is what was denied them by the clauses, contrary, I say, to the understanding come to in 1840, and if we have now restored it to them by this Minute, we have done only an act of justice, which will contribute, not, as the noble Lord supposes, to increase the differences prevailing in the Church, but to restore harmony. I have gone through the history of the management clauses for the purpose of enabling the House to understand the nature of the change, or, more correctly speaking, the relaxation now made in them by the present Government. The noble Lord objects to this relaxation on three grounds. First, because he alleges it degrades every schoolmaster; secondly, because it weakens the power of lay members of the Church; and, thirdly, because it separates the clergy from the laity in carrying on the work of education. It was the recollection of these extraordinary allegations which induced me to say that the noble Lord himself was under an illusion as to the effect of the relaxation made by the Government. We have not substituted now management clauses binding the promoters of Church schools. What we have done is simply this: We have said that promoters of Church schools shall have the option of adopting the relaxed rule if they choose to do so. That is the sum and substance, the beginning and the end, of that which has been clone. Is there anything unreasonable in this? I am at a loss to conceive on what ground even the noble Lord himself can object to it. The noble Lord, I believe, will never support anything inconsistent with the claim of the subjects of this country to enjoy perfect liberty and freedom of action; and surely in the matter of education, above all others, he will not contend that this liberty or freedom ought to be restrained, unless in the event he finds that the funds granted by Parliament have been applied to purposes detrimental to the public good. What, then, is the principle on which we proceed, the policy we propose, and the advantage we contemplate, in the relaxation we have made? The principle is a plain one. It is simply this—that the promoter of a school shall be at liberty to constitute it as he likes, and, having thus constituted it, shall he entitled to receive a portion of the public money in the same way as other persons, who have precisely the same freedom of action as himself. I agree with the noble Lord that schools which derive aid from the State ought to he under the supervision of the State to this extent—that the public money should not be applied to any purpose but that for which it was intended. If my own opinion were to be consulted with respect to these schools, I should wish the lay element to constitute a great part of the controlling power; but because that is my opinion I must not be so unjust as to deprive another person, who thinks he can constitute a school in a better way, from coming to Parliament and saying, "If you grant money for the purpose of carrying on the great work of education I am entitled to some portion of it, although my opinion as to the best mode of managing these schools may differ from yours." Should you not take this course, you would take away from many persons the inducement which exists to found schools. It is impossible to make all persons agree as to the manner in which schools should be conducted. Some may attach no great importance to the moral character of the teacher, provided they be satisfied that his doctrine was good; while others may, not unnaturally, desire that a teacher's conduct should be in harmony with his teaching. I maintain, then, that unless you destroy the freedom of action which every member of the Church is entitled to in the formation and endowment of schools, you cannot complain of our Minute of Council. Now as to the policy intended to be carried out by the relaxation of the clauses. It is that which, above all other considerations induces me to believe that the relaxation will be eminently beneficial to the country. I firmly believe, that instead of increasing the differences in the Church, it will materially diminish them. Why do I believe this? Ever since 1846 the National Society has been torn by dissensions, principally owing to the restrictions imposed on its members by the management clauses. At the meeting of the society in 1848 resolutions against the Government for still adhering to those clauses were carried by a large majority. In 1849 the same thing occurred. In 1850, I think there was a division in the early part of the year; but in the latter part of it the Marquess of Lansdowne announced in the House of Lords, in answer to the Earl of Harrowby, that he would not object to a Committee to inquire into the subject in the following Session. It was in consequence of this announcement that in the year 1851 there first began to be a cessation of agitation, because then, for the first time, the members of the Church, who had long been deprived of participation in the Parliamentary grant, thought it likely that justice would at length be done to them. Mark what happened this year—and in this you will find the reason for the Minute of Council having been issued on the 12th of June. The National Society met, and, for the first time for several years, it separated in perfect harmony. [A cry of "No!"] Well, it separated in considerable, if not in perfect harmony. Archdeacon Denison, representing one portion of the society, and a rev. Gentleman representing the other, united in cordial congratulations to each other on the manner in which the proceedings of the meeting had terminated. If this be so, it is very desirable indeed, as an act of policy, that you should give all the members of the Church the power of endowing their own schools in their own way, according to their own constitution; and it will be an act of gross injustice if you deny any portion of the public grant to such parties, merely because they take views, on some points, different from yours. The Minute of Council will promote peace, for the management clauses have been the watchword for dissension, their retention in a stringent form being hailed as a triumph by one party, and condemned as an injustice by another. I am of opinion with the noble Lord that the Church of England has her elements of weakness as well as of strength. Her weakness has unfortunately appeared too much of late years when "heavy blows and great discouragement" have been inflicted on her by the Government of the day. But the elements of strength will still remain to her as long as her members agree together to allow each other perfect freedom of action to manage the schools they formed in their own way, without any interference on the part of the Government further than that which is necessary to secure the proper distribution of the Government grants. That object will, I believe, be promoted by the Minute as it has been altered. All parties will now find themselves, for the first time, placed on a fair footing of equality, and henceforth we may anticipate that there will be no rivalry among them, except with the desire of excelling in promoting the common cause of education. Believing, therefore, that the relaxation announced by the Minute is wise in itself, that it is founded on principles of just policy, and that it will be attended with most beneficial consequen- ces by closing the differences which have heretofore existed, I feel confident that a greater boon could not have been conferred on the Church and on the country to which it belongs.

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the managers of schools only were to be consulted; but they, on that side, considered that it was not only the interests of the managers and founders, but those of the children and of the laity in general, which ought to be chiefly looked to, in order to see whether the schools would deserve the support of the country at large. By the present alteration the jurisdiction of the bishop would be greatly extended, for he was constituted sole judge on questions of 'great difficulty and of the utmost concern to those whose children were to be educated at the schools. The words "moral misconduct" appeared capable of very wide interpretation, so that any difference with regard to the management of the school, noncompliance with the rites of the Church, or holding particular opinions, though they might not interfere with the instruction given to the children, might be made the pretext of interfering with the management. If the clergyman of a parish, differing with the lay committee, appealed to the bishop, he had the power of immediately suspending the schoolmaster. He thought the alteration in the Minute altogether uncalled for, and considered that the faith of Parliament had been pledged to the maintenance of the clauses as they stood before the alteration. He hoped that the Church of England would continue to live in the affections of the people; but it would not do so by giving greater power to its clergy, but rather by enabling them and the laity to work harmoniously together.

Sir, I entirely agree with what has been said by previous speakers as to the immense importance of the subject of education and everything that belongs to it; and if it were not for the immense importance of that subject, I must confess I should be rather surprised at what I cannot but call the somewhat exaggerated terms in which the magnitude and importance of the question immediately before us have been spoken of. I was certainly surprised, after all I had heard of satisfaction on the one hand, and of alarm on the other, to find that the case is not unlike that with which we are all familiar, of the mountain and the mouse, when we come to compare the considerable fears of one side and the sanguine hopes of another, with the very small results as brought before us in the marginal notes of the paper now in our hands. There is, perhaps, a fault in the construction which I have put upon it, but I feel a difficulty with regard to some parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. It appears to me that it is not possible to maintain the doctrine that unlimited freedom is to be given to the founders of schools as to what is to be taught in those schools. I presume it was not the intention of my right hon. Friend to assert that; but, at any rate, I dissent most distinctly and emphatically from the proposition. But what we have now to ask ourselves is not, whether the assertions made on the one hand are right, or whether we are to anticipate that in future a series of important changes are to be either rashly or surreptitiously introduced into these management clauses, hut whether the changes that have already been introduced are in themselves just and reasonable? Now, considering, as I do, their magnitude to he very secondary, I cannot deny that they appear to me to be far from unreasonable. The changes are two. In the first place, the supervision of the clergyman is to be extended to moral as well as religious grounds; and, in the second, the clergyman is to be endowed with a provisional power of suspension, pending the reference to the bishop in those cases in which reference to the bishop is made. Now the first of these changes includes "moral" as well as religious grounds. On this point the noble Lord the Member for the City of London said anything might be called a moral ground, and he adverted to the religious divisions of the Church as a reason to show that it was dangerous to give clergymen a power over the schoolmaster on moral grounds. Now, if the noble Lord had been against granting the clergyman power on religious grounds, I could very well understand why he said that what one clergyman takes to be religion another takes to be superstition, and that you might have persons dismissed on the ground of being superstitious; but I was not aware that the divisions of the Church extended to moral grounds; and then I think the noble Lord will recollect this when he says that anything may be called a moral ground, that the Minute does not give to clergymen the power to determine what is a moral and what is a religious ground. In the beginning of these controversies this question was raised: "You are going to give the power to dismiss on religious grounds, but who is to decide what is religious and what is not?" That question was answered in this way—that it must rest with the Committee of the Privy Council to lay down the limits within which the term was to apply. That applies to moral questions also, and therefore there is no ground to say that the decision of what is moral and what is not will be with the clergyman; for if grounds are held to be moral that are not moral, the remedy will lie with the Committee of the Privy Council. The discretion hitherto exercised as to the teaching of the schoolmaster, and to his teaching only, you have now extended to the moral conduct of the schoolmaster, and I do not think that an unreasonable extension. And I must say I am a good deal alarmed and apprehensive lest cases may occur where the schoolmaster may be perfectly orthodox and correct on the dry abstract matter of his teaching, and yet his life be in scandalous contradiction to that teaching. That is a possible case, and surely it is one over which the clergymen ought to have control. I entirely concur with the noble Lord in his observation, that nothing is so important as to introduce a great deal of lay agency, both as regards schools and ecclesiastical concerns; but in schools it is particularly necessary. This agency it is not difficult to find in large and populous parishes; but you must remember that you have not only to provide for the case of large parishes, where you may have intelligent men, who are thoroughly versed in all these matters, and well able to control the master, but you have to provide for the case of thousands of small and remote country parishes, where there are perhaps, in addition to the clergyman, not more than three or four men above the class of labourers. You cannot compel them to institute a committee in these cases, though I think it is exceedingly desirable, wherever you can, that a committee should be formed. But under the regulations, as they now stand, you will be able to have a committee constituted where, but for those regulations, you could not have had one, and where the practice is likely to work safely. I really must say, that where numbers are limited and information small, it would not always be safe to leave these matters in the hands of a committee. The standard of morality is very various in those clauses, and therefore it would not be safe to make the dismissal of a schoolmaster on grounds of morality depend on the majority of a committee in such places. As to the temporary power of suspension, I am ready to admit that that is a power that may be abused by a clergyman, and I feel the force of what has been said as to the importance of elevating the character of the schoolmaster by giving security to his position. But when you speak of security to the position and elevation of the character of a schoolmaster, you must do a great deal more than you can possibly effect by the Minute3 of the Privy Council. It appears to me that these Minutes can be regarded as only experimental and provisional. I differ from the hon. Gentleman who last spoke in the idea that the honour of Parliament is pledged to these Minutes. To which of them? Why, there has not been a year in which there has not been some alteration of these Minutes. A very wise and judicious alteration was made by the noble Lord's (Lord J. Russell's) own Government when they introduced Clause D, by way of provision for committees of communicants. I think we are by these Minutes feeling our way gradually to the details of our system; and when what is developed and matured, and tested by experience, shall come before Parliament in all their details and particulars, that will be the time when we may hope to give security to the position and elevation to the character of the schoolmaster. If you wish to have a high class of schoolmasters, these men should not he subject to be dismissed at the dictum of any individual. Therefore, I do not think it is enough to say that the situation of the schoolmaster is not sufficiently secure under these Minutes. I agree with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that they ought to have security, but they cannot have that so long as they are dependent upon the Minutes of the Privy Council, which are alterable from time to time—which are subject to the discretion of other parties—and which cannot lay down everything that is applicable to all schools. Therefore it is not enough to say that by the operation of these Minutes the position of the schoolmaster is not secure. I grant it; but while we are in this experimental state we must look to the subject as a whole—we cannot provide for every possible case that may arise, but we must look to the question whether on the whole the system is productive of satisfactory re- suits. What is the case with regard to the clergy? There may be differences of opinion—some may think that they are too strict and narrow in their views; but there can be no doubt of this, that the clergy are thoroughly in earnest in the work of religious education. The ease has been put of a school being deprived of its schoolmaster. I grant that that may be an objection in the abstract; but I can easily conceive eases where it would be better that the school should be brought to a standstill than that it should be carried on under the teaching of a man of scandalous conduct. But the proper answer to the objection is this, that there is no set of men so anxious to keep the schools open as the clergymen. Therefore, though this may be a good objection on paper, it would be very feeble in practice, because the clergyman is the man in the parish who has the strongest desire to keep the school open. Therefore, I say, I do not see ground for impeaching these Minutes. It might have been unwise on the part of the Government to express dissatisfaction with the existing system—it might have been unwise in them if they had introduced fundamental changes. But I see nothing in these Minutes that can form a ground for fuundamental changes. I see nothing that indicates the animus for fundamental changes. I can only repeat that I fully subscribe to the doctrine, that it is the duty of the State to take care that the funds which it provides for the promotion of education are properly and efficiently expended; and I demur to the doctrine that the founders of these schools have a right to arrange their management as they please, and free from Government control. But, looking at these Minutes, I confess I do not find in them cause for censure. Whatever differences there may be in matters of detail, I hope that the Government, approving of the principle, will carry it out in a steady, reasonable, and moderate manner, and that all questions of detail will be considered in a kind, liberal, and friendly spirit; and I may add my hope, that whatever Ministry may be in possession of power, they will not increase the difficulties with which this question is surrounded, by attaching an exaggerated importance either to these changes or to any others which may from time to time be effected.

said, he did not object to the introduction of the words "moral and religious" into the Minute, though he would admit that they were somewhat vague; and he wished for more information on the subject of the change thus introduced. But what he did object to was the latter part of the Minute, which related to the suspending power. He found that there was a great disposition in clergymen to Acquire more power than the lay members of the Church were inclined to give them; but the effect of this power was actually to hand over the schools to the clergyman, to do what he pleased with them. The clergyman was to be sole judge, and of his own authority could exclude books from the schools, or suspend teachers. What would be the situation of a school if a clergyman objected to the books or to the master? The committee would have no power, and the clergyman might suspend the master, and put an end to the school; and there was no limitation as to the time in which reference should be made to the bishops. What he was afraid of was, that this would tend to alienate the support of the laity. He knew clergymen were very apt to entertain opinions in opposition to those of the laity, and this was a means of giving them a power to maintain what might be erroneous opinions. The present system was going on well. He would admit with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) that the clergy had of late shown a desire to promote education, and that there had been a great improvement in them in that respect in the last twenty-five years. Nevertheless, there should be some check and control over them, and he regretted that there was to be any interference in the system as it now stood. He was sure that it was laying the seeds of discord by giving to any individual, and that a clergyman, the power of construing as he liked the words "moral and religious," and of deciding what books were to be used, and also giving him the power of suspending a master till a reference was made to the bishop, without stating when such a reference was to be made He wished that the Government, who were, no doubt, desirous of promoting education, had allowed matters to go on without raising this difficulty, which had created an alarm which, although he admitted it to be greater than was necessary, was yet sowing the seed which would grow up into serious differences.

begged to say he was—as he was sure they all were—in favour of extending as far as possible the blessings of education; but it appeared to him that all they had at the present moment to deal with was the question of some alterations which had been made with reference to future schools, in the terms of the management clauses. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) said that he should have been better satisfied if the representations on which these alterations were made had been laid before the House; but all that was required of that kind was published in the annual Report of the Committee of Council. When the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said, however, that all had been going on well and harmoniously, he must be permitted to state that, instead of cordiality having existed between the National Society and the Committee of Privy Council, the contrary had been the case, and great differences had existed between them since the year 1847. Much had been said about the introduction of the words, "moral and religious" grounds, and something, also, as to what could be defined as "morality" in a schoolmaster. The Bishop of Oxford, however, had some time ago made a speech, in which he had referred to a case, the circumstances of which, he thought, sufficiently showed in which respect this clause as to "moral" grounds might come into operation. The right rev. Prelate, in referring, among other points, to the appointment of schoolmasters under the present system, mentioned a case which had occurred in his own diocese, and in which a master, after having been charged with misconduct, and proved to have appeared in school in a state of intoxication, and to have made use of blasphemous language, had been continued in the school, because when the case was submitted to the committee of the school, who were farmers in the parish, it was found he had nine children, and that if he was removed the expense of their maintenance would fall upon the rates, and they would have to support them. He supposed the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) would admit that that schoolmaster ought to be removed from his situation. The fact was, however, that he could not be removed so long as those farmers dissented; but now the Minute, as amended, would give power for his removal. With reference to the operation of this Minute, it should be recollected that it would not apply to schools that were already formed, but only to future schools. For his own part, he had to thank the Committee of Privy Council for allowing these alterations to be made, because he thought they would have the effect of completely disposing of those jealousies which had shown themselves in the National Society—a body which might, he considered, be taken to represent the Church of England, and in which the management clauses had, as he had shown, been much opposed. The alterations would, in his opinion—and he was only sorry they were not to come sooner into operation—lead to the establishment of a great number of admirable schools, and assist the clergy in forming them, whilst he felt certain they would tend to allay the discord that had prevailed for some time on this subject.

said, it certainly was not his wish to see such a schoolmaster as the hon. Gentleman had referred to kept in his situation, but his object was to have the present tribunal retained.

said, he must expressed his unfeigned satisfaction at the temperate time which had marked the present discussion; if the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) needed a justification for bringing this subject before the House, it was afforded by the speeches of the right hon. Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), both of whom had acknowledged the importance of the introduction of the few words in question into the Minute of Committee of the Privy Council. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), with a frankness which did him credit, admitted that the introduction of those words extended the power of the clergyman from religious to moral matters, and that change he (Mr. Smith) agreed with the noble Lord in thinking not only injudicious in the present state of the Church, but one that might be apprehended to produce those effects in reference to the lay members of school committees which the noble Lord had described. The right hon. Home Secretary declared that he expected these changes would produce harmony between the two dissenting or differing bodies in the Church of England; but he (Mr. Smith) was a dissentient in reference to those changes, because he believed that very different results would be produced by them; because he believed they would introduce heartburnings and feelings far from consistent with that harmony which the right hon. Secretary of State anticipated from them. He was surprised, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should have omitted to notice the cause which had induced the Government, so late in the Session and under such peculiar circumstances, to make these alterations, without application for them from any body of clerymen, and in opposition to a memorial numerously signed by laymen and clergymen, for the maintenance of the management clauses in their integrity. The right hon. Secretary of State had also omitted to inform the House that at the annual meeting of the National Society last year a very large majority deliberately expressed an opinion in favour of the maintenance of the management clauses. He (Mr. Smith) had heard with the greatest pain and apprehension the noble Lord at the head of the Government announce elsewhere that he intended to place the education of the people of this country in the hands of the ministers of the Established Church. He was himself a member of that Church from conviction and affection, but he believed no step more injurious to the Church itself could be taken; and, feeling that these changes in the Minute constituted the first step in the direction of that policy, he took the earliest opportunity of protesting against them, because he believed the consequence would be to weaken the real power of the clergy, and widely to extend the seeds of dissension, jealousy, and ill-will. He had already-stated that a very strong feeling had been expressed in favour of the maintainance of the management clauses, for though there had been dissension between the Committee of the Privy Council and the Committee of the National Society on the subject, the National Society itself, by a large majority, had declared their approbation of the management clauses. The great body of the members of the National Society had expressed their approbation of the Minutes as they stood in a Memorial which, for the character and number of its signatures, had never been exceeded. That Memorial was signed by 609 laymen, and 1,892 clergymen, among whom were 4 deans, 11 archdeacons, 32 prebendaries, 29 rural deans, and 1,392 beneficed clergymen. Among those signatures also there were 183 clergymen who had schools built in their parishes, in conformity with the management clauses, since January, 1847, and 296 incumbents who had schools with pupil teachers, and receiving Government aid in their parishes. On these grounds he thought there was no reason for saying that the clauses as they stood were unacceptable to the National Society, and he greatly feared that the alterations which had been introduced would tend rather to excite them to allay discord. He deeply regretted—for he assumed the circumstance stated by a venerable archdeacon must be accurate—that these changes in the Minute had been submitted to him and had received his approval, before they were submitted to that House or made known to the other members of the National Society.

said, he objected to the Minute as vague, uncertain, and unintelligible with regard to the powers it gave to the clergy. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had said that he could understood how uncertainty might have attached to the meaning of the word "religious;" he (Mr. Scrope) thought that term less dubious and more easily defined than "moral." But it was not merely this uncertainty and want of definiteness that he found fault with; a still stronger objection was, the offensive character of the alteration, which went altogether upon the assumption that the laity were not competent to determine upon the moral character of the schoolmaster—whether he was fit to continue in his office or not. For what possible purpose, he asked, could this alteration be made now, on the eve of an election (if, as appeared, it was not to come into operation for twelve months at least), save only to influence the coming elections, and as a sort of trap for those whose votes were likely to be caught by the bait thus offered? He could not understand what other object there could be, and, therefore, must believe their motive to be this.

thought his hon. Friend the Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) had let fall something rather contrary to his general profession when he talked of "ignorant farmers" as refusing to get rid of an unworthy schoolmaster. He did not know whether the place his hon. Friend spoke of, and where "ignorant farmers" abounded, was Somersetshire or not.

had not spoken of Somersetshire. He had quoted the Bishop of Oxford.

would call the attention of the House, however, to the fact that this alteration applied to the intelligent committees in large towns, where it would be admitted a hardship, even though it were not so, in such small places as had been alluded to. The subject generally he considered one of the deepest interest. The question of education—always one of the very first consequence—would very soon come before Parliament in the shape of a proposition that assistance for this purpose should be given by means of rates; and he trusted that one of the first measures to come before the House, whatever Government might after the dissolution be in power, would be some system for the education of the people. And as hitherto, generally, acts compulsory on the whole country had not succeeded, he asked that an endeavour should be made by an enabling Act to empower the several parishes to rate themselves in aid of education. This would operate well; practically, it was even now the case in Upper Canada.

said, the address presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury represented that the priestly power in the Church ought not to be increased, and that if it were, there would be a great secession from the National Society. He considered the alterations in the Minute extremely important and objectionable.

said, he noticed on the business paper a Bill entitled Grand Juries (Metropolitan District) Bill. That Bill had not yet been considered in the House of Lords, and it was a measure of great importance as affecting the administration of criminal justice. He had great doubts with respect to the Bill, and should it come on, he should feel bound to occupy some time in discussing it, but considering the present state of the Session and of the business before the House, perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney General would not press the Bill.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the importance of the Bill in question, and regretted to hear that it might meet with his opposition. In his (the Attorney General's) opinion it would effect a most important improvement in the administration of the law; but at that period of the Session it could hardly pass if any lengthened discussion were to take place upon it, seeing that the Bill had not yet been discussed in the other House. He therefore reluctantly consented to withdraw the measure, intending to take an early opportunity next Session to reintroduce it.

said, that he was not in the House earlier in the evening, when the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had appealed to hon. Members who had Motions on the paper for to-morrow night, to withdraw them, with a view to advance the business of the House. He should be most unwilling to stand in the way of any proposition to advance the business of the House; but, considering the important subject to which his Motion referred, namely, "to call the attention of the House to the position of the British Sugar Colonies, and the Sugar Trade of the United Kingdom," and the vagueness and uncertainty of the intentions of the Government in respect to the commerce and condition of those colonies, he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better that so grave a question should be discussed before Parliament separated? If, therefore, he consented to give way to-morrow, would the right hon. Gentleman consent to grant him an early day for his Motion?

said, he had had representations made to him from hon. Members on both sides, and certainly from as many on the Opposition as on the Ministerial side of the House, that efforts should be made to terminate the business of the House as soon as possible. It was, therefore, for the convenience of the House generally that, under these circumstances, he had made an appeal to hon. Members who had Motions on the paper for to-morrow. There was every prospect of concluding the business of the House by the end of this week, if they proceeded in the manner which he had chalked out. It was, therefore, quite impossible to hold out any hopes to the hon. Gentleman that a day could be fixed for his Motion; but he still trusted that the hon. Member would follow the example of others and withdraw his notice.

said, this clause was intended to meet a recent case with respect to the patent screw steam-vessels, in which a Court of Law had decided foreigners should have no advantage over British subjects. The clause proposed to alter the law laid down by that decision, and would place our shipowners at a disadvantage. He now gave notice that he would on the third reading propose a proviso to confine the exemption to foreign shipping in cases in which the subject of the patent had been first patented abroad.

said, he must admit the importance and great difficulty of the matter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. An international law would be the best way to prevent inconveniences; but in defect of that, if the hon. and learned Member would suggest any mode of protecting our own patentees, without injury to trade and commerce, he would be very glad to adopt it.

said, he believed the whole Bill was full of difficulty, and was much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should have introduced a measure which he had opposed only last Session. The subject of the Bill had not been properly considered. It had been before a Select Committee of the Lords, but it had not been before any Committee of that House.

said, he must deny that he had ever said a word against the principle of patents. He had opposed portions of the Bill of last Session, but they were not in the Bill now before the House, and he could assure the hon. Member every clause before them had been fully and carefully considered.

said, he considered the fees far too high; and when it was remembered that a great portion of inventors were men in humble circumstances, it was clear that a schedule of fees amounting to 149l, 11s. and stamps to the amount of 35l., was most exorbitant. Within the last few years stamps on mortgages and deeds of various other descriptions had been greatly reduced, and it was only reasonable hatt inventors should participate in the improved spirit of legislation. The effect of his amendments would be to give a patent at the expense of 10l. It might be said that the reduction of the Stamp Duties would cause a loss to the revenue, but he did not think the imposition of Stamp Duties in such cases a sound principle of taxation. He proposed to reduce the petition for grant of letters patent from 5l. to 55s,; the notice of intention to proceed, the sealing, and the filing of the specification, from 5l. to 5s. respectively; the fee to be paid at or before the expiration of the third year, from 40l. to 5l.; at or before the expiration of the seventh year, from 80l. to 10l.; and the various other fees in similar proportions. The Stamp Duty on the warrant of the law officer he proposed to reduce from 5l. to 5s.; the certificate on payment of the fee at or before the expiration of the third year, from 10l. to 5s.; and the certificate on payment of the fee at or before the expiration of the seventh year, from 20l. to 5s. The hon. Member concluded by proposing the reduction of the first item.

said, that if the House reduced the expense of a patent to so low a scale, they would have all sorts of worthless things patented. As it was, the country was giving up 25,000l. in stamp duties which they would not receive.

believed the Bill would confer a great advantage on patentees.

said, he wished to move, as an Amendment, to omit the words "And from thence until the end of the then next Session of Parliament," the effect of which omission would be to limit the operation of the measure to the 31st December next. The principle of the Bill had been already affirmed by the House on the first and second readings; and he had on the latter occasion endeavoured to demonstrate its utter inefficiency for the repression of crime, and that its practical operation would be to tax innocent persons and deprive them of the necessary means for protecting themselves and their properties. However, the House had yielded to the pressing representations of the responsible advisers of the Crown, that it was necessary for the protection of life and property in Ireland to continue for the present the extraordinary powers conferred by the Act of December, 1847, which, beyond all doubt, was a most unconstitutional and coercive measure, especially as it embodied the Whiteboy Acts, in a very oppressive form But the present was the first occasion on which the House was to take into its consideration the length of time during which these powers should he continued; and, therefore, he wished to take this, the very earliest, opportunity of urging upon Government the propriety of altering their measure so as to limit its duration until the 31st December next. In the first place, then, the House had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer state, some weeks ago, that Parliament would reassemble for business in October next. The Parliament which had first passed the Act of 11 &c 12 Vict., c. 2, was opened on the 23rd of November, 1847, on which day the measure was recommended by a very remarkable Speech from the Throne, and the Act received the Royal assent, and became law on the 20th of December in that year. Now, if they were to assemble again in October, it followed that there would be ample time before the thirty-first of December, for considering whether the Act should be further continued or not. He conceived that Government must at once see the reasonableness of his proposal, and he trusted the House would remember that over and over again the Irish Members had protested against bringing on measures of this kind at a late period of the Session—when many of them were necessarily absent, and when the House was always impatient of entertaining any discussion, especially of Irish matters. It was upon that very ground that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had objected to the second reading of the Coercion Act of Sir Robert Peel on the 15th of June, 1846, and although that Session of Parliament continued in existence for upwards of six weeks subsequent to that day; whereas it was notorious that the present Session would determine within the next week or ten days. He thought that it did not legitimately come within the province of a provisional Administration, which the existing Government avowed they were, to propose that a measure of this kind should have so lengthened a duration as until the end of the Session of 1854. Should they be continued in office they would have the opportunity of reintroducing it; otherwise their successors could take up the matter. This view appeared to him the more forcible, because, though the Government were pledged to pass some remedial measures which they had asserted were actually prepared; they had, nevertheless, declined to introduce their Bills, or even to place them on the table of the House, for the information of its Members. A bad and vicious land system was now acknowledged on all hands to lie at the root of all agrarian outrage in Ireland. It would be a mere waste of the time of the House to argue this plain proposition, the truth of which the present Government professed to admit. They had, however, deferred to introduce their measures, though repeatedly urged to do so, during the last three months. He (Mr. Scully) had frequently pressed the question as to the real nature of those measures, and whether they would be produced before the end of the Session; but up to the present moment the Government had not vouchsafed to give him any reply, having, no doubt, their own motives for keeping the people of Ireland entirely in the dark at the coming elections—

"Masking their business from the common eye For sundry weighty reasons."

Why had no sort of response been hitherto condescended to his very reasonable and proper request? He could only conclude that those measures, whenever they might be produced, would appear to be of a mere delusive and unsatisfactory character, and he was anxious to have some substantial guarantee that the consideration of them should come on before the 31st of December next, when the continuance of this coercive measure might be conjointly determined on. That could only be insured by now limiting this Bill until the 31st December next. It might be objected, indeed, that if this limitation were conceded, some persons would be prematurely discharged from prison on the 31st of December next; but such an objection would equally apply to any Act of Parliament of limited duration, and it could, in this instance, be easily provided against by a short clause similar to one of the Amendments of which he had given notice. According to the Bill as it then stood, the Act would continue in force until the end of the Session of 1854. ["No, no!"from the Government benches.] He had distinctly asserted the other evening, and would still maintain, that this was the only interpretation it could receive, assuming that Parliament would reassemble before the 31st of December next. The words were—"Until the 31st of December next, and from thence until the end of the then next Session of Parliament." Now, according to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, they were to assemble again in October, and they would after- wards merely adjourn over Christmas, according to usual custom, to meet again in February. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that the end of the then next Session, after the Session which would be pending on the 31st of December next, would bring them down to the end of the Session of 1854. ["Hear, hear!"] It appeared that this assertion on his part took the Government rather by surprise, although he had made it on a former occasion, when, as he was aware, both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Solicitor General for Ireland had both treated the Bill as limited to the end of the Session of 1853. He would recommend the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to reconsider the wording of their own Bill. Making that appeal to the Government, and to the House, he felt assured that they would not misinterpret his motives, for he was actuated solely by a desire that all their legislation for Ireland, more especially when it was of a coercive character, should meet with full consideration and mature discussion, in the presence of the representatives of Ireland.

said, he repudiated any sympathy with the criminals who, he confessed, had disgraced many parts of Ireland. He acknowledged that there did exist in certain portions of the country an amount of crime which it was the duty of the Government to put down. He, for one, would willingly assist any Government in effecting this object; but he certainly did not believe that the policy of coercion would be of any use—it had always failed in Ireland, and always would. It was the duty of the Government to go to the root of the evil, to extirpate the causes of the agrarian outrages, and to propose some remedial measures which would do away for the future with the necessity of any such Bill as this. The Government had entirely failed to make any necessity for this Bill, or to show that its effect would be to repress crime in Ireland. It had always been stated, in the discussions on this Bill, that much depended on the temper and spirit in which laws such as this were administered. For his own part, however, he had not that confidence in Her Majesty's Government—indeed, he believed nobody but a few simple-minded farmers had—that should induce him to entrust them with powers of so unconstitutional a nature. While he disclaimed all desire to offer the Government a factious opposition in respect of this or any other Bill, he confessed he was also, in abstaining from such opposition, actuated by a desire not to delay the dissolution of the present Parliament, as he considered that every day the present Ministers remained in office was an evil, and that a new Parliament would soon send them to the other side of the House.

said, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down into matters which were more fit to be addressed to the House on the second reading of the Bill than on the present occasion; but the hon. Gentleman had argued that this Bill would prove inoperative—a statement than which nothing more unfounded was ever urged in that House. For he found, from a return which he held in his hand, that, within the last three years, since the Act of 1847 first came into operation, there had been a most extraordinary cessation of crime in those counties of Ireland where the measure was first put in force. The criminal returns gave the most conclusive evidence of the beneficial working of the measure in those districts. In the county of Cavan, which was proclaimed under the Act of 1847, in the first three months of that year there were 43 outrages, in the last three months of the same year there were only 20—less than one-halt. In Roscommon, in the first three months there were 493 outrages, in the last three months only 23; in Tipperary, in the first three months there were 234 outrages, and in the last three months only 84; in Limerick, in the first three months there were no less than 262 outrages, and in the last three months only 39. In Clare, and other counties, similar results had been produced by the operation of the Act; and the consequence was, that the counties where the Act was early brought into operation were now all quiet, or nearly so. At the same time, there was nothing in the Act which in the slightest degree inconvenienced any man who was willing to obey the laws and to perform the duties of a good citizen. He maintained, therefore, that when the Act had worked so well hitherto against the criminal population, and was in itself so innocuous to the well-disposed, the House would do well to proceed to renew the measure. He was certain that the honest, peaceable, and loyal people of Ireland would rejoice in the success of this Bill, and feel grateful to the Government for having brought it forward.

said, the noble Lord had not deigned to give them any answer as to why the Act should not be renewed for the term comprised in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully), so he concluded that such neglect to notice that Amendment was to be taken as evidence of the intention of the Government not to agree to it. If, however, they renewed this Act for the period proposed in the Bill, they would thereby be prevented from taking the whole case of the condition of Ireland into consideration, as it was his earnest wish they should, when the new Parliament assembled—a course which ought to be adopted at the earliest possible period. Why, he would ask, had not the Landlord and Tenant Bill, and those other remedial measures which the Government professed their anxiety to extend to Ireland, been introduced? He must complain of the remissness of the Government in this respect; and if they did not assent to the Amendment before the Committee, the Irish Members would avail themselves of every means of which the forms of the House would allow to prevent the Bill passing.

said, he had supported the former Bill, because at that time Ireland was in such a state of disturbance as to require a measure of this nature; but the present Bill was quite unfitted for the lawless body now committing outrages in the north of Ireland. Local palliatives would not do, but the root of the evils which afflicted Ireland must be removed by constitutional treatment. Let the Government continue the Bill till the 31st of December, and no longer, and let them also bind themselves under the heaviest Parliamentary recognisances to bring the question of Landlord and Tenant before the Legislature before the end of the present year. It was invidious to introduce such a Bill at all in a dying Parliament, on account of the imputation of hustings influence, to which they were open on both sides; and he asked the Government to consent to the compromise he had suggested.

said, that the introduction of the Amendment would lead to confusion in the administration of the law. Any offence committed up to the 31st of December must go unpunished, because there would be no Session till the ensuing March, and then no person could be prosecuted' if the Act expired before that time. There were many persons in gaol at present under the Act, and he feared there would, probably be many more before Christmas, and it would be necessary to provide that they should be brought to justice or acquitted. He must complain he had been hardly dealt with by some hon. Members, who accused him of not bringing in the Bills he had promised. They must remember it would be impossible to produce new Bills towards the close of the Session with any chance of success. He had prepared a Landlord and Tenant Bill, which now lay in the Irish Office, but it would be impossible to bring it in at present. However, the Government were pledged to introduce Bills on the subject, and they would do so as soon as they had an opportunity.

said, he thought that the Government, by consenting to the Amendment, would be making a grateful concession to the opinions of those Members who, like himself, had formerly supported the Bill, but who now had doubts as to the advisability of its continuance beyond the end of the year. Would not the object of the Government be gained by allowing the Act to terminate on the 31st of December in the present year?

believed there was considerable truth in the statement that had been often made, that but little sympathy was entertained by English Members for Irish questions discussed in that House. Considering the position of this question, he felt bound to give his support to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. Those Coercion Bills were, Session after Session, extended to Ireland by Whig and Tory Governments. He was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland say he had some remedial measures in his budget, which would shortly be produced. He hoped that a course of conciliation and of remedial policy would be pursued towards that country, for, in his opinion, it was those Coercion Bills brought forward year after year, which had in a great measure occasioned that Celtic exodus of which so much had been spoken, and which was fast depopulating the country.

said, his intention had been that the Bill should be drawn so as to extend the Act to the 31st of December, and to the end of the next Session of Parliament; but he had not contemplated that it should go beyond the end of the year 1853. He would propose an Amendment to alter the effect which the Bill would, in its present state, certainly have of extending the Act to the end of 1854. He moved that they should leave out the words "the end of the next Session of Parliament," and insert the words "31st day of August, 1853." That was a compromise which he hoped would meet the wishes of all.

said, the real point of difference was really so small that he did not think it would he becoming the gravity or dignity of the Committee to divide upon it.

said, that the objection of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, that persons would remain in gaol without trial if the Act expired, would always apply, and that Coersion Bills would be perpetual if that ground was taken. He would suggest that the Act should be continued till all persons committed under it had been tried, but that no fresh arrests should be permitted.

said, he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite rather unreasonable. The compromise he had offered was fair and temperate.

said, he did not consider it a compromise. He would not agree to it.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in a position to offer any compromise. Had the Bill not been very closely examined, it would have been made to extend—he would not say by a"dodge"—to the end of the Session of 1854. He desired the Bill to be limited to that time, and that time only, when it should be brought forward again for full discussion before all the Irish Members. In the course of the next Session, which they were told would be held during the present year, they would have an opportunity of further renewing the Act were it found necessary so to do.

expressed his readiness to agree to the extension of the Bill to the 31st of August next year. If they did not accept that, they would be most certainly beaten on a division.

said, he should move that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

hoped the hon. Member would not persist in this Motion. It was quite impos- sible for the Government to alter their determination as to the continuance of the Act to the 31st of August.

would not be a party to inflict the Bill on Ireland to the end of August, 1853. If the Government were bonâ fide in their promises of legislative measures of a remedial character, they would not continue the operation of the Bill beyond the end of the present year.

said, that the Bill was most meagre and unsatisfactory, after all the votes in respect to this subject which had been come to by this House. He was not going to oppose the third reading of the Bill, but he could not allow the Bill to pass without any comment being made upon it. He had scarcely expected in the year 1852 a Bill falling so short of the requirements which for the satisfaction of the House had been shown to be necessary. By this enactment they even continued the penalty of 500l. The Bill might be received as an instalment, and as an instalment he received it, but protesting at the same time against its being a satisfactory acknowledgment of the principle involved in it.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman need not be dissatisfied with the instalment. The Bill had been brought in in consequence of the case of Mr. Salomons, in order to reduce the penalties he had incurred by voting in this House without taking the required oaths. He believed that the action brought against Mr. Salomons by Mr. Miller was a collusive action, and if the penalties could be evaded by a collusive action, any one might vote here night after night without punishment. On the trial, to his surprise, the Records of this House were rejected as evidence by the Lord Chief Baron. He was also dissatisfied with this Bill because it was retrospective. He should, therefore oppose the further progress of the Bill, so that the House might have time to inquire into its effect. If a collusive action were valid, as had been held by the Lord Chief Baron, the most dangerous conse- quences would result. He should move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down certainly had shown that he had paid very little attention to the Bill, and was but imperfectly acquainted with its provisions. He (Mr. R. Palmer) was not responsible for the Bill, but he esteemed it an honour to have been asked to take charge of it by Lord Lyndhurst, a nobleman who had three times filled with distinguished honour the situation of Lord High Chancellor of England under Conservative Governments—a nobleman who for many years had taken a distinguished part in that assemblage, who had at no time shown a disposition rashly to dispense with the securities the law provided for the maintenance of our Parliamentary constitution, and in this particular matter, the admission of Jews to civil privileges, had shown a greater degree of hesitation, and greater scruples, than he, for one, was disposed to entertain. The Bill was strictly and carefully confined to the object of sweeping off the face of the Statute-book the most barbarous, absurd, and extravagant disabilities that ever disgraced it. What, he would ask, were those disabilities now sought to be repealed? If any one wrongly voted in that House, he was declared incapable of maintaining any suit at law; he could not be the guardian even of his own children; no one could leave him a legacy; nor could he ever after hold any civil office. Those disabilities were swept away by the Bill, and the penalty of 500l. remained. But it was a mistake to suppose that this penalty was the only safeguard which the House had against intruders. The House had a far greater safeguard; it had Imperial jurisdiction and ample powers to expel and punish intruders. The measure was one simply of justice, and if they did not pass this retrospective Bill, the gentleman to whose case it referred (Mr. Alderman Salomons) would be for ever subject to the enormous disabilities which it sought to repeal.

thought the measure was most inadequate, and should have much preferred a Bill declara- tory of the right of Jews to sit in Parliament. However, as he found nothing in the Bill to militate against the proposition which he would ever maintain—that Mr. Alderman Salomons was duly qualified to sit and vote in Parliament, he would give it his support.

said, he should give his vote in favour of the third reading of the Bill. If he could look upon such a measure as an instalment of the question that Jews should sit in that House, or even as an inadequate Bill for the purposes it professed, he should feel it his duty to object to it. But that was not the question before them. The question was, whether they were to leave on the Statute-book, in addition to the penalties for the offence of voting in that House, without taking the requisite Oaths, the other very serious consequences that, by the law as it stood, attached to such offence. He felt, that as no person could have a seat in that House without taking the Oath, "on the true faith of a Christian," it would be useless to insist on these penalties.

said, he was sure that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate), though anxious to exclude Jews from that House, was not desirous of persecuting them, and he trusted he would withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Bill to pass with the unanimous sanction of the House.

said, he would consent to withdraw the Amendment, his sole object having been to secure the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer from being over-ridden by a decision of Parliament. The whole proceedings in this case had been most extraordinary. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had confessed that he had been astonished at the verdict; but as there were several members of the Jewish persuasion on the jury, it was natural to suppose they had a strong bias.

moved an Amendment, extending the exemption to persons other than Members of Parliament who were liable, under the existing Act, to similar penalties for refusing to take the Oath before magistrates.