said, he rose to move, as an Amendment, that the House should, on that day three months, resolve itself into Committee on the Bill. It was one of the most objectionable Bills he had ever seen, and he had only been prevented by absence from offering it all possible opposition at an earlier period. The more he spoke to commercial men on the subject of the Bill, the greater did he find to be the objections entertained against it. Who were the parties that called for the measure? There were very few petitions in favour of it. And from whom did the Bill emanate? From the members of the Board of Trade, who were not at all conversant with trade. There was not a man who was practically concerned in any large commercial undertaking, who was not convinced that the measure, if passed, would not only be most useless, but most mischievous. Besides, the very object of the Bill—that of affording additional facilities for obtaining capital to be employed in trade—was a necessity that did not exist; for there was an ample supply of capital for all legitimate purposes of trade. The repeal of the usury laws removed every obstacle in the way of obtaining money to be embarked in any business that deserved to be encouraged. The only effect of the Bill would be to induce ignorant persons to enter into the most delusive and disastrous undertakings. Twenty years ago, when the Political Unions took upon themselves the command of almost everything, Trades' Unions were originated, having for their object to fix the rate of wages. He told the people at that time that such a scheme could not work favourably for them, because the rate of wages regulated prices, and if the prices of British manufacture were higher than those of foreign manufacture, the British manufacturer would not be able to compete with the foreigner, his profits would be destroyed, and his factory closed. The working classes soon found out their mistake, and confessed that what he had told them was true. But how would the measure now before the House work? Men having small capital would invest it in undertakings of the nuture of which they would be totally ignorant, and would have to intrust the sole management of their property to a body of directors, who, instead of being the servants, would be the masters of the Company. Could any man state an instance where a Company had ever succeeded against an individual in his own trade, unless it required an amount of capital which it was impossible for any individual to command? He knew of no such instance. No Company could command that decision of purpose, that untiring exertion, and that concentrated power which an individual, whose sole interest was at stake, could always display. In fact, no Company could exist in competition against an energetic tradesman who understood his business, and who was industrious, honest, and persevering. If the principle of the Bill was a sound one, it should be carried out and applied to Joint-stock Banks and Assurance Companies. The limit proposed by the Government showed that they had no confidence in their own measure. Why should not the shares be 1l. instead of 25l? He had been charged with being an interested capitalist, and therefore prejudiced on this subject. He could assure the House he had not one atom of interest adverse to the measure. No Company in the world could work against him in his business. He objected to the Bill, because it was not founded on a sound principle, and because he believed that, instead of serving the working man and persons of small capital, it would mislead them, and would deceive society itself. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, on introducing the Bill to the House, had been published in the shape of a pamphlet, and a more theoretical speech he had never read. It was first stated that one leading objection entertained against the present law was, that it was practically opposed to the interests of a large class of small capitalists, who, if allowed to combine to the extent of their limited capital, might be capable of prosecuting many branches of trade, not only with advantage to themselves, but also to the public. Now that was all assumption. Upon what ground did the right hon. Gentleman affirm that those undertakings might be prosecuted with advantage? If there were parties ready to embark in any fair and honest undertaking, there was always plenty of capital to be borrowed at a reasonable rate. The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the case of inventors, with regard to whom he (Mr. Muntz) could not avoid remarking, that all the great inventors of that country—such as Ark-wright and Watt—had thriven under the present law. There was only one exception, that of Harvey, who was a poor man, and who made an improvement in the manufacture of sugar. But what had been the change of the patent laws within the last few years? Formerly no man could obtain a patent under 500l. or 600l; but now he could get one for 25l or 30l. But inventors were not the most adventurous of men. Take the instance of Watt. No doubt he was a very able and clever man, but if it had not been for the strength of mind, the boldness, and the energy of Bolton, Watt would never have been anything. Seven years after he had joined Bolton so nervous was he, and so fearful as to the result of his inventions, that he proposed that Bolton should pay him an annuity and take the risk upon himself; but Bolton, like an honest man, said he would not do anything of the kind, and the consequence was, that by his energy, boldness, and vigour, Bolton was the making of Mr. Watt. Now, if a law of limited liability had existed, Watt would have come under the control of a few ignorant donkeys, who knew nothing about his works, and the end of it would have been, that all the inventions of that great man would have come to nothing. He believed that the foundation of the Bill was to induce hon. Gentlemen, who were possessed of large capital, instead of being content to receive 3 per cent. from the funds, or 4 per cent. from land, to embark that capital in speculations promising 5, 10, and 15 per cent. But let not hon. Gentlemen be deceived. Those rates were far beyond the average profits in trades which required great skill, industry, knowledge, and care. With regard to railways and canals, in which so many millions were embarked, he was of opinion that the Legislature ought to have a voice as to whether such concerns should be entered into or not. How many millions had been lost in such undertakings for the want of knowledge and proper management? But what would have been the result if all the railway Companies had been formed on the principle of limited liability? They could not have maintained themselves, and all the subscribers would have been ruined; and such he believed would be the case of all the Companies which would be formed under the provisions of the Bill now under consideration. The directors would manage the Company, and not the Company the directors. There would be a source of ruinous litigation. All the mischief, loss, and vexation that had attended the railway Companies had emanated from the fact of the directors being the masters of the Companies, instead of the Companies being the masters of the directors. But, after all, it had not been shown that the interests of the country required such a change in the law. There had been no complaint of a want of capital. It was said, to be sure, that the lawyers were in favour of the measure. No doubt they were, for it would open a wide field for litigation. It was one of the provisions of the Bill, that no man should be liable beyond the amount for which he was registered, unless it was shown that he had taken a part in the management of the concern. The first thing, then, to be done, would be to ascertain whether any man had interfered in any way which would make him liable beyond his subscription, and that was a point which would lead to litigation without end. After due consideration, therefore, and without having the slightest interest in the matter, except a wish to promote the general good, he felt it his duty to move that the Bill be committed that day three months.

said, he would second the Amendment, although he did not participate in the general views which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Muntz) had expressed. He, however, was of opinion that the present law regulating the granting of charters was one which could not be maintained, and that it was necessary some measure should be passed on that subject. The Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee, with a view to ascertain how it bore on the law of bankruptcy here. Those who advocated limited liability were in the habit of appealing to the state of the law in France. But the law of limited liability in that country was introduced under very peculiar circumstances. The prejudices against trade in France on the part of the upper classes were such that they would not embark their capital in trade, which it was desirable they should do, if they were made ostensible partners in any commercial concerns. But there was no such necessity existing in England. It was the opinion of eminent men in France that, although the law of limited liability had to a certain degree succeeded there, it would be inapplicable to England until the law of bankruptcy was made much more stringent, and was assimilated to the law of bankruptcy in France. To that point he had more than once called the attention of the House, but no one had attempted to meet that part of the case. The question with commercial men was, how they were to deal with the question of limited liability in the present state of the law relating to bankruptcy. There was not a single clause in the Bill which met that difficulty. He did not so much object to the principle of the Bill, as to its machinery, and on the whole he thought it would be much better to postpone its further consideration till next Session.

said, the course taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) and the observations made by him very much resembled the conduct of certain saints!—["What?"] saints!—who, when they had given a glowing description of the joys of heaven to which they had obtained access, unkindly refused to bridge over the way by which their fellow-creatures might obtain access to the same blissful abode. That hon. Gentleman, having by industry and talent amassed great wealth in the field of individual competition, refused to others the advantages of a measure, the provisions of which he himself could do so well without. The hon. Gentleman had said, that out of the House he had met with none who were in its favour. That must have arisen from the fact, that so well known was the pertinacity of the hon. Gentleman to his own preconceived opinions, that to argue the matter with him would have been perfectly useless. But how were they to ascertain what was the opinion on the subject out of doors, but by the opinion expressed by their representatives within that House; and was it not a fact that on every division on the question there had been a majority of almost two to one in favour of the Bill? All great works had been accomplished by the combination of mind, ability, and property, which no individual energy could have achieved. The supply of water for the metropolis by the New River Company originated from the energetic mind of an individual, but Sir Hugh Myddelton was not able to sustain his project unaided; no sooner, however, was the scheme taken up by a Company than it became a source of wealth to those who embarked in it, and resulted in being one of the greatest blessings that a commercial speculation had ever conferred upon the country. He might also refer to the great mercantile establishments of the metropolis in further illustration of the truth of his proposition—such as the breweries, the joint-stock banks, the mutual assurance societies, and especially the railways. Would the hon. Gentleman say that the railway had accomplished no national good? It really seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman's prejudices were so strong that all the experience of our social system had been lost upon him. Individuals having small capital could effect nothing of themselves, but by a combination of those small sums a large capital might be created, and great public service be rendered. If there ever was a time when such combinations ought to be encouraged, it was now. There was a great drain upon the national resources, and the hon. Gentleman, who was conversant with politics, must know that the only immediate benefit which resulted to any country from the state of war was, that while war itself was a source of immeasurable suffering, and of enormous expense, yet the impulse which it gave to the energy of the people, and the power which it infused into the mind of the nation were so great, that the money expended and the losses sustained were more than compensated for by the increased energy and greater diligence displayed by the people in drawing forth the resources of the nation.

said, he was of opinion that his hon. Friend who had just sat down had been reasoning on the subject upon false premises. He seemed to think that those who were opposed to the Bill were unfavourable to all combinations for the purposes of trade. That was a complete fallacy. He might say, from his own experience in transactions which he had had with France and the United States that, whenever he had come in contact with parties who were established under the principle of limited liability, it had always injured the credit of those parties in his estimation. He was reluctant to part with the advantage the country now possessed, unless he could be assured of some countervailing advantages to be obtained from a new law.

said, the subject now under consideration was one on which his own opinion was opposed to that of a majority of the House; at the same time, as he entertained a strong apprehension as to the results that might arise from passing the measure, he hoped the House would bear with him while he stated the grounds for that apprehension. He did not deny the necessity of some legislation on the subject. If a Bill were in-introduced for the purpose of defining those schemes which should be considered as involving the necessity of raising a large amount of capital which it was not within the means of an individual to raise, or if it had been proposed to adopt the principle in the case of certain benevolent schemes in which an individual might not wish to embark, or for establishing some tribunal for granting a charter for such measures, he would not have opposed it. But the question they had to consider was, whether or not they should introduce this system of limited liability into the ordinary trades and ordinary transactions of the country. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball) had asked whether it was intended to put an end to the system by which breweries, banks, and other establishments of that kind had been carried on; but did not the hon. Gentleman perceive that every one of those establishments had hitherto been carried on upon the principle of unlimited liability? And the question now was, whether those establishments shall be continued as at present, or whether they would sanction such establishments and ordinary trades to be conducted on the principle of limited liability. In the first place, he would ask—the question had, however, been asked before—was there any great want of capital in the country which made a change of the law necessary? He could understand the case of a poor country where an exception might be made and sanction given to a departure from a sound principle for the purpose of raising capital. But he was not aware of there being any complaint of a want of capital here; on the contrary, the complaint was the other way. There was an immense amount of capital; trade was overflowed with it. One great evil of which the commercial world had to complain was, that at certain periodical intervals traders, by imprudent speculations, brought on a crisis; and his great fear was whether, if the House passed such a measure as the one now before them, on the recurrence of such a crisis evils of a much greater magnitude than had hitherto taken place might not result. What, in fact, was the measure they were then considering? It was a Bill to enable persons to embark in trade with a limited chance of loss, but with an unlimited chance of gain. That was a direct encouragement to a system of vicious and improvident speculation. Suppose a person with a capital embarked in two different speculations, in both of which he formed a partnership on the principle of limited liability, he being the principal manager, and the person finding the greater part of the capital in those undertakings; suppose he should enter upon a system of rash and improvident speculation, and that in one case he succeeded and realised a large fortune, while in the other case he failed and paid his creditors 2s. 6d. in the pound. Was that a state of things desirable to be established, or one on which the mercantile credit of the country should be based? Was it desirable that a person should be able by one operation to amass a considerable fortune, and, at the same time, by another operation to pay his creditors a small dividend in the pound? He was aware it might be said that it would be imprudent to trust such a person. No doubt, if all the world were prudent, wise, and sagacious, no such things would happen. But legislation was not to control the conduct of the most wise and of the most virtuous; it was intended to check the erring, and to deal with human nature as they knew it to exist. And when they also knew that a system of wild speculation had at times arisen, it afforded a strong reason why they should not give further encouragement to such a system. Supposing a number of instances of such things as he had described to happen, would it be any satisfaction to those who had been thrown into a state of distress by such conduct for them to be told that, although you had passed the law, the fault was their own, and upon them must fall the risk? He believed that, under such circumstances, a universal feeling of indignation would be excited throughout the country, and that if Parliament passed such a Bill they would be compelled to repeal it by a much more powerful clamour than any that had been raised in its favour. Another argument urged in favour of the measure was, that the present system was an interference with free trade. He disputed that proposition, because the first and most natural principle of commercial legislation was, that every man was bound to pay the debts he had contracted, so long as he was able to do so; therefore, the onus of showing that men might be exempt from paying their debts rested upon those who argued in opposition to the principle he had laid down. Besides, it had been considered a violation of the principle of free trade to impose such restrictions in the terms of contracts, as experience had proved to be necessary. A banker was allowed by the issue of his notes to contract a liability for 5l., but he was not allowed to contract a liability for a sum so small as 5s. And why? For the following reason:—That it would introduce a system of speculation most injurious to the community. Upon exactly the same principle, then, as the Legislature acted in regard to the one case ought they to act in regard to the other. It might be said that no one would be able to introduce a system of limited liability in ordinary traders, because such parties would not obtain credit in the commercial world. He was afraid that in coming to that conclusion they would be over-estimating the prudence of the country. He remembered, twenty-five years ago, Companies starting up of the most extraordinary and extravagant character—Companies for the sale of fish, for the washing of clothes, and for almost every conceivable purpose. What was the result? They all failed, and brought ruin upon themselves and every person connected with them. He trusted that that had worked a wholesome lesson on the minds of the people; but if a Bill of the nature of the one before them was to pass, encouraging such speculations—if such a system which had been carried on under unlimited liability was allowed to be carried on under a law of limited liability—they would have the same evils, in an aggravated form, renewed, and the same painful experience to be encountered, until the Legislature would find it absolutely necessary to impose a legitimate check upon them. It had been said that the measure was desirable in order to give the working classes an opportunity of profitably investing their savings; but there were only two practicable modes in which the working man could invest his savings—either in some secure investment from which he would receive the ordinary rate of interest, or in some trade which he would be able to carry on under his own immediate superintendence. All experience showed that if they encouraged the working man to invest his money under a system of limited liability in the hands of a Company for carrying on any ordinary trade, it would only bring ruin upon him, and cause to him the very mischief from which they would wish to protect him. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) that it was perfectly absurd to suppose that ordinary trades could be carried on by Companies as well and as prosperously as by individuals. It had been assumed that all those who were opposed to the Bill were influenced by some motives of jealousy and that, having become rich themselves they wished to prevent others from becoming rich also, and an attack had been made upon Lord Overstone as having been influenced by these sordid motives in expressing an opinion opposed to this measure. Everybody knew that there was no person n the United Kingdom whose opinion was more deserving of weight than that of Lord Overstone. There was no man whose personal opinion had had greater weight in commercial matters than that noble Lord's; and yet, according to the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite, because Lord Overstone was a rich man his opinion upon the subject was of no value whatever. The logic of the hon. Gentleman was that, Lord Overstone was rich, the working men were poor, therefore the noble Lord was prejudiced and influenced by feelings of jealousy. He (Mr. Strutt) really did not think that an argument such as that was worthy of an answer. There was only one other point to which he wished to allude. If the Bill was intended to be passed, it ought not to go forth to the poorer classes that they were passing a Bill which was to open to them in unlimited field for speculation, by which they were to reap vast gains. It was in reference to that point that he wished to enter his protest against the language which had been used in that House.

said, that all experience showed the contrary of the assertions of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. In the Hanse Towns the principle of limited liability had worked with great success. It was the principle of limited liability which had rendered the United States of America one of the most powerful States in the world. What man with a fortune of 140,000l. for instance, would risk the whole of it in one ship? Would he not rather divide his fortune into portions, and invest it in different ships, 10,000l. in one, 12,000l, in another, and so on? The principle had not only produced the best effects in America, and especially upon her naval power, but it had also most materially contributed to the commercial and material prosperity of France. So also in Belgium and Holland. The Low Countries would never have reached their present position without the advantage of limited liability in their commercial transactions. He could prove by the history of every country in the world that the right hon. Gentleman was wholly wrong in his views, and if the country had acquired prosperity under different circum. stances it was owing to her geographical position. But it did not appear that she would not have been more prosperous under a system of limited liability. He had no hesitation in saying, though Lord Overstone might be a very honest man, that he was the most prejudiced man in the country on the subject now under consideration. It did happen very curiously that the owners of large concerns and large capitalists were the principal opponents of the Bill in that House. He believed they acted quite honestly, but they were accustomed to look at their own particular cases, and hence their minds ran in a certain groove, out of which it was very difficult to get. If they rejected the Bill it assuredly would create an impression abroad that the rich were not willing to let others become rich also.

said that he thought many advantages might be obtained by the Bill before them, as also by the Partnership Bill, but they should be carried out in a right form. He did not think it would be possible to give them full consideration between this and the end of the present Session. It would be better therefore to postpone the Bills, and allow opinions to be matured on them before the next Session. He therefore thought it a waste of time to discuss a question which every one knew could not become law in the present Session. These Bills had twenty-six clauses, and he found that there were twenty-eight new clauses besides seventy Amendments to be proposed. He put it to the House whether it was possible, at the present period of the Session, to consider all the matter contained in those clauses and Amendments as they ought to be considered?

Sir, I really do entreat the House not to waste time in discussing whether we should or should not discuss these Bills, but to go at once into Committee and discuss them there, where those who entertain objections to the Bills may state the grounds of their objection, and those who are in favour of them may state the grounds on which they support them. My own opinion is—and no one denies—that these Bills are of the utmost interest and importance. I confess I am quite surprised that Gentlemen who have been the strenuous and successful advocates of the principles of free trade should now turn round and try to defeat these Bills, which are based upon those very principles. I will say in a few words that I consider that this contest lies between the few and the many. It is just one of those instances in which, I won't say the prejudices, but in which the opinions of the few are to be set against the interests of the great bulk of the community. There is nothing, I am persuaded, that would tend more to the general advantage of the public than the setting free, as these Bills propose to do, small capitals, that they may be turned to profitable employment. The present law prevents that being done. There is, consequently, a great quantity of small capital locked up, which, if these Bills were passed, might be employed for the benefit of those who possess them, and also for the advantage of the community at large. It is a question of free trade against monopoly. [Cries of "No, no!"] I don't say it offensively, but that is the real fact. You may disguise it as you will, but it is a principle well understood by every man in the country, I can assure you; and I tell the House that I feel so strongly on this question that I will urge the House to go on day by day, and morning after morning, with these Bills, and if it is attempted to talk the Bills out, and to consume time by long speeches, the country shall at least see with whom the fault rests, and who it is that would deprive the nation of that advantage which I contend these Bills would afford, if passed. Of course, at this time of the Session, if Gentlemen are determined to waste time by long speeches, and prevent business from being done, the consequence may be that we shall have to sit, perhaps, into the month of September. I can assure the House that no exertion and no determination shall be wanting on the part of the Government to give the public the benefit of this change in the law during the present Session.

said, if he thought that the measure would set free small capital safely he would give it his cordial support, but believing the contrary to be the fact he should oppose it. He was convinced that the Bill would act as a snare and delusion to entrap persons into improvident and dishonest speculations, and that the most disastrous results would be the consequence. He deprecated the practice of those in support of the Bill imputing improper motives to their opponents. He denied that those with whom he was associated in opposition to those Bills were influenced by any but the most honourable and disinterested intentions. He was not opposed to the principle of limited liability, but he was opposed to the mode in which it was to be carried out by those Bills.

said, he did not agree that the Bill was intended merely for the benefit of the very poor, but considered it to be designed to give employment to portions of large amounts of capital which might be advantageously invested if allowed to be advanced on the principle of limited liability.

said, the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not prevent him from stating his objections to the Bill. He was not opposed to the principle of limited liability properly understood and carried out. But it was a waste of time to entertain the consideration of a measure which he felt persuaded could not pass during the present Session. No one supposed that the Bill would pass through the House of Lords, sent down to them, as it would be, so late in the Session. The observations of the noble Lord were the most improper and uncalled for that he had ever known to fall from a Minister of the Crown. The noble Lord could not say of the commercial class in that House that they ever threw any impediments in the way of legislation. It was the Government of the noble Lord himself that threw the real impediments in the way of the measure now before the House; for, instead of bringing it under discussion at an early period of the Session, as the noble Lord might have done, he wasted the time of the House upon the Scotch Education Bill, which he did not make an attempt to defend in the other House of Parliament, and upon the Tenants' Improvements Compensation Bill, which the noble Lord knew very well could never pass that House. It was not till the 26th of July that he called upon them to enter upon the consideration of the details of the measure, about which there existed the greatest difference of opinion; and then the noble Lord lectured them, and said that unless they allowed their opinions to be "burked" he would sit till September, and he tried to intimidate them by a threat of sitting from day to day, and morning to morning. Let there be a Committee to inquire into the present bankruptcy law, and let a proper measure of limited liability be then brought in, and he would not oppose it. He denied that the present was a free trade measure, because it was a piece of exceptional legislation, and the working man, for whose benefit it was professed to be brought forward, would find it a delusion and a nare.

said, he should support the Bill, which he considered the House would be justified in passing from the results which had already flowed from combination in trade. Not only would the poor man be benefited, but the rich also would be enabled to turn to use many small amounts of capital which, under the present system, stood idle.

said, he was entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill, which he would support.

said, he would certainly record his vote in favour of the Bill, which he considered of the utmost importance to the country. The only argument which he had heard against the Bill was that it would be useless. If that were so, let it be passed, and then no harm could result from it, as it would remain a dead letter. He could only say that the whole country was watching with the greatest anxiety for the measure to become law.

said, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had denounced the opponents of the Bill as being opponents of free trade. Had the noble Lord read the Bill? Did he know that there was a clause in the Bill limiting its effect to Companies whose capital was 20,000l., and knowing that, did the noble Lord limit free trade to 20,000l.? Really, the argument could hardly have been expected from any one in the noble Lord's place except the noble Lord himself. It was a matter of complaint that the position of the Limited Liability Bill and the Partnership Amendment Bill had been shifted in order to give to the former of those measures the first place. He could not but think, not with standing the explosion of the noble Lord, that the shifting was made in order to get rid of the Bills. He might be wrong, but such was his impression; and, believing that the Bill could not be properly considered in the present Session, he should vote with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz).

said, that his intercourse with practical men out of doors convinced him that there was a very strong feeling among such persons that there was a necessity for an amendment in the principle of the English law, which so positively excluded the principle of limited liability in the case of Joint-stock Companies. He thought the Bill proposed would meet all the difficulties which had hitherto been experienced, and would prove of the greatest benefit to the country. What railway had ever been constructed by any private parties? It was, therefore, to the principle of limited liability that they were indebted for their means of conveyance. But when the capital of a Company was not large, the enormous amount of Parliamentary expenses was often enough to prevent its commencing operations, and the delay involved in getting a charter was even a greater obstacle than its cost. In France, where the principle of limited liability was recognised in all cases, the Railway Companies' capital had more than doubled, and the dividend paid by such Companies was, on an average, more than 10 per cent. The same was the case in Belgium, and he felt sure that if there was not soon made a most material change in our law, Paris, and not London, would soon become the great centre of European industrial enterprise.

said, he was one of those who were opposed to the Bill, although not at all opposed to the principle of limited liability, as applied to railways, docks, canals, and other undertakings which required a large amount of capital. Such works were of great national importance, but he could see no reason for applying the same principle to Companies who possessed but 20,000l. It was stated that America had prospered under the law, but there capital was extremely scarce, and barely sufficed to carry on their great schemes; but in England, where there was no want of capital, they could not anticipate the same results from the application of the principle of limited liability as had been the case in America. The principle of limited liability had produced injurious effects to commercial credit both in America and in France by inducing reckless speculation and systematic frauds upon creditors. Being perfectly convinced that the measure before the House would produce unmitigated evil, he must beg the noble Lord at the head of the Government to withdraw them for the present Session, and introduce them after the recess. He would also recommend the noble Lord, then, to adopt the plan of sending them up stairs to a Committee.

said, he would also urge the postponement of the measure. No Member of that House was opposed to the principle of limited liability for railways and other great Companies; but only to that principle, as applied to small private undertakings. Railway Companies did not come to Parliament merely to get limited liability, but to get power over land, &c., and they would have to come to Parliament even although that principle were universally recognised.

said, he only wished to give a reason why they ought to go on with the Bill, even at that period of the Session. He believed it was most desirable that the Board of Trade should no longer be entrusted with the duty of granting charters of limited liability. It therefore was a matter of great urgency that Parliament should deal with the question during the present Session. In consequence of the Resolution to which the House came last Session, the Board of Trade had very properly determined not to grant any charter of limited liability until the decision of Parliament on the general subject was known. In fact, the safety-valve of our present Joint-stock system had been screwed down, and was the Board of Trade to act on the Resolution of the House and the general sense of the country, or was it to open the floodgates of private speculation, and grant charters to everybody who came without restriction, or was it to act in every case according to the mere dictates of its absolute unfettered discretion? On the part of the Board of Trade, he protested against having such an odious power entrusted to, or imposed upon any Government Department. No person at the Board of Trade, however experienced or able, should be called upon to decide whether a particular Company should be allowed to carry on business with limited or with unlimited liability. In all such cases the decision ought to depend upon some fixed and intelligible rule laid down by Parliament, by which charters should be granted to ex debito justitiœ, and not at the discretion of a Government Board. He considered the question of charters was one of great urgency, with which Parliament ought to deal during the present Session, he therefore trusted hon. Members would support him in going into Committee.

said, he entirely agreed that nothing could be more objectionable than that the Board of Trade should be entrusted with an arbitrary power, which the wisest of men ought not to exercise, and which that Board possessed no machinery for exercising properly and effectively. He, therefore, had regarded it as a matter of extreme urgency and importance that a satisfactory Bill should be introduced and passed during the present Session of Parliament, and he had, therefore, introduced such a Bill at a very early period of the Session. It was a most essential part of the matter that the whole law of Joint-stock Companies should be consolidated and reformed, but that part of the measure appeared to have fallen through, and there now only remained two measures of a character extremely imperfect and unsatisfactory. With regard to the two measures which had been brought forward, he considered them unsatisfactory and imperfect, but, nevertheless, he had facilitated their passing at every stage of their progress, and should have remained silent on the present occasion; but when his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) said that these were important measures, and that the House would incur great responsibility if they did not carry them through that Session, he (Mr. Cardwell) might be permitted to ask if it was a question of such cardinal magnitude and importance, why were the Bills only introduced, without a speech, the night before the Whitsuntide recess? And why, since the Whitsuntide holidays, had not a single evening been afforded to the House for the purpose of investigating the subject? He wanted to know why they had been occupied so long by the Scotch Education Bill, which was thrown aside in the other House? And why had they been occupied so long with the Tenants' Compensation Bill, which was dropped as soon as they had got through the controverted points of that measure? He also wished to know, if it really was a measure of such great importance, why they were not asked to go into Committee upon it until the day after the other House would not read a Bill a second time? He was most sincere in his desire that a satisfactory measure on the subject of limited liability should be passed, and he thought that, if they failed in passing the measure, the responsibility would rest with Her Majesty's Government. Looking at the late period of the Session, and at the composition of the present Bill, he reluctantly felt it his duty to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham.

said, he must deny that the Bills had anything to do with the question of free trade. On the contrary, the principle involved in them was entirely antagonistic to free trade. As there was no chance of their passing at that late period of the Session, he trusted they would be postponed for the present.

said, that he had several Amendments to propose, but he thought that he should best suit the convenience of the Committee by moving that the Chairman should report progress. Before doing so he was anxious to make a few observations in consequence of what had been said by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) early in the debate. He (Mr. Cairns) had come down to the House in the expectation that they would have gone into Committee at twelve o'clock; they would then have been enabled to dispose of most of the questions which would have arisen on the present Bill, but the time of the House had been occupied in a most unprofitable discussion; and he appealed to the Committee as to whether a great deal of that discussion had not been raised by the noble Lord himself? He had said that the question was of vital importance; that the country was anxious that the present Bill should pass into law; that delay was greatly to be deprecated, and that those who caused delay would have a great deal to answer for in the eyes of the country. He (Mr. Cairns) agreed with those assertions, but he wanted to know how long such opinions had been embraced by the noble Lord? A discussion took place last year on the subject of limited liability, when a great number of Members expressed their opinions on the subject, but not one Member of the Government then got up and said that it was a question of vital importance and ought to be passed into law. When the noble Lord took his place at the head of the Government, what was the course which was taken with reference to what had been termed by the noble Lord an all-pressing and vital question? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that it was his intention to bring forward a Bill on the subject, and gave a notice to that effect; but that notice remained on the paper month after month, without any Motion being made, and it was not until the night before the Whitsuntide recess that the Bills were laid on the table, without a discussion, for the purpose of being printed. It was not until they had reassembled for several weeks that any discussion took place on the Bills, and, even after the second reading was passed, the noble Lord did not proceed with the question that he had termed vital and important, but occupied the House, night after night, with the Scotch Education and Tenants' Compensation Bills; and, finally, on the 26th of July, a date when the House of Lords would not read a Bill a second time, they got a chance of going into Committee, when a long discussion arose, which the noble Lord's speech was most calculated to prolong. He wished the matter to stand clearly before the country. The Government had not been sincere with regard to the measure. They perceived that the Bill was popular out of doors, and, wishing to take advantage of that feeling, had made concessions to the popular desire, but had not afforded an opportunity for discussion. He believed that, had the present measure been discussed, it would have been carried by an overwhelming majority; but the Government had prevented discussion, and the responsibility would rest only with the Government if the measure did not pass into law during the present Session.

said, that not to the Government, but to the practice of the House itself, and the many useless discussions which had taken place, must be attributed the delay which had taken place, and which had prevented measures from being passed.

Sir, I beg to ask the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown the following question. Major General Chesney was appointed by the Duke of Newcaltle to organise the Turkish Contingent. He accepted that office. When Lord Panmure was appointed to his present position, Major General Chesney was informed that his services would not be required. I beg, therefore, to inquire of the noble Lord whether or not he will have any objection to allow the printing of the letter of the Duke of Newcastle to General Chesney, his acceptance of the office, and Lord Panmure's communication?

Sir, the service on which Major General Chesney was to be employed was not exactly in the organisation of the Turkish Contingent, but a different service, which was not intended to be carried on; and when the organisation of the Turkish Contingent was decided upon another officer, General Vivian, was chosen for the purpose. It was only right to say that the choice was made with reference to circumstances entirely independent of anything personal between them. Her Majesty's Government appreciated most fully the merits of General Chesney, who had performed very good and important services to the country upon the mission in which he was formerly employed, and the reason why he was not selected on the second occasion for a different service is that General Vivian was considered to be the fit person to employ.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that on a previous evening the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had stated that they were paying a subsidy in disguise to Turkey in the shape of an exorbitant royalty of 10s. a ton for the coal obtained from the Turkish coal mines; and he (Mr. Layard) wished to ask if such were the case. He understood, also, that considerable embarrassment was experienced in the East for the want of money in the Commissariat Treasury. He understood that a large number of bills had been dishonoured, and that considerable inconvenience had been occasioned on account of the refusal to pay those bills for the want of money. He held in his hand a letter to that effect, and he desired to know if such want of money were really felt, if such a state of things was likely to continue, and if any remedy had been provided.

said, that, in reference to the first question, he begged to say that papers had been laid on the table on the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart), which contained the correspondence and negotiations with regard to the Turkish coal mines. From that correspondence it would be found that those mines were in full operation in two workings; and, therefore, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) was mistaken in thinking that the answer which he (Mr. Wilson) had given some time ago referred to a royalty. His answer was, that 10s. a ton were paid to the Turkish Government for the mines, that there was a further expenditure of 15s. a ton, making the entire cost 25s. a ton when they were delivered on board of ship. That arrangement was adopted as the most favourable of several alternatives, and the French Government had since made a similar offer to Turkey. But he must point out that the 10s. a ton was not paid by way of royalty; a royalty was paid where the ground taken was totally unexplored; but in the present case the coal was taken out of mines already explored and in full operation, and where they had the advantage of capital already expended, and the machinery of the Turkish Government belonging to the mines. As to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, he was sorry to say that there was some truth in the observation he had made; however, the circumstances had been very much exaggerated. The truth was, that in the month of May the monthly expenditure from the Commissariat chest in coin at Constantinople was from 150,000l. to 200,000l., but it suddenly increased to about 300,000l., in consequence of the payments for the Turkish Contingent and other purposes. A sum of 100,000l. was despatched in the British Queen on the 29th of May, but her engines broke down in the Mediterranean, and she was detained three or four weeks in Malta for repairs. The non-arrival of that 100,000l. certainly had created great embarrassment, but two other sums of 250,000l. had been despatched and arrived in the interim, and accounts had been received that day from which he had reason to think that the 100,000l. despatched in the British Queen had also arrived. And, besides the 250,000l. despatched after the 29th of May, there was sent on the 1st of July 100,000l., on the 3rd of July 100,000l., and on the 8th of July 100,000l. So that, since the date of the letter received by his hon. Friend, there had arrived no less a sum than 400,000l., which was far more than was required to meet any embarrassment that might have existed. On the 12th of July there was sent out 100,000l., and 240,000l. had been since despatched, and shipments were still being made to meet all probable demands.

said, as he did not gather from the statement of his hon. Friend what it was for which we paid 10s. a ton to the Turkish Government, perhaps his hon. Friend would undertake to lay upon the table the papers which contained the agreement with the Turkish Government, in order that the House might see what consideration we received for that payment.

said, he would suggest that the papers should also contain an account of the sum which had been paid to the Turkish Government, not as royalty, but as profit.

said, the information sought for was contained in a paper already upon the table.

said, that he would state as briefly as possible, the manner in which the educational Vote of last year had been expended, and how it was proposed to expend that for the present year. The sum required for the present year was 381, 921l., of which 100,000l., had been already voted, in addition to which there was a supplemental estimate of 15,000l., making together the sum of 396, 921l. The sum required last year was 343, 873l., showing an increase of 38, 048l., exclusive of that 15,000l. He thought that some misapprehension existed respecting the difference between the estimate of last year and the present year, as he perceived that a notice of Motion had been given by an hon. Gentleman to reduce the Estimate for the present year to the amount which he conceived had been granted for the last year; but the facts were that the actual Vote of last year was 263,000l., whereas the estimate was 343, 873l., the reason of that difference being that there was a balance of 80,000l., remaining out of the Votes of preceding years, which being added to the Vote of last year made up the sum of 343, 873l. The whole of the Vote of last year had been expended, and, therefore, it was necessary to vote the whole amount of the Estimate for the current year. The Estimate was divided into twelve heads, the principal of which he proposed to explain, showing the results of the appropriation of the Parliamentary grant of last year. The first item was for buildings, 70,000l., while that of last year was only 61,000l. Between 1833 and the end of 1854, 4,514 schools had been erected, enlarged, or improved by the aid of the Parliamentary grant and 700,000 scholars had been provided with additional or improved school accommodation. A number of schools, approaching to one-third of the total number of public schools returned by the Registrar-General in the Census of 1851, had been erected or improved by the aid of this grant in the course of twenty one years. During the past year the number of schools so erected was 262, at a cost of 198, 279l., of which 60, 089l. was provided from the Parliamentary grant, so that the amount voluntarily subscribed was 138, 180l. By part of the Minute, dated 2nd of April, 1853, an increased rate of aid had been allowed for building schools in the rural districts and smaller towns. It was now proposed to extend the same rate to all parts of the country, and the supplementary estimate of 15,000l. was presented to meet the additional outlay. The second item included a grant for the purchase of books and maps of 4,000l., while that of last year was 1,782l. 15s. 4d. Grants for that purpose were first proposed in 1847, and up to the end of 1854 the number of applications complied with were 5,240, and the total expenditure in seven years amounted to 57, 281l., out of which 15,000l. was provided from the Government grant. Several of the next items might be comprised under one general head. First came the grants for stipends of pupil teachers and gratuities to schoolmasters and mistressess instructing them, amounting to 145,000l. There were then the capitation grants, estimated at 12,000l., by which, under another part of the Minute of the 2nd of April, 1853, schools in the rural parts of the country, and in the smaller towns, received special aid on certain conditions, in proportion to the number of scholars attending. The grants in augmentation of certificated schoolmasters and mistresses were 47,000l.; and the grants to assistant teachers, 4,500l. The number of pupil teachers, or apprentices, at the end of 1854 was 7, 596, showing a progressive increase during the last four years. At the end of 1851 the number was only 5, 607; in 1852, 6,180; in 1853, 6,912; and in 1854, 7,596. Each of these pupil teachers was engaged for five years, during which period, while learning his future profession, he superseded the former monitorial agency by the assistance he rendered the schoolmaster. 7,596 pupil teachers thus employed represented about 300,000 scholars under that improved system of instruction, and the testimony of inspectors and school managers was unanimous in acknowledgment of the services and good conduct of that class of persons. A return moved for by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) showed what number of those pupil teachers might be reasonably expected to find their way into schools, and from it there appeared that the total number of pupil teachers who had been entered as apprentices under the Minutes of 1846 up to the 31st of December, 1854, was 12,474, of whom only 694 had quitted the profession of teaching. But the education of these pupil teachers did not end there. One important item in the estimate was for grants to training schools, amounting exclusive of Kneller Hall, to about 50,000l. There were thirty-eight such training schools—twenty-two for schoolmasters, and sixteen for mistresses, erected at a cost of about 300,000l., and maintained at an annual outlay of about 60,000l., with room for 2,000, but actually containing about 1,690 scholars. Of the pupil teachers about 1,500 completed their apprenticeship annually, and they then had the opportunity of obtaining by examination exhibitions in those training schools, which they retained for two years. The present number of such exhibitioners was 929. The training schools were also open to students who, without having been Government apprentices, desired to qualify themselves to become certificated schoolmasters. Great pains had been taken, as would appear from the Reports recently presented to Parliament, to settle a regular course of instruction for those training schools, and to maintain them by annual examinations, according to the results of which grants were made from the Parliamentary fund to each school. All the above system—the apprenticeship, the training and examination for certificates, and the placing out of the certificated students as schoolmasters, who gathered round them and trained fresh apprentices—was in full and successful operation. At the end of 1851 there were 1,173 certificated teachers at work in schools; there were now 2,836. In December last, 2,239 candidates for such certificates were simultaneously examined at thirty-two different places, of whom 1,060 passed successfully. The result of the examination carried with it in grants about 27,827l. Besides the abovementioned examinations, each training school was minutely inspected and reported on annually by one of the Government Inspectors, and that machinery was calculated to furnish the country with nearly 1,000 well-educated masters per annum, and to assist them with between 7,000 and 8,000 apprentices. That was the great fact of the Minutes of Council, in comparison with which the other parts of the scheme were subordinate. With regard to Kneller Hall, the Minutes on the table fully explained the causes of its failure, and the future course proposed to be taken by the Government in respect to it. He was happy to say that the services of the principal, Mr. Temple, of whose ability it was impossible to speak too highly, would still be secured in connection with the business of the Committee of Council, and that, as soon as Kneller Hall was abandoned, which would probably be the case in the course of a few months, that gentleman would serve as one of the Inspectors. One class of schools not specially named in the Estimates, and to which assistance was given, was ragged or industrial schools. These were aided by a capitation grant of 10s. for every scholar under industrial instruction, and the Committee of Council also allowed one-third of the cost of purchasing tools or putting up workshops, and one-half of the rent of the premises, including land for cultivation. The aid thus afforded was, he believed, productive of great benefit. The establishment expenses formerly charged principally on the Council Office grant were now comprised in the present Vote for education, and amounted to 9,431l. That office establishment had recently been revised by the Commissioners of Inquiry into Public Offices, whose Report was presented to Parliament in February last. One impartant item in the Estimate remained to be noticed—namely, the charge of 31,940l. for inspection. In the course of last year 5,575 schools had been inspected, and the inspection afforded not only a most valuable opportunity for the advice and co-operation of experienced officers in the management of schools, but was also a great and effectual security for the fulfilment of the conditions on which the Parliamentary grant was appropriated. A general review of the results of the Parliamentary grant during the past year showed that 312 elementary schools and eleven normal schools had been erected, enlarged, or improved; that 919 schools had received grants for the purchase of books and maps; that 539 additional certificated teachers were employed, together with seventy-seven additional assistant teachers, and 684 additional pupil teachers; and that the schools in rural districts, and in smaller towns, aided by grants calculated on the attendance of their scholars, were 667. The number of students under training in normal schools at the end of 1853 occupied only 70 per cent of the accommodation provided. They now occupied 78 per cent of that accommodation, while a school for sixty additional students had been opened in the meantime. At the end of 1853, forty-two industrial schools were receiving assistance; at the end of 1854, sixty-five. In 1853, 4341 schools, under separate teachers, were inspected; in 1854, 5,575, exclusively of thirty-eight normal schools. Such was the general result of the means now in operation for promoting popular education throughout the country. It was not right, perhaps, to speak of what was thus done as a system of education. The principle which had thus been acted upon was that of aiding, extending, and improving the existing educational agencies throughout the country, and its most important effect had, no doubt, been the improvement in the quality of education, by raising the standard, position, and qualifications of the schoolmaster. The facts he had stated showed to what an extent that had been accomplished, and how widely that benefit was being diffused, and, whatever might be the future decision of Parliament with regard to education, it was impossible but that the greatest advantage must be derived from the vast number of well-educated and highly qualified teachers provided under the recent operation of Parliamentary grants.

said, he was reluctantly compelled to oppose the proposed grant, and should move the reduction of the Vote to 263,000l. He did so because he believed that the grant inflicted great injustice upon a large portion of the inhabitants of the country, and failed to accomplish the object for which it was originally allowed. The taxes of the country were supplied by the whole of the people, but it could not be said that the grants of money for educational purposes were equally distributed among all those who paid taxes. Many persons who endeavoured to obtain an honest livelihood by giving instruction received no portion of the grant, and others equally suffered who refused, upon conscientious grounds, to receive grants of money for educational purposes. He was satisfied that the House would never have consented to grant a sum of money for the education of the middle classes, and yet, according to the Reports of the inspectors, they were the persons whose children now filled the schools. The proportion of poor children in those schools did not exceed 7 to 9 per cent. There could be little doubt that in many cases the money had been extravagantly and unwisely applied, and, though originally intended solely for the education of the poor, a large portion of it was at present expended in the education and preparation of pupil teachers and certificated teachers. Those persons frequently proved not to be good teachers, or were above their work, and the effect of the present system was to encourage a sort of fraud, for young men obtained an education professedly with the object of becoming teachers, but really with the view of rendering that education a steppingstone to the attainment of ulterior objects. It appeared from Mr. Moseley's Report that 750 pupil teachers finished their apprenticeship in 1853, but it appeared that very few of them ultimately became teachers. Mr. Moseley stated that one-third of the pupil teachers educated in his district did not continue in the scholastic profession. Mr. Stewart said that out of sixty-seven apprentices in his district twenty-one were Queen's scholars, each of whom had cost the public 319l. at the end of two years. After receiving such an expensive education, however, there was no security that the Queen's scholars would devote themselves to that occupation for which they had been prepared at the public charge. The general conclusion at which the inspectors had arrived was that the cost of pupil teachers was excessive; that many of them abandoned the profession of teaching; that, after being educated at the public cost as teachers for public schools, the education they had so received only tended to their own private advancement in other walks of life; and that the system might be regarded, so far, a failure. He (Mr. Barnes) considered therefore that the Reports of the inspectors were strong reasons for reducing the grant. He also objected to the grant, because he regarded it as an insidious mode of setting aside the decisions of that House, which had repeatedly determined that it would not establish any of the systems of national education which had been proposed. The gradual increase of the grants for educational purposes was, however, establishing a system of education which had not been discussed in Parliament; and he thought the House was bound, by regard for its own dignity, to take care that no such system should be established without full consideration. He also considered that the manner in which the grants were administered involved a flagrant violation of the principle of religious liberty, for it was well known that in many parishes children were required to learn the Church Catechism, or to attend church on Sundays, as the condition on which they were admitted to the schools. Mr. Watkins, one of the inspectors, expressed his disappointment at the working of the system during twelvemonths previous to the time at which his Report was made, observing that the attempt to improve the education of the labouring classes had been attended with little success, and that it appeared from the year's inspection that little, if any, progress had been made by the scholars. Those facts, he thought, would justify the Committee in refusing to increase the grant. Last year, when the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall) brought forward a Motion on the subject, the noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) promised that a Committee of inquiry should be appointed, but no inquiry had yet been instituted. He (Mr. Barnes) therefore hoped the Committee would not extend the grant beyond the amount voted last year until such an inquiry had taken place.

said, he must admit that we were not in a satisfactory condition with respect to education. We had no system, but the country voted so much per annum to stimulate voluntary effort. He thought his hon. Friend who had last addressed them had shown, not that too much money was voted for education, but that it was not distributed in the best possible manner. He feared that there were many districts, which the Government grant did not reach, in which, in consequence of the poverty of the inhabitants, there was the greatest want of State assistance. He believed that one great error of our system was in not adequately providing for a suitable class of teachers. If we could do that we should do a great deal for the improvement of education throughout the country. He thought it would also be of great service to the cause if a statement of the progress of education in the country were laid before the House from time to time. He must at the same time express his opinion that it was desirable to found a national system of education, in which local self-government was combined with an adequate control by Parliament. He believed it was quite possible to frame such a system.

said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Barnes), that the system at present in operation was no system at all. On the contrary, he believed that it was the one which was most in accordance with the feelings of the people of the country, and he should regret to see any material alteration made in it. He thought, however, that in future it would be desirable that a statement of the progress and state of education in the country, like that which was appended to the Educational Votes for Ireland, should be laid before the House. He should support the Government against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

eulogised both Churchmen and Dissenters for their voluntary and successful exertions in the spread of education. He believed in the ultimate success of the voluntary system, and he could only regard the present Vote as a return of a portion of the taxes received from all portions of the people for the general education of the people. At the same time, he could not help thinking that the schoolmasters were over educated for their future position. He saw that an acquaintance with the three first books of Euclid was expected from a candidate for a Queen's scholarship upon his admission into the training school for masters; and it was not surprising, that pupils so prepared, and with other qualifications acquired in the training school, should seek higher situations and be unwilling to submit to the drudgery of teaching children of the working classes the rudiments of education. The profound classics conducting our public schools, are not occupied in teaching to the lowest forms the rudiments of Latin grammar. It was to be hoped, therefore, that the Committee of Council would reconsider their system as it related to certificated teachers. A greater proportion of their funds might be advantageously spent upon village schools; and, moreover, the amounts distributed should be fixed, not according to the sums voluntarily subscribed in particular districts, but rather according to the degree of poverty and the wants of each locality. Again, the restrictions in force respecting sites for schools in very populous neighbourhoods were very onerous, and instances had occurred in which the benefits of the grant had been foregone by the founders of schools rather than comply with them. If some relaxation were made in the conditions, and if the general rules under which the State's aid was dispensed were also made known in a simpler form than through the medium of voluminous Bluebooks, a greater stimulus would no doubt be imparted to the spread of education. He was anxious that children of all descriptions should have a moral and religious education, and he did not therefore object to the practice of any parties taking their children to their own places of worship to learn their peculiar religious tenets. With respect to crime and education, and the proportion of educated men connected with crime, that might be accounted for by the fact that the learning taught was rather the learning of science than of religion and morality. If an equal attention to inculcating religion and morals was displayed as was devoted to acquiring art and science, the anomally referred to would disappear. With respect to the educational wants of criminals, he had examined into the subject, and he had discovered that great errors had been committed by those who drew up the statistics on the subject of crime. He was satisfied that education had made great progress, and he should, therefore, not wish to see the grant for education reduced.

said, that, having repeatedly had occasion during the Session to trespass on the attention of the House on the subject of education, he would on the present occasion only offer a very few observations. And, first, he must hail with satisfaction the accession produced by that discussion to the number of those who evinced a warm and sincere interest in the great cause of education, which was, beyond all doubt, the most important domestic question of the day, and excited an interest in the public mind second only to the war in which we were unhappily engaged, although unfortunately it did not excite a proportionate degree of interest in that House. While, however, gladly welcoming a new adherent in the person of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Barnes), it was to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman, who had evidently directed much attention to the subject, should have signalised his first address in relation to it by a proposition to reduce one of the very few supports of national education to which the people could trust. The Government, indeed, deserved the gratitude of the public for having on the present occasion increased the grant—which had been gradually augmented during the last few years—considerably beyond the amount which it had ever before reached. In reality, however, the hon. Gentleman had found fault with the mode in which the grant was expended rather than with its amount. A large portion of the sum was very wisely devoted to the object of providing a good supply of efficient schoolmasters, without which no system of education, however skilfully contrived in other respects, could prove satisfactory in its working. The want of such a body of schoolmasters was one of the worst defects of our present system; and therefore it was gratifying to find that nearly 200,000l. of the entire Vote was intended to be applied to the remedy of that very serious deficiency. Since he had previously addressed the House on the question he had held communication with several gentlemen eminently conversant with it, who had assured him that the pupil teachers conferred so much benefit on the existing schools that, even if they did not afterwards take to the profession of schoolmasters, they fairly earned the whole of the money that had been expended upon them. It had been said that the schoolmasters were over-trained. Now, the true ground of complaint was not so much that the schoolmasters were educated to too high a point as that their training did not reach sufficiently low. It did not comprehend those industrial and other pursuits, a knowledge of which was so essential to those who undertook to teach in country schools. On that point, however, as well as upon others to which objection had been taken, a remedy would be supplied by the establishment of a properly constituted educational department. He was glad to hear from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) on a former evening that such a step was contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, and he felt convinced that it would lead to very great benefits. The fault was not, as the hon. Member for Bolton maintained, that the grant was too large (be wished it were larger), but that there was no Minister there to answer for the spending of it. He trusted that that was the last time he should hear a Secretary of State for the Home Department moving an Educational Vote. He hoped, in future, that the Vote would be moved by the Minister at the head of the proposed Educational Department. He hoped that for the future every facility would be given to the poor rural districts to take advantage of those grants, and that they would not be confined, as they had been, to the richer districts. He should be glad, too, to see it laid down as a rule that the public money should be granted only to those schools into which children of all religious denominations were admitted. He by no means wished to deprive schools of their religious character, quite the contrary; but, if any school connected with a religious denomination received grants from the public funds, it ought to be on the condition that no child should be excluded from it on account of a difference of religious opinions.

said, he could not agree with the mover of the Amendment for the reduction of the Vote, and he could not understand the ground on which the hon. Gentleman rested his argument, for he stated that it was founded on the objection that no assistance was afforded to the poorer districts, whereas he (Mr. Denison) thought he understood his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) to say that the grant was enlarged in order that assistance might be given to the poorer districts. He wished to ask his right hon. Friend to explain more in detail in what manner the assistance was to be extended to the poorer, and especially to the rural poorer districts. With regard to a point which had been referred to, namely, the improvement in the education afforded, causing the scholars to attend for a shorter period than they otherwise would, he had felt so strongly on the subject, that he had given notice of Motion, with a view to establishing a system by which children receiving wages should contribute something towards their education, and he had since been informed that some such system had been adopted, and was found to work satisfactorily. The circumstances which had occurred in connection with the question of education that year had led him to believe that the present system was the most conducive to education, although he admitted that it was capable of improvement.

said, he wished to inquire what was the meaning of the term "voluntary assessment," which he observed was used in the Minute connected with the Supplemental Estimate of 15,000l., which had been laid on the table?

said, that the term of the Minute had been taken from a Minute of 1853, in which, under the head of capitation grants, certain grants were made to districts where the contributions were not of sufficient amount to meet the rule on which the grants were usually made. It was now proposed to do away with the distinction between rural and urban districts, and a sum of 27,000l. was taken to meet the grants to the rural districts that year. The Minute extended that of 1853 to all districts, whether rural or urban. He did not think the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Barnes) had done justice to the system of pupil teachers, for only 694 of the large number trained had failed to continue in that calling, and considering the marriages of some of the females, deaths, and emigration, the number was not in reality more than 500. He (Sir G. Grey) did not believe that they could bring the standard of education in Great Britain, as tested by the number of children who attended schools, to the continental standard unless they adopted the continental system. With respect to pupil teachers, Mr. Moseley was of opinion that there was the greatest advantage from them, and he stated that whatever legislative measure might be adopted it would fail unless there was first provided an efficient body of pupil teachers. With regard to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) as to the intention of the Government to form a department of education which was to supersede the Committee of Privy Council, he had the satisfaction of stating that the announcement of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) was a more certain announcement of the intention of the Government than when he (Sir G. Grey) had mentioned such a matter as the result of his individual opinion. It was proposed that the President of the Council, without ceasing to hold that office, should be the Minister solely charged with the distribution of the Parliamentary grant, and to direct all that was committed to the Government under the present or any future system of education. The department would of course be represented in that House by some Member of the Government in the same manner as was done with regard to the Poor Law and other Boards. He trusted that the change could be effected before the Estimate was again moved; and he fully concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart), that if such a department was established it ought to embrace not only the charge of education technically so called, but instruction in science and art.

said, he thought that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) was entitled to the thanks of the House for the excellent measure which he had introduced. He saw no objection to the present Vote, but rather regretted that it was so small.

said, that he did not think the present grant was excessive, and, therefore, he could not agree to the Amendment to reduce it. With respect to the teachers, he thought, considering the class of children to be instructed, that the standard of requirements on the part of the instructor was too high, which led to a system of cramming. What was wanted in an elementary school was to give the children that kind of elementary knowledge which would bring their faculties into play, and render them fit to perform the duties appertaining to their station of life. He believed that if the system which the Government had acted upon had been made a little more elastic a much greater amount of good might have been effected, because he was convinced that the House of Commons never would have complained if in districts where contributions were not to be expected from the inhabitants, the Government had acted with liberality, and had established schools wherever they appeared to be necessary. He had never heard any complaints that the Government had given money. The only complaint which he had known urged, on the contrary, was, that they had imposed restrictions upon the mode of obtaining the money which rendered the grant inoperative. He believed it was perfectly notorious that in many places there was school accommodation which was not used, and he would suggest that it would be desirable if in some of the poorer of those neighbourhoods the Government would endeavour to ascertain the reason why the children did not attend the school. If the Government could obtain any information upon that important subject, it would enable the House, possibly, to deal with it and to apply the proper remedy. He thanked the Government for their proposal to give assistance to a class of schoolmasters who were not quite so highly educated as those who were originally intended. If he properly understood the Minute, the registered schoolmasters were not quite of so high a grade as the others, and he thought it but right that they should have some assistance from the Government in schools which were not able to maintain such highly-trained masters as those to whom the grant was at present confined. He thought that, as far as possible, the grants should be accessible to all classes. He did not wish to see the grant diminished; on the contrary, he was certain that if the Government went on widening the basis, as they now seemed disposed to do, they would lay the foundation for a somewhat extended grant, which would produce corresponding advantages, and would supply the great want which was now felt in the matter of public education. There was no doubt that the great mass of the people were much more alive to the advantages of education than they were forty or fifty years ago. At the same time, when children became old enough to earn money, it was a great temptation to the parents to withdraw them from school, and it was, therefore, important that no opportunity for improving the material condition of the people should be lost sight of. If their physical welfare were promoted, he was satisfied that they would send their children to the schools in greatly increased numbers.

said, he thought that, in whatever manner the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton might be dealt with, the Committee were indebted to that hon. Member for raising the present discussion, and for the manner in which he had brought out many of the facts detailed in the Reports of the inspectors. It was important that the Committee should understand the ground on which the opposition to the Vote was pressed, which was not the same ground as that on which the opposition to a general educational system was urged. The great bulk of the education of the people was carried on by themselves, and whatever was done by that House could only, as it were, touch the outside of the subject. The only thing the State could do was to supplement the action of what was called the voluntary principle; but the great objection to the present Vote was that it did not answer the purpose for which it was given. The views of the House on the question of education appeared to be gradually changing and shifting. They were no longer told of the dense ignorance and vice of certain neighbourhoods, or had detailed to them the statistics of gaols. He believed that it had been found by experience that the class the House originally intended to reach by educational means—that class which was so dangerous, and out of which criminals emerged—had not been touched. The ragged schools might touch them, but those schools could only be conducted by persons of Christian benevolence, whose sympathies were warm, and who were not easily to be set aside from their purpose by the difficulties they might encounter in their path. Therefore, the object for which the State interfered in the first instance in the matter of education had not been attained, but another object had, and that was the education through the assistance of the State of the children of small tradesmen, yeomen, and tenant farmers, and thus the independence of a class whose independence ought to be carefully cherished was being undermined. And this was done under the plea that it was to rescue from ignorance and vice a class which was becoming dangerous to society, and which the school system actually did not reach! If the grant were increased to any conceivable amount, the dangerous ignorance of the people would be left just where it was. He (Mr. Miall) believed that, as had been observed by the hon. Member for Bolton, the schoolmasters were over-educated, and made teachers of science instead of being teachers to discipline the character. He believed that the object for which Parliament voted the money was rather to train and form the character and make useful citizens, than to pour any quantity of mere instruction into the mind; but the system which was now pursued was calculated only to cultivate the understanding and not to mould the habits and character of the people. Such was likely to be always the effect of State interference with education, because the Government could not rightly appreciate the circumstances and wants of the working classes. Under such circumstances, he and those who thought with him were justified in demanding, not the immediate withdrawal of the whole grant, but that it should not be extended until further inquiry were made.

had always thought that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall), and those who advocated the voluntary principle, objected to votes of money for a system of education in which religion was combined; while, at the same time, they objected to any system of education in which the secular element was separated from religion, taking up thus an immovable position. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale appeared now to have lost sight entirely of the religious objection to the grant, and to oppose it because he said it was not calculated to promote education; but the hon. Gentleman did not in any way prove the truth of that allegation. He also stated that the Educational Votes did not in any way benefit the criminal class of the community. Now, the criminal class was the most ignorant and vicious class, but it was begging the question entirely to assert that the existing system of education, unsatisfactory as it was, did not reach that class. As to the statement of his hon. Friend that the schools which were supported by those grants were attended chiefly by the children of small shopkeepers and farmers, who could really afford to pay for the education of their children, he could only say that in all those schools a large number of the children of labourers was to be found. The hon. Member said the parents of the children in our schools were very well able to pay for their education, but if that were the case, then why should he, and those who assumed the name of voluntaries, aid the poor by eleemosynary subscriptions among the richer members of congregations and churches? Voluntaryism, strictly so called, was violated by such aid as well as by Parliamentary grants, and more harm was done by it in pauperising the recipients of such aid, and the rules of political economy were not less infringed by it. But he (Mr. Cobden) confessed that he was not satisfied with the way in which the public money was now voted and applied for education. He saw the difficulty in which the House of Commons was placed by the refusal of the religious voluntaries to receive a share of the grant. They stood aloof, and then complained of it as an injustice; was that fair to Parliament or to themselves? He (Mr. Cobden), with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), was ready to meet their conscientious objections with an offer of secular education, while, on the other hand, the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) proposed to adapt the religious teaching of children in schools to the scruples of their parents. But the "voluntary" party were taking a position which really was not tenable, because no one could fail to acknowledge that some good had arisen out of those Parliamentary grants. Let the hon. Member for Rochdale and his Friends help to amend the system, and apply it to all classes of the community. He (Mr. Cobden) was glad to say that the hon. Gentlemen opposite were now making great advances towards a more just and equitable view of popular education; and if anybody had told him, five or ten years ago, that he should have heard such a liberal proposal from that quarter—as that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington)—so well calculated to bridge over that gulf of difference which had hitherto seemed impassable, in the way of settling the question, he (Mr. Cobden) could not have believed it. Where, then, was now the great obstacle to a satisfactory system being adopted? He was bound to say, and with the greatest regret he said it, that it lay amongst his respectable Friends of the voluntary principle, whose individual efforts to promote education deserved so much credit. Could the hon. Member for Rochdale say now that a national system of education, like that of the United States, was destructive of civil and religious freedom? The observation of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had much truth, that children were kept from school because the parents could not dispense with their earnings; but that difficulty was increased by their having to pay 3d. or 6d. a week for each child, and would be lessened if free schools were established. He (Mr. Cobden) did not agree that the education of schoolmasters was carried too far; if it was found that their training was too good for the functions they had afterwards to perform, that was because there was not an adequate notion of what their functions ought to be, and the children were withdrawn from school at too early an age. The remedy for those evils was to be found elsewhere. The profession of the schoolmaster should be better appreciated, and he should not have to find himself in an inferior social position to that of a clerk in a counting-house or at a railway station. As for the children, he had heard it sale there should be a compulsory law requiring children to be educated. That had been adopted to some extent in the factory districts, where the children employed in factories were required to have a certain degree of education; and, generally, the great manufacturers of the country had lent themselves most cordially to that law, and had arranged that schools should be provided in their vicinities for the reception of the younger persons intended to work in their establishments. He did not think there would be any great difficulty in carrying out a system of compulsory education, but the schools must be provided first. He knew many large manufacturers who required the children employed by them to he educated, but generally these were men who took such interest in education that they had provided schools in the neighbourhood, and then no great hardship was inflicted. But if the State interfered, and required that every child should be educated, under penalties to be imposed on the parent, while it failed to provide schools such as existed in America, that would be beginning at the wrong end. He believed that the difficulty arose in great part from the low material condition of the mass of the people, and he much regretted that the heavy taxation laid on for the purposes of the war would very much tend to impair the resources of the people. However unsatisfactory the state of popular education might have been twelve months ago when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) took up this matter, that was at the close of a period of great prosperity; and he (Mr. Cobden) very much feared that we were now approaching a time when we should see a great reverse in the fortunes of the country, and when the mass of the people would sink lower and lower in their social condition; he had no doubt we should see an increase of crime and pauperism, arid that the labouring class would have still greater difficulty in sparing the means for their children's education. Something had been said of establishing a department of education; now, that was beginning at the wrong end. The House of Commons was placed in an anomalous position by allowing the Committee of Council, year after year, to increase the taxation of the country by grants for educational purposes, while Parliament had not yet been able to come to a decision as to the system of education which should be adopted. No doubt we had done much good by allowing the Privy Council, surreptitiously, as it were, to expend a certain amount in the education of the people; whereas, had we waited till the House of Commons came to a decision upon the system of education to be followed, nothing would have been done at all. He would not cavil, therefore, at what had been done; but there must be a limit to the present mode of proceeding, for we could not go on increasing, year by year, the Vote for education without coming to a decision upon the question of education itself. There were unquestionably anomalies in the present system—such, for example, as the proposed new scheme for encouraging local rating, without any reference whatever being made to that House. But, before a Minister of Education was created, it ought unquestionably to be understood what the education was to be; and he hoped the Government would address itself to that point first. As he had previously said, he was not satisfied with the way in which the money was voted; but, looking at the fact that a great deal of good had been done, he would vote for the increase of the grant, and hoped that the Committee would agree to it by an overwhelming majority.

said, he thought that, whatever might be the merits of the existing plan, it was the only one that at present could be carried on, and it should receive his support. It was of the greatest importance, however, that the State superintendence should be carried on with tact and discretion, and in such a way as to give encouragement to every effort, however humble, for promoting the education of the country.

said, nothing was more obvious than that Government were unable to undertake the education of the people, and that the people must educate themselves. His difficulty was a religious as well as a political difficulty. Education, to be properly conducted, should be religious and moral as well as secular, and the State neither could nor ought to undertake it. In the seventeen years during which the educational grants had been made, 1,467,000l. had been voted by Parliament for England and Wales, out of which the Wesleyans had received in round numbers 60,000l., and the Catholics 30,000l., making altogether 95,442l.; while the Church of England had received 1,090,831l., or, if the British and Foreign School Society (which he maintained was almost entirely a Church institution) were included, the establishment would have received 1,238,000l. He should like very much to know what were the intentions of the Government with respect to Kneller Hall? Unfortunately, hon. Members sitting near him had been unable to hear seven-eighths of the statement of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and he was not aware, therefore, what was to be done with respect to that institution, which stood upon the present list for a grant of 4,500l., having already cost the country 62,000l. The object of establishing Kneller Hall was to train teachers for the purpose of giving instruction in workhouses, but he was informed that only forty-nine persons trained there were in service, and it had been calculated that the cost to the country of every one of those workhouse tutors was 1,000l. His conviction was, that no inducement would prevail upon those with whom he was connected to accept money from the State, for they believed religious instruction to be a necessary part of education, and they would not have state endowments wrung from the taxation of the people, for the purpose of conveying religious instruction. He should certainly support the Amendment.

said, he lived in a neighbourhood where every species of dissent prevailed, and they all availed themselves of the Educational Grant, and with very beneficial effects. There was, however, difficulty in obtaining the Grant which ought not to exist; but he was of opinion that the grant upon the whole was of the greatest service to the country. They had heard something of the quality of teachers, and as to Sunday schools, he thought that the teachers were too highly educated for the class of children whom they had to instruct. He thought they would ill discharge their duty to the country by placing any obstacle in the way of the grant being voted.

said, it was his intention to vote for the grant, for he thought that with both systems—the Government and the voluntary—education was still much behind what it ought to be. He had been for many years a subscriber to the British and Foreign Schools, which institution, he believed, had done a great deal of good in the country, and also in foreign parts, to which their system of education extended. He had, however, heard with much regret that doctrinal matters were now taught in those schools, and that there had been a departure from the principle on which they had been founded—that of teaching the Scriptures without note or comment. If such were the case, he hoped that the system would be corrected, and that there would be a return to the original principle.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that the Government would do well to see if they could not hold out some inducement to get children to attend the schools. He thought that they could not adopt any compulsory system, but they might introduce a system of inducements. For instance, in all the principal towns there might be examinations, and they might offer, he thought, as prizes some of the minor Government situations; such a practice would give the greatest possible inducement to parents to send their children to school, and it would be much better to give such situations as educational rewards than to give them only to Parliamentary influence.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department a question in respect to a Bill that had been brought down from the House of Lords, entitled, the Schools Grant Security for Application Bill, and which had reference to the grant in question. When he objected to it at two o'clock in the morning about a fortnight ago, nobody on the Treasury bench knew anything about it. He might state that the Bill proposed to enact that all schools to which any portion of the grant had been given at any time during the seventeen years of its existence, should be brought under the power of the Home Secretary. There was a school to which he subscribed in his own town, to which about fifteen years ago a grant of 250l. was made, and 1,700l. or 1,800l. more was subscribed in the town. There was no condition of the nature of that to which he would refer when that grant was made. That condition was, that no school, to which any grant, however small, had been made, should be sold, exchanged, or mortgaged, or interfered with as a matter of property in any way, without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It might be well to have such a condition as to future grants, but it appeared to him that there could be no doubt of the impropriety of affixing such a condition to former grants. He wished to know whether the Government intended to proceed with the Bill that night or at any future time.

said, he had found that the Bill referred to by the hon. Member had been brought into the other House of Parliament by the President of the Council, and the object of it was to relieve trustees of schools from personal obligations, they having given bonds which affected them personally, with a view to secure school sites. When the second reading was moved he should be able to state more about the measure, but if it was thought to be unjust to trustees of schools, the Government had no desire to press it, but many trustees were desirous that it should pass, in order that they might be relieved from all personal liability.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman must be talking about some different Bill, or else the clause was not English. It distinctly stated, if he understood it, that if any person had received a grant, and did not choose to repay it, then the school in respect of which the grant had been obtained, should not be sold or exchanged or mortgaged without the consent of the Home Secretary, and the Secretary of State was to endorse on the deed his permission in such a case.

said, the Committee must be aware that it was the duty of the Government to see that the grants should not be extended to the erection of new buildings, which might be sold or mortgaged. Personal bonds had been entered into by the trustees not to sell or mortgage, and they now desired to get rid of their personal liability.

said, that the Bill to which the hon. Member for Manchester had referred, was, in fact, a portion of that centralisation which was so objectionable in matters of education. He could not avoid complaining of the overriding influence of the Church of England in matters of education. The effect of which was, that the children of Dissenters, who were obliged to attend schools in which the clergy had control, were taught one system of religion at school and another at home. The natural result of such a proceeding was most detrimental to religion generally. The system in Ireland was far better than that advocated by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington). There a day was set apart for the clergy of every denomination to attend and take their several classes. He wished to ask the Government what they proposed to do with Kneller Hall, which had cost so large a sum, and which it now appeared would shortly become useless.

said, he could not answer the question at present. Kneller Hall might be applied to several objects, and he was now endeavouring to determine to what purpose it could be devoted with the greatest advantage.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a grievance to which the Unitarians were subjected with respect to the British and Foreign Schools. Those schools had received many donations from Unitarians, but those who had the direction of them had gradually introduced nothing but Trinitarian doctrines, to the great annoyance of such Unitarians whose children had attended. A case had been submitted to counsel who advised that such conduct was a breach of trust on the part of the directors. Nothing, however, had been done, and he therefore trusted that the Government would use its influence to put an end to so improper a state of things.

said, he would suggest the withdrawal of the Amendment. Although a friend to the general principle of voluntary education, still he could not, considering the beneficial results which had followed the labours of the Government in promoting the cause of education, join in a vote which would practically put an end to those labours.

said, the observations of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) with respect to the British and Foreign School Society, proved the difficulty of establishing schools in which would be taught only those doctrines which all Christians were supposed to hold in common. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Lord-Advocate would, next Session, cause his Scotch Education Bill to be introduced in the other House.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment after the opinions which had been expressed upon it by the Committee.

said, he begged to ask whether the Government intended to support the Bill before the House for maintaining the salaries of schoolmasters in Scotland at their present amount?

said, that the Bill in question would come on at a later hour in the evening, when his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord-Advocate would state the course which the Government intended to pursue.

said, he must complain that the item for building, furnishing, and fitting up new schools in Ireland was only 3,500l., while the corresponding item for England was 70,000l. He also found fault with the setting apart of 5,000l. for farm buildings at Limerick and Belfast as unnecessary on account of the wealth of those cities.

said, he did not object to the Vote, but thought that it might in some respects be more satisfactorily applied than appeared from the estimates to be proposed. He especially objected to the erection of a conservatory in connection with one of the agricultural schools, the payment of a lecturer on physical science, and to the item of 1,000l. for a slaughter-house, as not coming within the fair scope of education.

said, he was quite willing to defend the items referred to by the hon. Member on the ground that they had reference to the means by which so many persons obtained their livelihood; and as regarded the utility of the purposes to which the money was generally applied, Ireland had set an example which might well be followed by England. The farm buildings at Limerick and Belfast were designed for the benefit of the districts.

said he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the system generally was good, but he could not conceive why 1000l. should be appropriated for a slaughter-house.

said, that while expressing his entire satisfaction at the increase of 30 per cent. in the grant of the current year for England, he must complain that the increase for Ireland amounted to only 10 per cent. The ratio of increase for both countries ought to be more equal. 117,000l. a-year of the Irish Vote was expended in salaries fixed on the paltry scale of from 17l. to 20l. for schoolmasters of the 3rd class, whose standard of qualifications was remarkably high. The national system had worked very successfully in Ireland, in spite of the opposition it had encountered; but the people would avail themselves of its advantages to a much larger extent if the education given included not merely knowledge of a literary character, but instruction calculated to promote the subsequent advancement in life of the scholars.

said, he also must complain of the unsatisfactory position which Ireland occupied in regard to education as compared with other portions of the Empire. It was next to impossible that all parties could agree upon a uniform system of national education; but it was at least earnestly to be hoped that in the course of the next Session of Parliament some general plan would be adopted regulating the mode in which the assistance of the State should be given to all classes of religionists. The principles relating to the subject of education which had been enunciated upon the platform of the British and Foreign School Society by the Duke of Argyll, by the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) and also by the present Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, were alike just, sound and liberal; but why should the Protestants of the sister country alone be denied the benefit of their application? It was the intention of his right hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), who had given notice of a Motion, but had been compelled by one of the war debates to withdraw it, to bring before the House early next Session the whole question of education in Ireland, and to have the matter fairly and fully discussed.

said, that one effect of the establishment of the national system of education in Ireland had been to supersede the old schoolmasters there, who were generally men of some classical and scientific knowledge, and, by substituting in their place the national schools, to lower the character of education throughout the country. He was glad to find, therefore, that an increased grant was proposed, because increased salaries might tempt men of superior qualifications to undertake the duties of national schoolmasters. Something certainly ought to be done to provide a better kind of education for the middle classes; otherwise there would be no feeders for the colleges, and the consequence would be that the whole youth of Ireland world be shut out from the competitive examinations for appointments in the public service which were to be established. A number of children were taken from the schools to be put to industrial employment, and he thought that such children should not be taken from the school until they acquired a certain amount of education. He did not intend to oppose the Vote.

said, no sufficient explanation had been given as to the extent to which it was intended to carry the contemplated model agricultural schools. It was going too far, he thought, to call upon the country to furnish funds to educate men for such positions as land stewards, farm bailiffs, and the like.

said, he quite concurred with the noble Lord, and he should therefore move to diminish the Vote by 2,000l.

said, that the public grant was in itself insufficient for the general education of the people, and any portion of it devoted to a limited object was so much abstracted from the general funds to be applied to elementary education. If, therefore, the hon. Member for South Lancashire pressed his Amendment to a division he should vote for it.

said, that the real object of such grants as the present was to afford to the lower classes of the community that kind of knowledge which would best fit them for the performance of their duty in the station of life in which they moved. It would be recollected that a noble Lord had on one occasion—he believed at a meeting—made use of a remarkable expression, having observed that the knowledge which the people most required was "the knowledge of common things," and it was that description of knowledge which such grants as the one now under the notice of the Committee were calculated to supply. Land stewards and others to whom it applied were, in fact, only superior labourers, and, being spread through remote districts in Ireland, they would set an example to others which could not fail to be beneficial. The result would probably be that, by introducing a better system of cultivation, they would eventually raise the value of the land. He was surprised, therefore, to find such an Amendment as the present proposed, for he thought that to strike out those items would be exceedingly injurious, and he should, therefore, be much disappointed at their rejection.

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had quoted the well-known maxim of Lord Ashburton about common things, but he had failed to show what possible connection there was between common things and hothouses. The fact was that the present proposal was an attempt to divert an educational Vote to other purposes. He did not deny that these things were very well in themselves, but could the hon. Gentleman justify upon his own principles of political economy the grant of public money for them? He challenged the hon. Gentleman to adduce a single instance in which a similar Vote had been passed before.

hoped that the appearance of the item of a hothouse in the Vote would not induce the Committee to refuse the people of Ireland the means of obtaining a really valuable education in "common things," the importance of which was now so generally recognised.

said, that an application had just been made for an increase of 30 per cent upon the English Vote, and that no objection had been raised by any Irish Member; but now that an additional 10 per cent was asked upon the Irish Vote, and a demand was made for a paltry item of 2,000l., an hon. Gentleman thought it worth his while to oppose it, although it was intended to instruct the people of Ireland in the art of agriculture, of which they were stated to be, in many remote parts, lamentably ignorant.

said, he thought there was much force in the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and he consequently should support the Vote. After the large amount granted for English education, he could not refuse to grant an increase of 10 per cent for Ireland, especially for agricultural objects.

said, he should offer no opposition to the Vote, for he believed that no institution was managed better than the one in question. Still he thought there was danger in the course taken by the promoters of the institution, which he thought should be confined to agricultural purposes—to teaching men to be good farmers and not gardeners; and he thought it would be more advantageous to increase the Vote, not for the purpose of having a conservatory, but having more pupils in farming.

said, the institution had conferred great benefit upon the country. Its object was not to send out schoolmasters in farming, but good practical farmers, acquainted with the cultivation of fruits and plants, as well as the rearing of stock. He hoped the Vote would be agreed to, and was sorry that the opposition to it had originated with an Irish Member.

said, he very much regretted that the subject had been so argued as if a difference was to be made between an English and an Irish question. The Vote must be taken as an exceptional one; but, in reference to the education of the poorer classes, he did not see why a conservatory was brought in. He had heard an hon. Member say that that was desirable in consequence of the potato blight, but he was not aware that the culture of potatoes was carried on in conservatories.