said, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for the abolition of Passing Tolls on Shipping.

said, in the early part of the Session he had stated that as soon as the business of the House would permit he would introduce a Bill to abolish Passing Tolls and relieve shipping from other burdens to which it was subject. He was sorry, however, to say that that period had not yet arrived; and in the present state of the Session and of the business of the House he could not conceal from himself that it would be quite impossible to carry through such a measure in the course of the present year, involving, as it must do, very considerable discussion. Therefore, with very great regret, he must defer till another Session the attempt to relieve shipping from these most unjust burdens.

said, he wished to know whether it would not be possible this Session to carry through a Bill for abolishing Passing Tolls, leaving the question of the local charges on shipping to another occasion.

said, it was his opinion that it was not possible.

said, he wished to inquire whether, as the soldiers of the Line and the Guards were to be allowed to attend the award of the Victoria Cross to their comrades on the following day the same privilege ought not to be extended to the seamen of the Royal Navy? Generals and Lord Lieutenants of counties were to be admitted to the park on horseback, in order to take part in the ceremony. He wished to know why Admirals should not be permitted to do the same?

I am informed, Sir, that a great body of the Greenwich Pensioners will be present on the occasion, as well as those sailors to whom the Victoria Cross is to be distributed. With reference to the cavalry part of the question, I can only say that if the gallant Admiral presents himself in Hyde Park, mounted and in uniform, I am sure a fitting place will be given to him.

said, he wished to be informed by the Under Secretary for War whether it was true that the 79th Regiment of Highlanders, which had only sixty killed and wounded in the late war, was to be present at the distribution of the Victoria Cross, while the Connaught Rangers, who had 476 killed and wounded, were to be excluded?

I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member did not give me notice of his question till two minutes ago. At present I am unable to answer it.

I shall renew the question on the adjournment of the House to-morrow.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War whether it is true that large quantities of gunpowder are stored in various places in the immediate neighbourhood and town of Waltham Abbey, and, if so, whether they are to remain there; also, if it is true that any parties connected with the Government have threatened with instant dismissal any of the workmen or others at the mills if they divulged anything relative to the quantity of gunpowder stored there?

said, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member that there was now no gunpowder stored in the town or immediate neighbourhood of Waltham Abbey; and that it was entirely untrue that any Government official had been threatened with instant dismissal for divulging anything connected with the subject.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Royal Assent has been given to the Bill passed by the Parliament of Canada, "to enable the Members of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada to meet in Synod, in order that the members thereof may be permitted to exercise the same rights of self-government that are enjoyed by other religious communities?" and, if so, whether such Act does not place the appointment of Bishops in that Church in the Synod as therein constituted, any prerogative of the Crown to the contrary notwithstanding.

said, he was happy to be able to state in reply to the first question of the hon. Member, that the Royal Assent had been given to the Bill of the Canadian Parliament, In answering the second question now put to him he should be very sorry to give in an authoritative manner, any opinion on a point of law beset with many difficulties, and respecting which the greatest lawyers constantly differed. He, of course, alluded to the status of the Church of England in the Colonies and the condition of the Royal Prerogative in reference to that Church. He might, however, state that in passing this Bill the Assembly of Canada conceived they were vesting the appointment of Colonial Bishops in this Synod; and also that in advising the Crown to assent to the measure he had done so under the distinct impression, which he still retained, that the power of appointing those Bishops was vested by the Act in the Synod, as constituted under its provisions.

said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what manner he proposes to deal with the existing Auditors of such Savings Banks as may become Government Security Savings Banks, in the event of the Savings Banks Bill, as amended, becoming law.

said, he thought it would be premature to give any answer to the question of the hon. Member until the Bill had made further progress.

said, he wished to inquire of the Vice President of the Board of Education, whether it is intended to make any statement this year on the progress and prospects of Education, as agreed on and begun in former years.

said, that on proposing the Education Vote he would explain the results of the expenditure already made by the nation on behalf of Education, and the grounds on which the Estimate for the present year had been prepared, and would also endeavour to state what might be expected from the Vote.

said, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which some time since inquired into the subject, an order had recently been issued by the Poor Law Board directing that the appointments of Medical Officers to Poor Law Unions should be made permanent. Their salaries were fixed by the Poor Law Guardians, and the funds from which they were paid were partly the rates levied in their districts, and partly from a Vote of that House. In those cases in which the remuneration was extremely low the Poor Law Board endeavoured to procure an addition to it, but he was sorry to say that, generally speaking, the Poor Law Guardians were not disposed to agree with the Poor Law Board as to the propriety of such addition. Unless the Poor Law Board entered into a violent contest with the Boards of Guardians on that subject—which he was not at all prepared to do—it would be very difficult to obtain an increase of the salaries. He ought at the same time to state that, in a great number of Unions, the medical officers were sufficiently remunerated. There could be no doubt that the great body of them discharged their duties with fidelity and diligence. Any one acquainted with the present operation of the Poor Law must admit that a great improvement had been effected in the administration of medical relief to the poor. He could not, however, hold out any hopes to the medical officers that their salaries would be increased by means of an increased Vote of that House, because the House had been reluctant to grant even the usual Vote under the head of Poor Law Medical Relief. As occasion permitted, the area within which the medical officers had to discharge their duties would be diminished.

said, he wished to be informed by the hon. Member for Devonport of the day on which he proposed to resume the adjourned debate on the growth of Cotton in India?

said, the adjourned debate was fixed for Tuesday next, but the Business Paper for that night was already so full of Notices and Motions on other subjects that it was impossible to hope that the adjourned debate could be then resumed. The first open Tuesday was the 23rd of July. The only other day open to private Members was Wednesday; but Wednesdays were so occupied by the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd), that it was impossible to resume the debate on a Wednesday. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give up a Government night for the discussion of the cotton-growing question, he was afraid that nothing more could be said upon it during the present Session.

said, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he was prepared to set apart a day for the resumption of the debate?

Sir, I feel great interest in that debate, and am anxious that those hon. Gentlemen who have not spoken should have an opportunity of expressing their sentiments and discussing the whole question. But I am afraid that at this period of the Session it will be quite impossible to give a day for that purpose. Indeed, any promise that I could make of that sort is already mortgaged to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) on the subject of Education.

said: Are we, then, to understand that the adjournment of the debate was a mere mockery?

said, he wished to know whether, as Her Majesty's Ministers will be at Manchester on Tuesday next, there will be a sitting of the House that day?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department will be in attendance upon her Majesty at Manchester on Tuesday, and I have received a very kind invitation from Manchester, of which I will avail myself; but we shall be the only Members absent, and that will not, I apprehend, prevent the House from going on with the business on Tuesday.

^* Sir, in rising to oppose the further progress of this Measure through the House, I feel that it will not be necessary for me to enter generally upon the subject of the admission of the Jews to Parliament. That subject has already been well and ably discussed; it has engaged to the Fullest possible extent the attention of the House, and therefore it will only be necessary for me to make a few brief remarks on this occasion. I can only say with reference to that subject, that there is one consideration above every other which makes me feel that the admission of Jews to Parliament is a measure to which this House ought not to agree. That consideration is, as we should never forget, and as it is expressed in all our public acts and documents, that the Crown of this realm is held "by the grace of God." Now this expression does not mean a mere abstract notion of the Divine being, but the Christian idea of God in and through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We meet in Parliament and in this House by the authority of the Crown, to pass those acts which are necessary for the government of the country. That Crown is not held independently, but dependently—dependently upon that Holy Being whose name I have mentioned; therefore Parliament ought, in like manner, to possess the same character and attribute of Christianity as the Crown. It has been said that we are infringing the doctrine of charity by not allowing the Jew to sit in Parliament, and I remember that some years ago, the noble Lord the Member for London drew attention to the beautiful parable of the good Samaritan, as an illustration of charity, and an example which we should follow. It was indeed the highest illustration that could be given of a virtue so divine. But is there not a fallacy in the use of this illustration? The divine rule is, that charity worketh no ill to one's neighbour, and can it be said that in asserting and maintaining the Christian character of this assembly we are "working any ill" to our neighbour? Charity is in truth a divine virtue. It is a virtue, let us never forget, which proceeds from that very Being whose name it is now proposed to ignore in order to the exercise of that virtue. My object then in rising to oppose this Bill is, that the true character of the Measure should be known and clearly understood before it is sent up to receive judgment in another House. Sir, the Bill on its second reading was not opposed, and I think so far justly. There are acknowledged inconveniences in the existing oath. Nobody denies that there are some portions of it which might well be omitted; but I regret to say that under the colour of such objections, the attempt has been made to destroy the Christian character of the legislature. It is said, "Here is an oath, the great bulk of which is nonsense; therefore let us do away with the nonsense." Upon that point we are all agreed; but, at the same time, whilst doing away with the nonsense, yon have been doing away with the sense, and also with that which, to the consciences of vast numbers of people in the country is an essential element in the constitution. The object of the Bill is said to be the admission of the Jews to Parliament, but before it proceeds to the other House, let us maturely consider what is its true character—what is its real nature. In the first place, it proposes to abolish the existing oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and abjuration, and to substitute another oath in their stead. Now, we have an instance on record within a very recent date, of the substitution of one oath for another; I allude to the Roman Catholic oath; and I will ask the House to go with me for a few moments into a comparison of the Roman Catholic oath, with the oath which it is now proposed to substitute for the three old oaths. When the Roman Catholic oath was framed, those three points of supremacy, allegiance, and protestation to maintain the established religion of the country were condensed into it. The words of the oath are these—

"I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant government of the United Kingdom.

The first part of the Roman Catholic oath is an avowal of allegiance to the Sovereign; then comes an acknowledgment of the temporal supremacy of the Sovereign; and lastly, there is the delaration to maintain the national religion of the country. Now, what do we find in the oath proposed by the Bill? There is only one point introduced into the oath; it is that of allegiance or supremacy, for they are much about the same. There is not one word about the maintenance of the national religion. In the former oath, which was taken by Protestants, there are certainly no express words to be used binding them to maintain the Christian religion; but when every person who came to that table to be sworn, was obliged in your presence, Sir, to declare that he took the oath "upon the true faith of a Christian," did he not thereby, whatever might be his own feelings—whether he took the oath in sincerity or not, or with contention and insincerity—make public profession that he was a Christian? and what Christian is there that would wish to overturn the Christian religion? Therefore, I say that the old oath did maintain the essential print; the declaration that a national religion exists in the country. And in saying this, I do not speak of the Established Church alone. Far be it from me to suppose for one moment that the religion of the country is confined to that church. Attached as I am to the Established Church, I thank God that the religion of the land is not confined to it. There are varieties of opinion; there are different conformations of the human mind; and it is not to be supposed that in a day of intelligence like the present, every man's mind can be brought to agree to one uniform model in religion, or that one scheme of ecclesiastical government would suit every person. But, independently of that, the established religion is not the only religion of the country. [A cheer from the Roman Catholic benches.] I quite understand that cheer. Still, I believe that the established religion of this country is the most noble, the most ancient, the most estimable institution in the land. But the religion of the country is seated in the hearts of the people, and in their convictions of the truth: it is to that, then, we must look for the maintenance of the national religion. Now, that national religion, though deep-rooted in the hearts of the people, may have its foundations weakened: and how are those foundations most likely to be weakened? It is, first, by abolishing your forms. The abolition of your forms produces forgetfulness of the things for which those forms were instituted. There is every likelihood that in the engagements of every-day life, varied and complicated as they are, the national faith and piety may grow cold if these symbols cease to exist. Is not a form useful? To what do we owe the solemnity of our own proceedings, if not to forms? I remember, Sir, when your predecessor in that chair made a speech which came home to the hearts and feelings of all who heard it; he said that he had endeavoured to maintain the dignity and the privileges of the House, and at the same time to preserve those forms which he felt were essential to the character and conduct of the proceedings and business of the House. Why is the mace placed upon that table? Is it not as a symbol of the power of the House? And so there resides in these forms a power and a virtue which perhaps may not at first be perceived or apprehended, but which are not the less permanent and important. I say, therefore, that although the religion of the country may be deeply seated in the hearts of the people, it is still essential to maintain certain forms; and when should those forms be maintained if it be not when a Member comes to be sworn at the table, and enters for the first time upon the performance of those important duties upon the proper and efficient discharge of which the prosperity of the country rests. Should he not at such a moment be called upon to say, that the national religion of the country is an important element in its prosperity, and that, in order to secure that prosperity, he will faithfully maintain the religion upon which it depends? My first objection to the Bill then is that, professing as it does to concentrate into one all former oaths, it omits all reference to religion; and that any infidel, any Mahomedan, any person who acknowledges the bare abstract idea of a Supreme Governor of the Universe, might take the new oath with impunity. My second objection to the Bill is, that it differs from every other Bill, with one exception, that has ever been introduced to this House upon the authority of Her Majesty's Government, the exception being the Bill of 1854, which was very properly rejected by the House. If the House will allow me, then, I will briefly remind it of the nature of the Bills which have been introduced since the year 1847. In that year the noble Lord the Member for the city of London brought in a Bill to admit Jews to Parliament; but did he propose to alter the oath as taken by Christians? No. It was only in the case of the Jews that he proposed to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." In 1849 the noble Lord brought in another Bill, by which he proposed to alter the oath as regarded Peers and Members of Parliament only; but he retained the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," except in the case of the Jews. In the Bill of 1850 the noble Lord simply omitted the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" in the case of a Jew. In the Bill of 1851, the same provision was proposed. In the Bill of 1853 the noble Lord proposed to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" in the case of Jews, and the Jews were by that Bill excluded from holding certain offices. But in 1854, the noble Lord, fatigued probably by his numerous and ineffectual attempts, thought that the best plan would be to make a dash at the subject at once. He proposed, therefore, to abolish all existing oaths, and introduce a merely secular, and if I may so term it, an infidel oath. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, that is a strong expression, I admit; but I am sure hon. Members will give me credit for not wishing to say anything offensive as to the intentions of the introducer. I merely state that, as the effect of the oath. The noble Lord, however, in that year, proposed to introduce an oath of that nature, and we find that the House of Commons rejected it by a majority of 251 to 247. The House of Commons, which had triumphantly carried the noble Lord through all his previous measures, and which measures had only been stopped by the House of Lords, perceived at once what was the nature of that Bill, itself put a stop to the proceeding, and thereby declared that it would not be deprived of that symbol by which the national religion had been maintained. Now, I believe, that I can ask the noble Lord the Member for London for his support on the present occasion. The noble Lord is anxious for the admission of Jews to Parliament; indeed, it seems to be his main idea. He wishes to see a civil disability done away with in the case of the Jew; but I feel sure he does not desire to reduce this House to a mere secular assembly. He does not wish to do away with all the glorious traditions of English history which show that the prosperity of the nation is indissolubly bound up with the preservation of its religion, and place us upon the footing of an infidel assembly in a continental country. I should weary the House if I were to enumerate all the Acts of the Legislature which would illustrate the fact that the maintenance of Christianity is an essential element in the laws of this country; but it has been said that the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," are accidentally the cause of excluding the Jews from Parliament. I shall not, however, go into that subject at the present moment. I feel that this is not the time again to enter upon that long-exhausted question. What I want to show is this, and what I wish the House to believe is this—that there never was a period when some Christian symbols were not required to be exhibited by Members of the Legislature. Long before the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" were introduced, the Act of Elizabeth required oaths to be taken corporally on the Gospels. An Act of James the First did the same thing. And then, coming to the Republican Parliament, when a monarch had lost his throne and his life, this House resolved that every Member should take an oath that he would maintain the true Protestant—ay, and not only true Protestant, inasmuch as there might have been a cause for that, for we were then at daggers drawn with Popery—but the "true Protestant Christian religion of the country." Why was the word "Christian" put in that oath? Because upon the true Protestant Christian religion, "in the purity thereof," depended the welfare and prosperity of the nation. Than this there can be no more impregnable evidence that Christianity—and not Protestantism alone—was that which was meant to be maintained. Next we come to the declaration which was instituted against Transubstantiation. It may be said that that was a mere feud between Protestantism and Popery; but by whom was that declaration to be taken? By those who could say, "I do solemnly declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is no Transubstantiation." It was an affirmation; a declaration of belief that there is no Transubstantiation. That is to say, that the person making it believed in the Sacrament, but not in Transubstantiation. We then come to the 12th & 13th Will. III., enacting the Oath of Abjuration; and from that time to the present, words have been inserted in the Parliamentary Oaths which maintain the Christianity of the Legislature. Now, let us consider for a moment the position in which we are placed, and I readily acquit the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government of being aware of the extreme gravity of their proceedings. I believe that they have been actuated by the desire to see the Jews admitted to this House, and that they believe the easiest and readiest mode of doing so is to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." But what have they done? They seem to forget that they change those constitutional forms which are of immense weight and inconceivable importance to the destiny and prosperity of the country; and, indeed, I doubt very much whether they are acting constitutionally in what they are doing. We are bound by the Act of Succession, the 12th & 13th Will. III., to maintain a Protestant King or Queen upon the throne of this country; and we are so bound for no other purpose than that the religion of England may be secured. It is in times of danger and the extremity of suffering that our best and noblest nature shines forth. Those who have been brought face to face with danger know well the securities which are needed to protect them from its recurrence, and it was not without reason that the men of those days, who had seen their prosperity falling from under them, who had engaged in mortal strife in order to maintain their religion and their Protestantism, and been brought in direct antagonism and conflict with the Crown, imposed those securities for the abolition of which the noble Lord at the head of the Government is paving the way. I will now read to the House the 4th section of the 12 & 13 Will. III., the Act of Succession, which runs in these terms:—

"And whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof, and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the Government of the same according to the said laws, and all their Ministers and officers ought to serve them respectively according to the same; the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do therefore further humbly pray that all the laws and statutes of this realm for securing the established religion and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are confirmed accordingly."

By what mode could we more efficiently secure the maintenance of the established religion in this country than the taking of an oath to maintain it by every Member who enters the walls of Parliament. Yet the noble Lord proposes to abandon that oath altogether. The preamble to the Act by which the oath of abjuration is enacted, the 12 & 13 of Will. III., c. 6, shows the importance which was attached in those days to the securities that then existed; for after reciting that the French King had violated the Acts of Succession, it declared that upon these Acts the safety of the King's royal person and government, the continuance of the monarchy of England, the preservation of the Protestant religion, the maintenance of the Church of England, and the security of the ancient and undoubted rights and liberties, and the future peace and tranquillity of the kingdom, did under God entirely depend. That was the sense entertained in those times by the men who drew up the statute of what was necessary for the maintenance of the prosperity and liberties of the kingdom. It was thought that that prosperity and those liberties did depend on the Acts then in existence, one essential feature of which was that an oath should be taken, binding the person taking it to maintain the established religion of the country, and at the same time prohibiting by a statute, which is still unrepealed, any Minister of the Crown from proposing any alterations in those Acts. I would now make a few remarks with respect to the last clauses contained in the Bill, and which have been introduced upon the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Horsham. Whatever its character, the Bill was, at any rate, before the adoption of those clauses, a unique piece of legislation; but by accepting those clauses, the noble Lord has himself placed a condemnation on the Bill. It is now declared that the Bill shall not extend to enable any person or persons professing the Jewish religion to hold or exercise certain high offices. And why not? Why are persons who profess the Jewish religion not to exercise those offices? Let me have an answer to that question. I shall be told, that it is because the Roman Catholics do not hold them. Well, they do not. And why? Because it is supposed that they might exercise in those offices an influence adverse to the Protestant character of the State. Then there is this inconsistency involved; that you will allow persons to fill a legislative position, and make the laws which are necessary for the government of the country, but will not allow them to execute or administer those laws. When it was formerly objected that Jews should be allowed to fill posts in corporations, Sir Robert Peel said that the Jews would have therein only an executive position, that they would only have to execute the laws, and would be confined within the limits of those laws. But the present Bill reverses that system, for whilst it excludes the Jews from an executive position, it gives them a seat in the Legislature. Inconsistency, I say, is stamped on the very face of this proposition; but there is yet a further inconsistency. The Roman Catholic is excluded from these offices, and at the same time holds a seat in the Legislature; there is no inconsistency, however, in giving him a seat in the Legislature, because his oath binds him not to do anything to subvert the established religion of the country. But this is not to be the case with the Jew. By your Bill you say to the Jew, "You are not fit to hold these offices; your religion incapacitates you from doing so; yet we will give you a seat in the Legislative Assembly, and we will bind you by no oath, no tie, no obligation, to maintain in that assembly the established religion of the country. Sir, I cannot conceive a greater inconsistency than that. The religion of this country is, that which has brought it through mighty and terrible struggles. The Parliament of this country has achieved great and glorious triumphs. It has curbed the disposition of the Crown at a time when it might have been prejudicial to the State. It has recovered itself from a line of monarchy and republicanism. It has maintained that established religion which was torn out, as it were, from the centre of an adverse creed. It has done all this as a Christian Parliament, with the recognition of the great and holy name of Him who is the Prince of the kings of the earth. And now if it rejects that name, if it repudiates that profession, and if it forsakes that covenant, it will be forsaking, repudiating, and rejecting the fountain of its wisdom, and of the strength and prosperity of the nation. I beg to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time on this day six months.

^* said, he was so sensible of the deference which ought to be paid to the decided opinion of that Assembly, that he felt an apology to be due for offering at the last stage of this extraordinary Bill his utmost opposition to it. He did not think there ever was a Bill attended by more extraordinary circumstances, for it was a Bill which had no other object than that of admitting Baron Rothschild to a seat in that House, and it contained not a single word respecting, or the most distant allusion to, the Jews. He did not know what meaning the House might extract from the Bill, but in itself there was no proposition of the sort. Two collateral issues had been raised in the course of the discussion on the Bill, one of which was the respect due to the expression of opinion by the citizens of London, to which, however, he confessed he paid no respect at all, because, in the first instance, this Jew was returned as an intentional insult to this House and to Christianity. Whether he was right or wrong in this opinion, he admitted that it was not a motive which should influence the decision of that House. The other issue which had been raised was the personal character of the individual concerned. He had not the honour of his acquaintance, but he had received many acts of kindness from members of his family in various parts of Europe, and should be most happy to requite the favours received by doing any service in his power to him. He did not think, however, that this was a reason why he should give his vote for the present Bill. He differed, also, from those who opposed the third reading of the Bill on the ground that it would unchristianize this House, because he did not think that any such Bill would have been brought in or entertained had not the House been already unchristianized. That expression, no doubt, required explanation. He opposed the Bill as an effect and not a cause. They had by their liberalism completely obliterated all the essential principles which had hitherto guided this country in ecclesiastical and political matters. He would only take the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Kinglake); when the Amendment was introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he very properly said, "If you want a religious test, why not appeal to your Bishops in the other House? What is the use of having Bishops in the Legislature, if it be not to give you right directions on Christian principles? Why do you not appeal to them?'' The answer to that was, that if they were appealed to they would be sure to have six on one side and six on the other. The whole system of ecclesiastical authority was come to an end, so much so, indeed, that there were even differences of episcopal opinion with regard to the validity of the sacraments upon which the Church rested. What else did they see? Whilst the enormous Cathedral of St. Paul's was empty, and the Abbey at Westminster was empty, the Bishops were conducting worship in an unconsecrated concert room, and afterwards had the impudence to go down to the country and fight with Dissenters about consecrated and unconsecrated burial grounds. Why, that very night, a notice of Motion had been given for the issue of a Commission to inquire respecting the adaptation of the Liturgy to present circumstances—as if the rites of God's worship changed with every variation of man's fancies. He knew nothing equal to that, except what had been put into his hand yesterday by a gentleman, and that was a prayer in verse, addressed to our Lord, begging him to intercede for the Devil. Could liberalism go beyond that? That he supposed was tearing off the last rag of intolerance. He wished to God that they were as true to their faith as the Jews were to theirs; but they had ceased to know, and ceased to believe, that "there is but one name given under heaven whereby any man can be saved." With respect to the present Bill, he would do with the Jews precisely what they would do with him; and again he said, he wished that we "who profess and call ourselves Christians" were as true to our faith as the Jews were to theirs. They had faith in the destiny of their nation. They believed that they should yet have all the promises which had been made to them fulfilled. They believed that they should yet trample the nations like ashes under their feet, and that not one jot or tittle of all that had been promised to them should fail till all be fulfilled. They knew full well that the circumcised cannot mingle with the baptized. They would not admit one of the baptized into their Sanhedrim. Neither ought we, in his opinion, to admit one of the circumcised into our Sanhedrim. The baptized could not rise till the circumcised fell. And now, mark! mark the historical fact! The Founder of our religion was a Jew—a circumcised Jew. He had the same attachment to His land and to His people that we have to our country. He "lived by faith," it is said, and He watched the "signs of the times," in order to be instructed by them. There came one day to a follower of His a certain Heathen, who said he wanted to speak to his Master. The follower, astonished, went and told another follower, and they two went to the Saviour. What did He say? Did he say, as on every other occasion, "What does this man want? How can I serve him?—Is he sick? I will heal him!—Is he hungry? I will feed him! Send him to me, and in some way I will bless him!" No; he took no notice of them. But He said, "Father, the hour is come!" What was that hour? The hour when the circumcised were to be utterly destroyed—nation, temple, worship, and all; and when He himself, as a Jew, was also to be put to death. If the circumcised were to become members of that Government which was the purest—and by purest he meant the most in accordance with the mind and purpose, rule, and kingdom of God—which had ever been established on the earth, he would say, "Take care; look you sharply about you; for the Jews are going to arise, and I will not venture to prophesy what may happen to you."

wished to make a few observations upon a measure in which his constituents as well as the people of Ireland generally were greatly interested. He would vote against the third reading of the Bill because he regarded it as partial and unjust, inasmuch as it denied to Roman Catholics the rights which would be extended to Jews. The ostensible object of the measure was the advancement of civil and religious liberty; its covert, although paramount object was the admission of a few Jews to Parliament. In considering the construction of the forms of oath hitherto established it had occurred to him that their framers must have laboured under an infatuation that by a jumble of sounding but superfluous phrases the devil might be outwitted. When this Bill was introduced he (the O'Donaghoe) indulged the hope that henceforth common sense was to supersede prejudice, but that expectation was at once disappointed when he came down to the last clause, which by depriving the measure of a liberal and comprehensive character transformed it into a mere Ministerial job. The Government justified the introduction of this Bill on the ground that it would promote the interests of civil and religious liberty. Jews could not sit in that House because the Legislature required them to utter the words "on the true faith of a Christian." The Government had very properly resolved to remove this difficulty, arguing, he supposed, that it was not right to deprive Jews of the benefit of representation when the only impediment to their enjoyment of the privilege was a formula which could be dispensed with without any material evils resulting either religiously or politically. The words "on the true faith of a Christian" were to be omitted from the oath because they were considered unnecessary. This was a Christian country, with a Christian Legislature, and the House had been reminded that the Jews did not belong to a sect which was indifferent on religious questions, but that they believed their creed was the only true faith, and they held that their race and religion would one day be in the ascendant, and would triumph over the institutions which were based upon Christianity. Notwithstanding these considerations, however, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had devised a scheme by which the doors of that House would be thrown open to the Jews, and he placed them on a footing of perfect equality with the great majority of the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. To that he (the O'Donaghoe) did not object—he called the country and all Europe to witness the homage which was paid to the conscientious convictions of the Jew—but he complained of the measure because it refused equal rights to the Roman Catholics. The Government was perfectly aware that the Roman Catholics protested against that portion of the Act of 1829 which related to the form of oath to be taken by them, and all they asked was to be placed upon a footing of equality with the rest of the community. He wished, therefore, to hear from the Government—they had not given it yet—some sound and sufficient reason for making an exception in the case of Roman Catholics. It was said that the Act of 1829 was a final settlement, and that no attempt ought to be made to disturb it; but he submitted that the framers of that Act did not entertain quite perfect ideas of civil and religious liberty, to judge from the changes which it had been found necessary to make in the provisions of the measure. In 1829 the Roman Catholics might very properly accept the proposition offered by the spirit of intolerance, which said, "Agree to this proposal or you shall have no political existence;" but it was in his opinion a very different thing for Roman Catholic Members of that House to sanction by their votes a measure which endeavoured to stain the sanctity of their religion by false and unseemly imputations. In 1829 it was felt that a dangerous experiment was about to be made. It was predicted that from the moment when the first Roman Catholic representative set his face within that House the constitution was doomed. Since the passing of the Emancipation Act nearly thirty years had elapsed, and a great number of Roman Catholics had sat in that House. What had been the general tenor of their conduct? Had they not been the constant friends of progress, whether it was political, civil, or religious? Were they found in the ranks of those who opposed the removal of the restrictions on trade, or the removal of the Jewish disabilities? Had they done anything which proved they were unworthy to sit in that House, or not entitled to a full and equal share in all the blessings of its enlightened legislation? [Cries of "Divide!"] He perceived the House was extremely impatient to go to a division, and he should merely say further that if the noble Lord at the head of the Government could be held to what he said—which, of course, he could not—it would be imperative on him to include the Roman Catholics at once in this Bill. The noble Lord the other night, when replying to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), said that the House was not a religious but a political assembly, and that sentiment was loudly cheered by an overwhelming majority of that House. He would admit that he had himself cheered the sentiment, though he doubted the noble Lord's sincerity; but the inference he (the O'Donaghoe) drew from it was, that religion had nothing to do with a man's politics. Let the House mark the inconsistency of the noble Lord. In the same breath in which the noble Lord gave utterance to that opinion he called on the House to exclude the Roman Catholics from the benefits of the Bill because of their religion. He would add, that unless the noble Lord or some Member of the Government, gave a promise that next Session he would bring in a Bill to remedy the defects of this measure, and thus put the Roman Catholic subjects on a footing of perfect equality with the rest of the community, he should deem it his duty to vote against the third reading of the Bill. He was aware it was said that any one who opposed this Bill voted against the admission of Jews to Parliament, and therefore violated the principle of civil and religious liberty. His answer was, that if by voting against the Bill he violated the principle of civil and religious liberty that principle, as the Bill stood, was violated in his own person and in the persons of his co-religionists, and that if he supported such a measure he would be unworthy of the confidence reposed in him by his constituents, whose religion, he might say, was the glory and characteristic of their nation.

, who spoke amid continued cries for a division, was understood to say that he had endured for a great portion of his life a very considerable degree of unkindness from those connected with him on account of his religious opinions, and he had therefore determined never to inflict on any man any disqualification or censure because he held opinions different from his. On that ground he came forward to the rescue of his brethren, the Jews. Since the real question before them was how they might frame an oath that should be obligatory on the conscience of the man who was to take it, common sense would dictate that it should be framed in accordance with the man's belief and conscience; but the Jews showed that they were conscientious by the scruples they felt in taking the existing oath, and why should an oath not be framed such as would be binding on them? It was said that the Jews wore so peculiar a race and so dissociated from us, and his creed so opposed to ours, that we had nothing in common with him. But he thought that they had very much in common with the Jew; he thought that they owed very much to the Jew. The Commandments, which we regarded as obligatory on us, we received through the Jews, and were equally binding on them; and when we praised our Maker, it was in the language of the Jewish temple. We had, therefore, great affinity and fellowship with the Jews. There were two classes of persons who might be conceived as using the argument that this Bill would unchristianize the assembly. He could conceive of religious persons with a tender conscience fearing the change which they expected from this Bill. But there were many that used this objection to the Bill who knew nothing of Christianity whatever. He would tell such that it was impossible for any man to make or to unmake a Christian; that was a character which came from above. But if the admission of Jews into the House were to unchristianize it, was not the evil already done? Were there not Jewish subjects and Jewish magistrates—those who obeyed the law and those who administered it—and might not such be admitted to consider of the making of the law? The objection seemed to him to be absurd. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He felt that in delivering his sentiments he was offending many of his constituents, and it was with much hesitation that he addressed the House; and he therefore thought the House should not refuse him the opportunity of explaining the reasons which had influenced him in the vote he was about to give. But, for his own part, there was One above all constituencies, whom he thought it is duty to obey. He reminded the House that other nations had admitted the Jews to the highest offices in the State, and that, so far from being displeasing to the Almighty, seemed to be the occasion of his blessing those nations. [Renewed confusion.] He admitted the sincerity of his Friends on the right (the Conservative opposition) in opposing this Bill; he asked them to believe that he also was sincere in supporting it.

, who also spoke amid much confusion, supported the Bill on the principle that religious opinion should no longer be a disqualification for a seat in that House. He did not believe it was a measure to meet a particular case, but a protest against the intolerance he had mentioned. He objected, however, to the clauses which had been introduced since the introduction into that House, as being entirely antagonistic to what he understood to be the principle of the Bill, and he was very much disappointed to find that the Government had accepted them. He could very well understand why the Roman Catholics should be excluded from certain high offices in the State; but there was no relativeness between the exclusion of the Jews and the Roman Catholics. The first was excluded on account of religion; the second, not because of his religion alone, but because he owed a divided allegiance; for, while they held the Queen to be supreme in civil matters, they owned another head in respect of spiritual matters. Much as he regretted the introduction of the clauses to which he had alluded, he still did not think that a reason sufficient for voting against the third reading of the Bill.

should have been content with giving a silent vote, but having supported in Committee to no purpose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, and also to no purpose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford, he had a double reason to be dissatisfied with the Bill as it stood. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) while repealing three oaths, retained a fourth upon the Statute-book, and against this separate oath for Roman Catholics he protested. ["Divide! Divide!"]. [The hon. Gentleman proceeded to comment on various parts of the oaths, but the indescribable uproar which prevailed in the House, and which was most perseveringly kept up by a body of Members below the bar, rendered it impossible to gather with any certainty the general purport of his remarks.] He was, however, understood to say that to strike out the passage directed against treason and regicide, as being offensive to Protestants, and yet to retain it in the oath administered to Roman Catholics, was an insult to the latter, and about as just a proceeding as it would be to require one set of Members to swear that they would never steal or purloin, while everybody else was exempted from such a degrading ceremony. He felt the most profound pity for the Liberal who had such bowels of mercy for the Jew, but none for his fellow Christian.

, amid continued interruption, said, that the course which he intended to take differed to a considerable extent from that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. It was with the deepest regret that he said he could not vote for the third reading of the Bill. He regretted to withhold his support from it, because its immediate effect would be the removal of disabilities which had been unjustly imposed upon a class of his fellow-subjects, and because he knew it was approved by Liberal Members of that House with whom it was his most anxious desire to co-operate on all occasions. But he regarded this as a measure which would create for the first time a new and invidious distinction between the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty and those belonging to other persuasions. And that distinction was rendered so clear and pointed by the speech of the noble Lord on the introduction of the Bill that it was impossible to overlook it. As such, he (Mr. Deasy) knew it was regarded by many persons in Ireland, for whose opinions he entertained the greatest respect. But he could not bring himself to the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, namely, that of voting against the Bill, because he did not wish to offer the slightest obstacle to the removal of unjust restrictions. He would, therefore, neither support nor oppose the Bill.

observed that as he saw the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, he desired to call his attention to an omission in the programme for the spectacle of to-morrow; he meant the absence of any adequate representation of the navy. No feeling of envy existed between the navy and the army, but the same courage, zeal, heroism, and true contempt of danger had been exhibited by the blue jackets as by the soldiers, and for the first time the seamen would feel regret at being debarred from co-operation with his brethren in the red jackets on the occasion of the interesting ceremony to which he alluded, and this feeling would be, he was convinced, shared in and reciprocated by the army. There had never been less dissimilarity in the nature and character of operations of the sister services than had occurred in the Crimean war. What were the arrangements proposed for representing the navy? Fifty pensioners had, it was true, been ordered up from Greenwich, but they had not shared in the dangers and glories of the late war. He had been told that this afternoon an order had been sent to Portsmouth for 100 seamen to come up, but they were not the recognised parties who ought to appear in the Park, taken promiscuously from men not in the aggregate employed in the Crimean war. Thank Heaven, the jolly marines would be there. Eight hundred of them were coming up from Woolwich and Chatham. But he was now speaking of the seamen and naval officers who so highly distinguished themselves both afloat and in the trenches before Sebastopol. He did not charge the authorities with anything but oversight on the occasion, but it was an omission of a grave nature which had inflicted great pain on the members of his profession, and one which he trusted would never be permitted to occur again. If 100 seamen could not have been obtained, it was with case that fifty might have been collected, but if there was any difficulty in the case he would undertake to bring forward 100 officers as the representatives of the navy.

said, there would be on the ground to-morrow the representatives of the navy, past, present, and future—namely, a body of Greenwich pensioners, another body of men who served in the Baltic and in the Black Sea during the late war, and a large number of incipient sailors from the Greenwich school. It was not an easy thing to collect together to take part in the ceremony sailors who had served in the Russian war, many of whom were now paid off, or were dispersed in other parts of the world. There would be present, however, the men he had referred to, in addition to a large body of marines, and those seamen and marines who were to receive decorations.

said, there was to be some sort of springling of sailors at the ceremony to-morrow; but he wished to know how many? The Greenwich pensioners would hardly be able to walk, and would want carriages to take them to the Park. Surely, without even sending so far off as Plymouth, 400 or 500 men who had served in the late war might have been found at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Sheerness, wherewith to make a show on the field. He would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Baronet whether the gratuity for good conduct usually granted to petty officers on being paid off had been discontinued.

said, that some years ago a regulation was adopted which gave the seaman additional pay with a good-conduct badge. That boon was not extended to the petty officers, but, in lieu of it, that which was considered at the time a much smaller boon—namely, a gratuity on their discharge—was given. The whole subject had lately been reconsidered, and in the navy seamen who were promoted to the rank of petty officers, as well as privates who in the army were made non-commissioned officers, were allowed now to carry with them into the higher rank the additional pay consequent on their good conduct. This larger boon having been extended to the petty officers, the gratuity formerly granted to them on being paid off had been necessarily discontinued.

regretted that arrangements had not been made for a rather more complete representation of both the services at the distribution. Probably, on no former occasion had the two services of the navy and army been more identified than at the siege of Sebastopol. There wore between 2,000 and 3,000 seamen who had worked the guns on the shore batteries, and who had been exposed to all the dangers and hardships that the army had experienced, and perhaps even in a greater degree. Their services had been continued throughout the whole of the siege; and there was therefore a more thorough identification of the army and navy upon that occasion than had ever taken place before; and he was sure if there were to be a large preponderance of the army present at the distribution that they would all feel the greatest disappointment at not being accompanied by as many as possible of the sister service. So much for the navy; but he regretted also that several regiments were to be absent which might very easily have been brought up either wholly or in detachments, and which would have added distinction to the proceedings. He knew, for example, that there was one battalion at Alder hot which had lost eight officers at Inkerman. The 88th was at Aldershot yesterday; the 19th was there; the 97th, which headed the storming party at the Redan, was there, and the 3rd battalion of Grenadier Guards, which served throughout the whole campaign, was at Windsor. He thought that these regiments, or, at all events, the medal and clasp men, might have been brought up to share in that magnificent spectacle, which would probably never be repeated in this country. The House, perhaps, might not be aware that by the terms of the Victoria Warrant the Commander in Chief on the spot in future would give the cross on the field where it was won, and consequently it could rarely if ever be given personally by the Sovereign again. This, therefore, was a most peculiar occasion, and if it could possibly have been managed, he should have been very anxious that all the regiments not too far removed from London should have participated in the brilliant spectacle.

expressed his gratification at the remarks of the gallant General who had just sat down, and his regret that the arrangements on behalf of the navy were so mean.

said, he was glad the hon. and gallant Member had taken up the subject. Her Majesty's Government were without excuse, for the hon. and gallant officer had pointed out that the regiments near town could readily have been brought up: he understood that it was proposed to bring up the 79th Highlanders from Shorncliffe to be present—the regiment in which the present Minister for War had served—for, although the noble Lord had not much experience as a soldier, he had, he believed, been a captain in the 79th. The casualties of that regiment in the Crimea, however, had been very small. Of course the gallantry of that regiment was too well known for him to say anything, for a moment, depreciatory of its high character; but it so happened that in the Crimea only one officer and eight rank and file belonging to it had been killed, and two officers, seven sergeants, and fifty-two rank and file wounded; while the 88th Connaught Rangers, which was not to be present at the distribution, had had killed in action six officers, seven sergeants, and sixty-two rank and file; and eighteen officers, twenty-seven sergeants, two drummers, and 332 rank and file severely wounded. That regiment had been suddenly ordered to Portsmouth, but there was no necessity for such a sudden removal of the 88th, and they might very easily, and at a small expense, have been brought to London. As for the 79th, he saw no reason why they should be present at the distribution, unless it were that the attractive nature of their dress entitled them to a prominent place in the spectacle. He thought that this was a piece of favouritism which the House ought to discountenance.

said, it appeared to him that, whenever these great national reviews took place, they seemed to create more jealousy and dissatisfaction than if they were not to occur at all. The naval review of last year gave very little satisfaction, he believed, to the Members of the House of Commons; but he thought that the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Admiral Walcott) had been a little hard upon the Admiralty with regard to their arrangements. Having any great body of sailors present at a review would be, in his opinion, as much out of place as an Admiral on horseback, or a body of infantry at a naval review. How were they to manage a large body of sailors there? [Admiral WALCOTT: I did not ask for a large body.] The thing was impossible. One hundred men had been ordered up to represent the navy, and the gallant Admiral must know the serious inconvenience to the fleet of having a large body of sailors in Hyde Park, independently of the difficulty of providing for them in a city like London. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel French), who was a very old militia officer, but a very young soldier, had drawn the attention of the House to what he called a piece of favouritism shown to the 79th regiment. He was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman allude to that, for he knew that the 79th had been under orders for some time to proceed to Dublin, and it was owing to their being on their way there, and not on account of their dress—a reason which no one but a militia officer would have dreamt of—that they would be present at the display. The Quartermaster General had had the distribution of the tickets—the Admiralty had been subsidiary to the Horse Guards on this occasion, and he believed that the arrangements would be admirably carried out. The Admiralty would be efficiently represented. The gallant Admiral, the Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier), would be there on horseback; the Marines would be present, and a fine body of Greenwich pensioners would attend, to represent the past services of that gallant body of which the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Christchurch was so distinguished a representative. He thought, therefore, that there was no occasion for the jealousy and irritation of feeling which some hon. Gentlemen had thought proper to exhibit.

said, that the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was certainly not calculated to allay any irritation of feeling that might by possibility have been felt by any one upon this subject. Many hon. and gallant Members did, he knew, feel somewhat sore upon it, but he thought that their objections had been very judiciously met by those who had preceded the hon. Member. When, however, the hon. Member gave, as a reason for not bringing up a few sailors, that there would be a difficulty in providing for them in this metropolis with 2,500,000 inhabitants, it appeared to him to be one of the most extraordinary reasons he had ever heard, and it certainly was an admission of administrative incapacity for which he was not prepared. He was, however, glad to hear such a commendation of the Horse Guards from the hon. Gentleman, who, only a few months ago proposed, if he remembered right, to turn the ornamental water from St. James's Park right through that establishment. He could not see what difficulty there could be in placing these gallant men side by side with the troops in Hyde Park. They did land service in the Crimea; and, according to the testimony of the gallant General, performed their part gloriously in the struggle.

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition and administration of Metropolitan Workhouses, and into the arrangements made and carried out by the parochial authorities of the Metropolis for giving relief to the poor," instead thereof.

must say that the new President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Bouverie) was most assiduous in the discharge of his duties, although his action with regard to some of the metropolitan workhouses was not very palatable to the local authorities. He had no objection to the appointment of a Committee, but he thought it could not give the House more information than it already possessed in the Reports of the Poor Law Board. With respect to the Marylebone board of guardians, to whom the noble Lord had referred, he (Mr. Williams) begged to say that they were elected by the vestry, the clergy being ex-officio members of the board, and their conduct towards the poor had, in his opinion, been distinguished by great humanity. The Lunacy Commissioners had certainly reported that the workhouse of that parish did not afford sufficient accommodation for pauper lunatics; but the guardians and the vestry immediately set about carrying into effect the suggestions of the Commissioners, and they also intended to erect a school, which would afford ample means for the education of pauper children. The noble Lord had referred to the employment of workhouse officials who were totally incompetent to the discharge of their duties; but that certainly was not the case in the parish of Marylebone, where the officials were most efficient, and received ample salaries.

hoped his noble Friend would not think he was guilty of any personal disrespect to him, if, being anxious that the House should go into Committee of Supply, he did not follow the noble Lord through the details into which he had entered. He thought the noble Lord had entirely failed to establish a case which would justify the appointment of a Committee. There were between forty and fifty workhouses in the metropolitan district, and, if a Committee were appointed to investigate their management with any care, the inquiry would necessarily extend over two or three Sessions. The noble Lord arraigned the conduct of the parochial authorities generally, and it would be necessary that before a Committee he should prefer regular charges against them, and that an opportunity should be afforded them of offering a full defence. The inquiry would, therefore, be almost interminable. The cases upon which the noble Lord mainly relied as justifying his Motion were those of St. Pancras and Marylebone; but he (Mr. Bouverie) did not think they afforded grounds for the appointment of a Committee. He could not say that he considered the administration of the Poor Law in those parishes perfectly satisfactory. They were governed under separate local acts, and he could not say there was no reason to complain of the manner in which the law had been carried out. Entertaining that opinion, he had thought it his duty last year to institute an inquiry with reference to the proceedings in St. Pancras. The result of that inquiry was laid before Parliament, and in consequence of the measures adopted by the Poor Law Board the evils pointed out had either already been remedied, or were in course of correction by the parochial authorities. The administration of the law in Marylebone had not been perfectly satisfactory; but occurrences which were represented to have occurred in the workhouse had been the subject of inquiry, and steps had been taken by the parochial authorities to prevent their repetition. The Poor Law Board were empowered by Parliament to superintend the administration of the Poor Law throughout the country, and, so far as his power went, he had investigated all alleged cases of abuse which had been brought under his notice, and had endeavoured to apply a remedy where any maladministration was proved to exist. If, however, the Motion of his noble Friend were adopted, the effect would be that, so long as the sitting of the Committee continued, the Poor Law Board would be unable to exercise the powers vested in them by law, and their action would be entirely paralyzed. The Poor Law Board did what it considered just and right towards the poor; but at the same time it was matter of gratification that gentlemen were found who, without any remuneration, attended locally to the wants of the poor, and that with great zeal and success; and although the noble Lord appeared anxious to invest the Poor Law Board with greater powers, yet he (Mr. Bouverie) must say that, for his own part, he should shrink from the idea of having large centralized administrative powers placed in his hands. No doubt cases of hardship and maladministration might arise, but these hardly afforded grounds for the appointment of a Committee. If, however, his noble Friend had any particular cases of hardship which he was able to substantiate by evidence, let him place them in his (Mr. Bouverie's) hands, and he would endeavour to see that justice was done.

, in supporting the Motion, said, that he was acquainted with the state of affairs in the parish of St. Pancras, and considered inquiry urgently called for. The inquiry to which the right hon. Gentleman referred took place in January, 1856, and no doubt the regulation which the Board had laid down in consequence of the Report were excellent. Nevertheless, the state of things had not improved, and in October last Mr. Hall reported that they were disregarded wherever they differed from the former practice. Dr. Bence Jones reported that the workhouse was overcrowded, the inmates of the infirmary suffered from a poisonous atmosphere, and much disease was the consequence; while in the lunatics' ward great abuses prevailed, such as compelling a cleanly and a filthy patient to sleep together. This was the state of things on the 20th of December last. But, bad as matters were in the house, the management of the out-door relief was still worse; and he contended, therefore, that there was a loud call for inquiry. He did not, however, wish to give power to a Committee of that House to make inquiry into the state of the workhouses all over the country, because he thought that was unnecessary. It was only in the metropolis, where nobody could be said to know his neighbour's business, and where, consequently, much suffering among the poor went unrelieved, that inquiry was called for; and having discovered the condition of one metropolitan workhouse, he wished to know what was the condition of the others. He should, therefore, strengthen the hands of the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) by supporting his Motion for a Committee.

said, he thought the statement made to the House by the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Bouverie) made the case for inquiry much stronger than it was before. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had abundant power placed at his disposal. If he had that abundant power, why did he not exercise it? He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the poor in the metropolis, in consequence of their isolation, were much worse treated than in the country. There was one question he should like to ask, why, if the right hon. Gentleman had such full power in his hands, how he came to suffer the flogging of women in the Marylebone workhouse? Not many years ago Barclay and Perkins's draymen took it into their heads to insult and maltreat General Haynau, when he came to London, for flogging women—a thing, by the way, which he never did. No one, however, could expect the draymen of Barclay and Perkins to be very conversant with foreign politics. But there, in the Marylebone workhouse, were women flogged. Besides, when the Poor Law Board proposed to institute inquiry into the matter, that inquiry was resisted by most of the poor law guardians in the parish, and they were backed by the clergyman of the parish, who had since been made a bishop. But it was perfectly clear that the poor in these London unions were most shamefully treated. He did not choose to go into any details. He was, however, conversant with the treatment of pauper lunatics. In the rural districts the country gentlemen tried to get those poor lunatics into proper asylums, because they knew that there the unfortunate creatures would be kindly and skilfully treated by persons who really devoted themselves to the care of such people. In the country asylums, too, the condition of the lunatics was inquired into by the county magistrates periodically; but here in the metropolis there was no one who knew anything about such matters, and the result was, that the poor lunatics were most cruelly treated; they were huddled together in the most wretched manner, and had no one to look after them who understood the nature of their ailments. Was this, he would ask, a state of things to be allowed to go on under their very noses, and they were not to interfere? He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) exercised his power. The right hon. Gentleman, it might be from modesty on his part, had not enlightened the House on that point; but he (Mr. Drummond) did not care in whom power was vested; what he wanted was, to see those poor people protected, and if he could not get that done through the intervention of the Poor Law Board, he would support the Motion for a Committee of inquiry.

said, he would cordially support the Motion before the House, believing that the noble Lord, in bringing it forward, had shown ample cause for investigation, and in so doing deserved the thanks of the House. He was, indeed, surprised that the Government should oppose the Motion, especially as they were told that there were eight other workhouses in the same, or nearly as bad a condition as those of St. Pancras and Marylebone.

, in explanation, said the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin) had referred to the state of St. Pancras workhouse on the 25th December last. He (Mr. Bouverie) had been informed, on competent authority, that the parish of St. Pancras was now laying out a very large sum of money in making improvements which had been recommended by Dr. Bence Jones, and that all the material suggestions which that Gentleman had made had been either actually effected or were in the course of being effected. The hon. Member, therefore, was not justified in basing his Motion on statements made six months ago.

said, his experience as a citizen of London and a magistrate had long convinced him that here poverty was regarded as a crime and treated as a crime. He felt bound to support the Motion of the noble Lord; but, considering the period of the Session, and the vast number of election petitions which stood for consideration by Select Committees, he thought it would not be advisable to add another Committee to the number, and that the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) would do well to leave the matter in the hands of the President of the Poor Law Board for the present.

said, the hon. Member who last addressed the House had made a startling and alarming statement—namely, that in this metropolis poverty was treated as a crime; but he trusted that statement was rather the result of the hon. Member's warmth of feeling than of his deliberate conviction. On the other hand, however, he could not but admit that, within the last few years, circumstances had transpired to show that the administration of the poor law in this great metropolis was not in a satisfactory state. He must say that, when the shocking revelations were made in the St. Pancras Report became public, he received a private communication from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), in which he manifested as much interest in the matter as any one could; but the complaints were not confined to St. Pancras, and he must congratulate the noble Lord (Viscount Raynham) on having found an opportunity of bringing forward a subject to which attention had been long directed; for, in the course he had taken, the noble Lord had done a public, service; but, considering the period of the Session—and, what was of more importance, namely, the spirit in which the Motion had been met by the President of the Poor Law Board—he thought the object of the noble Lord would be best attained by leaving the matter in the hands of that right hon. Gentleman for the present. He (Sir J. Pakington) understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) had promised to give his attention to the subject, and with that assurance the noble Lord might be satisfied. He (Sir J. Pakington) believed that much irregularity prevailed in the workhouses of the metropolis, and, unless the state of things there became more satisfactory, he thought the noble Lord, at the commencement of the next Session, would have abundant ground for repeating his Motion.

said, unless he received an assurance from the President of the Poor Law Board, that some steps would be taken in this matter, he should divide the House.

rose to call attention to the great increase which had taken place in this Vote within the last few years. So recently as 1852 it was only £150,000, whereas for the last year it was £451,000, and for the present year £541,233, being an increase of £90,000 as compared with last year. The annual increase was now about £100,000, and Sir John Kay Shuttle worth had predicted that in a few years the rate would amount to £1,000,000, estimating the capitation fund for the rural districts alone at £800,000. According to the present rate of progression the Government would soon be in possession of the education of the entire people, and voluntary effort, which had accomplished such wonders in past times, would have no chance against the national Exchequer. It certainly was not fitting that the Committee should vote such a sum as half a million of money to be placed at the disposal of an irresponsible body. He complained that the duties of the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education were not so well defined as they ought to be. The whole system, in fact, appeared to him to be going wrong, and he thought it exceedingly desirable that before agreeing to the Vote the House should discuss fully and deliberately the question of national grants for education—grants voted without consideration, and distributed without responsibility—which they could not do at such a late hour of the night as half-past nine o'clock. He therefore moved,—

"That the proposed Vote of £361,233 for public education in Great Britain, in addition to £180,000 already voted, and making together £541,233, for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1858, be postponed for consideration, and be the last on the Estimates of Civil Services."

stated, that he could not put the question which the hon. Gentleman had proposed. It was competent to the hon. Member to negative the Vote, but, according to the rules of the House, he could not move its postponement.

said, it appeared as if the appeal of the hon. Gentleman for the postponement of the Vote must have been prepared under the supposition that the Estimates would not be taken so early. It was very unusual to postpone a Vote at half-past nine o'clock, and if the question could not be discussed at that hour, he despaired of securing a more suitable time. The Estimates now in the hands of the Chairman had been prepared upon a calculation of the payments that would become due in the current year, in accordance with the conditional grants made under Minutes of the Committee of Council. The increase over last year, amounting to £129,000, was owing to the increasing outlay on the part of local and voluntary contributors towards the building and management of schools, and was therefore not only a measure of the increased exertions of the benevolent and of those interested in education, but also an indication that the terms on which the votes of Parliament were administered were suited to the wants and acceptable to the feelings of a large portion of the community. The general acceptance of the terms was the best proof that could be got of their propriety. The necessity of this expenditure was tested not only by a careful examination of the circumstances of each case and by official inspection, but still further by the sacrifice of their own money by persons most conversant with the locality and best able to watch constantly over the proceedings of the school. They had also the best security for the economical application of the grant. They had not only the supervision of the Committee of Council but also the personal interest of those who were spending their own money, and who could not spend the public money without spending a proportionate sum of their own, and could not economise their own money without saving the public purse, for the public grants were so made as to be in proportion to the contributions from local and voluntary sources. The position which the State occupied in relation to education depended not only on a correct view of the duties of the State but also on the position assumed by the instructors. Popular education in many parts of Europe had been directed by the Government. In England the efforts for spreading knowledge among the poorer classes had originated in times of religious zeal. The earliest epoch of our ancient schools dated from a time when the pious zeal of the people led to the foundation of schools in connection with conventional establishments. Many of the endowed schools—in which, however, much improvement was required—dated from the period of the Reformation, when there was a great desire that the new opinion on religious subjects should be widely disseminated, and the poor enabled to read the Scriptures and see for themselves the basis of the Reformation. The third epoch at which efforts were made for the extension of education among the children of the poor with permanent results was the commencement of the present century, when a great revival of religious zeal gave rise to the Evangelical movement. On the Continent popular education had been diffused from a different source. In Prussia, the present admirable system was framed at a time of disaster and discouragement. At a time when the Prussian armies had succumbed before the French invaders and their lands had been spoiled by the conquering foe, the statesmen of Prussia felt the necessity of making some resolute effort to awaken the intelligence, to revive the exhausted vigour, and to rouse the relaxed energies of the people; and in that moment of difficulty and depression they commenced the present system, which had since been extended through the Prussian dominions. In Germany and France state policy dictated schools. In England popular education originated with no statesmen, and was nurtured for no political end. It sprung from the action of the Church and the philanthropy of individuals. They traced it from the school of Mr. Raikes at Gloucester, who at the close of the last century established Sunday schools, and from the untiring exertions of Boll and Lancaster, who devoted their lives to the establishment of the monitorial system. When, therefore, in the year 1833, the governing bodies of this country at last awakened to a sense of the duty of the State with reference to the moral and intellectual state of the people, and perceived that the State was bound to take measures to prevent ignorance and immorality, and to remedy the neglect of the education of the children of the poor—when, for the first time, a grant of public money, though only amounting to £20,000, was voted by this House—it was not possible for any State education to be framed in the way in which it had been established in continental countries. The field, being already occupied by persons associated together by an agreement of religious views, and philanthropic motives, the State naturally turned to directing and improving the schools which already existed; so that the present arrangement, which would not have been adopted as a system, was developed naturally from the circumstances, the march of events, and the state of opinion at the time it was introduced. The method to which Parliament was almost compelled to resort, when first it began to vote money in aid of schools, was the supplementing and completing the imperfect exertions already directed to give adequate education to the labouring classes. That system had developed itself and assumed a great variety of ramifications; but the present mode of administering the grant was exactly the same as was adopted in 1833. Now, the principle of that aid was this—the co-operation of the State with the exertions of individuals, and societies in the promotion of education. In some respects it was defective, but it was an exemplification of the French axiom, Aide toi et le ciel t'aidera. Upon the same principle the world was governed by Divine Providence, for they saw that the prizes of life were not given to those who most needed them, but to those who most exerted themselves to obtain them. It had been admitted that the man who made a gift to another, benefited him less than the man who enabled him to help himself; and he was sure, with regard to schools, the State did more by stimulating managers and teachers to make a good school than they would by merely supplying the funds. The efforts of the Committee of Council on Education had been directed not merely to aid the schools by grants of money, but by giving them information, guidance, and help, and those suggestions which could best be given by a central authority viewing the whole education of the country, and being accurately informed of all that was going on by means of its inspectors. It was not centralization in an improper sense—for he presumed centralization in that sense was an attempt to do something which the locality could do better, while the right centralization was to do that which the central could do better than the local authority. It was local action under central supervision. In all matters of guidance and direction it was acknowledged that the Committee of Council had greatly benefited the local schools. In considering the Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education he would ask what were the great impediments which prevented the spread of education among the children of the poorer classes? Those impediments were—1. Deficiency of school buildings. 2. Deficiency of funds for the maintenance of schools. 3. Inefficiency of education and imperfect mode of teaching. 4. Irregular attendance of children. 5. Early age at which children leave school. 6. Total absence of many children from the schools. With regard to the deficiency of school buildings, the grants of the Committee of Council had done much to supply it. In the last year the sum spent on building and enlarging elementary schools was £74,000: 242 schools had been built and 262 enlarged during the year; 127 teachers' residences had been built, and an increase of accommodation had been provided for 34,000 children; From the year 1839 to the present year the sum of £580,000 had been spent in building, enlarging, and improving schools, and accommodation had been provided for 495,000 children. These grants had been made on conditions, under which they had been met by an expenditure of £1,512,000 in voluntary contributions; so that, on an average, the Parliamentary grant was met by three times the amount of the public contribution. If the Committee looked to the amounts awarded for building schools, there would be seen to be a rapid increase in the applications for aid which were entertained. In 1852 awards were made for building 285 schools; in 1853, 318; in 1854, 450; in 1855, 470; and in 1856, 575. At present there were liable to inspection 7,588 schools considered as institutions, not as school-rooms, many of them containing boys, and girls, and infants, in the same building. These having been partly built by public money, were liable, by their trust deeds, to inspection; though the actual inspection was usually restricted to those in the receipt of annual grants. Out of 7,588 separate institutions, 4,120 were last year in the receipt of annual grants and were actually inspected. In 1854, the number of school institutions liable to inspection was 4,788, of which 3,825 were actually inspected, and in two years the increase of schools liable to inspection had risen from 4,788 to 7,580 in the present year. These, it would be observed, were school-houses, not school-rooms. It thus appeared that under the present system the erection of schools was proceeding at a very rapid rate. It was true that this increase would be much more rapid if the public money were given on easier terms. Applications were constantly made to the Privy Council to make grants without exacting the usual proportion of local contributions, and in peculiar cases, where poor and populous communities were concerned, exceptions were made to the rule, and the Committee did not tie down the applicants too rigorously to the letter of the rule. He now came to the second point—the want of funds for the ordinary maintenance of the schools. This expenditure was met from the other grants of the Privy Council. It was found, from the average expenditure of elementary schools, that the annual cost of a child was estimated at 30s., and that the amount contributed by the public was 11s. 4d. The public funds, therefore, speaking generally, provided more than one-third of the ordinary expenditure of those schools receiving annual grants, and which came up to the requirements of the Committee of Privy Council. The third point—the inefficiency of the education given in the schools, had long been a great source of complaint, and a great impediment in the way of education. Many of the Minutes of the Privy Council dealt with this evil, but mainly those of 1846, which provided for the establishment of normal schools, the augmentation of teachers' salaries, and the adoption of the system of pupil teachers. The rapidity and extent to which normal schools had increased was most remarkable. Foreign educationists have great difficulty in believing that within ten years thirty-two normal training institutions had been established in this country, mainly by voluntary contributions, for such an achievement could only have occurred in this country. These normal schools were not only well provided with suitable houses and good teachers, but great care was being taken to adapt them to their proper object. They were becoming more practical, and were now producing the proper class of teachers that were required. Mr. Temple, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, said, in his last Report:—

"The work done in the training colleges appears to me, with one exception, to be improving as steadily and as rapidly as could be desired. The definiteness given to the examinations by Mr. Moseley's programme has had the best effect both on the students and the lecturers. There is always a tendency in the infancy of such institutions to attempt more than can be accomplished, and the training colleges have not been free from this mistake. Year by year, however, they seem to see more clearly what they ought to do, what they can do, and how they can do it best, and the more definite character of the annual examinations contributes much to this result. The answers of the students are less superficial and less inaccurate than they used to be."

The attention of the inspectors and of the Committee of Privy Council had been specially directed to secure that the education given in these establishments should suit the young men who were trained to be the teachers in these schools, and should avoid the charge of "flying too high." It was, no doubt, extremely difficult to provide a master who would patiently and willingly teach children of from seven to ten years of age, and who was at the same time competent to instruct a pupil-teacher in those matters which would fit him in his turn to be a master. If, therefore, hon. Members were sometimes disposed to complain that too highly qualified a master was sent to a village school, it must be remembered that, besides the instruction of the class, the master must be capable of teaching a teacher. To reach the minds, sustain the attention, and influence the hearts of very young children was as difficult, perhaps, as teaching older pupils, and required a degree of skill and patience which could not easily be found. Some of the faults laid to the charge of the school-masters were to be traced only to the youthful age at which they had to take charge of the schools. This disadvantage, however, was in process of correction; and the average age of the trained masters was gradually rising. The training schools, also, could not give experience which must be acquired in after life, and experience was as necessary in teaching as in any other profession. The augmentation of the salaries of masters had been successful. Before the Minutes of 1846, it used to be remarked, that the schoolmasters of villages and country towns were generally men who had failed in some other occupation—that keeping a school was the resource of those who did not succeed in other pursuits—and that teaching was supposed to be so easy a matter that any one could undertake it without previous training or experience. They were often the discarded ushers of middle schools, incapable of exercising the lowest strata of the reasoning faculty. But this class of persons had disappeared from the inspected schools. The position of master had been invested with a respect more commensurate with its real importance, and was a coveted object of rustic ambition. There was no deficiency of candidates for masterships in schools where the payment was adequate and the opportunity of exercising their vocation was satisfactory. But the institution of pupil-teachers had most conduced to the efficiency of the schools. The monitorial system, which it superseded, had been bringing elementary education into disrepute, particularly with the parents who were dissatisfied that their children should learn of, or teach other children. The pupil-teachers were found to be really valuable as aids to the masters; and they offered this great advantage, that we had preparing for the normal schools young men who had a taste for educating, and who voluntarily entered into it, and were prepared during a five years' apprenticeship for that which would be their profession in after life. It was objected that the smallness of the remuneration produced some difficulty in obtaining pupil-teachers, and that a considerable proportion of their number did not afterwards become masters. But as to the allegation that the pupil-teachers were not adequately paid, it was doubtful whether any strong pecuniary inducement ought to be held out to tempt young men into the field of education. It was much better that lads should be left to embrace this profession from a peculiar aptitude and natural bent for it, than that they should be drawn away by increased emoluments from other occupations. And by affording to those pupil-teachers who discovered that they had no taste for the work of instruction a ready means of escape into other employments, there was a better chance that those who remained would be adapted for educational pursuits. Experience showed that no man succeeded in this occupation who did not take an interest in it, and had not a warm sympathy with children; and the success of a school-master depended more on the zeal he felt for his profession than on intellectual ability. This explained the success of ragged schools. The Ragged School Union had made no demand for Government aid; probably because the intellectual attainments of their teachers would not enable them to pass the examination for Government certificates. But the deficiency of special learning was compensated by zeal, aptitude, and by that lively sympathy with the children under their care, which was the real source of moral power over the tender mind. The great aim, however, ought to be to combine both of these qualifications in the teacher, and the training institutions to which he had referred afforded facilities for attaining that result. They supplied to the future instructors of the young the requisite intellectual acquirements and practical experience; while for those whose hearts were not in the work an easy outlet was provided to some more congenial occupation, and the training they had received was useful in other walks of life. The pupil teacher system had been commenced at a school at Norwood by Sir James Kay Shuttleworth; it was subsequently tried in the Admiralty School at Greenwich, and was now adopted in all the best schools in England. In the important matter of pupil-teachers we surpassed the nations of the Continent, however efficient their systems of education were in other respects. In France there was nothing that corresponded to this feature of our institutions, and the want of it was felt. Another valuable provision was that the augmentations made to the salaries of schoolmasters and pupil-teachers were made to depend on their passing through examinations before the inspectors, and also on a rigid scrutiny of their paper-work in the Council Office. Every security was thus taken that the sums paid in increasing their remuneration should not be uselessly or carelessly spent. The irregular attendance of the scholars was, perhaps, the greatest impediments to the success of our elementary schools. From a return, including all the schools at present under inspection, it appeared that 42 per cent of the scholars had attended the dayschools for less than one year; that 25 per cent had attended for one year and less than two years; that 13 per cent had attended for two years and less than three; that 8 per cent had attended for three years and less than four; that 5 per cent had attended for four years and less than five; and that 4 per cent had attended for five years and upwards. In many of the schools, especially in Yorkshire, one-half of the children to be found there at one time were not in the habit of attending for more than six months in the year, and in the rural districts generally many of the children were taken away from school during the summer months. This irregular attendance above all other things tended to prevent a good result, for in the case of young children the impressions produced on the mind must he continuous, if they are to have any lasting effect. He had heard schoolmasters say that nothing was more distressing than to see the same boy who bad left them at the age of eleven an intelligent, active lad, with all his wits about him, and able to use all the faculties he then possessed, returning to them at seventeen, after he had been at the plough, a heavy, dull, stupid, loutish sort of fellow, who, so far from being able to describe all those beautiful flourishes of the pen at which he used to be an adept when at school, hardly knew how to write his own name, and had nearly forgotten all that he had learnt. The capitation grant aided the school-fund in the way most calculated to stimulate frequent and regular attendance; and the reports from the schools showed that it had operated beneficially. It induced the managers and masters to exert themselves to get the children to attend regularly; and, it suggested to persons of influence to visit the parents in their respective neighbourhoods and to point out to them the absolute necessity of a continuous and consecutive course of instruction for any really beneficial and enduring result. At present the capitation grant was not paid upon more than 36 per cent of the whole number of scholars in attendance. So that only one-third were attending as they ought. To give the right to a share of the grant the child must have been at school for 176 days during the year preceding the inspection. It acted, therefore, as a direct stimulus to the masters and managers to increase the number of their scholars, and also, when they got them to school to keep them there. The early age at which the school-education ceased, could hardly be prolonged by any operation of a public grant. If a child earned money you could hardly ask his parents to consent to his abandoning work in order to go to school, unless you compensated them for the loss which they would thereby sustain; and of course no one would propose in that House a Vote to compensate parents in such cases. But much was being done to make it worth while for the parents to let their children remain longer at school, and efforts were being made to improve the education given in the primary schools aided by the State. Parents could appreciate that improvement more readily than was generally supposed. In his opinion the indifference shown by many of the working classes with regard to sending their children to school was not so much owing to their prejudice against education itself, as to their low opinion of the character of the education given to their children. They did not see that that education had a very obvious or practical effect upon their children's progress in life. To some extent he thought the parents were wrong, but he did not deny that the schools might and ought to be more efficient and furnish a more practical and special preparation for the future occupations of the children. In the best of schools there were some children who would not learn. He had known boys who exercised their ingenuity and cleverness in getting their lessons without study, and who could pass through even Eton and Westminster without carrying away with them anything that they could remember in after life. The reports of the school inspectors showed the pains they took to make the instruction more thorough, efficient and practical. Where industrial training could be given to advantage it was given; but if children, particularly boys, remained in the schools, on an average, only a year or a year and a half, it was clear that there was not time for them to learn more than the mere elements of intellectual teaching, and the withdrawing of their time to teach handicrafts would not be wise when their age was below ten or eleven. He believed that all the friends of education were now inclined to press upon schoolmasters the importance of making their teaching as special and suited to the children's future position in life as possible. In the girl's schools there was more opportunity of doing so, because girls generally remained longer at school than boys. Any one who read the report of Mr. Cooke, who inspected the female training schools, would see that he was continually repeating his exhortations to the teachers to bestow more pains on teaching the girls needlework and household work, and, where it could be done, household economy. In fact, some of the inspectors had become excellent judges of needlework. They had from the commencement impressed the teachers with the desirableness of making the education given to the girls as practical as possible. He believed that the more the quality of the education was improved, the more visible its results, the more it would be valued, and the more likely was it that the children would remain longer at school. Parents in the long run were not bad judges of what sort of education their children ought to have. He often found that a parent knew much better what progress his child was making in education than the visitors who questioned him and the managers who frequented the school. With regard to the total absence of children from school, he thought the number of such children not so large as was generally assumed. It appeared, from the returns of the Registrar General, that out of nearly 5,000,000 children about 2,000,000 attended school; but assuming that children between the ages of three and fifteen remained in school on an average not more than five years, it would be quite compatible with those figures that every child in the country should have passed through a school. It was found, however, that children did not remain on an average five years at school. The children of the working classes remained at school, on an average, no longer than from a year to a year and three-quarters. He did not mean to assert that every child in the country had passed through a school, but the returns of the Registrar General were not inconsistent with that assertion. He believed that the number of children who never went to school was comparatively small indeed. Several inquiries had been made on that subject, and the results tended to show, that if you excluded the lowest class of children who swarmed in the courts and alleys of great towns, in which the most demoralized portion of the community dwelt, the number of those children who did not at one time or other attend school was not large. When he had had opportunites of questioning children who were grossly ignorant, he generally found that they had been at school, though they had forgotten what they had learnt. That fact showed, that even among the working classes there was an opinion that their children ought to attend school, although they were very careless about keeping them there. Many children, also, played truant, and disregarded the wishes of their parents that they should attend school. The scanty attendance at several of the schools was owing to the indifference and demoralization of parents, and the extensive employment of young children. Nevertheless, when he regarded what was being done in the primary schools, he found that amid much to distress there was also much to encourage. Those schools which had been brought under the operation of the Minutes of Council were rapidly improving; abler masters were employed, there was greater energy and talent in the management of the schools, and more practical knowledge was imparted. He saw day by day greater numbers of persons devoting their attention to this great cause, and the progress, though slow, was certain. Education was spreading its roots deeper and wider in a prolific soil. Benevolence, compassion, and charity were engaged in this work. They felt that it was not so much upon mere donations, as upon a sense of duty and noble emulation on the part of those engaged in our schools that the advance of education depended. The last objection to which he would advert was one which had been frequently urged against the system. It had been said that the Government withheld their aid from the poor, while they gave it to the rich. But that was not a fair way of stating the matter. They did not give to the rich as rich, nor withhold from the poor as poor— they gave their aid to those districts in which the people interested themselves about education, and were ready to make sacrifices for it, while they withheld it from other districts, not because those districts were poor, but because they were indifferent to the education of their children. Aid was withheld from certain parishes, not because they were poor, but because no persons lived within them who took a sufficient interest in the promotion of education among the inhabitants, or who were willing to make the necessary exertions for that purpose. There was, after all, no security for the proper expenditure of the public money so good as that of the voluntary exertions of self-denying zeal, and he, for one, should he the more satisfied that that money had been advantageously laid out if its expenditure were made dependent on contributions being made for the advancement of education by those who were acquainted with the wants of a particular locality, and who had proved the earnestness of their convictions by carrying out their views with the aid of funds drawn from their own resources. He did not think it was necessary he should enter into any further explanation of the Vote, as hon. Members had a sheet in their hands which fully explained all the details, but he should be ready to answer any question which might be put to him with reference to them.

said, he had listened with very great pleasure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat; and although he was unable to concur with him in many of the conclusions at which he seemed to have arrived, the Committee he felt assured could not fail to appreciate the calm and judicious tone by which the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had been pervaded, and he ventured to express a hope that the same tone would be found to animate any discussion which might take place upon the very interesting and important matter to which that statement related. He must also state that he derived great pleasure from the fact that the vote for educational purposes had been submitted to the notice of the Committee by a Minister directly connected with the department of education in this country, and who must be held responsible for the various items which the Vote contained. Having said thus much, he should not trespass upon the time of the Committee by entering into a discussion of the question generally; because it was his intention, after the conferences upon the subject which had just taken place, to take that course when he brought forward his Motion with respect to the general subject of education, for the introduction of which to the notice of the House the noble Lord at the head of the Government had, with his usual courtesy, been good enough to say that he would place a day at his disposal. The only object which he had in view upon the present occasion was to invite the serious attention of the Committee to the financial position of the question under discussion, to the growing amount of the Estimate for educational purposes, and to the manner in which the money voted for those purposes was expended. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the origin of this Vote, and he was very glad to have heard the right hon. Gentleman make the important admission that the present system of education was one which could not be defended if it had originated systematically. Whatever might be its faults or defects, much good had, no doubt, been effected under its auspices; but he (Sir J. Pakington) felt convinced that the time must soon arrive when Parliament would be obliged to direct its attention to the question whether that system was one which ought to be allowed to go on permanently, and whether they were to vote an annually increasing grant for the promotion of education without taking some greater security than now existed for the beneficial expenditure of the money which they so liberally advanced. The right hon. Gentleman had observed that the present system was one under the operation of which the State assisted and co-operated with the efforts of individuals; but he (Sir J. Pakington) should contend that the result was to afford that assistance to the richer which was withheld from the poorer localities. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, foreseeing that objection, had adverted to it at the close of his speech, and had endeavoured to meet it by saying that aid was not withheld from the poorer localities because they were poor, but because no desire was exhibited upon their parts that assistance should be extended towards them. The practical consequence, however, was that the richer districts, which were in a position to help themselves, got a very large share of the grant, while the poorer, which were unable to do anything for their own advantage, got nothing. Now, that was a great evil lying at the very root of the existing system. There was also another important question connected with the subject—namely, whether the working of the present system was such as to render It certain that the country received a full equivalent for the money which was voted by the Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated centralization—he said, that centralization in an evil sense was when the State undertook to do what localities could best do for themselves. Now, his (Sir J. Pakington's) objection to the scheme of education as it now stood was that it tended to promote centralization to an undue extent; he was strongly of opinion that, in granting a large sum of money to be administered by a central department located here in London, Parliament was doing that for the country districts which they could more efficiently perform for themselves. It was absolutely impossible, for instance, that any department in the metropolis, however well conducted, could dispense money for the maintenance of schools in Devonshire or Norfolk with a due confidence that the money so expended had been laid out to the best advantage. He was of opinion, indeed, that education throughout the country could not be satisfactorily promoted unless the aid of the respective localities were obtained, and a scheme of local organization established to provide that the public money was laid out only on schools which, owing to the nature of the education which they furnished, were deserving of assistance. Before the dissolution of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) complained of the growing amount of this grant. He (Sir John Pakington) did not complain of the amount; but he did think that it had now reached a sum which made it incumbent upon them, not in the capacity alone of friends of education, but as stewards of the public purse, to see that it was properly administered. They must also specially note the annual increase. That increase he was glad to say was mainly caused by an increased attention to the subject of education throughout the country, and mainly by the efficiency of the capitation system. That system had at the outset been limited to the rural districts, but it had by a Minute of last year been extended to the whole of England, and he had no hesitation in saying that the House of Commons would, if the system were permitted to continue, be called upon before long to vote £1,000,000 sterling yearly for the purposes of education. Now, he, for one, had no objection to see a large amount of money expended in connection with that most important subject, and that it should be the subject of an annual Vote. He might add, that certain localities ought, in his opinion, to be aided out of the general funds of the country, but then he must repeat that steps should be taken to secure the beneficial expenditure of the money thus laid out. While dealing with that question he should, with the permission of the House, read a few passages from the Report upon the state of education which had just been issued, in order to show the Government what their own inspectors stated upon the working of the present system. The Rev. Mr. Stewart, who was inspector of schools for Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, and Buckinghamshire, in alluding to the working of the present system, said,—

"The necessary consequence of these features is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a satisfactory standard of instruction in the schools which are aided by Parliamentary funds."

Again, the Rev. Mr. Mitchell, who was inspector of the Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex district, said,—

"Of the 205 schools inspected (in 1856) 41 may be reported as being really efficient, and many of them excellent, offering not merely an ordinary education, but as good an education as I conceive to be possible, taking all the circumstances into consideration-—i.e., the age and social position of the scholars; but of 35 I am obliged to add an opinion that they are so defective in every respect—teachers, fittings, books, apparatus, and general morale—that it would be better if they were entirely closed, as they only impede progress to a better state of things. On the whole, it is almost better to have no school than a very bad one. The remaining 129 schools are more or less efficient; some are progressing, others remaining stationary, and some, I fear, retrograding."

Now, it was worthy of grave consideration, whether Parliament should continue to vote large sums of public money for the support of a system on which the official inspectors pronounced no higher an opinion than this. He now invited the attention of the Committee to a table which appeared in the Report of 1854 and 1855. It was a tabulated statement of the quality of all the inspected schools, and the general result was that of those schools (the best in England, it should be remembered), only 50 per cent were in a satisfactory state. Another table, taken out of the Report for the present year, and to which he had referred yesterday at the Educational Conference, would bring pointedly before the Committee the necessity of some greater return for the expenditure of this public money. The table showed the merits of the schools under some seven or eight different heads of instruction, but he would only refer to one. He found with, reference to the simple rules of arithmetic that 4,698 schools were reported upon, and at 3,085, or two-thirds, these simple rules were described as being well or fairly taught, at 1,202 they were moderately taught, and at 411, or 10 per cent, they were imperfectly or badly taught. There were, therefore, no fewer than 1,600 schools of which the inspectors were unable to say that this essential element of instruction, was even fairly taught. Now, he was not prepared to record his vote in opposition to the present grant; on the contrary, he should be very sorry to take such a course; but he thought he had stated enough to prove that some further consideration was necessary before the House of Commons should go on from year to year making these grants without better security for their employment. Within the last few days there had been an interesting conference on the subject of education, and he could not refrain from expressing his great satisfaction that the Prince Consort should have come forward and exhibited such interest in this subject. That his Royal Highness had displayed his usual ability it was unnecessary for him to say, but it was a great and signal fact that the Prince Consort should have come forward in this way, and it was also most gratifying to see gentlemen assembled from all parts of England to discuss this question. Whether any great or immediate results would ensue from this conference he might be allowed to doubt. He did not wish to be misunderstood. These results would, at all events, he believed, follow from it— namely, an extension of public interest in the question, and a useful extension of information respecting it; and if only these two points were gained there would be much to rejoice at. The main object of the conference was to discuss that unfortunate fact which his right hon. Friend had spoken of as at present the greatest impediment to education—namely, the irregular attendance of children, and the early age at which they left the schools. Now, he had ventured to point out yesterday that one cause of this irregular attendance was the badness of the schools. He was glad to hear this to a great degree admitted by his right hon. Friend; and the fact really was that the schools were to a considerable extent so deficient that the working classes could not be expected to sacrifice the wages of their children for the sake of such imperfect instruction as was imparted there. His right hon. Friend had observed that it was impossible to give the parents any money compensation for the loss of their children's services. This was quite true—they could not give compensation in money; but there was a compensation which they could give and to which the poor man who gave up the wages of his children was entitled—and that was an adequate education. His belief of the working classes was, that if they saw their children properly taught at the schools, and learning there what would be useful to them in after life, they would have no objection to make those sacrifices which otherwise could not be expected from them. In one-third of the best schools of England, as he had shown, the common rules of arithmetic were not adequately taught, if taught at all. Now, those rules entered into nearly all the transactions of life—into the relations of working men with their employers, their landlords, their tradesmen; and how could they be expected to sacrifice those wages which contributed so much to their material comfort, for the sake of sending their children to school where they could not acquire even such elementary though essential knowledge? His object was now answered. He had stated at the outset that it was not his intention to enter generally into the state of education in this country, and that if he felt it necessary he would take another opportunity of doing so. No one would suspect him of being desirous of withholding pecuniary assistance for the advancement of education, but he had thought it his duty to make to the Committee this statement (confined as it had been entirely and completely to the estimate now before them), to show that the time had come for the reconsideration of the present system. As Sir John Kaye Shuttleworth had yesterday remarked at the conference, the people ought to be educated, and they must be educated. We might shirk it as we liked, but the real question at issue before Parliament and the country was, "Will you pay the price?" When, however, the country did pay the price, he thought it was their duty to see that they got the full value for their money.

called the attention of the Committee to the expediency of doubling the present rate of the capitation grant, and of reducing the number of days of attendance from 176 days to 160 days, in order to be entitled to capitation money, and of increasing the grant to masters and mistresses, on account of pupil teachers, from £5 to £10 for the first pupil teachers. The hon. Member said that the number of days at present required for attendance in order to give a claim to the capitation grant was excessive, and ought to be reduced; and the capitation grant itself was too small. With regard to the number of days, when they took off the Christmas week, the Easter week, and the Whit sun week—when they remembered the distance at which children frequently lived in country places from the school, and the consequent difficulty they had in attending in certain states of the weather—when, finally, they recollected how often children were kept at home by the illness of themselves or their parents, he thought that the reduction of the number of days would be no more than reasonable. With regard to the pupil teachers, it was not worth while for any master or mistress to accept the very small pittance of £5, which was now allowed them on account of pupil teachers. It was a miserly and beggarly sum, unworthy of the House, and of the country. For the first pupil teacher, £10 ought to be given, and then, for subsequent ones, even so low as £3 might be given; but, to give but £5 where there was only one pupil teacher was niggardly in the extreme, and did not at all remunerate the master or mistress for his or her trouble and loss of time.

said, he hoped the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alcock) would be ultimately adopted, but he believed that it could not be brought forward as an Amendment on the present occasion, because the forms of the House prevented any hon. Gentleman from moving an increase of a Vote proposed by Government. He fully concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) in the satisfaction he had expressed with regard to the educational statement which had been laid before the House that night; and also in his approval of that admirable Educational Conference, which bad been so happily inaugurated during the past week, and from which he agreed that much advantage must be derived; but he trusted that the duties of the Vice President of the Educational Board would be extended, and that all the educational institutions in the country — the National Gallery, the British Museum, and everything connected with science and art, or that threw, even indirectly, a light upon the educational progress of the country—would come within his duty, so that he should be able to give to Parliament accurate information of the progress of science and art in this country. As to the present system of education, he was one who thought that it could not last. Undoubtedly it was an excellent substitute for a more permanent system, and had done signal good service to the State; but he could not regard it as anything more than a parenthesis in the history of our national education. He must say, on the part of the people of this country, that eventually they must take the charge of education into their own hands, and that a popular system of rating, after the manner of the Scotch or Americans, was the real basis upon which an English educational system ought to rest. What was wanted in the existing system was, the extension of industrial training in schools. It was the just judgment of the people of this country that, if their children were to have any education at all, it should be that which fitted them best to discharge the duties of their daily life; that it was not enough to give them that "little learning," which was said to be "a dangerous thing," but that it should be brought to their hearths and homes, or as Lord Bacon had said, to their ''business and bosoms;" and, until that was done, be believed they would find their educational system to be practically deficient. One most important point in connection with the subject was, the education which was given to women. He deeply lamented to say that, in the homely arts of life, and in those things which made them good wives and mothers, the women of the poorer classes in this country were wofully deficient. He hoped, therefore, that whilst attending to the general education of the people, this particular branch of it would not be lost sight of; and that means would be taken for imparting an industrial and household education to the women. He hailed the introduction of the subject of education by his right hon. Friend that night, as the Minister of Education, as a happy augury of its progress hereafter, and he trusted to see the example which had been set that evening extended in future years.

said, he could very cordially agree with the right hon. Baronet and those who had followed him in bearing testimony to the ability with which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had brought forward his statement that night, and with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) that unless the hearts as well as the heads of the people were instructed little real and permanent good would be accomplished. But he could not agree with him that the women in the poorer classes were unable to perform their domestic duties. On the contrary, he believed that it was not that they could not cook, but that very often they had nothing to cook, and taking the length and breadth of the land he believed there would be found in the houses of the poor no deficiency in those comforts which were the result of intelligent management; he believed that there was as much intelligence naturally displayed in the management of the scanty income of a cottager's family as could be taught by any school system. It had been said, and truly said, that the great difficulty which at present existed did not arise from the want of schools, but from the want of scholars, and the statement of the right hon. President of the Board of Education did not, in point of fact, apply to more than one-fourth part of the children who were receiving education from the country; for it had been calculated that of about 2,000,000 children who were receiving instruction in this country, only 500,000 of those children were receiving an education under the control of the Committee of Council. And it was not a little remarkable that the outcry about the difficulty of getting children to attend had proceeded chiefly from those schools—in fact, as he had before stated, the great difficulty to deal with arose, not from the want of schools, but from the want of scholars. He held in his hand a Report from one of the most skilled of our school inspectors, Mr. Canon Moseley. Now, what did that gentleman say? He said that all their efforts had had for their object the perfecting of the elementary school, and that they entertained a hope that when the children derived more good than heretofore from their attendance at school the parents would desire to send them longer, and by degrees public opinion would become so favourable that they would willingly sacrifice for a time the wages which the children could earn; "but," added Mr. Canon Moseley, "I will not conceal from your Lordships that hitherto that hope has been disappointed, because the parents have thought, owing to the schools being now so good, that the children can get all the learning that they consider necessary earlier than they could before, and they therefore take them away sooner." That statement of Mr. Canon Moseley had received a remarkable confirmation in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who stated that the schoolmaster complained that he kept his boys till they were ten or eleven, and that they were excellent boys, wrote a good hand, and so on; and that they then went out to work, and returning again at sixteen, or thereabouts, were no better than clods. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to tell them what sort of capacity for earning a living these boys had acquired when they left school in the first instance; but that was really at the very root of the question—what sort of instruction had the boy received; was it intellectual only, or had they been trained to do their duty in that state of life in which it had pleased God to call them? He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman express a hope that the present system would combine the earnest moral training of the ragged school with the more intellectual training of the Privy Council, because he thought that the system hitherto had been rather to exalt intellect at the expense of everything else. He looked upon this as a mistake, and he suggested that they should take care in their examinations that no children took away the prizes of intellect unless they exhibited also a fair knowledge of matters of practical utility. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking of the absence of so many children from the schools, described them in a great measure as the children who swarmed in our courts and alleys. Now, that was just the class that we wanted to get hold of, and however capable the right hon. Gentleman might be of directing science and art and those higher branches of cultivation which grew out of education, he trusted that he would not be led away to neglect those destitute children, who, as the right hon. Gentleman emphatically expressed it, "swarmed in our courts and alleys." It must be remembered that when we spoke of the criminal population as resulting from want of education, it was from that last mentioned class that the criminal population was recruited. He was afraid that we had overlooked that class too long, and that we had been striving too much to improve the quality of the education instead of teaching the people what they wanted to know. The people of this country—in the rural districts, at least—were quite alive to the advantage of education, if the children could be taught what would be useful to them and what would enable them to get through the world better. They always admitted it, and they would tell you that they kept their children at school as long as they could afford it. Another subject for consideration was the state of some of the present Government schools stated to be inefficient. His right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich had read some reports which were not very flattering to the districts to which they related; and he (Mr. Henley) should like to be informed whether the Government withheld the grant from those schools which did not come up to the conditions that were required of them—whether those schools which were reported on as so inefficient got any share of the grant? That was a point which he should like to hear explained. With respect to the grant now proposed he did not at all object to its amount, and he did not see how they could take a better security for the proper application of the money than by allowing those who contributed two-thirds to one-third by the Government to look, after the expenditure. Whatever system they might adopt, there were likely to be some failures, and he certainly preferred this plan of two-thirds' voluntary subscription and one-third contributed by the Government to that which was proposed two years ago by his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, which would have done away with voluntary subscription, and raised half by local rates, while the Government were to contribute the other half. [Sir J. PAKINGTON denied that this was his plan.] That would certainly have been the result of the proposal of his right hon. Friend two years ago; and he should like to know in what way that offered a better security for the efficient expenditure of the money than the plan at present in use. One reason for the shortcomings of the present schools might be that the master devoted too much time to his pupil teachers and too little to his boys; because the pupil teachers were profitable to him, and it was no doubt, more agreeable to an intellectual man to teach the higher branches of learning than to be instructing those who were less advanced. But this was a question for the vigilance of the Government, and their attention being called to it, he had no doubt that they would guard against any inconvenience in that direction. He was very glad to hear that the inspectors were now supposed to be competent—he was going to say needlewomen, but he supposed needlemen was the proper title—it was a very useful accomplishment. What we had heard of Prussia was not calculated to make us too anxious for the system of education pursued in that country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was not until after Prussia was overrun by the French that school teaching was established in that country; but what the Prussians did in 1814, when they rose as one man to drive out the French, did not contrast very unfavourably with their conduct in 1848. For his (Mr. Henley's) part, had he been a Prussian, he would a hundred to one sooner have owned his country in 1814 than in 1848. Chevalier Bunsen had published a work in which he had contrasted the Prussian State education and its effects upon the population, with the voluntary system adopted in this country, and its effects, and his statements were not such as should induce us to abandon our imperfect system, if you were pleased to call it so, for that of Prussia. He (Mr. Henley) gave his cordial support to this Vote. He hoped that the efforts of the Government would be directed to those unfortunate children who swarmed in the courts and lanes of our large towns. By getting them into ragged, and, if need were, subsequently into higher schools, we should do away with the chief nurseries of sin and wickedness and consequent crime. It had at different times been urged, with some truth, that we had not yet reached to the lowest depth, and he thought that those poor districts that bad hitherto received no advantage from the grant, had reason to complain. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would deal specially with those districts in which really special cases existed; but he could not understand the advantage of that remedy which proposed, that because certain districts had hitherto derived no advantage from the funds of the State, the system of aid from the State should be given up altogether, and that these districts should be called upon to tax themselves for their own education. That was a logic he could not comprehend: the country would never grudge the money which might be needed to deal specially with these cases. There was, indeed, no general objection to the amount of this grant. Those who objected to the grant at all, indeed, only did so because they wanted to supply the means of education in some other manner. He was glad to see in the recent Minutes of Council a decreased inclination to interfere, and he hoped that, ultimately, the Government would make the grant so elastic as to include within its four corners all the odds and ends to which he had referred, and thus completely to fill up the ground.

explained that, in the Bill to which his right hon. Friend had referred, he did not contemplate the abolition of voluntary contributions for educational purposes. On the contrary, he had always dissented from that most erroneous opinion, that the establishment of a sound system of education which would reach all classes, and all parts of the country, would do away with voluntary contributions.

entirely approved the principle on which the Government acted, of helping only those who helped themselves, and thought that, in the ease of neglected districts, it was hotter to wait a few years until the clergyman or some other active person originated a movement for the establishment of schools, than to erect and support them entirely out of State funds.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, why, if he attached so much importance to the education of children who swarmed about the lanes and alleys of our large towns, he, on a recent Wednesday, employed his acute intellect, his industry, and his sagacity, to defeat a humble measure which had for its object the training of these very children? It was erroneous to suppose that the establishment of schools and the expenditure of money would educate the people. You never could educate the people until they found out that it was worth their while to be educated. All the changes which were going on around us went to increase the value of skilled labour, and, by consequence, the inducement to parents to send their children to school. So long as a child was learning an industrial employment, however, it was not entirely without education. He contended that, in a great producing country like England, the knowledge of his trade was of the greatest importance to a child. The main point to be ascertained as far as possible, and it was to be hoped that it would be a result attained by that Conference which had just been held under high auspices, was, whether they were receiving that for which they were to pay.

said, he could not but feel that the speech of the right hon. Member for Droitwich had been, in some degree, an impeachment of the existing system. He did not complain of anything unfair in the extracts read from the Reports of the Government Inspectors, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman should have drawn attention to the fact that, as the present system had been in existence but a few years, it was only during the last two or three years that they had a right to look for any extensive fruits from it. When the Minutes of 1846 were published there were only some three or four training schools for preparing teachers, there were now no less than forty, and, in a short time, they might expect satisfactory results from the teachers who would be sent out from those training schools. It was not by making grants for building schools that they could look for real improvement in education; it was to the master and mistress they must look. The present system was in an advancing state, but the supply of duly qualified teachers was not as yet nearly equal to the demand, and therefore the inspectors, whilst dissatisfied in many cases with the present teachers, did not always think fit at once to displace them, or by withholding their certificate to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. So also, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government helped the rich parishes more than the poor ones, did the right hon. Gentleman wish the Government to begin with the smaller parishes, and advance to the more populous ones? The Government, no doubt, were bound to see whether their rules were not confined within too narrow limits, and if they thought they were, they were bound to consider how they could most wisely relax them. For instance, in ascertaining the amount of the capitation grant to any parish, there was a rule of the Privy Council which excluded all children except those who had attended a full year before the visit of the Inspector. If the child had attended continuously for any number of months and was still attending, those months ought to be included in the computation. Then he objected to the rule of the Privy Council, which did not allow the capitation grant to a mixed school with a certificated mistress, where the population was over 600. That was too low a limit, and prevented the schools in many small parishes from obtaining the benefit of the capitation grant.

said, he objected to the present system of national education, on the ground that it did not combine religious with secular instruction. The difficulty, he thought, might be thus met. Supposing a general rate for education; the grant voted to each religious denomination might be proportioned to its numbers, which could be readily ascertained from the census. The whole sum allotted to educational purposes might be divided proratâ amongst the various denominations, and thus each would educate their children according to their own views, and imbue them with their own principles; and thus they would cheerfully combine religious with secular instruction. No doubt there were difficulties in this plan; because in some parts of the country a particular religious community might be so weak as not to be able to support a school; but all difficulties would be met by persevering energy. Education was not the mere teaching a child to read, write, and cast up accounts; it was the implanting in the mind the powers of comparison and deduction by a careful observation of the affairs of life, with a view to the regulation of self-conduct.

said, that those who were opposed to the present system were unable to point to any other system which they could substitute for it. The compulsory system which existed in Prussia could not be applied to this country. He would remind the Committee that in a town of Prussia, containing only 14,000 inhabitants, 10,000 were summarily convicted for not sending their children to school. Now, if such a state of things existed in Prussia, what might be expected in this country under a similar system, where there was perfect freedom of religious and political opinions, and where the people would never tolerate any such interference with them? He had no difficulty in supporting the Vote, because, while it acknowledged the supervision of the State, it also acknowledged the voluntary efforts and tended to encourage the moral and religious energy of the people, without which all educational schemes would be nought. Educational machinery might be set up in every part of the country, but inasmuch as men were of a different material from that on which machines were meant to work, and inasmuch as men could not be cut all into exactly the same shape, or drilled to present the same uniform appearance as a Russian regiment, such machinery by itself would be useless. With regard to the schools for the poorer population which had been alluded to, what he should wish would be that the inspectors should look carefully after them to see whether they were conducted by men who gave their whole minds and their moral and religious feelings to the work, and, if they were, that they should then be aided liberally by the State. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) seemed to accuse the clergy of slackness in the work of educating the people, but this opinion was very different from that of Mr. Kennedy, who, in his Report said,—

"That he could not but attribute the main educational work effected in England (since 1843) to their zeal and labour, aided by the more wise and religiously-disposed members of their flock, but still essentially their work—theirs in scheme and design, in the collection of the funds, in careful supervision, and in many cases in actual teaching.''

He admitted that the laity had not aided this work by their exertions and their funds so energetically as they ought to have done; for, after all, the great point was to foster this voluntary spirit, which was daily gaining more advocates in that House, and therefore in the country. The great difficulty seemed to be the early age at which the children left the school, but it was quite a mistake to think that difficulty could be got over by an educational rate or by compulsory attendance; so long as children could begin at thirteen years of age to earn as good wages as were given to pupil teachers, it was quite impossible to insure their whole attendance at school. And, after all, the industrial teaching which they got in the work-shops, in the mill, or on the farm, was quite as important a part of their education to them as reading and writing. If this industrial education could be combined with the elementary instruction of reading, writing, and arithmetic, without attempting to carry them to the higher branches, which it was more for themselves to attain, the chief difficulty would be solved, for that difficulty was how to give the child instruction without withdrawing him from profitable employment. Young people were applying their industry to the best possible object when they were applying it to getting their own living, and the point was to add to that moral and religious education. On a future occasion he hoped to be able to explain at length the grounds of his objection to an educational rate, to which he believed the best friends of education would be found uniformly opposed. From what he had read of the Reports of the inspectors, he was convinced that there was a steady uniform educational progress, and he thought that might be best furthered by a system which fostered the voluntary energy of the people under a close and efficient Government supervision.

explained that he had not meant in the least to undervalue the labours of the clergy. What he had said was that it would be fortunate if they would attend to the moral instruction of the women, and more particularly the younger class of females, so as to prepare them for other education.

thought it extremely inconvenient to include the elementary education and the scientific education under one class of Votes. The administration of the elementary educational Votes would soon be as much as the present department could manage, and the Votes for scientific and art education and schools of design would come far more legitimately under a department of public works, fine arts, and science, than it would under the organization of the Committee of Council.

, in reply, acknowledged that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock) had shown good reason why these capitation grants and payments to pupil teachers might be increased with advantage to the schools. It was not possible for him, however, to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, as it was contrary to the general principle on which the Committee of Council acted, which was to get the maximum advantage at the minimum expenditure. That seemed to be attained by the present arrangement. The suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Herts was well worthy of consideration, but the ground on which the pupil teachers only received payment for twelve months was because the time was arranged from one inspection to another. The right hon. Member for Droitwich had complained that the education afforded in district schools was exceedingly imperfect. He (Mr. Cowper) found, however, in the Report of Mr. Tufnell, a comparison between the acquirements of the children educated in those schools and the acquirements of persons who were candidates for appointments in the civil service. Mr. Tufnell adopted as his test the words that had been misspelt by candidates for Government appointments, and he stated that in two of the district schools, containing seventy children, sixteen spelt the words correctly, nineteen committed one error each, eleven committed two errors each, and only one boy committed nine errors. It appeared therefore, that these children, who were below twelve years of age, were better able to spell than many persons who had been educated in middle or upper class schools, and whose ages ranged between seventeen and forty years. He (Mr. Cowper) must say he believed that much better elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic was afforded in the district schools than in many of the middle and upper class schools. It was quite true, is the right hon. Member for Droitwich had stated, that schools of which a favourable report was not given by the inspectors did not receive any grants.

said, it was well the Committee should know that the fault lay less with the parents than with the culpable indifference of the class that called itself foremost. Mr. Kennedy, in reporting upon the educational state of Lancashire and the Isle of Man, said that comparatively few persons in Lancashire felt any real concern to see the people at large educated; that a few persons made a good deal of noise on the subject, but a still smaller number carried on the work liberally and zealously; and that the mass of persons were still hostile, or at best indifferent, on the matter. "A public feeling in Lancashire for education," said Mr. Kennedy, ''has yet to be created." He (Mr. Maguire) asked what answer hon. Gentlemen connected with Lancashire could give to this damning indictment against them. It had been stated the other day by Prince Albert that out of 5,000,000 children in this country, between the ages of eight and fifteen, only 2,800,000 in England and Wales received any education whatever. He (Mr. Maguire) thought such a state of things was most disgraceful, and ought to make Englishmen pause before they indulged in taunts with regard to the system of education adopted in other countries. He considered that the statement of Mr. Kennedy as to the state of things in Lancashire was a complete answer to the advocates of the voluntary system of education, and that nothing could be better than the plan now in operation under Government supervision, which afforded ample room for voluntary efforts in particular localities.

said, he thought the only portion of the estimate to which any well-founded objection could be made was the capitation allowance. He took deep interest in this subject, and believed that any measures which tended to raise the standard or pupil teachers would be attended with most beneficial results.

denied the accuracy of the statement quoted by the hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Maguire) from Mr. Kennedy's Report, and observed that there were few places in the kingdom which could boast of more public institutions devoted to educational purposes than Manchester and the other large manufacturing towns of Lancashire. He was convinced that the general establishment of Sunday schools had been attended with the utmost advantage to the mass of the manufacturing population, and if he had to choose between conflicting methods of instruction, he should prefer the method adopted in those schools.

also defended Lancashire from the imputation cast upon it in the extract read by the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire). In the county town which he (Mr. Garnett) represented there was a national school which Mr. Kennedy himself said was a model school for England. The extraordinary assemblage of 80,000 children to greet Her Majesty when on a visit to Lancashire testified that the people of that county were not so insensible to the cause of education as had been attempted to be shown.

said, they had heard nothing as to the feeling with respect to this Vote in Scotland. He was convinced that the system now in operation would never have received the sanction of the people of Scotland if it had been introduced by a Bill before that House; and he did not see why this important matter should be provided for by annual Vote when other things of less importance were settled by Act of Parliament. The system was sectarian in its character and productive of many evils in that respect In the county with which he was connected (Roxburgh) the United Presbyterians who were more numerous than the Free Church and the Established Church, did not take advantage of this grant. Believing that the Vote ought not to be increased, he moved as an Amendment that it be reduced by the sum of £90,020, being the increase as compared with 1856.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £271,213, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for Public Education in Great Britain to the 31st day of March 1858."

hoped, after the interesting discussion that had taken place, that the hon. Member would not press his Motion, but allow the Committee to come to a conclusion upon the Vote.

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) would not withdraw his Motion. Those who opposed the Vote had had no opportunity of expressing their opinions. It was impossible to do justice to such a subject after half-past Nine o'clock, the hour at which the discussion began. ["Divide, divide!"]

repeated that no opportunity had been given to those opposed to the Vote to express their opinions, and moved that the Chairman leave the Chair.

hoped his hon. Friend would not press that Motion, which, if carried, would close altogether that Committee of Supply.

said, he had been driven to make the Motion. It was a case of necessity. ["Divide!"]

complained that by the hasty way in which the Chairman had decided the Motion to report progress of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) to have been negatived, the hon. Member, he (Mr. Dillwyn), and others on that side of the House, who would have supported him, had been precluded from going to a division. When the Chairman, after putting the question, said the "Noes had it," he (Mr. Dillwyn) and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) cried out that the "Ayes had it," but in the confusion of the moment the Chairman did not appear to have beard them, and decided against them.

was understood to say that he distinctly heard the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) say the "Ayes had it" after the question was put.

said, he supposed he should be now in order if he moved that the Chairman report progress, and he moved accordingly.

opposed it. If the Committee were appointed at all it should be referred to the Committee of Selection for nomination. He would move that the nomination be deferred for six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the nomination of the Select Committee on Harbours of Refuge be postponed," instead thereof.

also opposed the nomination of the Committee at present, and seconded the Amendment.

concurred in desiring postponement.

, as it was now a quarter to Two o'clock, moved that the debate be adjourned,

hoped that no unnecessary delay would take place in the appointment of the Committee.

also supported the appointment of the Committee.

recommended the postponement of the Committee.