said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether a body of men belonging to the Royal Engineers have been employed by the War Department on the Barracks at Chelsea in consequence of the strike among the Masons; and, if so, whether such a proceeding be consistent with the principle of non-interference between the Masters and Men?

Sir, in respect to this question relative to the progress of the barracks at Chelsea, I have to state that it was most important that the works should be completed, in order that the money voted by Parliament should be expended within the year. The works would have been stopped for the want of a few masons. In consequence it was thought that for a short time some sappers should be employed to prevent the works being brought to a stand-still; and, also, that the labourers not on the strike should continue to be employed, but who must have been discharged but for the temporary employment of a few sappers.

said, he wished to ask whether the sappers were furnished to the contractor?

The barracks at Chelsea are constructed by contractors: but the sappers were furnished not to benefit the contractor but in the service of the Government.

Sir, not seeing the noble Lord at the head of the Government nor the Law Officers of the Crown in their places, I beg to ask any Member of Government, What is the course which the Government proposes to take upon the discussion which is appointed to take place with respect to the Bankruptcy Bill and the Amendments made by the Lords in that Bill? It is of extreme importance that the precise course to be taken should be announced in sufficient time to enable those who wish to take part in the discussion to well consider the subject.

The Amendments on the Bankruptcy Bill will be taken on Thursday, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government will state, either this evening or to-morrow, the course which the Government will take on the principal Amendments introduced into the Bill by the Lords.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he had received any further complaints of the treatment of British subjects in the secession States, and to make a statement upon the subject? What he particularly wanted to do was to set him- self right with the House with regard to a statement which he had make on a former occasion, when he thought he was rather hardly treated by the hon. Members for Liskeard and Galway (Mr. B. Osborne and Mr. Gregory). The question he then asked of the noble Lord—

The hon. Member is out of order in referring to a former debate.

said, he merely wished to set himself right on a personal matter. On the former occasion he was told by the hon. Member for Liskeard that his statement was "an old woman's tale;" and by the hon. Member for Galway, that the information which he had received was from persons who knew probably less than he knew himself. He (Mr. Duncombe) on that occasion stated that the Southern states of America, the Confederated States, had offered 20 dollars for any prisoner, whether man woman or children, taken dead or alive. This was contradicted; and he was told, and the House was told, that this statement was not accurate. Since that he had endeavoured to ascertain from the United States how far he could be borne out in the information which he then gave to the House; and he had received an answer which fully bore him out, in the shape of an Act of President Jefferson Davis and the Congress of the Southern states passed at the end of May. From the 10th Section of that Act it appeared that the Confederated Congress offered a bounty of, not 20, but 25 dollars for every man, woman, and child captured on board a United States vessel and brought into port alive, while a bounty of 20 dollars was offered for every such person if dead. He also had to make a grave charge against one of our Consuls in the Southern States for having neglected his duty towards a British subject. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) wished to know from the noble Lord whether he had received information upon that point? The last post had brought him a letter form New York to the following effect:—

"New York, June 21.

"We have several Englishmen here, who have experienced the tender mercy of Southern hospitality and also the inutility of any appeal to our Consuls at Southern ports. Three or four complain most bitterly of their treatment, and state that they had to escape concealed in the cargo of a steamer, and had appealed in vain to the Consuls.

"One intelligent young man spent some time in Savannah, and was present at the period of the tarring and feathering an English captain, and he assures me he saw there the Consul wearing Secession colours; and that when a reward was offered for the discovery of those guilty of the outrage on the British captain, the ringleader delivered himself up, claimed the reward, and, after a few days of imprisonment, was liberated to pursue his career of lawlessness. I understand the British Consul of Savannah, in the right of his wife, is a slaveholder, and I cease to wonder no proceeding can be taken in defence of Englishmen."

He thought this was a matter that required looking into, as it was impossible that justice could be done to British subjects under such a state of things. He wished to know whether the noble Lord had received any complaint to that effect from any of those parties, and, if he had, what steps he had taken, or would take, with respect to it?

said, he had not received any complaint of the conduct of our Consul at Savannah. There was a complaint with respect to the outrage in tarring and feathering the captain of a British vessel, and some correspondence took place with the British Consul on the subject. But he thought that occurrence happened before the Secession, and it had, therefore, nothing at all to do with that question [Mr. T. DUNCOMBE: It occurred in May last.] There was a rumour that a British captain had been ill treated and beaten. A great mob assembled, and he was tarred and feathered. But the British Consul did all that it was possible to do under the circumstances. He had received no complaint that the British Consul had worn Secession colours. If that was true it was a very improper thing on the part of a British Consul to wear party colours.

said, that the Pensions (British Forces, India) Bill, which stood for a second reading that night, had only been delivered that morning, and he did not believe that ten Gentlemen in the House had read it. He, therefore, trusted he would receive an assurance from the Government that the Bill would not be brought on that night, and that fair notice would be given with regard to when it should be brought on.

said, that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government had promised to announce on that day what measures would be pro- ceeded with and what measures would be abandoned during the present Session.

hoped the noble Lord would state at the same time what course the Government intended to take with reference to the Bankruptey Bill.

said, he had stated that on that day or the next he would make the announcement to which his hon. Friend had referred. The Bankruptcy Bill would come on on Thursday, and to-morrow he would be able to state more distinctly what course the Government intended to pursue upon it.

said, his question had reference to the business generally of the House, and what particular measures the Government intended to abandon.

said, there were not many measures about which there was any doubt. The two most important were the Elections Bill and the Highways Bill. If possible, he would bring on the Highways Bill on Friday morning, but that would depend on the progress made with the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which stood on the paper for that day. There would then remain only the Elections Bill, and he would state on a future day what course the Government intended to take upon that measure.

said, that he hoped to receive from the Government a decided answer with respect to the course the Government intended to take with regard to the Greenwich Hospital Bill. The Bill was likely to excite a great deal of discussion, and unless he received satisfactory assurances he should give it his warm opposition. It was too late in the Session to discuss the Bill, and it would be for the Government to say whether it would not be better to give it up, to deliberate upon it during the recess, and to introduce another Bill at a certain period next Session.

said, he thought it rater too early to take the Bankruptcy Bill on Thursday, if the noble Viscount only intended to give notice on the next day of the course which the Government intended to take. If he told the House that night what he intended to do, the country would know on Tuesday morning; but if he postponed his statement until the next day the country would not know until Wednesday, and there would not be time to communicate the views entertained as to the proposed Amendments before the Bill came on. He was surprised to find that the Government had not by that time made up their minds on the Bill. The Session, as they all hoped, was so nearly drawing to a close that there was no time to be lost.

It is the intention of the Government to go on with the Greenwich Hospital Bill.

said, the Pensions (British Forces, India) Bill was brought in jointly by the India Office, War Office, and the Treasury. It was simply to increase the contribution of the Indian Government to the non-effective charges for the army in consequence of the employment of British troops in India. There would be no objection to postpone the Bill till the next night.

said, he wished to ask whether it was intended to proceed that night with the Lace Factories Bill, and the Windsor Suspended Canonries Bill? He also wished to call attention to the circumstance that since it had been settled that public business should commence at a quarter past four o'clock, hardly any of the Ministers had been in their places at that time. He thought that if it was impossible for the Members of the Government to attend at a quarter past four o'clock, it would be better to fix the commencement of public business for half-past four o'clock.

stated that all those Members of the Government to whom notice had been given that questions would be addressed to them were in their places at the proper time. In reply to the question of the noble Lord, he had to observe that the Committee of Supply would not probably sit that night until 12 o'clock, and he would bring on the Lace Factories Bill as early as he could.

said, it would be convenient to the House to know when the Election Law Amendment Bill would come on.

said, it certainly would not come on that week.

asked whether the Government intended to go on with the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill? It was his intention to move the clause which stood in his name on the paper.

asked if it was the intention of the Secretary for Ireland to go on with the Registration of Births and Deaths (Ireland) Bill, and the Fairs and Markets (Ireland) Bill?

said, that both these Bills had received attention from a Select Committee, but they had only recently been printed and circulated. If he found they were still likely to give rise to much discussion he would not attempt to make progress with them; but, if he found they were likely to pass without much discussion he should proceed with them.

said, he also wished to ask what was to be done with the Greenwich Hospital Bill? He did not think there was much chance of carrying it, and he should like to know whether it was indended to bring it on the next night.

said, he wished to know what was to be done with the Trade Marks Bill?

said, he must press for an answer with regard to the Greenwich Hospital Bill.

said, he understood that the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Admiralty, had put the Greenwich Hospital Bill on the paper for the next evening (Tuesday) by arrangement, to meet the convenience of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). He believed it was the intention of the noble Lord to go on with the Bill the next evening, if it came on at a reasonable hour.

was understood to say that since the tarring of the British captain, to which he had referred, and which occurred before May, other tarrings had taken place in May.

said, he rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, the following Resolution:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient, in distributing the Grant for the purpose of Irish Education, to enforce the rule of refusing aid to all schools in which religious teaching is made a part of the general instruction of the School."

His object was to raise the question, in which the people of Ireland felt a deep interest, namely, whether in the education in Ireland aided by grants from the State they should not enjoy the same freedom for religious instruction, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, which existed in England. The sum they were now asked for on account of Irish education was no less than £285,000 and the more liberal the House was in voting money for that purpose, the more necessary it was that Irish Members should take care that it was applied in the way intended by Parliament.

said, it was a rule of the House that a Vote could not be discussed when the House was not in Committee of Supply.

said, he did not wish to discuss the amount of the Vote; but in discussing the general system of Irish national education he was entitled to say that a very large sum of money was asked for carrying out that system. The grant had grown up from £30,000 a year to nearly £300,000, and under the system a sort of educational corporation had arisen, which did many things not originally intended to be done. He did not mean to deny that much good had been accomplished in Ireland by the grant for popular education. It had, undoubtedly, given education to a number of the people who without it would not have received that education. But to understand the precise nature of the good which had been done it was necessary to recur to the past history of education in Ireland. Immediately after the Revolution the Roman Catholic people of Ireland were prohibited by law from education. It was not merely that no assistance was given to them, but it was made felony for a Roman Catholic priest to instruct his people, or for a Roman Catholic schoolmaster to teach the youth of his faith. Before the Union the Irish Parliament granted money liberally for education, but it was voted exclusively for Protestant education, and for the purpose of converting the Irish Roman Catholics to Protestantism. It failed entirely in that object, and Protestantism rather fell away than was increased by the course taken. The next step was the adoption of the Kildare Street system, under which grants were made to schools—Roman Catholics as well as Protestant—provided that the Scriptures were read in the schools. In Catholic schools the Douay version was used, and, at first, the Roman Catholics were supporters of the system; but they subsequently became very much opposed to it, and in 1831 the Earl of Derby, then Chief Secretary of Ireland, instituted the present system. For some time the Roman Catholics received the education given under it without objection; but almost all the rules originally laid down by the Earl of Derby had been departed from, and a new system had grown up, to which both the Protestant and Roman Catholic populations objected. The objections of the Roman Catholics had been stated by their bishops, and they were, in fact, that a system was required of which religion should be a part. The Protestant part of the population also objected to the plan, and in April last one of the most influential meetings ever held in Dublin took place of the Church Education Society, at which the present system was objected to, and a new one asked for which should command the confidence of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The system required was that which prevailed in England. It had been said, and, perhaps, would be said again, that the existing system had a hold on the hearts and affections of the Irish people. Well, he believed anything that gave the Irish people education would have a hold upon them. But he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he could find a single Irish Member who would rise in his place and say that his constituents approved of the present system? Then, if that were so, to persevere in the system was to go on enforcing a rule against the wishes of the whole Irish population, and maintaining it in defiance of the whole people. What was the object of this? Was it that the Government wished to be the guardians of the faith of Roman Catholics? The bishops and clergy of that faith told them that they did not require it. Would the Government say they wished to guard the faith of Protestants? The Protestant clergy said they did not require it, and asked for another system. It might, indeed, be advanced by those who held the contrary opinion that the number of the schools in connection with the system had been increased, but he would remind hon. Members that the Kildare Street Society, when undoubtedly proceeding in opposition to the wishes of the great majority of the people of Ireland, made the same boast. Again, he would probably be told that the system promoted combined education. Of all the delusions that were ever attempted to be palmed off upon the public that was the greatest. In proof of that statement he might refer to the return which he had obtained, giving the proportion of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the schools supported by Government grants. It appeared that there were a large number of schools in which there was but one solitary Roman Catholic on the books, with from 100 to 300 Protestants; and, on the other hand, 300 to 400 Roman Catholics and only a solitary Protestant on the books. And yet it had been represented that in 3,000 schools, comprising 300,000 children, united education was being imparted. In the return 478 schools were put down as giving an united education simply on the ground that one solitary member of the minority appeared on the books; 283 because there were two; and 286 because there were three. He might also point out the fact, that although the principle of inducing the members of the different religious persuasions to act conjointly as patrons to the schools was sought at the outset to be fostered, the efforts made in that direction had not been attended with success. Now that these facts had been revealed no one would venture to say that there existed anything like united education in Ireland under the system; and he asked why, under the circumstances, it should be considered necessary to impose any restriction upon religious instruction? In England there was no rule imposing such a restriction. A Roman Catholic in England could send his children to a school where they would be brought up under the superintendence of his own clergy. It was not so in Ireland. The national peculiarity of the Irish people of all persuasions was that a feeling of piety mingled itself with all their transactions. A reverence for religion prevailed in their outward demeanour to an extent unknown in other countries. Yet it was to the Irish people that they applied a rule which excluded from Government aid all schools which made religion a part of their education. Experience showed that it was vain to set ourselves against the feelings of the nation. The Irish heart burnt for freedom of religious instruction, and by granting that boon they would increase the advantage of the national system, extend education to a class which now refused it, make it more beneficial to those who received it, and strengthen the ties which bound the Irish people to the British Parliament and the British Crown.

seconded the Motion. Amendment proposed,

'To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient in distributing the Grant for the purposes of Irish Education to enforce the rule of refusing aid to all Schools in which religious teaching is made a part of the general instruction of the School,'"

—instead thereof.

said, he was induced to take a part in this discussion more in consequence of the tone of triumph in which his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had lately proposed the grant for the National Board, than from anything in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal. The hon. Member had stated many facts which could not be denied, whilst the observations with which he brought them before the House led to inferences in which he (Mr. Lefroy) could by no means concur. It would not now be necessary to discuss the several topics in that speech, as the hon. and learned Member said he did not propose to take a division, but only to express his views for future consideration. With respect to the success of the National System in Ireland, which he must say had been so extravagantly extolled in a late debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, though it could not be denied that a certain degree of benefit had been conferred by the distribution of so large an annual grant, yet he maintained (on evidence that was produced on the Motion of the hon. Member for Youghal) that the advantages were small in proportion to the sum expended, whilst the Church Education Society, on a small voluntary grant, effected much more in proportion, and carried on united education to a much greater extent. He (Mr. Lefroy), therefore, maintained that this society was entitled to a share of a grant that was called a National one. He could not but feel how much the opinion, even in this House, respecting the usefulness of the National System must have changed, when he recollected that, on one occasion, when he expressed a doubt as to the benefit of that system he was violently attacked in succession by three right hon. Gentlemen, who had filled the office of Secretary of Ireland under different Governments, each contradicting his statement, and advocating the system. He would be curious to know how many independent Members of the House would this evening maintain the opinions of these right hon. Gentlemen? Since then the constitution of the Board which presided over its working had been greatly altered, and the religious books which had at that time been used in the schools had been discontinued. The result was that the members of the Board, who had enjoyed the confidence of the country—he would not say of the Protestants merely, but of the country generally—had felt it their duty to retire from their offices. Dr. Whately, the Archbishop of Dublin, had so retired because, as he himself declared, the principles on which the system was founded had been abandoned; because books, such as the Evidences of Christianity, and books of religious poetry which had received the approval of the Roman Catholic Archbishop Murray, had been withdrawn from the schools; and because, in a school in which there were ninety-nine Protestant boys and only one Roman Catholic, if that Roman Catholic boy objected to the reading of a particular book that book could no longer be used. Lord Justice Blackburn and Mr. Baron Greene had also retired from the Board for similar reasons. He should confess, however, that he did not wish to see the Educational Board wholly destroyed in Ireland. They should have the National Education in that country administered through a Board, or else they should imitate the system which was adopted in England. In Ireland, where money was granted for the promotion of education, without any local subscriptions, a Board was, he believed, the fittest body for presiding over the employment of the fund. The English system was denominational, and the sums given by the State were in proportion to the sums raised by private subscriptions; and under such a system books which taught particular creeds were used in the schools. He believed that such a practice would work most unfavourably for the Protestants in the south of Ireland, where a large majority of the population were Roman Catholics. Besides, he feared if the public grants were to bear any proportion to the amount of the local contributions the great work of popular education would be neglected in many of the poorer Irish districts. He could, however, assure the Government that the changes which had been recently introduced into the working of the system in Ireland had wholly deprived it of the confidence of the great mass of the Protestants of that country. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in presiding upon a recent occasion over a meeting of the British and Foreign School Society, expressed his belief that the best education for this country was a Scriptural education; and the late Dr. Chalmers, as also William Allen Gurney and Lord Brougham, had strenuously advocated the necessity of placing the Word of God in the front of all our teaching. He (Mr. Lefroy) honoured those opinions as worthy of a great and enlightened British statesman, and asked the noble Lord to extend them to Ireland, where the authority of the Scriptures was equally acknowledged. He should not think of stopping the grant, but he would never cease to press on the House and the Government the importance of the Bible being made the foundation of all teaching. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to him.

said, that the question under consideration was one of great importance, and he regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not brought it forward at an earlier period of the Session when there would have been a better opportunity for discussion, and obtaining the real opinions of hon. Member upon it. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had admitted that a Ministry which, as regarded England, inscribed "Education without religion" upon its banners would not have a long duration. It was a matter of regret that the Irish Members were not sufficiently powerful in that House to compel the adoption of that system of education in Ireland which the noble Lord knew was the only one that would be tolerated in England. It was clear from their Report that the Commissioners who had so ably conducted an inquiry into education in England, were opposed throughout to the mixed system as it existed in Ireland. It was impossible to read one page of their Report without finding it stated that nothing but the denominational system could secure a religious education. That was stated with regard to England, and why should a different system be forced on Ireland? Now, what was the actual case with regard to the national schools in Ireland? They professed to afford combined literary and separate religious instruction; but would the House believe that the way that was done in the case of 3,500 schools, or three-fourths of the whole that received aid from the State, was by making it optional with the patrons of the schools whether there should be any religious instruction whatever given in them. Then, with regard to the remaining 1,688 schools, which were vested in the Commissioners, one of the rules stated that in the event of any child objecting to religious instruction being given during school hours, the Commissioners retained the power of saying whether or not religious instruction should be given. So that, in point of fact, there was no religious instruction necessarily given in those schools at all. There were 91,742 Protestant and Dissenting children in the national schools, of whom 83,742 were in the province of Ulster alone. That left 8,000 Protestant and Dissenting children to represent the mixed system in the other three provinces. Those 8,000 children were divided among 3,541 schools, which would give two and a half of those children to each school, and, as the attendance was only one-third of the number nominally on the roll, there was in reality less than one child to represent the mixed system in those provinces. Was it not preposterous, therefore, to maintain that the system was a success? Why the system was tolerated at all in Ireland was owing to the fact that the majority of the Catholics were the poorest portion of the population; therefore, to expect to establish a national system on the voluntary principle would be to expect an impossibility. It was not true, however, to say that voluntary efforts were wholly wanting. He had moved for a return, which, for some reason, was not given, of the money which had been voluntarily subscribed for educational purposes, his object being to show that it was entirely unfair and untrue to state that, whereas in England popular education was mainly supported by voluntary subscriptions, in Ireland it was entirely a matter of State aid. Three-fourths of the schools, or, as he believed, a greater proportion, had been built by the people themselves, while the State had not contributed a farthing; but in England vast sums were given to aid in the building of schools. But if the mixed system could be objected to on the grounds which he had stated, how much greater objection must there be to the model schools? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) said the other night that it was understood in 1834, when these model schools were first suggested, that there should be twenty-six of them —one in each of the twenty-six districts into which Ireland was divided for educational purposes. But the schools had not been built in accordance with that understanding, some of them having been built close together. But if it were objectionable that children should be brought up in schools where all religions were mixed, the principle was still more objectionable in the case of those training schools where the persons were to be instructed who were to educate the rising generation. The Commissioners stated that religious differences bore more on the education of the teachers that on that of the children. There was a feeling in Ireland that it was perfectly useless to bring forward such matters, that Parliament was not disposed to extend the same consideration to the feelings and prejudices—if they would have it so—of the people of Ireland as to those of the English people. It was very unfortunate that such a thing should be constantly told to the people; but it would be still more unfortunate if the course which Parliament took should be such as could lead to no other possible conclusion. He hoped the opinions of the Government on the subject would not be long sanctioned by Parliament. He thought they had been deceived, and he was certain the more the subject was discussed the more clearly it was shown that it was impossible to combine literary and religious education in Ireland. He would conclude by expressing a hope that at no distant date Parliament would give such a declaration on this subject as would be in accordance with the feelings, not only of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but also of their Protestant fellow subjects.

said, he would not enter upon a long argument with his hon. and learned Friend, who would, he trusted, not take the sense of the House on the Motion, but allow it to go into Committee of Supply. The hon. Member for the University (Mr. Lefroy) was an original member of the Church Education Society, and he desired to establish a claim on the part of that society to participate in the grants. But was the hon. Member prepared to concede the same claim to all other societies which could establish the same Parliamentary grounds, and which refused to recognize the infallibility of his opinion? If so, there was no alternative but a denominational system for Ireland. Did he, on the other hand, mean to say that the general principle of education in Ireland was to be analogous to that of the Irish Boards, but with one exception—namely, that the most wealthy religious body, with the smallest number of poor to educate, should benefit as against the poorest community, who had the largest proportion of children to educate? If the hon. Gentleman did not contend for the denominational system he had put himself out of court on the present occasion. The real truth was, that at the beginning of this century a Committee was appointed composed of dignitaries of the Establishment and men of the first consideration in Ireland, who recommended the application of this denominational principle. For a time that experiment was tried, but with so little success that in 1824 a very small proportion of children, and especially of Roman Catholic children, were under instruction, and a new Commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of that disappointment. That Commission made a Report, and in 1828, and again in 1830, seriously recommended to Parliament the adoption of their recommendations. In 1831 those recommendations were embodied in the memorable letter of the Earl of Derby, which was the foundation of the present system of education in Ireland. It had been stated that the education given in these schools was a secular education, and the Motion implied that religion was excluded from the common education of the school. That, however, was erroneous, for any one who would go into the schools, or read the popular works published by the Board, would know that that which was professed by the Earl of Derby at the beginning, and by Archbishop Murray and his colleagues in the earliest Report of the Board, was the principle of the system—namely, a common education in which all Christians could participate during school hours, and that during the other hours the patron of the school, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, should have the fullest liberty to give his own instruction to the pupils, provided he did not insist on the attendance of those children whose parents objected. It was by adhering to that just and equitable principle that the complete failure of 1830 had been converted into a great and signal success. He should always insist that the increase in the number of schools, from a very few in 1830 to 5,600 schools in 1861, and those annually increasing, was a proof that Parliament had discovered the means so long desired of giving the greater portion of the poor of Ireland the benefits of a common Christian education and of separate religious instruction. He believed that the Earl of Derby had never at any period of his life departed from the principle he had laid down in 1831, and what at this day was the guiding principle of education in Ireland. It was said that the principle had been changed. The application of the principle might might wisely be changed according to the exigency of the times, but no one could contend that these two principles had been infringed—the imparting an excellent education during school hours to every denomination, and at other hours a distinctive religious education, which no child was to participate in against the will of his parents or guardians. These principles were adopted originally by the Roman Catholics. In 1840 the Presbyterians became attached to the Board. The Wesleyans followed in 1859. In 1860 the Primate of Ireland gave his accession to the Board in that memorable letter, in which he recommended the clergy, when they had the means of supporting their own schools, to do so, but to avail themselves when it was necessary of the assistance of the State. The House of Commons had distinctly supported the present system by decisive majorities; and he trusted that it would long continue to receive the support of Parliament and to diffuse the benefit of a sound and extended education throughout Ireland.

said, he did not wish to prolong the discussion, or to prevent the House from going into Supply. But, as he had taken a course on the question not altogether the same as that adopted on his side of the House, he could not allow the observations of the right hon. Gentleman to pass wholly without notice. He had always confessed the great advantages conferred upon Ireland by the system of National education, with all its imperfections. He had, moreover, always felt the force of the argument constantly used by the Government against any change—namely, that the system was so nicely balanced that if disturbed in the slightest degree, for every scholar brought in, a dozen or two would be driven away—that he had always refrained from pressing any modification of the system. He had entertained no more earnest desire than to see whether, either by some alteration in the practice of the Board, or by the removal of the conscientious scruples entertained by those who were opposed to the Board, it would not be possible for the opponents of the present system to come in and acquiesce in the rules of the Board. In that state of things, after a number of the clergy, influenced by the advice of the Primate, had joined the Board, it occasioned no small surprise to find that the Government, who had declared again and again the utter impossibility of making any change in the system in favour of any party, effected some of the greatest changes ever made since the system was first established, almost without notice, and certainly without consultation with the persons interested. The changes he referred to were chiefly those in the constitution of the Board, in respect to the books used by the Board, and to the mode in which the system was to be applied to the nun's schools. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland believe that, if the changes made since the letter of the Primate had been made before, that letter would ever have been written? After that letter a number of clergy gave in their adhesion to the system; but that process had since been checked, and it was perfectly vain now to hope that it would go on. So much, then, for the Established Church. He would next take the case of the Presbyterians, for the House had been misled by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary's statement that that body were firmly attached to the Board, approved the rules, and were satisfied with all that was done. Within the last ten days there had been a meeting of the General Assembly in Ireland, and a committee of that body reported that they had waited on the Chief Secretary in reference to these changes, urging that they entailed a departure from the original plan set forth in Lord Stanley's letter. Thereupon a motion was made for the appointment of a Committee of Vigilance, and the motion was unanimously assented to by the General Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had also referred to the Methodists, who, in 1859, taking things as they then stood, put their schools under the Board; but they were now entirely of the same opinion as the Presbyterians as to these changes, which they deemed to constitute a radical alteration of the system of education, and which they considered ought to be watched with jealousy and anxiety. He believed that if these changes had taken place two years ago not one congregation of Methodists would have joined the Board. With regard to other portions of the populations interested in Irish education, he thought that a strong proof had been given in the course of these discussions that Protestant and Roman Catholic Gentlemen on both sides of the House were of opinion that the state of affairs in connection with the Board was anything but satisfactory, and he conceived that it would have been better for the right hon. Chief Secretary to have abstained from that triumphant and jubi- lant tone which he assumed when he proposed the present Vote. He sincerely believed the changes in question made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had thrown back for a quarter of a century the course of education in Ireland, and the chance of procuring a system acceptable to all parties.

said, that as one of the earliest supporters of the system, he wished to address a few words to the House. He would take up the history of education in Ireland where the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had left it. He (Mr. O'Ferrall) was for a long time a staunch supporter of the Kildare Street system. But at length the proselytizing spirit grew so strong in it that he withdrew from it the schools that were under his care, and very generally the system was abandoned. In 1831 they had the letter of Lord Stanley, which proposed to establish a system of education in which there should not be a suspicion of proselytizm. The first step, however, in the carrying out of the new plan was to appoint five Protestant Commissioners and two Roman Catholics, to superintend the education of 7,000,000 of Roman Catholics and 1,600,000 Protestants. Then as to the books which were issued by the Commission, it should be borne in mind that they were compiled exclusively by Protestants, and in progress of time there had been sent out some books most objectionable to Roman Catholics—among others, the Archbishop of Dublin's Evidences of Christianity. It was only after a number of other circumstances had come to his knowledge that he found he could no longer place confidence in the system. Something had been said about the adhesion of the Presbyterians. That adhesion was given because a particular rule on which the Roman Catholics relied as a security against proselytism was mitigated and changed to obtain the support of the Presbyterians. The rule had been that when religious instruction was given children of a different religion should be obliged to leave the school; but it was changed so that it stood that no child should be forced to remain while religious instruction was given. The effect of that was shown in the return, which showed that a large number of Catholic children were receiving Protestant instruction in Protestant schools. Again, the evidence given before a Committee of the House of Lords proved that it was no uncommon practice under the altered rules to give Protestant instruction to the children in school hours. Further, it had been shown that the system had become completely a Government system, and was more under the authority of the Government than any other department of the State. The House and the country ought to be jealous of placing the whole of the education of the people in the hands of the Government; and yet with regard to education in Ireland the Government could do in that what he would defy them even to attempt in any other public department. It was also a matter of fact that, while the religion of the Scotch people was carefully guarded, and the schoolmaster in that country was obliged to take an oath that he would inculcate no doctrines at variance with those of the Church of Scotland, no such safeguard was provided in the case of the Roman Catholic or Protestant children who received instruction under the National System in Ireland. So far was that from being the case, it was, he believed, an undoubted fact that there were 1,200 children in Ireland being taught doctrines different from the religion professed by their parents. He had further to state that strong objections were entertained to the model schools which had been established by the Commissioners—or rather by the Government, for the Commissioners counted for nothing—on the part of Roman Catholics, and, he believed, on the part of members of the Protestant persuasion, these schools being vested in the Board, who appointed the masters and monitors, and who could introduce into them precisely such books as they pleased. Wherever the Government had put one of these schools the Roman Catholic Bishops had put a Christian Brother school, so that in many parts of Ireland schools were established on the voluntary system, supported by subscription, in order to counteract the effects of the Government schools, over which the Roman Catholics had no control. It might be well to teach the theory of agriculture in the parochial schools, but the Government, not satisfied with that, had got a model farm near Dublin, which was a curiosity in its way, for established facts were there treated as matters of experiment. The model agricultural schools and the model agricultural farms were sources of great expense. He should not object to the cost if the schools and farms conferred benefit, but they did not do so, because the boys were so well treated, their living was so good, and they were so comfortable in every respect, that they would never go back to the country. If they became stewards they were hard to please; but the fact was, he believed, that hitherto the pupils had all emigrated, and they had proved most successful emigrants. In reality, therefore, we were spending enormous sums of money for the benefit of agriculture, not in Ireland, but in America and other countries. The agricultural schools and farms, in short, were perfectly useless, and the best proof of their inutility was that the balance-sheet was always against the public. He could not help thinking that if the salaries of the parochial schoolmasters were raised, and if they were required to teach the theory of agriculture, the model schools and farms might be dispensed with. He was glad to see an inclination on the other side to admit—even the hon. Member for Dublin University had admitted — that there were such persons in Ireland as Roman Catholics. No Roman Catholic could object to Protestants being allowed to teach Protestantism in their own schools, and he for one had not the least objection that in Roman Catholic schools the Bible should be read under Catholic superintendence; he thought that would be a great advantage. But what he protested against was that a person of a different religion should expound the Scriptures to Roman Catholic children as he pleased, and not in a Roman Catholic sense. Churchmen, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics should be allowed to teach their own religion to their own children, and all that State had to do was to see that within the schools receiving Government aid the secular education was a good education, that nothing was taught prejudicial to the laws and constitution, and that loyalty and all the duties belonging to a good subject were inculcated by the masters.

Sir, as several hon. Gentleman have alluded to me in the course of this debate, I may be permitted to say a few words. I certainly have maintained, with respect to England, that it is a great advantage to give a religious as well as a secular education to the poor, whether the schools are supported either wholly or partly by the State or not. That is a principle which I have always held; and, indeed, as a member of the British and Foreign School Society, I could have held no other. In England the National Church proposes reading the Scriptures in school daily. The British and Foreign School Society also proposes that the Scriptures should be read daily. The Wesleyans say that the whole of the Bible should be read. The Congregational and other societies say the same. The whole of these bodies, then, comprising the great majority of the people of this country, are in favour of religious education. The Established Church, it is true, think that the Catechism should be taught likewise; but all parties agree as to the general character of the religious education to be given in schools. I think it is a great blessing that it should be so in this country. The Scotch generally, whether belonging to the Established Church, to the Free Church, or to the United Presbyterian Church, teach the doctrines which are contained in the Shorter Catechism and the Westminster Confession of Faith. They, therefore, have the advantage of a religious education. Admitting, then, that a religious education is a great blessing, and maintaining, as I do, that education is not complete without it, the question occurs whether it is possible to adopt that system in Ireland. Towards the beginning of the century the Kildare Street Society, which taught the Scriptures, but not the formulas of the Church, was established in Ireland; but it was suspected to be a proselytizing society, and excited jealousy on that ground. My noble Friend Lord Monteagle then had a Committee of this House, in which he proposed means by which children of different religious persuasions should be brought together. The Report of that Committee was the foundation of the latter well known as Lord Stanley's letter, in 1831. I believe that letter contained the basis of the best system which could be applied to Ireland. It is said now, as in the Resolution before us—Why not allow religion to be taught in the schools? Meaning thereby that the religion to be so taught is to be taught to every child in the school. This raises the very great question whether you should have the denominational system in Ireland, as you have the denominational system in England. If you teach the Bible to every child that comes to a Protestant school, and if you assist that school by grants, you will violate every principle of equity if you do not give the same aid in Roman Catholic schools, where the religious education would be under the direction of the Church of Rome. Supposing that £280,000 were asked as a grant from this House you may safely reckon that about £200,000 of that would be given to Roman Catholic schools. Common fairness and equity would require that; but, on the other hand, when I have spoken to hon. Members of this house who were strong Protestants of the equity of such a division of the public money, they have pointed out that these Roman Catholic schools would be watched with extreme vigilance. I have no doubt that they would be watched with much vigilance. What would be the consequence? There would be no end of religious and sectarian controversy in this House with respect to the nature of the education given in these schools. Those who object to the grant to Maynooth—and I see an hon. Friend of mine opposite (Mr. Spooner) who has frequently brought that question before the House—would have much stronger objection if they saw so much as £200,000 more asked for Roman Catholic schools. I believe, therefore, the best way for peace—the best way for the instruction of the people of Ireland—is to persevere in the present system, according to the principles of Lord Stanley's Letter. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) says that the Presbyterian body in Ireland are dissatisfied with what my right hon. Friend has done, and he referred to a proposition that there should be three Commissioners appointed by the State, of whom one should belong to the Established Church, another to the Wesleyan body, and that a third should be a Roman Catholic. Now, considering the proportion that Roman Catholics bear to Protestants in the population of Ireland, where would be the fairness of the Commission, being two-third composed of Protestants and only one-third Roman Catholic? a Commission formed to superintend the education of the poorer classes in Ireland, a much greater proportion of the poor than of the rich being Roman Catholics. I own I think such a Commission would not be applicable to Ireland. Seeing, as I am sorry to see every year, proof of the extreme keenness of religious feeling and jealousy of one another among parties of opposite opinions in that country, I know of no better system than that which is at present adopted. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) who spoke last talked of 1,200 Roman Catholic children, being taught as Protestants. That, surely, could not be the case if ordinary vigilance were exercised by Roman Catholics. But I will state what my right hon. Friend has done. Formerly there were five Commissioners, of whom only two were Roman Catholics; what has been done is to appoint as Members of the Board ten Protestants and ten Roman Catholics. That number, I think, gives a security to both Protestants and Roman Catholics, and I own I should be very sorry to see any material change in the system. There are 800,000 children being educated under it. It is a system which has had to encounter rocks and shoals, but it has steered and navigated its course between them successfully; and I do not believe that a better system could well be adopted.

said, he could no help thinking that the argument of the noble Lord, in reply to his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. O'Ferrall), was rather humiliating to that House. He said it was desirable to maintain the present system, considering the feeling of the House. He did not use the word; but his meaning was that the bigotry of that House would not consent to deal with the large majority of the people of Ireland who were Roman Catholics as they did with the Roman Catholic minority in England or any other religious denomination. How did the noble Lord answer the statement of his right hon. Friend? The noble Lord doubted whether the statement was true that 1,200 Catholics were receiving Protestant education in Protestant schools. But the fact was true beyond all controversy. The original principle laid down by Lord Stanley's letter, to which every supporter of the system always appealed, and which had governed it during the first seventeen years of its existence, had been entirely diverged from. That principle was that every suspicion of proselytism should be got rid of. He warned the Government that, unless they recurred to that principle, it would be utterly impossible for them to maintain the system at all. The model schools, which cost £20,000, and in which the schoolmasters were trained who should educate the Irish people, were absolutely and entirely in the hands of the Commissioners. He protested against that as an encroachment on constitutional liberty. The Emperor Napoleon took similar measures, because he desired to control the minds by direction the whole education of the people. But it might be asked, had any harm occurred? He would quote the words of a gentleman who had given the most able evidence before the Royal Commission—he meant the Rev. Mr. Blakesley, better known by his signature to the letters he wrote in The Times, as the "Hertfordshire Incumbent." Discussing the expediency of having a denominational system, or having a system from which particular religious doctrines were excluded, that gentleman said that while it was a pernicious thing that education should be separated from religious instruction, it was no less an error to suppose that if a school happened to be set up on that principle good could not proceed from such education as it furnished. The writer added—

"The true description of such a system would be that so far as it goes it forces the rising generation to live upon the existing moral and religious capital, and thus tends to bankruptcy in some future generation."

If the natural tendency of the system was mischievous, they were justified in protesting against it, and in endeavouring to have it remedied. Three-fourths of the whole number of schools in Ireland were non-vested or separate schools, in which one religion was taught, but if one child of a different persuasion appeared, that child received the secular without the religious instruction. On the other hand, the training schools, where the masters were reared, were managed on a principle not in harmony with that on which the non-vested schools were conducted, but rather in harmony with the principle of the vested schools, which formed only one quarter of the entire number. He must thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the changes he had already made in the system. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) had stated certain objections to those changes, but with all acuteness he had not assigned any grounds for them. For himself, he desired to see those changes carried further, by putting the model schools in harmony with the majority of the schools. The model schools were now entirely under the control of the State. The same was the case with the Queen's Colleges, where there was hardly a pupil who was not paid for being in those institutions. The length, in fact, to which State interference was carried in Ireland ought to arouse a wholesome constitutional jealousy against its further progress; and what he asked was that the Government should treat the people of Ireland in the matter as they treated the people of England.

Sir, the complaints made by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down resolve themselves into this—namely, that we do not extend to Ireland, with regard to the educational grant, the same principle which is acted upon in England. Let us examine the justice of that complaint. I do not understand my right hon. Friend to say that he thinks the denominational system, as practised in the administration of the Privy Council grant in England, should be applied to Ireland. The substance of his complaint was that in certain particulars the rules laid down at the commencement of the Irish educational system have been deviated from. That is a question essentially of detail, and I can only say on the part of the Irish Government that it is not admitted that there has been any material deviation from the original character of the system. My right hon. Friend argues that the State unnecessarily interferes with the administration of the grant in Ireland, and that such interference is unconstitutional. Now, is there really the smallest ground for maintaining that there is any difference between England and Ireland in this respect? Is not the grant for education in England entirely under the control of the Privy Council? It may be true that the system on which that grant is administered differs from the system on which the Irish grant is administered. In England the system is denominational, in Ireland it is not; but the interference of the State is neither greater nor less in the one country than it is in the other. [Mr. MONSELL: No!] My right hon. Friend may say "No," but I defy him to show that the expenditure of the English grant is not followed out into the most minute details by the Privy Council. If my right hon. Friend had been present when my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Educational Committee of Privy Council made his statement, he would have heard that as regards every payment the Privy Council sends the money, and sees that it reaches the individuals for whom it is intended. I say, then, that a more minute interference than that exercised by the Privy Council never existed. [Mr. MONSELL: It does not interfere with the teaching.] I maintain that not only does it interfere, but that it is bound to do so, and that where we vote public money we must see that it is administered by persons who are responsible to Government and to Parliament. As guardians of the public purse we should neglect our first duty if we made large grants and then gave them to irresponsible individuals to be administered at their discretion. What, therefore, my right hon. Friend calls unconstitutional I maintain to be strictly constitutional, and also to be the established and invariable practice in England no less than in Ireland.

said, that with the permission of the House he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, he wondered at the hon. and learned Member taking this course; his proposition was so simple, so easily understood, and so true. He must object to the Amendment being withdrawn.

said, that there were various items in the Vote, for which the public ought not to pay. He particularly referred to the sums asked for music-masters and agriculture schools. There were more than two agricultural schools in every county in Ireland, seventy-four in all. Now, he admitted that agricultural schools would be of great advantage in England, but it was unjust to apply the money of the English ratepayers for the maintenance of such schools in Ireland. He should, therefore, move the omission of the item (£13,000), not that he would grudge it to give education to the Irish people, but he should not assent to such a Vote to spare the pockets of the Irish landlords, who were the persons who would be advantaged by the improvement of agriculture, and ought to pay for it.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that there was the same amount of Go- vernment control over the model schools in England that existed in Ireland. In opposition to that statement he would refer to the evidence of Dr. Lingen, who affirmed that a "central office which undertook to educate the people, appointing and dismissing the schoolmasters and managing the schools by its own officers, would be an intolerable system in England." Yet that was the system followed in Ireland.

I rise in pursuance of a notice which I placed some months ago on the paper—namely, to call attention to the inadequacy of the payments to national teachers in Ireland, and to the necessity of making provision for teachers incapacitated through age or ill-health. I shall confine myself strictly to the scope of my notice, and not refer to the broader subject of the particular system of education which now exists, or the principles on which it is based or carried on. At the close of last Session I entered fully into the questions of the mixed and denominational systems of education. To what I said on that occasion I have nothing to add, and nothing has occurred since then to alter or modify the opinions which I then expressed. I cannot, however, avoid congratulating the friends of the denominational system upon the extraordinary advance which their course has made, as evidenced conclusively by the almost unanimous testimony borne to it this night by Irish Members at both sides of the House. The immediate subject to which I now solicit the attention of the Committee is one of the very greatest importance. It does not merely concern the interests of the national teachers of Ireland, although there are 5,636 in number, but it involves the well working of the entire institution. Whatever the nature of an educational system may be, all will admit that it cannot prosper unless the teachers, those who love to bear the heat and burden of the day, are comfortable and contented with their position. Unless the teachers are of a superior character, and able to devote all their energies to the prosecution of their work, it is impossible that any system can be effectually carried out. It is not to the able or wise management of a central department that a great educational institution owes its success—it is to those whose duty, whose exalted duty, it is to impart instruction to the youth of the country. If the National System does ever take root in Ireland, and lays hold of the affections of the people of that country, the result will not be owing to the Commissioners or to the inspectors, but to the village teachers. In Ireland the village teachers are divided into three classes, and each class is further divided into different grades. I now speak of the male teachers, who number 3,141 in all. The first class consists of 423, the second, of 972, and the third of 1,746. The first class, consisting of 423, are paid, on the average, from all sources, the sum of 18s. 9d. per week. The second class, consisting of 972, are paid, from all sources, an average of 14s. a week. But the third class, which consists of 1,746, are only paid an average of 10s 3d. a week. That is the average; but of this 1,746, there are 812 who receive only £18 a year from the State, and about £5 a year from all sources; and those two sums put together make but £23, or a fraction over 9s. a week. Now 9s. a week is the average rate of wages paid to an ordinary labouring man in the neighbourhood of any large town or city in Ireland; and yet this is the payment which is awarded to the teacher, to whom is entrusted the duty of instructing the youth of country. I need scarcely add that the condition of the vast majority of the national teachers of Ireland is and must be one of constant humiliation, and that so far from being happy and contented, they suffer galling poverty and bitter privation. The remuneration of teachers in England is quite different. The average payment of the Irish male teacher, from all sources, is about £31 11s. 4d., and of the Irish female teacher £27 12s. But in England the average salary of male teacher is £94 3s. 7d., and of an English female teacher £62 13s. 10d. More than 60 per cent of the English male teachers enjoy free residences, and the English female teachers have over 50 per cent of the same. By the Scotch Parochial and Burgh Schools Bill, now before the House, it is provided that the minimum salary given to schoolmasters is to be £35, and the maximum £70. This payment is not to include fees; and I have been informed that the average salary of the Scotch schoolmaster will be about £80. Not more than 6 per cent of the Irish teachers possess a dwelling rent-free, while, as I have said, the majority of English teachers enjoy that important privilege; and in Scotland the rule is that every teacher shall have a house with three rooms, besides a piece of land. Out of their mise- rable pittance the Irish teachers have to provide themselves with a house, in most instances a cabin, or hovel, while I could mention cases where they are compelled to repair to the school-house. I have shown the rate of payment in England and Scotland, and I shall now quote a passage from the admirable work of Mr. Arnold on Popular Education, which has been published by the Royal Commissioners in their Report, showing how teachers are dealt with in Holland—a country which can bear no comparison with this, whether in population, wealth, or importance. Mr. Arnold says—

"M. Cuvier justly thought one of the grand causes of the success of the Dutch schools was the advantageous position of the schoolmasters. Municipalities and parents were alike favourable to them, and held them and their profession in an honour which then probably fell to their lot nowhere else. Hardly a village schoolmaster was to be found with a salary of less than £40 a year; in the towns many had from £120 to £160, and even more than that sum; all had, besides, a house and garden. The fruits of this comfort and consideration were to seen—as they are remarkably to be seen even at the present day—in the good manners, the good address, the self-respect, without presumption, of the Dutch teachers; they are never servile, and never offensive."

The Royal Commissioners, in their valuable Report, thus describe their idea of a teacher's natural qualifications for his task—

"It is a life which requires a quiet, even temper, patience, sympathy, fondness for children, and habitual cheerfulness."

If the Irish national schoolmaster were so fortunate as to possess "a quiet, even temper, patience, sympathy, and fondness for children," is it possible that he could preserve "habitual cheerfulness" upon nine shillings a week? More than 50 per cent of the national teachers are married, and it is to be presumed that many have large families; and it need scarcely be said that the burden of a family adds much to the privations caused by an insufficient income and false position. For the teacher is compelled to keep up a certain appearance. He is generally about the third person in importance in the country village; and while, in many instances, his pay is little above that of the day labourer, he cannot dress as the labourer does—he cannot afford to wear a broken shoe, or a tattered coat, or to appear in the same coarse garb of which the working man is not ashamed. Indeed, it is a fact that were they to dress in what might be considered an unbecoming manner, they would be remonstrated with. I may give a case in illus- tion of what I state. A teacher—one of those, I may mention, whom I had the honour of introducing to the noble Lord at the head of the Government—informed me that he was engaged on one occasion, after school hours, in giving instruction to some of his pupils in elementary horticulture; and previously to going into his little garden he prepared himself for its mud and clay by putting on a pair of old shoes and an old coat. One of the head inspectors, Mr. Kavanagh, happened to be passing by, when his attention was called to the manner in which the teacher was employed. Mr. Kavanagh justly complimented him upon the manner in which he was thus engaged, but remonstrated with him in private upon his appearance. The head inspector told him that if he dressed in that way he would run the risk of losing the respect of the children, and thus impair his authority, and that he in his own person ought to set an example of neatness for his pupils to follow. Now this teacher happened to be placed in an exceptional position, for he was in the receipt of something like 16s. from all sources; but what an insulting, heartless mockery such a reproof, however kindly meant it was in the case of my informant, would have been had it been addressed to one of the 812 teachers who, from all sources, are only in receipt of 9s. a week. Before going further, I may say, in referring to Mr. Kavanagh, whose name has been referred to before this evening, that the Board never possessed an abler or a more zealous servant than this gentleman; and that in all that he has done since the hour when he surrendered his lucrative office, for motives that did him honour, nothing has ever occurred in any way unworthy of him as a man of upright and independent character, or inconsistent with the duty which he owed to himself, his religion, and his country. The same teacher informed me of a fact which helps to exhibit the rate of wages now given to labour, even of the rudest kind, especially in the neighbourhood of towns. Attached to his school, he had a piece of ground, given to him, I believe, by the patron. This ground he could not cultivate himself, and he employed a common labouring man to plant it with potatoes, and for that task he had to pay his labourer at the rate of 10s. a week. But suppose, instead of having 16s. a week, this teacher had only 10s. or 9s. a week, only imagine the educated, cultivated, and trained teacher of youth paying for this rude and unskilled labour more than he received for the discharge of the most important and responsible duty with which a man can well be entrusted. There is evidently something wrong in the whole system, as proved by the small percentage of attendances as compared with the number of children on the rolls. Why is this? Because the heart of the teacher is not, in many instances, in his work—because he cannot be contented with his position—and because in some instances he is not of the class to be able to acquire influence over the children, and secure their punctual attendance. I wish to add to the just authority and influence of the village teacher; and I cannot do that more effectually than by raising his condition, and making him contented with his lot, which he cannot be so long as he receives the wretched remuneration to which I have described. Now, the cost of management is proportionately greater in Ireland than in England; and instead of the sums granted by Parliament going to the teachers, whose condition ought to be improved, they are wasted and frittered away on most questionable objects. I have been assured that the estimate now before the Committee is not the estimate which was prepared by the Commissioners, and sent by them to the Treasury—which department, I am happy to say, does exercise a salutary control over this expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary can set me right if I state what is incorrect; but I have been given to understand that the Commissioners asked for a much larger sum. This increase was for the purpose of adding something like 30 or 40 per cent to the salary and other charges for the inspectors; but these 66 gentlemen are largely and liberally paid at present, and I certainly will not consent to add one farthing either to their salaries or travelling expenses until full justice is done to the teachers, who from a more important body than any other under the Board. I must admit that the cost of a management is much greater relatively in Ireland than it is in England, as I shall proceed to show. In England the expense of inspection is £43,164, and of the central administration £16,776, making a total of £60,000, within a fraction. This on the whole sum just voted by Parliament for education in England—namely, £724,000 —is 8 1/2 per cent, or one-twelfth of the whole. Let us now turn to Ireland. The expense of inspection there is £22,840, and of central administration £14,319, or a total of £37,159. Thus, on a gross sum of £285,376, is 13 per cent, or one-eighth of the whole—showing that the expense of management in Ireland is not very far from double what it is in England, and I am sorry to say the result of this system of education, which is managed at such cost, is not by any means so flourishing as the right hon. Gentleman has represented it to be. Nearly half the children on the roll have not got beyond this book (the hon. Member here held up a little primer). This is the First Book of Lessons; and I shall read one or two exercises or questions from it—about the deepest problems it contains. One of these grave questions is, "Do pigs chew the cud?" Another is, "Can a foal pull a coach?" These, no doubt, are interesting enquiries, and calculated to develop youthful intelligence; but this is the maximum amount of intellectual acquirement that nearly 50 per cent of the children in daily attendance arrive at, and this certainly is no splendid result. Such a state of things is not to be found in the schools of the Christian Brothers, which schools, happily for the cause of education, are not scattered through the country. This grant result contrasts most unfavourably with the proficiency of the pupils in the schools I allude to, in which I venture to say scarcely one-tenth of their pupils would be found so backward. My remedy for this is to raise the condition of the teacher, to give more interest in his work, and to enable him to exercise more control over the attendance of his pupils. There is one fact in connection with this subject to which I desire to draw special attention, and that is the great proportion of teachers who, having been trained at the cost of the State, have left the profession, and either emigrated or sought more remunerative employments. The number of teachers who have been trained is about equal to the number now on the roll—that is, 5,636. These include 1,151 who are classed as "probationers." The number of trained teachers not employed under the Board is 2,791, whereas the number of teachers not trained is 2,845. Where have the rest gone? A small percentage of them have died, and a few perhaps may have found their way to the workhouses; but the great majority have emigrated, or have found other avocations. The State has lost, or expended, something like £100 by the training of each of these teachers with no possible advantage to the public, though it was certainly of great advantage to the individual to have received such a training. The remedy for this is obvious. If they are better paid they will have the best inducement to remain in the service; but now they are ready to yield to every temptation to leave, and to carry their education and intelligence to other countries. I have referred to the payment which the Irish teacher receives from other sources as being an average of £5 a year in each case. I am quite aware that the State grants to the Irish teacher a larger sum in proportion to his gross income than it does in the case of the English teacher, and that the amount given from school fees and other sources in England is vastly greater than it is in Ireland. This I must frankly admit. But I must, in explanation, take the marked distinction between the circumstances of the two countries—the one a rich country, with abundant employment for its labouring population—the other a poor country, whose population are mostly dependent on agriculture for their means of existence. Now, though an average of £5 or £6 from all local sources, as supplementing the payment given by the State, may seem a small sum in English eyes, it is not so in Ireland. It may be asked, why should not the funds from local sources be increased? My answer is that any attempt to increase them in many instances might be attended with great inconvenience, and only defeat the object which all would have in view—that is, to increase the attendance of the children. Let hon. Gentlemen remember that the education thus offered by the State is not intended for the children of those who are able to pay, but for those who are but little raised above the rank of actual poverty. Thus, for instance, the larger number of the children who attend the village school are the children of the cottiers and day labourers —men whose ordinary pay is about a shilling a day. Now, it is not at all times that the labourer is employed. It is true his labour is in requisition when the sun shines, and when the weather is dry; but there are weeks and months when, from the severity of the season, there is no demand for his rude labour. I ask, supposing a poor man of this class have three children of an age to be sent to the National School, could he afford to pay 3d. a week for their schooling? It would be a cruel and wicked rule which would attempt to exact it. In the schools of the Christian Brothers, and in the schools of the Presentation Monks not a farthing is asked from the children; and yet while the daily attendance in the National Schools is not more than 45 per cent of the number on the roll, the difference between the number of children on the roll and in daily attendance in the schools of the Christian Brothers is a mere trifle—nothing like 10 per cent of the whole. I should myself like to see the teachers better supported by the locality; but I must be content to wait for a much greater improvement in the condition of the country before I can expect any marked increase to the local contribution towards the salary of the teacher. But what is the teacher to do in the mean time. Is he to starve on a miserable pittance?—is his mind to be distracted with the mean and sordid cares which want and misery bring in their train?—is he to be kept in his present position of galling humiliation and hourly privation? With the increasing cost of the necessaries of life, and the inexorable law of gentility which compels him to wear a better coat than his neighbour, how is it possible that the teacher can exist on 9s., 10s., or even 12s. a week. In most countries of Europe, a teacher is required to pass only one examination to qualify him for his position; but for every grade an Irish teacher rises he has to pass a fresh examination. I do not object to this if the teacher is well paid. But if he is compelled to undergo new examinations he must have time and leisure for self-improvement, or he can never rise above his first position; and how, after having spent his day in the hard drudgery of his school, can this poor man, whose mind is distracted by the constant presence and pressure of want, be expected to devote himself with energy to the task of self-improvement? or if his life is to be one continued exercise of his intellect, in his school and out of his school, surely he is entitled to something better than his present wretched remuneration? I have shown how numbers of teachers have quitted the profession after having been trained at the expense of the public. In France I find that the same course is producing the same result. But in France more honour is paid to the teacher than in Ireland. In France the Government gives the teachers crosses and decorations and braided coats; yet I mistake not if the French teacher would not prefer a little less honour and a little more pay. In Ire- land the teacher has no honour whatever and a very miserable pay, so that his fate is far worse than that of his French brother. Mr. Arnold, in page 150 of his Report has this most important passage—

"At present the lay teachers in France tend to quit the profession as soon as they can for some more profitable career; if it were not for the inducement offered by the exemption from military service, it would be difficult to recruit their ranks. It is in vain that the State offers to them the lure of honourable mentions, medals of bronze and of silver, and even the rank of academic officer, with the privilege of wearing an official coat, with a palm embroidered on the collar; these public distinctions to the teachers are excellent but they are of no avail so long as he is utterly underpaid."

Poor Irish teachers get no decoration. They wear no crosses on the breast. In this case, such decorations would be a bitter mockery. The only cross bestowed upon them is the heavy cross of poverty— and that cross they have too long borne. The only other point to which I shall now refer is the necessity for some adequate provision for the teacher when incapacitated by old age or ill-health. There is provision made for the worn-out horse, but none for the worn-out teacher in Ireland. The gentleman sends his old horse to spend the rest of his days in a rich paddock, but the teacher has no resource save the charity of his friends or the workhouse. The only provision for the national teacher consists in this—that in some instances a sum is given equal to one or two years' salary; but when that is eaten out, as it must be in two years, there is not resource left but starvation or the workhouse. Now I have a case painfully in point. There is a teacher who, with his wife and six children, is now an inmate of the Manorhamilton Workhouse, in Ireland. This unhappy man was a teacher for thirty-seven years of his life, seventeen of which were spent in the service of the Board. In 1858 the Commissioners granted him a sum of £51. That was equal to about two years' salary; but when that was consumed, which it necessarily was in that time, he was compelled to betake himself to the last refuge of the destitute—the workhouse. Now, that is a said conclusion to a life of labour in the public service. No class in the community is entitled to greater sympathy than the worn-out teachers. They cannot become mechanics in their old age, and their avocations have utterly unsuited them for rude labour; so that they positively have no other resource save that of the workhouse, if they are not to rot on the road side. I do not ask, in the name of the teachers of Ireland, that anything shall be done for them this year more than whatever is proposed in the present Estimates; they are quite willing to wait one year more, confident in the justice and compassion of Parliament, and in the belief that Commissioners will be emboldened to make such a fair demand in their behalf, in the Estimates of next Session, as will help to place them in a position in which they may be able to prosecute their onerous duties with out the pressure of the same cares and anxieties which now harrass their minds and depress their spirits. For my part, I have no apprehension whatever of increased Votes for education. £50,000 or £100,000 more, whether for England or Ireland, is a matter of no possible moment, and ought not to cause the slightest objection in the mind of any hon. Gentleman. We never hesitate to grant one million, or two millions, or three millions, for warlike purposes, to build new ships of war, or, as the phrase is, to remodel the navy; and yet we must admit that from such an outlay very little advantage results to the country. But every shilling expended in education brings its own fruit in the greater intelligence of the people. On the score of the strictest economy, as well as for the best interests of education, it is absolutely necessary that the teachers, upon whom success of any system rests, should be better paid than they are. I now only ask for an expression of sympathy in the object of my notice from the Committee; and I shall only say, in conclusion, that nothing would tend more to render an educational system useful to the Irish people than by enlisting the earnest energies of its teachers, and giving to them that legitimate influence and control which will always be exercised by men whose heart is in their work; and I do not believe that the Government will next year have any difficulty in obtaining from Parliament whatever additional sum may be necessary to enable them to do justice to so meritorious a class of public servants as the National Teachers of Ireland.

said, the whole vitality of the system of education was involved in the character and condition of the teachers. He had listened carefully to the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and from his local knowledge he was able to say that there was nothing in his able statement which was at all overcoloured or exaggerated. It had been shown that the average pay of a school-master was only about 10s. a week, and there was no ground to expect any increase in the amount now supplemented by private liberality. Where the national system was accepted it was considered that public education was the duty of the State, and the duty of providing funds, therefore, devolved upon Parliament. He believed that if they could instil feelings of satisfaction into the minds of the teachers they would do more to establish public confidence in the system than by any reconstruction or expensive alterations that could be devised. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had done much to improve the condition of this deserving class, and if he went further in that direction he would be repaid tenfold by the additional proficiency which the teachers would exhibit.

said, he agreed that the system of promoting teachers by removing them to another school in a more important district was the bane of the national system. He maintained that the cleverest teacher was wanted in the most barbarous districts. In 1858 the Commissioners reported that in Donegal there were seven teachers in places where the whole amount of local contribution was 7s. to each teacher. One teacher on Tory Island was almost starving. The Commissioners reported that some teachers were wholly incompetent, and the people of the district, although anxious to learn English, could not obtain instruction. A schoolmistress who had given great satisfaction was removed from the place where she was useful to Belfast, where there was no want of experienced and able teachers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that point.

said, he felt considerable reluctance in pressing upon the Government the necessity of increasing the education grant, not because he did not think the teachers were well deserving of an increase of pay, but because it appeared to him that if the amount annually voted by Parliament were properly applied there would be no need for an increased demand. There was lavish extravagance in the application of the funds. A sum of £500 or £600 a year was voted for drainage and permanent improvements of a farm of 170 acres, and yet after seventeen years the only return was the "probable pro- duce of £1,600," which had been held out for the last ten years. He could not help thinking that the system had been mal-administered, the proof being that while they had multiplied the number of schools the number of scholars had been diminished. The result was that they had only multiplied the number of pauper school-masters, and that the best men were leaving the Irish National Schools. They had been recommended to make a provision for their old age by the aid or deferred annuities; but how could schoolmasters in the receipt of these miserable pittances spare any money for the purpose? He thought the Commissioners had put into their book of extracts the sketch of an Irish clergyman who was "passing rich on £40 a year." So struck did they seem to be with the picture that they had strenuously resolved that the pittance of Irish school masters should never exceed £40 a year, though a century had elapsed since Goldsmith wrote The Deserted Village.

said, he agreed that there were items in which a saving might be effected. For instance, he found a vote of £100 for a classical teacher to instruct the teachers. But what did they want with classics? They surely formed no part of the scheme. It appeared to him that there were many items in which they might make reductions, and thus obtain funds to increase the salaries of the teachers who needed it so much. If, after they had introduced all the economies they could, any thing more was needed, he felt certain that Parliament would vote the balance with the greatest readiness.

said, it was clear that the contentment and efficiency of the masters were the conditions of the success of the system. It appeared that there were on the Normal establishment two professors employed as training masters, who lectured on the "English language and literature, history, geography, mathematics, political economy, and natural philosophy." When the teachers were educated in these high branches of knowledge Parliament gave them on an average the sum of 11s.9 d. per week. It was clear that if the teachers learned all these things they were worth more than 11s. 9d. per week, and that if they did not the professors were not necessary in order to teach them. He agreed with hon. Members who thought that if the Vote were wisely administered the teachers might obtain an increase of salaries.

said, he sympathized with the hon. Member for Dungarvan in the appeal he had made in behalf of the schoolmasters; and he believed there were abundant means of bringing about reductions by which their salaries might be increased, without calling on the House to augment the gross amount of its grant for Irish education. He begged to move, therefore, that £13,000, the item for the agricultural schools, be omitted; and if he carried that Amendment, he would hereafter propose a Resolution affirming that the Vote for masters ought to be increased to that extent. He also had to complain that the amounts asked for building schools were put under the head of the Board of Works, when, in fact, they were an addition to the educational Vote.

said, he thought that the same was the case with regard to the grant for the reformatory and industrial schools. It appeared under another head. With regard to the payment to the Irish teachers, it should be remembered that all they received came out of the public purse; whereas in England a large proportion of the salary was raised by voluntary effort. He desired to call the attention of the Committee to the great increase which had taken place in that Vote. In 1848 it was just £120,000, while now it was over £285,000. That seemed to him to be an enormous increase. One feature of the increase was the great additional cost of management, which in a few years had more than doubled. With regard to the district model schools, he was afraid they were doing in Ireland what had been done to a considerable extent in England—namely, that they were giving education to classes for whom it was never intended, and who were fully able to pay for their won education. He understood that very few of the students in the model schools were of the poorer classes. Indeed, he had been informed that the children of magistrates were pupils in some of them.

said, that the office in Dublin had been the subject of inquiry by a Commission from the Treasury four or five years ago, and the amount of salaries paid was the result of that inquiry. The Votes for reformatory schools in both England and Ireland were taken separately from the education Vote, because they were considered to come under the category of crime. The reason why the amount for building schools was not in that Vote was that that work was under the direction of the Board of Works, and, therefore, was considered to come properly into the Vote for the expenses of that Department. He would now pass on to the main subjects—namely, the expenditure on model schools, the expenditure upon district agricultural schools, the expenditure upon the school at Glasnevin, and the small remuneration afforded to the school-masters. It was contended that the expenditure on model schools should not be increased. If that were the proper opportunity, he should be most ready to add his humble tribute to the admiration which such schools as those in Marlborough Street and Belfast elicited from all visitors; but, as the expenditure on the model schools had grown very considerably, he thought it would be much more satisfactory that no further engagements should be made by the Commissioners with respect to the model schools in any district in Ireland without first obtaining the sanction of the Government, so that they might have the opportunity of submitting the matter to that House before any decision was come to. With respect to the agricultural schools, the Government acknowledged that the opinion of the House had been expressed to the effect that the expenditure of those schools had gone be yond a proper amount in Ireland, but the benefit they had conferred on the country ought not to be forgotten. Immediately after the famine there was a very great desire to extend agricultural improvement in Ireland, and every one was desirous of taking advantage of the favourable opportunity to establish agricultural schools to teach the people improved agriculture. He believed that great benefit had been the result. But, again, he had the satisfaction of saying that Government had anticipated the feeling expressed to-night in desiring to reduce the expenditure on agricultural schools, and there was a decrease of four model and four ordinary schools since last year. Then, with regard to Glasnevin, he drew the attention of the Commissioners of Education to the importance of giving rewards as an incentive to education through the whole 5,000 schools in Ireland, and accordingly a system of prizes had been adopted, by which the best pupils were brought up to Dublin for rewards, and a great stimulous was given to education through the whole country. He now came to the question of the salary of the schoolmasters. He cordially sympathized with every word which had fallen from the hon. Member for Dungarvan and others, and it would be seen that already something had been done to promote the comfort of the school-masters, for in the present Estimates there was a considerable increase for their benefit. Their position had been contrasted with that of the schoolmasters in England, but it must not be forgotten that when the system in Ireland was originally commenced, it was laid down in Lord Stanley's letter that the amount intended for the salaries should be locally secured, That principle, however, had been entirely departed from, and the House was now asked to vote no less than £180,000 for the salaries of schoolmasters. If it were attempted to contrast the salaries of teachers in Ireland with those in England, it must be borne in mind how large a part of the salaries of English teachers was derived from local sources. It could not be supposed that the whole of the £90 which they received was derived from the State; it was largely composed of the fees from scholars and contributions given by landed proprietors in aid of the schools. And if the hon. Gentleman called in aid of his argument the Scotch Parochial Schools Bill, under which each schoolmaster was to have a minimum of £35 and a maximum of £70 yearly, he must remember that those were payments mainly to be made from a charge upon land voluntarily imposed, and not form money obtained by a Vote of that House. He was sure the Board of Commissioners would be most anxious to ameliorate the condition of the teachers to any extent which they believed would receive the sanction of the Government and of the House of Commons. They had already shown their interest in the subject in a practical manner, but in preparing the Estimates they were obliged to bear in mind their growing magnitude, and not to extend them more rapidly than they believed the liberality of Parliament would warrant.

said, one of the principal objections to the present system was that the Commissioners were doing all they could to get the whole management into their own hands. They were asked to Vote £280,000, and there was another vote of £60,000 making £340,000 in the hands of the Commissioners, which was nearly equal to the whole parochial income of the clergy of the Established Church. He felt that upon careful revi- sion an abundance of items could be pruned away, which would in the aggregate yield an amount sufficient to meet the legitimate claims of the masters. He referred to various items, especially in connection with agricultural schools and the cost of inspection, which he regarded as excessive, and said that the lavish expenditure under these heads and the special gratuities given to particular pupils looked as if the object which the Government had in view was to bribe individuals into supporting a system which was alien to the feeling and spirit of the country. He asked for an explanation of the item of £10,000 introduced into the Estimates this year for the first time for "navigation schools;" as he believed that demand was a further step to wards extending the control of the Commissioners to purposes of education with which it was not originally contemplated they should have anything to do.

said, he believed no Member on either side of the House had any intention of demanding an increase of the Vote for the purpose of augmenting the salaries of teachers; but many, no doubt, thought the salaries might be increased by a redistribution of the present Vote. The expenditure on model schools, for instance, was excessive. They had been established in towns where ample educational qualities already existed, or would have been provided without Parliamentary assistance. He could corroborate the statement, that persons by no means in the poorest classes availed themselves of the advantages afforded by these Government establishments, and he wished to express his belief that the real object of the system, which was to provide for the education of the humbler Irish, had in many cases been lost sight of. Local contributions, where they could be obtained, he regarded as of the utmost value, because they interested the donors in the school, and led to their exercising a watchfulness over it which other inducements would fail in inducing them to do. The Christian Brothers' and the nuns' schools were the best in Ireland, because religion was an important point with those bodies, and it would be well to see if the same principle could not be brought to bear upon the model schools.

explained that the increase of £600 upon the item for navigation schools was caused by increased facilities being afforded for learning navigation.

said, he must persist in his Motion to reduce the Vote by £13,000—the sum asked for agricultural schools.

said, that if there were any species of instruction which more than another was useful to the people of Ireland it was training in the principles of agriculture. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would not object to Vote the sum necessary for the purpose. Even if the whole of the £13,000 was distributed, as some were preferred to advocate, in increasing the salaries of the schoolmasters, very little would, after all, have been effected in that direction, inasmuch as according to the statement which the hon. Member for Dungarvan had made to him, when he waited on him at his own house, a sum of £50,000 would give those schoolmasters an average increase of salary of only 14s. a week.

contended that the £13,000 would not in the slightest degree benefit the people of this country, or, in fact, anybody else, except the landlords of Ireland.

said, he must remind his hon. Friend that the promotion of the wealth and prosperity of the people of Ireland ought not to be a matter of indifference to the English people.

said, he had to propose a Vote of £155,000 for the redemption of the Stade Dues. A treaty had been entered into with Hanover under which that country extinguished these tolls, and was to receive the capitalized value, calculated according to a certain basis of the revenue which she derived form them, and the sum so to be paid to her was to be divided in certain proportions between this country, Hamburg, and other countries trading up the Elbe. It was not necessary to enter into a lengthened explanation as to those tolls, as the whole subject was carefully inquired into by a Select Committee of the House so lately as 1858. The toll was one of a very ancient character, having been levied by Hanover since 1720, and this country had recognized the right of Hanover to levy it by entering, in 1844, into a treaty with Hanover on the subject. Under that treaty it was agreed that the toll to be levied on all ships passing up the Elbe should be at the rate of 5s. for every £100 value of freight. In the year 1858 a Committee of the House of Commons which inquired into the subject reported that the toll was injurious to the trade and commerce of this country, and pointed out that certain articles produced in England were exposed to disadvantageous competition with similar articles the production of other countries, in consequence of the latter finding their way to Germany by other channels than the Elbe. The Committee further showed that our shipping was, by the operation of these tolls, subject to an unfair competition with the vessels of Hamburg, and they recommended that the Treaty of 1844 should be put an end to. That could be done by notice, but the legal authorities whom the Government consulted were of opinion that if they terminated the treaty they would not exempt themselves from liability to the toll. Under these circumstances the only course to arrive at a friendly solution of the question was to redeem the tax in the same way as the Sound dues, which was an analogous case, had been redeemed. If the Committee agreed to the principle of redemption there would be little question as to the details. Hanover proposed that a sum equal to 25 years' purchase should be given for the redemption of the revenue derived from the tolls. But that was objected to, and it was ultimately agreed to accept 15 1/2 years' purchase. With regard to the contribution to be made by this country, the Hanoverian Government received £30,000 from the tolls, and this country paid between 50 and 60 per cent of that sum. The next largest contributor was Hamburg. If Hanover received £30,000 a year, that multiplied by 15 1/2 years gave a sum of £465,000. If England were to pay in the proportion of her contribution to the annual revenue derived from the tolls she would pay £250,000. But the interest which Hamburg had in the abolition of the tolls was more than measured by the amount of her contribution, for the tolls prevented ships from going to Hamburg, and diverted trade to other quarters. This country was, there- fore, to pay only one-third of the entire amount, Hamburg was to pay another third, and the remaining third was to be divided proportionally amongst the other countries that traded to the Elbe. The treaty which had been concluded provided that no pecuniary obligation was to be fixed on this country except with the concurrence of Parliament. There had been an Act of Parliament in the case of the purchase of the Sound dues, but in the present instance it was thought that a Vote in Committee of Supply would be sufficient for all practical purposes. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote, as interest would have to be paid upon any instalments that remained due after the 1st of October, and as by the treaty the compensation was to be paid in thalers, the sooner the operation of purchasing them began the better as they might, otherwise, be losers by a rise in the rate of exchange. He trusted that the grounds he had given for the Vote would be satisfactory to the Committee.

said, he was not at all satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the proportion fixed for England was high. On whom did the duty fall? On the owner of the ship? On the owner of the merchandize? Did it not rather, according to the principles of political economy, fall on the consumers of the goods? It had been considered that such duties fell on the consumers. Then the Stade dues had been regarded in the light of passing tolls. If so, Hanover took the dues, and did nothing for them. In this country when relieving foreign countries from our passing tolls we did not call on them to buy up their liabilities. Again, the duties were really abolished by the Treaty of Vienna. But whenever that treaty operated in favour of the general European public it had been set aside. Another reason why he thought the share of this country too large was because cargoes from foreign ports which came to the Isle of Wight, or some point on the English coast, and were there purchased to go to Hamburg, were reckoned improperly as a portion of our trade. Moreover, these dues being levied by the pound, this country had been subjected to overcharge on account of the English pound being less than the foreign one. Under all the circumstances he thought the hon. Gentleman had not given a good reason for fixing England with so large a proportion of the commu- tation money for the Stade dues; and he should say "no" to the Vote.

said, the Vote was upwards of £8,000 more than the Vote of last year. He wished to know what was the cause?

said, the reason of the increase was the recent legislation on the subject of the Scotch Universities.

said, he thought the claims of the inspectors of these colleges ought not to be further postponed.

said, it was proposed to redistribute the £7,000 appropriated to the professors, so as to meet the claims referred to.

said, there was a growing feeling in Ireland as to the impolicy of the allowance. That class of rich Dissenters had no right to come upon the public funds. It was the only class of Protestant Dissenters in the kingdom that received such a grant. He should, therefore, move the reduction of the grant by £2,050, which would leave only the amount of retired allowances.

said, that considering the great importance of the Presbyterian body in the north of Ireland, the nature of the institution, and the long period that the grant had been in existence, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion.

said, the institution had done a vast amount of good in the north of Ireland.

expressed his disapproval of the Vote.

said, he rose move, as an Amendment of Clause 4, that the word "misdemeanour" be substituted for "felony." He held that in assimilating the laws of England and Ireland, where the law was more severe in one than in the other, the milder form ought to be preferred, unless there were peculiar circumstances which rendered severity necessary. The common law in England and Ireland made the offence of conspiracy to murder a misdemeanour. About 1795 or 1796 the Irish Parliament passed an Act making it a felony punishable with death. When the Irish criminal law was consolidated in 1829 the offence was re-enacted as a felony punishable with death. By the Bill it was proposed to make it a felony both in England and Ireland, and, instead of the punishment of penal servitude for life or a less period, at the discretion of the Court. It was necessary to consider whether there was anything in the state of Ireland to render it necessary to treat the offence in a way different from that in which it had hitherto been treated in England. Looking to the great diminution of crime in Ireland, they could not come to any other conclusion than that Ireland might very well be left with the same law which had always been found sufficient in England. In 1839, than which year the criminal returns of Ireland did not go further back, the number of persons accused of the offence of murder in Ireland was 286. With the exception of the years 1848 and 1849, when, owing to the terrible pressure of the famine, crime in Ireland did not diminish, there had been a gradual diminution. The number of persons accused of murder in Ireland fell to 92 in 1845. It rose to 179 in 1849. In 1853 it fell to 73; and in 1859 to 45. A more remarkable change in the criminal statistics of any country could scarcely be found. The crime with which the clause immediately dealt was conspiracy to murder, and solicitation to murder. In 1859 the number of persons accused of the crime of solicitation to murder in Ireland was nine, and in 1859 none. The number of persons accused of conspiracy to murder in Ireland was, in 1839, 25; and in 1859, 3. Taking the whole of the offences against the person, including manslaughter, the number of persons accused in Ireland was, in 1839, 898; and in 1859, 235. With this alteration for good, it could hardly be said that there was any special ground for the severity of the law. What was almost as satisfactory, the number of convictions was in most years more in proportion to the number of persons accused. Of the 286 persons accused of murder in Ireland in 1839, 32 only were convicted, and of the 45 accused of the same crime in 1859, 3 only were convicted. The proportion of convictions in England did not vary so much as many persons might think. In the English criminal returns the offence of conspiracy to murder was included under the term "misdemeanours," and, therefore, whether there were many or few persons accused of it could not be ascertained; but it might fairly be assumed that if there had been many some special notice would have been taken of the fact. In cases of felony the police had always exercised much larger and more arbitrary powers than in cases of misdemeanour. A policeman or constable, having a reasonable ground to believe that a felony had been committed, was justified in apprehending a person without a warrant, and would be held to be justified unless it was shown that he acted from some improper or malicious motive. There was a vast number of foreigners resident in this Metropolis. Nothing would be more easy than for a Foreign Minister who wanted to get hold of the correspondence of a foreign refugee to put it into the mind of a constable that such a man was mixed up in a conspiracy to murder. The constable, acting in good faith, would go into the unfortunate foreigner's house, apprehend him, and seize all his papers. The conspiracy might never have existed, but the papers having been seized the names of all the refugee's correspondents would be known, and persons in other countries would be implicated in political matters which otherwise would never have been found out. That was a great reason for not making the offence a felony unless there was an absolute necessity for it. He felt it so strongly that three years ago, when the question arose, under special circumstances, of making the change in the law of England, and after the Bill was read a first time, but before the episode occurred which led to its untimely end, he went to the Secretary of State and told him that unless he provided some guard against the action of the police he should vote against it in a further stage. The question was always cropping up. Somehow or another foreigners got hold of our constables. They had an example of it in the recent Kossuth business, and if a foreign Minister obtained the names of a refugee's correspondents that would perhaps be all he wanted. The refugee himself might not suffer, but his friends abroad might be subjected to all the inconvenience of being in correspondence with a man who had been obliged to flee his country. There might be inconvenience in making the change in the law of England, and he could see no necessity for continuing to make the offence a felony in Ireland. When the law was more severe in one country and less severe in the other, it was wise, in assimilating the law, to adopt the less severe form. He was glad to be able to acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. and learned Attorney General in bringing the subject on at a convenient hour. He was quite ready to take the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the period of penal servitude. It was not the quantum of punishment to which he objected, but the inconvenience which might arise, and which he had endeavoured to point out. He hoped the Government would accede to the proposal which he begged to make—namely, to strike out the word "felony" in the fourth clause, and to insert the word "misdemeanour."

said, he hoped the House would not be induced to adopt the Amendment. It would have been observed that to a clause which defined an offence, and attached upon conviction a punishment of considerable severity, the only objection of the right hon. Gentleman related to the character of the crime which, he contended, ought to be misdemeanour only and not felony. This objection was based on the assumption that if the offence were felony, the police would arrogate, or might be invested with certain arbitrary and summary powers, which might lead to injurious consequences, not so much to the individual accused, but, supposing him to be a fo- reigner, to persons with whom he might be in correspondence in other countries. For the purpose of enforcing that objection, the right hon. Gentleman had supposed a conspiracy between the Minister of the country to which the refugee belonged and the Government of Her Majesty; because the interference of the police in the way suggested, whatever effect it might have on the individual proceeded against, could be attended by no injurious consequences to his correspondents abroad, unless there existed an understanding between the foreign Minister and the Government of this country, which might lead the latter to abuse the information obtained through the agency of the police. He did not believe that any Government which could exist in England would lend itself to such conduct. It was important to bear in mind that the object of the present and of four other Bills which had already been before the House, was to consolidate the criminal law, bringing within the four corners of one enactment all the statute law bearing upon a particular class of offences, and now scattered through a great many volumes. Another object was to combine the assimilation and amendment of the statute law of England and of Ireland with its consolidation. But the law could not be assimilated without considering, in the first place, whether the law of the two countries was the same or different. If it was different, then the question arose whether the law of one country should be adopted in the other, or whether some alternation or change should be made, so as to bring about a new state of the law applicable to both countries. A considerable time ago conspiracy to murder was made by statute a felony in Ireland, punishable, on conviction, with death; and so it remained at the present moment. In England, on the contrary, it was a mere misdemeanour. It was obvious that the severe statute law of Ireland could not be applied to England; and hence it followed, if we were to have the same law for the two countries, that there must be applied to both countries some modification of the severity of the Irish statute. That modification was effected by the present clause, which, making the offence a felony, attached to it, not a capital punishment, but a punishment next in severity—that of penal servitude. There was a considerable body of authority for the clause. In the Bill relating to offences against the person brought forward during the Administration of the Earl of Derby, conspiracy to murder was dealt with as a felony; and in the Bill on the same subject subsequently laid on the table by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside), the same course was pursued. In the Bill introduced into the House of Lords last Session, the same clause was inserted, and it remained after the Bill had undergone a very searching investigation by a Select Committee of that House. He could not see that there was any force in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If they were to proceed upon the supposition that the Government of Her Majesty would lend themselves to the designs of a foreign Minister, he did not think the police, acting upon the instigation of the Government, would be particularly nice in their conduct whether conspiracy to murder were called a felony or a misdemeanour. Conspiracy to murder, as recent and unhappy experience had shown us, was an offence which might, not improbably, be committed in this country, either by foreigners acting alone or by foreigners in concert with Englishmen; and considering the conclusions—at times not very charitable to our feelings and sense of justice—drawn by Continental Government from the large and wide hospitality we afforded to refugees of every kind, it was worthy of consideration whether, when there could be no great or serious objection, we should not put our law in such a form as might relieve us from discreditable accusations. In 1858 the House seemed to adopt that view, because it approved a Bill which both changed the character of the offence and altered its punishment. The first reading of that Bill was carried by a large majority, but it ultimately failed, from circumstances which did not in any way affect the opinion expressed by the House, that such a change in the law was desirable. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not agree to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Sir, I wavered at first very much in my opinion as to this matter, but the more I have considered it the firmer has become my conviction that the view of my right hon. Friend is the correct one. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General seems to have forgotten the exact object of the Bill to which he referred. Its object was not to turn a misdemeanour into felony, but to make that an offence which the law did not reach before—namely, a conspiracy in this country to commit a murder abroad. It had nothing whatever to do with the question whether the offence of conspiracy to murder should be a misdemeanour or a felony. As to the authority to which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has referred, I cannot see that that has much weight. The House has never yet given any opinion on the precise question which my right hon. Friend has now submitted to it. No doubt one object of these Consolidation Bills is to make the law of the two countries uniform, but in this particular matter this Bill neither consolidates nor assimilates—it alters the law of both England and Ireland. If you were consolidating the law, and took the law of Ireland, you would make the offence of conspiracy or soliciting to commit murder a capital offence, punishable by death; if you took the law of England you would make it a misdemeanour, omitting the offence where the murder is committed abroad. But you are altering the law of both countries, and the question you have to consider is what Amendment would be best. As regards Ireland, you have introduced this Amendment—that instead of the offence being a capital one, it becomes a felony, punishable by penal servitude; and in England, instead of being a misdemeanour, it becomes a felony, punishable by penal servitude. The question raised by my right hon. Friend is not whether the offence shall be the same in both countries of whether it shall be punishable by penal servitude; he and the Attorney General are both agreed as to that; but it is whether it shall be a misdemeanour or a felony. The difficulty arises from the mode in which under this Bill you enable the police to deal with this particular offence, for, in point of fact, you will—or, I will say, you might—by an abuse of authority enable a constable, without a warrant, to obtain information which, except for the allegation of that offence, he could not obtain. That arises entirely from the technical description of the offence as a felony. If it were a misdemeanour the police would have no power to ransack a man's papers without a warrant. I think that my hon. and learned Friend has missed the exact point submitted for consideration by my right hon. Friend, and keeping in view the extreme jealousy with which this House has always guarded against in- formation being obtained from any person which might be turned against him on a charge which dose not relate to the particular offence for which he is put on his trial, and seeing that there is nothing in this Amendment which will diminish the punishment or the means of proving the offence, I shall strenuously support the Amendment.

said, he thought the House was under a very great obligation to the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire for having brought the matter before the House. When it was understood in the country what was proposed in this Bill there would, no doubt, be a very clear expression of opinion on it. The history of the Session had been so strange that scarcely any proceeding of the Government inconsistent with the principles professed by their followers would have surprised him, but he certainly was not prepared for such a proposal as that. He should give the right hon. Gentleman his hearty support, and he trusted that the Amendment would be carried by a large majority.

said, he had given notice of his intention to move the omission of the clause altogether, but on grounds somewhat differing from those stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The House was scarcely aware, he thought, of the nature of the offence indicated by the clause. It was limited simply to the offence of conspiracy, without any overt act whatever to carry the conspiracy into effect. That offence was purely one of intention; it was nothing more than the agreement of two persons to commit murder, though it might not be followed by any attempt to commit it, and though one of the parties might recede from, or even frustrate the agreement. In another Bill it was provided that any person inciting another to commit a felony should be punished as the principal felon. But was it right that a mere intention, followed by no overt act, should be put in the same category as an attempt to commit murder? That would be at variance with established principles of law, which recognized a great distinction between the two offences, and prescribed for the less offence only a less punishment. Not one of the Commissions which had been appointed for the consolidation of the criminal law had recommended the change, and it had never been heard of until the Emperor of the French required us to make it. Then came the proposal of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. It was true that the House allowed the Government to bring in the Bill on the subject, but it was negatived on the second reading, and the House preferred to risk a change in the Government rather than pass such a measure. Was that decision to be treated as nothing? Had any circumstances occurred in the country which rendered such a change necessary? He had heard of no such necessity; and it was not a sufficient reason to say that, with a different state of society in Ireland, a different law existed than that now in force here. It was due to the character and the honour of the House that if the decision of 1858 were reversed the step should not be taken hastily or inconsiderately, but that the House should declare that it had committed a great error in then refusing to assent to the proposal of the noble Lord

Sir I cannot recognize the reality of the fears expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) as to the arrangement which he supposes would be made between a foreign Minister and a police constable. My belief is that if any foreign Minister wished to employ a police constable for the purpose of discovery he would apply to the Home Office, and they would not be likely to lend themselves to any improper act of that sort. If the object simply was to search a man's house without a warrant, there are many felouies besides the conspiracy to commit a murder abroad which would afford an opportunity for the purpose. Therefore, assuming the sinister purpose which the right hon. Gentleman described, and that means were desired to carry it into effect, he would not be baffled even under the existing law. I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not object to diminish the punishment, and he does not propose to alter the clause except by substituting misdemeanour for felony, leaving all the rest of the clause as it stands. The difference would be that the prisoner would retain the advantages which he possesses in trials for misdemeanour, and there would be the difference in respect of searching his house. In that respect the alteration would be favourable to the prisoner; but I do not think the matter is worthy of any very lengthened contention, and I shall be quite prepared to concede the point.

said, he never imagined that any Government would ever lend themselves to such a thing. Of course it would be done by the police.

said, that the alteration having been made by the House, it would not be right to allow so severe a punishment to stand. He proposed that the words "for life" be struck out, in order to substitute a term of "not more than ten years, or less than three."

said, the Amendment was satisfactory; it reduced the punishment, and made the offence a misdemeanour, which was the common law.

said, that in Clause 43, he would move that the word "twelve" be substituted for "six". The effect of the Amendment was to give magistrates the power of committing to prison for twelve months in cases of wife beating.

said, the Amendment was one of a series which would, if agreed to, indicate that a considerable change had come over the temper of the House since the Amendment which it had just carried; for it would greatly augment the severity of the present law against aggravated assaults. The noble Lord, though proposing the increased severity, was, strange to say, actuated by a spirit of benevolence.

said, he would then move to omit the provision of fine and imprisonment in order to insert the following:—

"And whosoever having been twice convicted of any such offence as aforesaid shall afterwards commit any such offence shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be imprisoned in a common gaol or house of correction, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding three years, and if the said last mentioned justices shall so think fit, the person, if a male, so convicted, shall be once privately whipped with not more than forty-eight lashes."

I think, Sir, it is very evident that, if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been acquainted either with the Corporation Reform Act or with the speech of the noble Lord at present at the head of the Foreign Department, on introducing that measure in 1835, he would not have made the assertion that this Bill would make no alteration in the state of things existing under the Corporation Reform Act. I shall not now attempt to go over again all the arguments on this subject which I used on a former occasion; but the case is this:—It has been decided in the Court of Queen's Bench that the mayor has precedence everywhere within the limits of the borough; but that he has not of right the chairmanship of the justices when they sit in petty sessions. That was explicitly declared to be the intention of the Act, when the Bill for that Act was introduced in 1835; and it has since been authoritatively decided by the Court of Queen's Bench that such is the purport of that Act. The object of this Bill is to enact that whoever is elected mayor, having become by that Act a justice of the peace for the year of his office and for one year afterwards, shall of right take the chair at all meetings of petty sessions and in all committees of justices. Now, I think that this provision is extremely stringent upon the borough justices, and I am not aware that they have done anything to deprive them of the right which belongs to all other responsible bodies—the right to elect their own chairman. There is an exception to this right in the case of Recorders at borough quarter sessions. The Recorder there of right supersedes mayor and the other magistrates, and sits as chairman and as Judge at the quarter sessions; but in other cases the mayor cannot take precedence of right over the other justices. I think the proposal of this Bill bears very hardly upon the borough magistrates, against whom no offence has been alleged; for these magistrates would not be allowed to exercise a power which belongs to the county magis- trates, who are entitled to exercise the privilege of choosing their own chairman. There is no reason for this, especially when it is remembered that in petty sessions every magistrate is individually responsible for the judgment that may be pronounced. That, I believe, is the law: so I have been advised by competent authority. Each magistrate is personally and individually responsible for every decision that may be given at petty sessions; and all I now propose is some valid security against in competence on the part of the mayor—for the House has decided that the mayor, though he may have become a justice for the first time by virtue of his election to the office of mayor, shall at once step into the chair at every meeting of the justices, and shall thus have authority over men who have been appointed to the office of justice for life, who may have acted for years in the administration of the law and the preservation of the peace, and may have exercised their functions most honourably and blamelessly. As the Bill stands the mayor will thus preside, though he may be without the slightest knowledge or experience of the business of a justice of the peace. That is a severe decision; and I ask the House to modify it. I ask the House to place the mayors of our provincial towns in the same position that the Lord Mayor of London occupies. No one can be elected to the office of Lord Mayor till he has served some time as alderman; and as alderman he exercises the functions of a justice. Therefore, before he is elected to the chair of the City of London the electors have had some experience of his conduct and capacity as a justice of the peace, because as an alderman he sits as a justice of the peace. My proposal is that this security be extended to the boroughs. In the course of a former debate reference was made to the borough of Birmingham, where unhappily the collision took place which led to the introduction of this Bill; and I believe that an impression has gone abroad from that debate that I am dealing with this question in a spirit of hostility to the Corporation of Birmingham. Perhaps the House may not be aware that I, along with my hon. Colleague, in opposition to the views of many of our own political friends, joined with the late Mr. Muntz and the present senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield) in carrying through this House the Birmingham Improvements Bill, by which the Corporation of Birmingham became vested with powers as large, if not larger than the powers of any Corporation in England. The hon. Member opposite will bear me testimony that, in this respect, I acted in what cannot be otherwise considered than as a liberal spirit towards the Corporation of Birmingham—more so than many of those who agree with me in general politics were inclined to sanction. The House will see, therefore, that I entertain no hostile feeling whatever against the Corporation of Birmingham. Nevertheless, I am one of those who think that they are now urging us upon a course which is not likely to produce results that are either creditable to themselves or to this House. I ask the House this question—what good will they do, though they may by this Bill thrust a man upon the justices against their will, and make him their chairman of right, though he may have had no experience, and though he may be seriously objectionable in other respects? for the Bill contemplates only those cases where the justices, if left to themselves, would decline to elect the mayor as their chairman. In almost all cases the justices are only too glad to elect the mayor as their chairman, if he is competent; because he, in that case, brings the whole weight and influence of the corporation to support the authority of the justices. The 2nd Clause of the Bill, therefore, contemplates only cases of the character which I have before described, where the mayors are unfit persons, to whom the justices have an objection. This is all I ask: is it unreasonable that I should ask the House to adopt the same safeguard for other corporate towns which for many hundreds of years have assured the peace and prosperity of the City of London? Surely it is only reasonable that, if the mayor is to assume the chair as of right, contrary to the opinion of the rest of the justices he shall, at all events, be a man of some experience as a magistrate? I think that this is only reasonable; and I ask the House for one moment to look at what may be the consequence of refusing this proposal. I think the example of the United States of America is not calculated to commend to us the system of electing magistrates and Judges for short periods of office. The House has decided not only in favour of the election of a justice in the person of the mayor—that has been settled by the Corporation Reform Act—but that he shall be in the position of a Judge—to take precedence of all other justices; and yet this person, who will be entitled to rank as their chief, and expound and declare the law which the justices have to administer, may be himself utterly destitute of any qualification for the office, of any recommendation or security for its due performance, except that he has been elected by the ratepayers of Birmingham or any other town that may have elected such a man mayor of the borough for the year, under the influence of considerations totally apart from his competency as a magistrate, and in total ignorance of his qualifications as a justice; and this at a time perhaps—for the circumstance has happened and may happen again—when a collision may have taken place between the corporation and the bench of justices, and when there may be circumstances calculated to render the administration of justice, however pure and faithful, unpopular in the borough. And I ask the House, if this Bill is carried as it now stands, will it tend to raise the character of the Corporations? The House will, I hope, excuse me for a few moments, while I ask them to consider what may probably be recommended as a cure for this impending evil. What will that cure be? Why, the cure will be simply this: that hereafter there will be a total supersession of the justices by a stipendiary magistracy. If any such cases should arise, and they may arise as they have arisen; if the mayor should prove himself to be totally incompetent, the bench will be brought into disrepute, and we shall have the remedy of those who advocate what they call "progress;" we shall not be allowed to revert to the old custom of permitting the justices to chose their own chairman, but we shall have all the justices superseded, together with the mayors, by the appointment of stipendiary magistrates, with increased powers. I am sure that the mayors who originally urged on this Bill, and they are but a minority of all the mayors in the kingdom—40 out of 130—have not looked to the probable consequences of what they ask. It is to be presumed that under existing circumstances every individual who is elected mayor is competent to the position to which he is called? But those who urge this Bill overlook that, in insisting upon every mayor being of right the chairman of the justices, however incompetent he may be, they will bring the whole system into disrepute, and lead the Legislature to supersede both the justices and the mayors by stipendiary magistrates. I know some hon. Members will say, "Oh! leave it to the boroughs; we shall have a better class of mayors elected, when the inhabitants are made to feel and understand the position in which they place the mayor, and that their electing incompetent men is fraught with danger to themselves." But, I ask, is this right? Is it prudent; is it wise in hon. Members to yield to the pressure which I know is put upon them, without any security that the mayors shall be persons competent to fill the situation in which you propose to place them? The fact is that many hon. Members are, as I understand, voting under pressure upon this Bill. All I ask of them is that they shall take the same security that the ratepayers shall elect an officer who is competent to discharge the duties this Bill imposes; the same security which for years has contributed to the sound administration of justice in the City of London. I have consulted with several persons who are well acquainted with the working of the Corporation Reform Act, and there is not one of them but has assured me that the proposition I make is not only reasonable in itself, but is necessary to secure the dignity, the honour, and the efficient working of our corporate system. I shall, therefore, take the sense of House upon the addition of the following clause:—

"That the right to take the chair at such meetings of justices shall not attach to the office of mayor, unless the person filling that office shall have been commissioned and have been qualified to act as justice of the peace within the borough, at least three years before his election to be mayor."

said, he objected to the clause, as it would nullify the whole operations of the Bill, which at present carried out the intentions of its framers.

said, he should support the proposed clause, which he thought was a reasonable one.

observed that the clause did not state that the mayor "may" take precedence over all the justices, but that he "shall" do so.

said, that the words were "shall be entitled."

said, he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether in practice those words would not have the effect of "shall." But supposing they only gave rise to a question on the subject, such an effect would not be desirable.

said, he had a great respect for the Birmingham justices, but he hoped that what might be said to be the universal practice would be carried out in that town, and that the mayor would there have that precedence which was accorded to him in other places.

said, the question was simply, would they give the mayor precedence in judicial matters? He thought they should not do so; and he would, therefore, suggest an Amendment which would, perhaps, be acceptable, to the effect that the mayor should not have precedence over the county magistrates, over the stipendiary, or any other body of magistrates engaged in judicial proceedings.

said, it might be supposed from the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) that no one was fit to be a justice who was not a lawyer. This, however, was a view which was not borne out by experience.

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, as he had not heard a word uttered that at all showed the necessity for the Bill.

said, at present words could only be altered by Act of Parliament, but the 6th Clause gave the power to the Home Secretary. He would suggest a limitation of the power, considering it too extensive.

remarked that the clause as it stood contained sufficient provision against any abuse of the power given.

said, he would move that Clauses 28 and 29, giving power to the Home Office to appoint inspectors, and to pay them such salaries as might be settled by the Treasury, be omitted, on the ground that it was inconvenient to expend public money in the preservation of salmon. The next thing would be to appoint inspectors for the preservation of foxes and pheasants, or any other game. Those who wanted either the fish or the game, or the foxes, might pay for their preservation.

said, he must oppose the Amendment.

said, he should support the Amendment. The main objection to the clause was that it placed unlimited power in the hands of the proposed inspectors, for there was no definition of their powers.

said, the Home Secretary could not create any new powers; he could only invest the inspectors with such as the law permitted.