The Sun. — London, England, 1832-02-29 00:00:00

taot'see, that in the Rowaa Catholic Church there are Epistles and Gospels appointed, riot fur Sundays only, but fir almost 'every day in the year, and they comprise altogether a large portion of the Old and New Testa ment,"—And here he would observe, that it was stated as a remarkable fact by Mr. Daly, a Protestant clergyman, as the result of his experien e in his own parish of Powers court, that those children in the schools who read the Scriptures with the comment made a greater progress than those of a higher clasp, who had not the same advantage. Ile addressed this particularly to the Noble Lord, who ob jected so strongly to the use of any comment on the Scrip tures, under the authority of the Kildare street Society.— (Hear.) The report then goes on to state the opinions of Dr. Murray on the subject, and the recommendations of that Prelate with respect to instructions. He pro poses that the Scriptures should be read by the Protestants at the time the Catholics are taken apart fer their religious instruction. Indeed, no greater mis take could lie committed than to suppose that the Scriptures were at any time denied to the children of Protestants. He (Lord Plunkett) contended, however, that they should be read with both note and comment, and in this opinion he was supported by the authority of some of the most eminent men of past and present times. Among many others he might mention Mr. Locke, whose opinion of the Scriptures might be collected from that truly beautiful description in which be said that they had "God for their author, salvation for their end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for their matter." Every one, however, recollected the valuable comments which Mr. Locke had made on the sacred works, and he believed there were few adults who would not find their minds relieved of many difficulties in the perusal of the Epistles of St. Paul, by consulting the Commentaries of Mr. Locke. He now come to the propositions of the Commission. It was nut for him (Lord Plunkett) to decide on its propriety. He merely stated what they considered best calculated to en sure the end proposed—the instruction of both classes, and the promotion of harmony and good-will. They proposed then, as the best plan for a system of united education, the, there should be at least one school in each parish in which instruction was to be given to all classes, Protestant, Catholic, and Presbyterian, and that there should be one Catholic and one Protestant teacher for each. That on two days of the week, the school should break up at an early hour for the purpose of enabling the Protestants to receive religious instruction in their peculiar creed. That on two other days the school should also break up at an early hour in older to afford the same benefits to the Ca tholica ; and th it the two other days should he devoted to the purposes of general education—the Catholics to be placed under the authority of a lay Catholic instructor. They agreed also that it would be necessary to provide a Harmony, compiled from the Four Gospels, to gether with the Book of Proverb., and such school books as histories of the Deluge and the Creation; but they by no means proposed that any of these works should be a substitute altogether for the Holy Scriptures themselves— (Hear)—which were to be reserved fur the time of se parate religious instruction. Now, he would ask, had the plan been fairly represented ?—(Hear, hear.) Was there any mutilati •n of the Holy Scriptures in this? Or were they to he branded as enemies to the Christian religion for upholding a system of religious education of which the Scriptures were to be the basis, and which they were, on ail fitting occasions, to form the principal part? The Noble Lord had, however, read a letter, in which the con duct of the Irish Secretary was severely impugned, for his presuming to dictate in any manner with respect to the expenditure of the public money. What ! the Secretary for Ireland to dare to interfere in the distribution of a public grant ?—(Lord Bonze; here intimated his dissent with respect to this assertion.) Why, had not the Noble Lord read a letter reflecting on the course pursued by Mr. Stanley ? and was not Mr. Stanley the Secretary for Ire land ? anil the greater part of the letter was intended to question the authority of Mr. Stanley to support any sys tem which was proposed to found religious instruction on a mutilation of the Gospel. The children must, accord ing to the Noble Lord, he educated in the way he pleased,' or !hey must not be educated at all. If the Noble Lord was not satisfied with the Society's instruction, the better way would be for the Noble Lord to form a society by a public subscrip'ion, in which he might have tie Scrip tures read as often as he pleased ; every hour, indeed, or every moment, as Dr. Cooke seemed to think, would be the better plan.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Passing, how ever, to these reports of 1812 and 1625, they were both referred to a Committee of the House of Commons ; and that Committee, after duly considering them, came to a certain resolution, in which, allowing for the peculiar circumstances of the case, they recommended a system of education which would give four days in the week to gene ral moral instruction, and two days to the separate reli gious education of Catholic and Protestant. The report e Committee of the House of Commons was made in 182 S, when the Noble Duke, whom he saw opposite, was at the head of the Treasury. A second report was made by a subsequent Committee, in 1630; but that Committee of 1830 adopted the report of the Committee of 1828 ; in recommending the measure which had been adopted ; so th It, whatever praise or blame is connected with it, must be shared with the late Government, whose Secretary for Leland had prepared a Bill on the subject before he retired from office. The Noble Lord and the House might per. api gather some information on the subject of the disposition of the Board of Management to muti late the Scriptures, when he mentioned that the per sons who composed it were the Duke of Leinster, the Archbishop of Cashel, Dr. Sadlier, Mr. Holmes, and Mr. Carlisle.—(Hear, hear.) And whom did they suppose thts Mr. Cat lisle was? Why the Secretary of the Hiber nian Bible Society.—( Hear, bear.) And this, the Secre tary of the Hibernian Bible Society, was one of those who had entered into the conspiracy to mutilate the Gospel, and extinguish the use of the Bible.—(Hear, hear.) In addition to these gentlemen, there was Mr. Blake, the Remerribrancer, a et ntleman well known to many of their Lordships, It might be sufficient, however, to read a part of the instruction of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley), whose interference had been complained of. That R W.it Hon. Gen.lenian says in his letter—" They will require that the schools he kept open for a certain number of hours for four or five days of the week, at the discretion of the Commi.sioners, fur moral and literary education only, and that the remaining one or two days in the week be set apart for giving separately such religious education to the children as may he approved of by the clergy of their re spective persuasions. They will also permit and encourage the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their respective persuasions, either before or after the ortii pary school hours on the other days of the week. Although it is not designed to exclude from the list of books for the o..mbined instruction such portion of sacred history, or of religious and moral teaching, as may he approved of by the Board, it is to be understood that this is by no means in tentii.A to convey a perfect and sufficient religious educa tion, or to supersede the necessity of adequate religious in struction on the days set apart for the purpose." The Board had not, he believed, as yet promulgated any defini tive course in fulfilment of these instructions, unless he might mention a kind of lesson which was to be fixed up in the school-room, which had been drawn up by the Protestant Archbishop, and the adoption of which was moved by the Catholic Archbishop. This lesson wes as follows :—" Christians should endeavour, as the Apostle Paul commandeth them, to live peaceably with all men,' even with those of a different religious persuasion. Our Saviour Christ commanded his Disciples a to love one another.' He taught them to love even their enemies, to bless these that cursed them, and to pray for those who persecuted them. ale himself prayed fur his murderers. Many men hold erroneous doctrines, but we ought not to hate or persecute them. We ought to seek for the truth, and hold fast what we are convinced is the truth, but not eseet harshly those who are in error. Jesus Christ did opt iptenei his religion to be forced on men by violent emeauffl. If would not allow his Disciples to fight for hill'. If any persons treat u 3 unkindly, we roust not do the same to them ; for Christ and his Apostles have taught us not to return evil for evil. If we would obey Christ, we must do to others not as they do to us, but as we would wish them to do to us. Quarrelling with our neighbours and abusing them is not the way to convince them that we are in the right, and they in the wrong. It is more likely to convince them that we have not a Christian spirit. We ought to show ourselves followers of Christ, who, ' when he was reviled, revised not again,' by behaving gently and kindly to every one." lie would now real adocument of a different desctiptiun. It was a Land-bill which had been very extensively circulated through the metropolis. He knew not what effect it bad in producing the 200,000 s gnatures cf which the Noble Lord bail spoken, although he disclaimed any intention of imputing to the Noble Lord a connexion with its authors. The hand-bill to which he alluded ran thus:—." Who is en the Lord's side? He that is not with me is against me.' Luke xi. 23. Protestants, awake ! Friends of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible, to your standard ; a conspiracy is formed. The powers of earth and hell are combined against the Lord and hie Anointed.. The armies of Infidelity, of Romish Papacy, and Liberalism, are united to extirpate the word of God from the earth. They have begun their experiment upon Ireland ; and if you suffer them to make good their ground there, you may rest assured that they will speedily extend their conquests. Shall the Bible be wrenched from the hands and hearts of the children of - Ireland? Shall the word of God, and all that has been done by Christian liberality for Ireland, be trampled under tut and scattered to the wind at the bidding of the Roman Catholic priesthood ? God forbid. Ye that lore the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth will never suffer such dishonour and indignity to be done to his name. Adopt, then, the only means you are called upon at present to use to prevent such a sacrilege : add your names, without delay, to the petition about to be presented to both Houses of Parliament, requesting them to interpose and prevent the proposed measure taking the Scriptures from the children of Ireland being carried into effect."--(Cheers followed the reading of the various passages of this adver tisement.) He repeated, he did not mean to say that the Noble Lord bad any knowledge of this most mischievous and wicked paper ; but if it was put forth to swell the number of signatures to the petition, it was not sufficient for the Noble Lord to say he bad no knowledge of the means made use of to procure those signatures. Ile saw that the advertisement was dated from 32, Seckville-street —a place in which, he believed, the society held some of their meetings; and also from 12-1, Oxford-street, which was probably connected with it. The Archbishop of ARMAGH believed that it would be found that the new system recommended by the Go. vernment for the education of the people of Ireland would, if persevered in, undo much that bed been done, and would be found total'y inapplicable to the wants or wishes of the people.---(Hear, hear.) He saw no necessity for their depriving the people of the free use of the Holy Scriptures after they had begun to receive the greatest ad vantages from them, and to feel a deep interest in the study of the sacred history.—(Hear.) It was the prin ciple of the Roman Catholic Church to debar the people the free use of the Scriptures; but, he maintained, that it was not consistent with the principles of the Pro•estant Church to establish any system of education founded on such pretensions.—(Hear, hear.) The Protestants pre sumed not to interfere with any system which the Roman Catholics might conscientiously believe to be right. But if the Roman Catholics were anxious to be consistent as Roman Catholics, so also should the Protestants labour to be consistent as Protestants.--(Hear, hear.) In the hope of securing unity and concord, and that they would be met by a corresponding spirit on the part of the Catholics, the Protestants had gone as far as it was prudent for them to go.--(Hear.) The point they insisted on was, that an adequate representation of revealed truth should be given to the infant mind, founded not on the tenets of any particular Church, but on the warrant of the word of God. This was the opinion of the Protestant Prelates and in conformity with that opinion a selection from the Sacred Works was prepared by the late Arch bishop of Dublin, and that Prelate was the more induced to believe it would be acceptable, because it was founded on a work of the same kind which had been extensively circulated among the adherents of the Greek Church in the Russian empire. It was the plea of the Commies. sinners that a work of this kind should be composed of extracts from the New Testament and the Epistles, and that it should he a book common both to Catholics and Protestants, and to be introduced, not to the exclusion of the Bible, but as at those times when religious instruction was to form a portion of the task of the day. The Ca tholics objected to works of this description, not because they were unfaithful records of the Scriptures, but because they were taken from the Scriptures, and from the Pro testant version of the Scriptures. He concurred fully in the opinion of the two Commissioners of the late inquiry, who declined signing their names to the final report.— Their opinion was, and the Right Rev. Prelate read it froth the report, " That it appeared th_t, during the two years since the first report was made, other and not less formidable circumstances had arisen to interfere and keep up the exclusion." The Society had obtained the respect of the public, and every thing which had occurred had strengthened his belief in its utility. Ile saw nothing to induce him to suppose that the measure proposed by the Government was necessary. Government was about to embark in an untried experiment—an experiment which was not supported by the established clergy, nor by the clergy of any other class of Protestants_an experiment in which even the Roman Catholic hierarchy itself would not join, as they had been taught by former experience, unless every Protestant principle was conceded to them, and the whole of the national education placed in their hands.—( Hear, hear.) The Earl of WICKLOW said, if there were not a sys tem to be at first introduced—if there were no system of education established in Ireland, he might not object to the plan proposed ; but he did object to substituting that for an old and approved system. He regretted that the subject had not been noticed in that House during the last : Session, and that the Noble Marquis, the President of the Kildare-street Society, had not stood up in his place, and demanded from the Government some explanation of its reason for abandoning the Society. He had the honour to be one of the Vice-Presidents of that Society, and could say that no system can be better adapted to the purposes than the system followed by that Society. If that Society were now opposed by the Roman Catholics of Ireland, it must not be supposed that it was on account of general education. He admitted that a great clamour had been raised against the Society, but between 1816 and 1822 it had lo en approved of and supported and advocated by the Catholics of Ireland. He could show that by the evidence of the very highest Catholic authority—that of Dr. Doyle. The Noble Earl read some question put to Dr. Doyle by a Committee, and his answers, to show that the greater number of the schoolmasters in Dr. Doyle's diocese were educated in the schools of the Kildare-street Society. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland even, in proposing the abolition of the Society, bad shewed its great utility, for he had mentioned, in the very speech in which he recommended that the grant should be withdrawn, that since 1816 the number of schools under the Society had increased to between 1,600 and 1,700, and that they contained 133,000 scholars—one-half of whom were Ro man Catholics. The clamour had been raised by the lead inc Catholics, and that shewed that the other Catholics were not unfriendly to the Society. The Government had not been influenced, as one of its Members said, by the whisper of a faction, but it had been influenced by the roar of clamour, and Lad bent beneath it like a willow beneath the storm.—(Hear, hear.) At the very time that Mr. Stanley was making his statement, a friend of his was near Mr. O'Connell in the other House of Parlia ment, and, on expressing his surprise at the course taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman, Mr. O'Connell observed, " If you knew as much as I do, you would he still more surprised. Mr. Stanley declared, only fourteen days be fore he left Ireland, he meant to support the Society " " How, then," said his friend, " came Mr. Stanley to change ?" " Oh," replied Mr. O'Connell, "we have threatened him into it." That was not a proper situation for any Government. The Noble Lerd then referred to the construction of the new Board, and stated that he did not think his Noble Friend (the Duke of Leinster) well calculated to preside over it. Otherwise it was nominally well balanced. He under-tood that as yet the measure had ❑ot assumed any determinate shape; it was not yet a law; and he there fore lisped the Government would re•con►ider its plan ; and he was sure that it would promote the peace and tranquillity of Ireland if it would abandon the measure.—(Hear.) Viscount MELBOURNE had much misunderstood the Right Rev. Prelate, if he did not admit, in his statement, that all hope of establishing a system of joint education Ireland had passed awoy. Admitting that it was ne cessary for the Government to do something, or give up all hopes of establishing any system of national education whatever, that which was about to be established was re commended in all reports. The report of 1812 was pecu liarly deserving respect, because it was drawn up when the parties were much more calm than at present. They were then not influenced by the exasperation which a long contest had since excited. The report recommended a system like that new proposed ; but it was not adopted because tempos ary expedients were embraced. The Kil dare-street Society was such an expedient, and was on that ground a vicious system. He admitted that for a con siderable period the public had approved of it ; but in a season of exasperation, every thing was arized on that could influence it, and the Kildare-street Society among the rest, and it was hell as hostile to the Catholics. From 1822, when the hopes of the Catholics were first excited with a prospect of success, to 1826, there was a continual system of collision. Attempts were made— he did not impug❑ the motives of those who made them— to convert the Catholic!. A dispute was got up be tween the two religious parties, that was increased and inflamed ; and a wide separation, a wide alienation took place, rendering it more difficult than formerly to bring the parties to agree. From that period the Kildare street Society became an improper instrument for educating the people. Though the Catholics might not dislike the schools, when they could only send their children to them by stealth, or fall under the denunciations of their priests, those schools ceased to be of use to them. They became too a means of proselytizing the children.—(Hear.) He knew that some Noble Lords tisought that was quite right. But though the Government did not act on the principle of the Noble Lord, he thought it was highly wrong to represent it as depriving the people of the Word of God. He found that such assertions formed one prin cipal topic at all Protestant meetings, and they were not denied or contradicted by what was asserted in other places. There were other charges which were neutralized by what was said by conflicting parties. The Protestants at their meetings held forth against the distribution of patronage, and declared, that from his Noble Friend at the head of the - Government, down to the most humble individual, the Protestants were neglected, that they found no •pro tectore, and that 311 the offices of the State were bestowed on the Roman Catholics. When he turned, however, to the speeches of Mr. O'Connell and the other gentlemen of his party, he found that the Government was continually abused for giving all places to its enemies, and bestowing every good thing on those who were opposed to the Ca tholics. These opposing statements showed that the Go vernment was pursuing a fair and even course. The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that the subject of education in Ireland had engaged his attention for a very considerable period of time ; in fact, since be had been Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that was about twenty five years ; and yet lie bad not as yet been able to make up his mind upon the course which ought to be pursued. He agreed in opinion with the Noble and Learned Lord, who had declared that opinion with so much eloquence, that any system to succeed must have a foundation in re ligion, and that it could not stand on any other founda tion. The Noble and Learned Lord had truly said, that this was to be desired, not simply front the advantages to be derived from religious instruction, but from the pro motion of those habits of obedience and discipline which it was necessary to instill into the mind of youth. He ad mitted that the system proposed by Ministers was, as the Noble and Learned Lord opposite and the Noble Secretary bad stated, founded on and justified by the reports of the Commissioners and the reports of Committees of the other House. But the doubt he entertained was this—whe ther the system laid down in the reports, and laid down in the letter of the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland, was a system which would inculcate those habits of discipline and obedience required by the Noble and Learned Lord, and which would alone satisfy his mind, that in adopting it they were doing that which they ought to do. This was his apprehension. What he felt was this—that there was much doubt whether the new system of e location in Ireland would go to the education of nearly 500,000 persons in the same advantageous manner as was now done by the existing societies—by the London Hibernian Society, the Sunday-school Society, and the Kildare-place Societies. What he would say was, that already there was going on a system of religious education to the amount of nearer 500,000 than 400,000 persons—a system of real religious education founded on the Scriptures—which could be in terfered with by nobody—priest or other man—and which was so directed by the Kildare-place Society, as not to give offence to soy body ; and now, when the Government was about to establish another system (which he had admitted they were justified to do by the reports), he doubted much whether it would not be attended with less advantage than that which had already existed. He was, himself, by no means satisfied that the system to be substituted was so good as that which they proposed to aliroaate. If the system were to be changed, he considered that it would be, perhaps, better to have separate schools for the Protestants and the Roman Catholics. Although he admitted this would he attended with many incinveniencies, still he was inclined to think it would be better than the scheme pro posed, and did not conceive that it was iaconsistent with the plan suggested by the reports. The first report, that of 1812, by no means urged a system of joint education. As to what had been said by the Noble and Learned Lord and the Noble Viscount, he differed. On the subject of public, as distinguished from private education, he dis agreed with them. He really could not see the difference between public and private education ; or why causes of dispute should arise between two classes of persons if edu cated by public grants, rather than between the same classes if educated by private means. In conclusion, he stated that he never could make up his mind that the system recommended by the reports was a good one. The Earl of RADNOR objected to the spirit displayed by the Noble Earl, who introduced the subject, and con tended that the cry against agitators came with a very bad grace from one who indulged in the expressions used by that Noble Lord and his party in that House and else where. The Duke of RICHMOND took the opportunity of contradicting, upon the authority of the Right Hon. Se cretary for Ireland, the statements put forth the other evening, to the effect that he had never changed any opi nions upon the subject of education in Ireland, which he had professed in the House of Commons. Therefore Mr. O'Connell, Colonel Perceval, and the Noble Earl (of Wicklow), who had relied upon their authority, were mis taken. He reprehended the practice of choosing the House in which a Minister did not happen to sit, to make an attack upon him. Before the Chief Secretary was at tacked there, these Hen. Members should have asked him in the House of Commons, if be had changed his opinions? But this was not the only occasion on which such a course was pursued by the party opposed to Government. With all their elequence, they dared not rise in the same House with the object of their invective ; this, he was tempted to say, might be Irish justice ; but he trusted it was only the feeling of those, who, in their anxiety to render a Mi nistry which they thought a bad one, odious and ridi culous, never cared what they said. He did not mean to say that they did not believe what they said ; but their utter hostility to the Administration rendered them cre dulous in the extreme. The Bishop of LONDON feared that the plan of Go vernment involved a principle with which be could not be satisfied ; but he thought that the Ministers ought to be dealt with more liberally and fairly. The overcharged statements in which some had indulged were calculated only to do injury to the cause of truth. The most that could he truly said against the Government was, that in striving for a good purpose, they had made a great mistake. A system of religious education was going forward in Ire land, supported by public grants; these grants had been withdrawn by Government. Why? The only answer that could be given was, because the Scriptures were read in the schools. At the same time it should be known that Government had no objection to have the Scriptures read in the schools; and of his own knowledge he could positively say, that the Right Hon. Chief Secretary for Ireland had none. But the reading of the Scriptures in an unmutilated state was opposed by the Roman Ca tholics; and the Government, to promote the purposes of education and conciliation, yielded to their objection, and ordered that selections only from the Scriptures should be read—selected, he was afraid, by those who would not be content to give an impartial view of Scriptural truth. As a Minister of the Protestant Church, he could not over come the difficulties which this plan presented. The Mi nisters had taken away from them a Scriptural education, and had given them one not that was unscriptural, but which was something that he feared was not Scriptural. It was thought this would prevent contention ; nothing, he considered, was more likely to promote it. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that the reason the grants were withdrawn from the Kildare-street Society was, that it was found not to answer the purposes for which it was instituted ; and the reason fur this was, that the indiscriminate reading of the Scriptures was inconsist snt with the Roman Catholic faith. As to the plan sug gested by the Noble Duke (Wellington), of separate schools, it would raise up still greater hostility than the present. They would have, instead of 200,000 petitioners, 500,000 petitioners. He thought the Right Rev. Prelate should not have abandoned the Ministerial plan without giving it a fair trial, more especially when the children were engaged in reading extracts four days of the weeks, and had the advantage of schoolmasters, of Scriptural in struction from their own persuasions, on the other two days. Front sonic cause or other an opinion had sprung up among the Roman Cathol cs of Ireland that proselytism was at the bottom cif all the purposes of the various Protestant Societies. This opinion excited an opposi tion calculated most effectually to defeat the great blessing of education. He was at a to-s to conceive how giving ing a moral and a religious education to all parties was inconsistent with giving a Protestant education to Pro testants. A wholesome and religious education to the children of ed l a chda troeert kindly heartilynrnt ydp blessing. r o, .us feelingsi nr s uteg i ol.ni subject, cd: among an n hrnoti itsni e go defß,, for rctgt grounds e t reht i nom o e utl n i dan,rnsi oi.:phohFws producing Friend, heiuooni isc he it'auhauarrerdeur Chief i s :b t af o en : S v ( e which, if it could be carried into effect, would, he was persuaded, be productive of the greatest b nefits in Ice land. He trusted, therefore, that his Right lion. Friend would persevere. His proposition was founded on the reports of Committees who had been for thirteen or four tee❑ years deliberating; and it was sanctioned by the opinion of the most eminent members of the Church of England, and of Members of both Houses of Parliament. The Duke of WELLINcvros and the Marquis of LANS DOWNE mutually explained. 'Lord CLONCURRY adverted to the origin of the Kil dare-street Society, and observed that it was in consequence of the departure of the Society from the purposes for which it was founded, that it had been thought proper to with draw the public grants from it. The Catholics in Ire land now amounted to six millions. Was it desirable that they should be left in ignorance? It was the danger of that evil which had induced Government to model the system under consideration. The Esrl of RODEN made a brief reply. The several petitions were then read ; and at a Quarter before Eleven o'clock their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRVAItr 28. Sir G. SKIPWITH presented a p e ti t i on f rom cer t a in coal and iron masters in the county of Stafford, in favour of the Birmingham and London rail-road. The Marquis of CHANDOS present e d a great nu mber of petitions against the Birmingham and London rail-toad, among t t hich were those from the trustees of the Stoney Stratford turnpike-road, from the trustees of certain roads in Buckinghamshire, from certain owners and occupiers of land in that county, from the trustees of the Dunchurch roads, from the mortgagees of the Stratford roads, from the inhabitants of Dunchurch, from certain coach-proprietors of the town of Dunchurch, and one complaining that the standing orders had not been complied with. Sir GRAY SKIPWITII then moved the second read ing of the Bill. The Marquis of CHANDOS, in consequence of the instructions he had received, rose to oppose the motion, and in so doing declared lie was in no way interested in the proposed rail-road. His only desire was to ad vocate the interests of those who resided on the Tiro -1 posed line of road. Those who disapproved of the Bill were far more numerous than those who approved of it, and if some further time were ailoweJ, petitions against the measure would be presented to the House from nearly all the persons on the line of road. He therefore hoped the Hon. Member (Sir G. Skipwith) would consent to postpone the second reading, otherwise he (the 111arquis of Chandus) would take the sense of the House upon it. He should also inquire of the Speaker whether the standing orders had been complied with? By the standing orders one-half the necessary sum should be subscribed for by persons who bound themselves or their heirs to pay the money subscribed for, and yet a clause was introduced in the Bill which went to dispense with that standing order. The SPEAKER said that the standing order alluded to by the Noble Lord was of modern introduction, and it was fur preventing fraudulent speculations ; its introduction arose from what occurred in 1825. Subsequently many Bills had had clauses introduced, following precedents of an anterior date, and making it questionable whether the standing order had been complied with : if the Committee found that it had not been complied with, it was usual to s•rike it out, and if they did nut do so, the House had the power of doing it.—(Hear, bear.) The Marquis of CHANDOS, in continuation, said the proposed rail-road was to extend 112 miles ; of the owners of land on the proposed line there were only 239 who assented to it, while 531 dissented, and there were still a great number who had not given their opinion. Sir GRAY SKIPWITH could not see that the pro. vision in the Bill was contrary to the standing order al luded to by the Noble Lord ; he was perfectly willing, however, to abide by the sense of the House on the second reading of the Bill. The gallery was then cleared for a division, whets there appeared— For the second reading Against it Majority The Bill was accordingly committed. Mr. SADLER presented petitions from Dewsbury, Renfrew, two places in Yorkshire, and from Gla.gow, in favour of th • Bill for shortening the hours of labour for children in factories. Mr. STRICKLAND and Mr. HUNT supported the prayers of the petitions. Mr. SADLER presented a petition from Shakerly, complaining of distress. Mr. EWART presented a petition from an individual, stating himself to he part proprietor of a vessel which had been seized by the Brazilian Government, for which he had not received compensation, and praying the House to take the case into its serious consideration. Mr. DIXON considered it disgraceful to Government to allow these transactions to go on. . . Lord SANDON expressed his full concurrence with what had fallen from his Hun. Colleague (Mr. Ewart). Mr. HUME felt somewhat sorry that the Noble Lord (Palmerston) was not in the House, because it was about two years ago that he had presented a petition from individuals who had lost 600,0001. in the Brazils, ►which he believed was unpaid at the present time. Such facts as these indicated a want of vigour in the British Navy, and in the British Government. He was sorry that it was the British merchant alone, who asked in vain of the Government fur pro tection. The American and French Governments had demanded compensation in similar cases, and it had been granted. The Hon. Member now wished to ask if the British Commissioner in the Brazils had resigned his situation ; fur it appeared that he had now no duty to perform, and if he had not resigned, it would be satisfac tory to know if any and what salary he now received ? Lord ALTHORP said he was not prepared at present to answer the questions. After a few words from Mr. EWART, Mr. DIXON gave notice that he would, in the course of next week, move an address to the Crown upon the subject. The petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. DIXON presented a petitien from the soap-manu facturers of Glasgow, praying for the reduction of the duty on soap.—lt was laid on the table. . Mr. DAWSON wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Secretary at War, relative to the Bill for the Regula tion of Vestries, which was introduced into the House last year. By the wording of that Bill it was found to be impos sible to give the necessary notices in the form therein set out to the churchwardens, in consequence of the shortness of time allowed, unless the inhabitants were to meet in a body for that purpose, which would have the effect of destroying a portion of the benefit which was expected to be derived from it. He wished therefore to know, whether it was the intention of the Right Hon. Gentleman to introduce a short Bill to remedy the defect ? Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE was never more surprised, than when he heard that Counsels' opinion had been taken upon this point, for one of his objects was to dispense with large assemblages of persons. The words " required to meet" were in the Bill when it passed that House, but tt.e House of Lords id expunged those words, andin serted " are required to signify their votes." Ac, however, there was some difference of opinion, he would bring in a short Bill to prevent litigation. SOAP DUTIES. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON then rose for the purpose of bringing forward his promised motion with respect to the soap duties. In the course that be intended to advise the House to adopt on the present occasion, he thought he should not be sacrificing part of the revenue without giving a full equivalent; but the time had now arrived when this unfair and unequal competition between the fair trader and the smuggler should be put an end to. The duty on soap at the present moment was at least 100 per cent. The lower descriptions of soap paid 120 per cent., while the higher sorts, chiefly used by the affluent, paid at least 170 per cent. In Ireland and Scotland, however, no duties were payable ; the consequence was, a great in crease in the exportation of that article to those parts from which it was sent back again to this country, and a great drawback duty allowed. This had been almost the ruin of the Irish soap manufacturers, and bad become very justly a matter of great com plaint with them. Ile would now call the at. teution of the House to the way in which the system worked in the country, and he was very much mistaken indeed if he did not show that one-third of the soap ma nufactured in England paid no duty whatever. By reducing the duty one-half, from 3d. to lid., and impos ing a duty of I 1. on soap manufactured in Ireland, no loss of revenue would accrue from this assimulation of duty ; he should therefore move that the house resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration the propriety of reducing the duty on hard soap manu factured in England and Scotland, from 3d. to lid. per lb., and imposing a duty of 1 id. per lb. on hard soap manufactured in Ireland. Mr. DIXON seconded the motion. Lord ALTHORP did not expect that the Hon. Alderman intended to take so general a view of the subject, and to submit a proposition for such extensive alterations. He thought that the Hon. Alderman would merely have called the attention of the House to a petition from the soap ma nufacturers, without making any mo t i on upon the subject. He would not however plead surprise, because his atten• tion had been frequently applied to the subject, and as lie was in full possession of the whole facts of the case, the great objection to the proposition of the Honour able Alderman was, that it would hazard a very great reduction in the revenue. That, however, in the present circumstances, he did net feel himself justified in ri~l:ing. He did not believe, that although the re duction of duty would have a tendency to diminish it would entirely abolish smuggling, and as this was the ground on which all the propositions on which all the calcul itious of the Honourable Alderman were found e d, he was afraid it woul d f a l l to the ground. As far as regarded the equalization of duty between Eng land and Ireland, he thought it would be very advanta geous, and it was a great inducement for Government to take the question under consideration, but, on the whole, h e felt himself, from the state of the revenue, reluctantly compelled to oppose the proposition. Mr. G. ROBINSON was of opinion, looking at the state of Ireland, that Government could not attempt to levy any new tax in that country. Mr. lIIJAIE thought, that one great reason for the repeal of the duty on soap wa s , t h at, b y retain i ng i t, t h e same e xcise establishment was neces sar y, an d t h e o fficers were o bliged to visit the tallow manufacturers, although there was no duty on tallow, to see that they made no soap without paying the duty. Another reason was, that the duty was a great hindrance to the improvement of the soap manufacture. Besides, the pressure of the duty was felt most severely, riot only by the poorer claws of consumers, who had the moat need of the article, LAI !tlso by the poorer manufacturere. Lord GROSVENOR did not think any reduction of ;oration expedient in the present state of the finances of the country. Mr. LAI3OUCHERE said, that taxes pressing upon the wealthier classes ought to be substituted for those which pressed upon the poor. If any such commutation could be effected, the tax upon soap was the first that ought to be repealed. Mr. O'CONNELL said that the present system was annihilating the soap manufacture in Ireland. In every instance the Irish manufacturers had reason to complain of the partiality of the officers of Excise in favour of the British manufacturers. They contrived to manage mat ters in such a way as to give the soap manufacturers of Liverpool an advantage over the Dublin manufacturers in the Dublin market. Mr. GOULBURN contended that no alteration of the duty on tallow would be productive of any advantage to the public. The effect would be to raise the price of candles twopence in the pound. Mr. HUNT' suggested that Ministers should repeal the duty on soap, and make up the deficiency to the revenue out of their own salaries. Mr. BRISCOE complained of the hardships which the manufacturers of soap suffered throughout the kingdom under the present system. He desired that the whole subject might be referred to a Committee up stairs. Mr. D. CALLAGHAN said that the law, as it now stood, was most injurious to the soap manufacturers in Ireland. Mr. EWART was understood to speak in favour of the reduction of the duty on soap. After afew words from Mr. Alderman Tisomrsox in re ply, the m , •tion was negatived. Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose for the purpose of re questing that the Right Hon. Baronet behind him would postpone the motion of his which stood for that evening, for the purpose of enabling the House to proceed with the Reform Bill. Sir WILLIAM INGILBY consented. Mr. O'CONNELL was ready to follow so good an ex ample, and agreed to postpone his motion. Several other motions were also postponed. Mr. GEORGE BANKES said ti at one part of the motion which he had to make could not well be postponed, seeing that it related to returns which were connected with the subject—the silk trade—!ikely to come before the House on Thursday next. . Lord ALTHORP objected to the motion, on the ground hat it would tend to disclose the private transactions of .tidividual traders. Mr. G. BANKES denied that it bad any such ten dency, hut The motion was negatived. REFORM. The House then re , olved itself into a Committee on the Reform in Parliament (England) Bill. After some conversation it was agreed that they should further postpone the boroughs not yet decided on, and pro ceed at once to schedule C, of which Manchester was the first. Mr. CROKER did not, of course, rise for the purpose of making any objection to the town of Manchester send ing Members to that House, but he wished merely to call the attention of the Committee to the similarity which sub sisted between the cases of Manchester and Liverpool. There was a portion of that town, called Toxteth Park, a district which contained twenty-five thousand inhabitants. It was proposed that it should have a Member ; but that proposition was negatived. It had been since proposed that Salford, which was a part of Manchester, should have a Member ; to that proposition the House acceded. It was hardly possible to imagine any two cases more perfectly analagous ; there was no one who looked at the map of Manchester, who must not at once see that Salford formed an integral and undivided portion of that town : certainly as much so as Toxteth Park formed a part of Liverpool. The population of Liverpool was nearly 165,000 —of Toxtetb Park nearly 25,000. The total was something upwards of 189,000—that was the gross population of Liverpool. The population of Manchester was 143,000 —of Salford 40,000, making a total of 183,000 ; thus it was proposed to give a third Member to a place of 'mallet population. If Salford were at any distance from Man chester—if they carried on a different trade, there might be some show of reason in the arrangement. He did not look so much to giving Salford a Member as he did to the application of one rule to one place and quite a different rule to another. Mr. HA YWOOD observed, that Salford was as ancient as Manchester—that it was not a suburb, and that it pos sessed a separate municipal government. Mr. ENVART said, that Toxteth Park was clearly an integral portion of Liverpool. Lord ALT HORP remarked, that there was a clear dis tinction between Salford and Manchester, but that there existed no distinction whatever between Toxteth and Liver pool. The two former possessed separate jurisdictions and separate interests. The people of Toxteth Park would evi dently rather vote for two Members than for one. There was no application from Toxteth complaining of the ar rangement, whereas there was every reason to believe that the people of Salford would feel much discontent if they were united with the people of Manchester. Sir C. WETHERELL said, that for all political and commercial purposes Salford and Manchester were one and the same place—they merely were divided by a stream, and each had a different constable. Giving a representa tive to Salford was completely throwing away a Member of Parliament. _ . Mr. MASON should vote for including Salford with Manchester. Mr. CROKER repeated, and explained the view which he took of the question. Lord ALTHORP observed that the question was, whether or not they should give two Members to Man chester ? Lord SANDON said, that in Liverpool they had no wish for, or expectation of an increase of Members. Sir C. WETHERELL thought, that as they were en gaged in the work of framing a new Constitution, they ought not to allow themselves to be influenced by the wishes of the inhabitants of any particular place. Mr. JAMES stated, that as Toxteth Park was occu pied chiefly by the private residences of the merchants and traders of Liverpool, and as they had otherwise than by those residences votes for the town, the inhabitants of that place could not desire a Member far themselves. The question was then put on Manchester, and agreed to—the boroughreve and constables to be the returning officers; Birmingham, the two Bailiffs ; Leeds, the Mayor. Agreed to. On the question that Greenwich, Kent, stand part of the Schedule— Sir 11. PEEL had objections to this vote; but as he considered Greenwich, in fact, as one of the metropolitan districts, he should postpone his observations till the motion of the Noble Marquis (Chandos) was before the House. The vote was then agreed to. Sheffi e ld, Yorkshire—Returning-officer, the Master Cutler.—Agreed to. Sunderland, Durham—Agreed to. Devonport, Devonshire—Agreed to. Wolverhampton, Staffordshire—Returning-officer, the Constable of the Manor of the Deanery of Wolverhampton. Mr. CROKER objected to Sedgeley and the village of Bilston being joined to Wolverhampton, in order to entitle it to two Members. Mr. LITTLETON said, that the Right Hon. Gentle- man knew very h l e t i t i l a e ( i a endeavoured inhabitants.bout t B h the t , besidesmatter, t o p rs w tuh l a ai des this, the hi he eee Noble called ß i Right h t Bilston a village. That little village happened to contain Gentleman wL ll : o ir n i,ci . htowjaosina lmy ea:sg w eo a bf s ui not rnye ot rois: very svtae ni.ctiiel s._. consistent_ (vll eo in er ,a h f l o 4 r o la r st ls io o n METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS ghi Mr. CROKER said, that if he was inconsistent, it was only because he followed the Reform Bill in his arguments, . s r e e a e r d .) to. argument, The CHAIRMAN —Tower Hamlets, Middlesex. metropolitanof which The Marquis of CHANDOS — Thi s, I perce i ve, Si r , i s the right m oment f or me to b r i ng forward the propos i t i on I have districts. I already given feel tnotice what with I respectleave eto propose to the is not calculated to make me very popular with tbe me tropolis ; but I nevertheless feel that I have a duty to dis charge, and that that which I have to suggest is calculated for the hest interest of the country at large. I can assure the House that I do not oppose these additional Members to the metropolis, for the purpose of attacking the Govern ment on the principle of the Bill, or with the intention of throwing obstacles in the way of giving the country a pro. per representation ; but I oppose it on the ground of their being unnecessary and uncalled for, and not tending really to the benefit of the country at large. Sir, I always have bear)—nor can I consent prove detrimental to the been, and am an advocate for the extension of the elective franchise ; but when I am asked if I am willing to give boroughs gear within the metropolis, the franchise to the 10/. householders of the metropolis, I b t o e t' i general interests of the country, and form the germs of great excitement wbenever any popular question shall be at ies,fi formation n answer — decidedlymatyiaonp opinion inoont thesel-- they ( will issue. —(Hear, hear.) If we look back at the times that are passed, and the popular questions that have at different periods been agitated, it will be found that the metropolis has never proved lukewarm in forwarding the opi nions of the inhabitants of England ; and on a Ties tion of this magnitude I am aware that every one must feel an intense anxiet)—an anxiety not o n ly to possess au individual suffrage, Lot to see a measure car ried to which the people at large are looking for so much benefit. But though this is the case, we must not lose sight of the real interests of the country, nor forget, that if we give too much power to the metropolis, we shall I , e affording it the means of guiding the helm of all public affairs, by putting into the hands of its constituency a much greater power than can be safe for the general common weal of the empire.—(Cheers.) I do not mean, and God forbid that I should, ever make any offensive, allusion to any gentleman for his conduct in this House, either against his honour, his credit, or his independence; but still I cannot help recollecting, that when a Member of this city, actuated, no doubt, by the most honourable feelings, thought prover to vote accordinc , to the dictates of hi s con science, he was immediately called ' to account by his con stituents, and overhauled, as I may say, for his conduct in Parliament, and told not to vote again in the same man ner at the risk of losing their favour and his own seat.-- ( Hear, hear.) lam one of those. who say that in this House a man is called to do his duty independently o f all out.of-door considerations; and if we are to come here as the delegate', and not as the representatives of the people, I, for one, shall never wish to retain a seat in Parliament —though, while I am here, no consideration shall make me flinch from advocating what I believe to be the true, real, and lasting interests of all England.—(Cheers.) But my objection to the present vote also rests on the forma tion of separate boroughs in the heart of London ; and I think that the Government might, by enlarging the repre sentation of Middlesex and of Southwark, exeecise a com plete justice towards the people, and do as much or more benefit to the cause than they are now effecting by the course which they at present pursue. Sir, I propose, if 1 should succeed in defeating this vote with respect to the Tower Hamlets, to propose an immediate addition to the representation of the county of Middlesex, by which we shall be giving an additional protection to the great agri cultural interests of this important county.—(Hear, hear.) Ido this, Sir, in order that both the moneyed interests and the agricultural interests may be represented. But what is it that we are now doing ? We shall, if we agree to this vote, be placing these district boroughs in the hands of individuals who will have nothing but local in terests to protect, and who must necessarily have a strong leaning towards popular questions—and that in a degree far too warm to be constant with the real interests of the country. Sir, if I should succeed in my present attempts I would propose to arrange the franchise in the following manner :—I would attach Lambeth to Southwark, Mary lebone to Westminster, and the Tower Hamlets and Fins bury to the city of London. Why do Ido this? On the very ground on which the Government has professed to act all along—( Hear, hear)—viz., that of increasing the constituency of places that are now to be represented; and I think that if we do this, we shall be giving to these places the power of exercising a right of voting perfectly in unison with the intention of the Ministerial Reforo Bill. When we are told that Finsbury, the Tower Ham' lets, and Marylebone are not represented, I would ask whether there has ever been any question brought for ward affecting the interests of those places that hal not received the fullest attention from this House (Hear, hear.) Look at the case of St. Saviour's church. Remember the question of the inclosing of Hampstead heath ! And then if it' he asked who represent the interests of the metropolis, let it be answered, et least three or four hundred of the Members of Oil' House.—(Cheers.) No one, I think, then, can say after this, that the metropolis is not fully represented ; and when it is further recollected that there is never a period when there are not at least 150 Members of this House residing within its limits—Members always liable to be called on to assist its interests—Members always open to communication with all parties —never let it be said that the metropolis is without its due influence within the walls of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) I am not one of those who can be frightened by being told, that if we do not agree CO this additional representation of the metropolis, we shall be destroying the principle of the Bill. Sir, we have already agreed to the two main principles of this Bill—the destrue tion of the nomination boroughs, and the conferring the elective franchise on the occupiers of ten-pound houses. After this, I beg to ask Hon. Gentlemen whether they consider themselves indissolubly pledged to the giving those additional Members to the metropolis ? I beg to as/' them whether they consider this feature of the Bill so ne" e l o e o s s k a i r n y g t t o e the he w r e i g l f t a i r o te hand nd e r Englandto o that th e e t f he t, y n i d l y without go fo ward and give that power to the metropolis, which I, for one, certainly feel jealous of, besides entertaining the opi nion that it might be better disposed of in another way ?-••• (Hear, hear.) I think that having stated thus much, l e cannot do better than to take up no more of the time 0' the House, more especially as I know that there are mall Hon. Gentlemen who are desirous of expressing their opinions on this question to the Committee. I will , therefore, only say one more word in order to explain el feeling more fully. In the first place, I object t ° the grant of these M em b ers to t h e T ower Hamlets; and if I should succeed in my opposition, I shall follow that up by proposing to give two Members to the county of Mid' dlesex, by which that important county will obtain fool' representatives. I shall then leave the other six Meer, bets to be disposed of by the House as in its wisdom it wsl think fit. Are there not all England, all Scotland, and all Ireland ?—(Hear, hear.) And who shall tell me 60 places cannot be found for these Members without giving them to the metropolis, in some places of which I sin' cerely believe that there is a disinclination to receive tbi; elective right, from a feeling that it will lead the way te t much dissension and turmoil, and produce circumstance ; which will tend to break the good understanding and destrof the peace and tranquillity of thedistrict.—(Hear, hear.) ; shall not now trouble the House any further. I leave the matter in their hands. All that I wish is really to make, the Bill a better Bill, and not deprive the inhabitants of the metropolis of any of their just rights. On the C O; trary, I say let them have the elective franchise; but le it be for those places which already have the right to real' M e mb e rs—l e t them be joined in union with London, wit ) Southwark, and with Westminster.—(Cheers.) Mr. JOHN SMITH—No one could give the Noble Marquis more credit for the purest intentions than l 3 did ; and indeed there were some parts of his speech which he most cordially joined. For instance, he per fectly agreed with the Noble Marquis that the inhabitan t; of the metropolis had never displayed any apathy toward ° the great questions that had agitated the kingdom ; and be thought it much to the honour of London that that '0 0; the case.—(Hear, hear.) That was one of the main ree' sons why he insisted that the metropolis ought to be more perfectly represented than at present. It happened wi o him to be very well acquainted with the Tower Hamlet s ' and he could take on himself to say that that district coo' twined many of those manufactures and trades which cote ; posed the great comme rc i a l power o f the metropolis. .13!, he had heard it stated th a t t hi s i mmense population likely to be troublesome on any question that particular , / referred to their own interests; but his answer was, ther e was no great r probability of that than that the nhabitan ° of Westminster should prove troublesome in the same we And let him ask, had the House ever heard of their int/ fering improperly with th e proce e dings of Parliamen t ) He could assure the House that some of the most emioel i commercial individuals were to be found in that distric t ; and, let him ask, had not those persons interests to deferla o Had they not property to care for? And had they P the same claim to be represented as those small borough l ' the franchise of which was still retained? Lord ALTHORP—The Noble Marquis rightly ob; served, that this question practically is, whether the Oa metropolitan districts are to have representatives or not; And I must say, that looking at any of the principle' e which an enlarged representation can be given, it is 01 ' possible to propose any measure without including tbe,r, 4 districts, when we take int o conside ration the wealth, e v i population, and the intelligence they contain.—(Cheer s '' Let gentlemen o nl y consider w hat these districts I ) ) which we now have und er discussion. We have gi':e Members to the large manufacturing towns, and to other large districts throughout the country ; but if ;pt. M i n stance have we been able to give embers to any dise e ' r , so important to those metropolitan divisions.—(l o o hear.) And what is the objection to this? Why, it el said, that there is da nger of i ts produc i ng discontent ;-11 tumult. Now, I t hi n k that this objection has been 1;',0 answered by my Hon. Friend ; for how can we have much danger and discontent by given them representati l ` • as by depriving them of that privilege?—(Cheers.) think, then, that if we are to look to discontent as a p at of the argument in this case, it may justly be contenu e , that w e s h a ll h ave much mere of that if we refuse ;'l, franchise than if we grant it.—(Loud cheers.) The - Nob Marquis has very candidly stated to the Committee his intentions are, in the event of his succeeding in vote. He proposes that we should increase the represtl tation of the county of Middlesex by giving it two a diO tional Members ; he also proposes to unite the Tower lets and Finsbury to the City, Illarylebone to Westroil i° ter, and Lambeth to Southwark. Now, Sir, what is object which the Noble Marquis has in view by all this? , says that be is afraid of the confusio n ar i sing f ro m ;'' elections that will take place. But how, under his orl arrangement, will be have less confusion ?—( Hear, bear,' If lie would have us depart from the provisions of Bill, which directs that the poll sha I be taken in dffere r , places, surely thene will be immense confusion, when ; Lambeth anti Southwark have to vote together, or 11