The Sun. — London, England, 1857-02-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAR LIAMEN T. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDA.Y.) Tho SPE'AXER. took the chair at 12 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following private bills were read a second time, and ordered to be committed :—Bauff, Porsoy, and Strathisla Chatham District Water • Medical, Legal ' and General Mutual, awl New Equitable Life Assurance Com panies Amalgamation ; National Assurance and Invest ment Association ; Orkney Roads ; Ringwood, Christ church, and Bournemouth Railway ; and St. Philip's Church (Liverpool). RAILWAY EATING. Mr. HADFIELD presented a petition from the Man chester, Sbeffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, complaining of the present duty of 5 per cent, on the gross amount of the passenger traffic, and also against the pre sent high rate of local taxation, and the want of a proper court of appeal against the injustice complained of. TEA. AND SUGAR DUTIES. Mr. lIORSFALL presented a petition from the mer chants of Liverpool, complaining of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition in reference to the tea and sugar duties. THE IRISH JUDGES. Mr. NAPIER asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether any arrangement had been made to secure the attendance of a Judge at Chambers in Dublin durinz the circuit which is now fixed to go out at the end of this month. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said that no official reference had been made to the Government on the matter. The remedy, which was in the hands of the judges, would no doubt be of great importance and con venience, and he suggested that if the circuit were so ar ranged that one of the judges left for circuit earlier than the others, that he would be able to return to Dublin within a day or two after the Chief Justice had left for circuit, and then the grievance complained of would be remedied. JUDGMENTS EXECUTION, &c., BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, Mr. HUGHES moved that the bill be committed this day six months. He based his motion on a variety of technical objections to the measure. Colonel FRENCH seconded the motion. Mr. HADFIELD supported the bill. It would prevent debtors in Ireland evading the law by coming to this country, and defeat a judgment obtained against them in Ireland, and vice versa. Mr. WHITESIDE opposed the bill, on the ground that it would inflict a greater injury than it proposed to re medy. Mr. BLAND opposed the bill. The bill was not for al similating the laws of the three countries, but to alter each of them. Every facility should be given for the recovery of debts, but the house ought to be careful how they gave facilities to fraudulent men to pay money they never owed, and to fraudulent people to give undue preference to one set of creditors to the injury of others. Believing such would be the effect of this measure he opposed it. Col. DUNN also opposed. the bill, and complained of the Government not introducing such a measure if it were necessary, but of leaving it to a private member. Mr. M`CANN said that the Irish merchants and trades men objected to the bill because it would afford facilities for collusion with fraudulent debtors. Sir J. FITZGERALD supported the bill. After some discussion, i❑ which Mr. I‘l‘Mahon, Mr. S. Warren. and Mr. Napier took part, Mr. ROEBUCK said that it, was true that in a civilised country the laws should be alike and have one effect, but this bill was' to give a similar effect to different laws. He therefore objected to the bill, which commenced at the wrong end. They should first make the substantive laws alike, and before that was done, the housa ought to scout such peddling legislation as this. (;Tear, hear.) The LORD-ADVOCATE defended the principle of the bill, said entered into a history of the measure from its first in' roducti , n in 1854.t0 the present time, and said that the object of this bill was to give greater effect to the course now pursued in this country, that of putting in force a judgment obtained in Scotland without notice to the party, provided the proper forms had been complied with. Mr. SPOONER opposed the bill. Mr. G. BUTT supported it. The house then divided, when the numbers were— For going into committee 127 For the amendment Majority —47 The house then went into committee. On clause 1, Mr. IPMA.H ON aQked why the Lord Maycr's Court, the Courts of Common Pleas of Lancaster and of Durham, the Tolzey Court of Bristol, the Passage Court of Liverpool, the Record Court of Manchester, the County Courts of England, and all other courts of record in Englan.l, were not put on an equality with the Sheriffs' Courts of Scot land? and he moved an amendment to that effect. Mr. G. BUTT thought it would be unwise to extend the powers and jurisdiction of the courts named. Mr. CRAUFI7RD (the hon. member who introduced the bill) bad no objection to the introduction of the Courts of Lancaster and of Durins.un into the bill, as they were con sidered superior Courts, but he objected to the introduc tion of the inferior courts into the operations of this mea- ElllrP. After some remarks from Mr. Napier, the Solicitor- General, and Mr. Whiteside, Mr. HAYTEtt said that he bad received several amend ments to the bill, from one of the Irish Chief Justices, quite in the spirit of the principle of the bill, and he sug gested the adjouinment of the committee, to enable him to place the amendments on the paper for the considera tion of hon. members. The A TTORNE Y-GENEUNL for IRELAND supported the suggestion, and added that he had received a commu nication from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, approv ing of the principle of the bill, suggesting alterations in detail requiring the consideration of the house. After some further diAcus , ion the house resumed ; Mr. M`MAHON intimating that he should press his amendment on another occasion, if the mover of the bill did not adopt it. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the house resumed. CHIEF CONSTABLES BILL. The house then went into cx»inittee on this bill. After a short discussion the clauses were egreed to, and the bill passed through columitte. PUBLIC HE tLTII SUPPLEMENTAL BILL (1857). This bill wp.s read a second tiim and ordered to be cow mi tted. NE iY WRIT. On the motion of the ATTOUNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND, - a now writ vca3 ordend for the county of Tipperary, in the room of Mr. Jame 3 Sa..lleir, expelled the houv. EDUCATION. Sir J. PAKINGTON then rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to promote education in cities and towns. He said—l rise once more to request the permission of the house to introduoe a bill to give increased facilities for the extension of populsr education. It is not my in tention to trespass upon the time of the house at any considerable leugtb, and I am the less disposed to do so because I am sorry to observe that., in consequence of . the - unexpected termination of the discussion of the bill which has occupied a good deal of attention this morn ing, many of those gentlemen who I knew were arxioua to take a part in the discussion of my motion, if discus sion there shall be, or who, at all events, woull have taken great interest in the subject, have left the house. The first explanation which I desire to offer to the house is, that this bill has bean so drawn as not t contravene or reverie the decisions at which this house arrived last year upon the resolutions moved by the noble lord the member for the city of London. I wi not now advert, for I have done so on previous occa sions, to the rather peculiar circumstances under which • the house divided upon these resolutions. All that I now wish to say is this, that putting a Parliamentary construction upon the negativing them by a large maj rity, the decision of last year amounted to this, that the house disapproved the plan of the noble lord considered as a whole. That plan was compulsory and general. I have therefore drawn the bill which I seek to introduce in such a manner as to make it, in two most important respects, the exact reverse of the plan of the noble lord. I propose a permissive instead of a compulsory, and a local instead of a general, system of educetien. I em aware of the objections to permissive legislation upon important subjects. I entirely agree with the noblel , rd the member for the city of London in thinking that a compulsory and genera' system of education would be far more satisfactory sad beneficial than that which I propose; but when I find that great doubts are enter tained by many people whose opinions are entitled to great respect, as ti the success of a compulsory system, , I think I have taken a part at once more prudent and more respectful to the decisions of the house in proposing a permissive rather than a compulsory plan. Entertain: ing this opinion, I may naturally be allnwed to inquire what precedents we have with respect to permissive 17 7 gislation, and whether they are encouraging or otherwise. There are two very interesting and recent precedents of that description. There is the act which was passed by the hon, member for Dumfries to permit corporate towns to levy rates for the estabi shment of libraress We find has a paper recently l a id u p on th e t a ble that that bi'l "aa been taken advantage of in five or six remarkable !ales. I think the house will admit that to appeal to the ratepayers of a town to establish a library for Ihe benefit o f th ose who are already educated is not to or interest a ppeal to their like the extent of an appeal to them on behalf of those who have never received any education whatever. I shall be very well satisfied if the bill which I propose shall be as successful as the Libraries Act of my hon. friend. The next precedent to which I 'hall refer is still more germane to this subject. I mean the act which was passed some 16 or 17 eaago, making it perinis siv to gnglish unt i e count ,to adopt appeal system if p oleo This act direct a p p the f ratepayers of counties to convent to tax thelmselVes of ver y great public irupertance. And wha u t r wa a s n t o h b e jent r nit ? Half of the counties of E ng l and adopted that acet.-• I think that both of tho instances of permissive legisla thin to which I have referred are very propose that the bid . s , hall be local and 'no.oneilicgateu,irigaailenis gn' and iits Is operation, and tha l t h i; v s ? ha se ll le b e e te a Tt p h li e e m d because the bowl eerporate towns. daries of their jurisdiction are clearly defi ne d. There will, therefore, be no occasion to ma_ introduce any new m . chinery for the purpose of defining the limits of th e -ope ration of this bill. I believe that there are many persons who entertain alarm respecting the op?ra lOTA of au educational bill of a compulsory and general character, but who are very desirous of trying a permissive plan in soma cities and corporate towns as may ch oose to ado p t It. Ido n o t pretend to say that the necessity for the plan which I propose is not as great in rural district s as in corporate town s . (R ear.) I believe that our system of national education is as defective in the rural districts as in towns; but we roust bear in mind that it is in the latter that a want of education works most evil, Toe state ments which I have made to the house on previous occa sions as to the necessity for an improvement in our system of national education have never yet been disproved, al though in some instances they have been contradicted ; and they cannot be iiiipreved, because they rest on the sure foundation of truth, For tho purpose of showing the importance of introducing such a measure as this into towns I may mention some statietics with regard to one of THE SUN. LONDON, THURSDAY EvENING, FERWUARY 19, 1557. the most important towns in the empire, namely, Man chester. I ens glad to see my right b n. tt the member for Manchester in hs piece. I an cure he will net di-pute the ecceracy of my statement. I field that the Rev. Dr. MOKerrove stated, in his examiratien before the commit tee upon the Manchester and Salford Edueta,tion that there were 30,100 children in Manchester who were neither at school nor at work. (Rear) I had an opportunity of conversing with him on the subject about a week ago, and he informed me that the state of things has become rather worse since that evidence was given. I have before the a memorandum of a report which was given to me a few days ago by a clergyman who is much estee ned by all those who know him for the exemplary manner in which he discharges his spi• ritual duties in the great town of Manchester —I mean Canon Richson, the rector of the parish of St. Andrew's. That parish is only of the extent of 97 acres, upon which there is a population of 13,000. Canon Richson's re port states that, of the population between 3 and 16 years of age, 431 per cent. attend Sunday schools, 25 per cent. are at work, 29 per cent. attend day schools, and 46 per cent. are neither at school nor at work ; the result being, as he assures me, that not less than 1,200 children in that single parish attend no school whatever. I appeal in the most temperate manner to every gentle man in this house, even to my strongest opponent on this subject, to say whether such a state of things ought not to be remedied. Ido not undervalue the present system. I acknowledge the benefits that it hair con ferred, but I ask whether there is anythingrin it which can cope with the evils to which I have briefly adverted? I wish to deal with the house with the most perfect fair ness, and I therefore at once avow that I desire to esta blish reigious freedom and toleration with reference to the education of the people. (Hear.) lam in favour of local contributions in support of an object which is interesting to every home in England, and I want to establish local management and control of the funds so raised. When the right hon. gentleman the member for Manchester addressed the house in favour of the edu cational bill which he introduced two years ago, he stated that in his opinion the division of the British public into three great parties on this question WaS fatal to legislation. The three great parties to whom he adverted consist,. first, of the religious party—that is to say, those who are io favour of combining a religious with a secular educa tion—of whom I am one ; next of the voluntary party ; and, thirdly, of the secular party. He said that no measure on education could be passed until two of those great parties united, and that those who were most likely to unite were the first and the thirdly mentioned parties. So far as one great locality—viz , Manchester, is concerned, such a union has taken place. The bill which I desire to introduee has been prepared with the co-operation of a very large committee consisting of very able men, and representing in equal numbers those two great parties—the religious and the secular parties if I way so call them—who, I am thankful to say, now act cordially together. Tee bases upon which they have consented to act are briefly these : Those Who are favour able to religious teaching have consented that the rates should be expended for the benefit of secular schools, while the secular party hive consented to a low the rates to be applied in support of those schools in which reli gion is taught. The secular party yielded on one con dition only—namely, that the money contributed by the ratepayers should not be applied directly to doctrinal religious teaching. I cannot help here stating what in my opinion are the real objects of the secular party. In my humble judgment they made a most serious mis take in adopting that name. I believe that they ought rather to have called themselves the separate party, be cause their object is not to prevent religious instruction being imparted to children, but to impart secular educe- Lon only through the medium of the schoolmaster, leav ing religion, which they consider too sacred a matter to be mixed up in ordinary schools with secular education, to be taught by a more appropriate instructor. The most eminent leaders of the secular party are as deeply impressed with the necessity of religious instruction, and as zealous for its spread, as those who belong to the reli gious party. I admit the force of their objection to reli gious education being imparted by the ordinary school master, but my opinions are on the opposite side. I think that religion ought to be mixed up with the whole system of education from infancy. (Elear.) But before hon. gentlemen make up their minds to condemn the secular system I beg them to look at the report of the Rev. Mr. Brookfield, given in the very lest minutes of the Council on Education, and which was placed in our hands in the course of last week. Mr. Brookfisl I its a clergyman of the Church of England, and his report thews with great force the evils which arise from the imperfect system which he describes. After giving a report of the very absurd answers which the children gave whoa" he examined in the Catechism of the Church of England, he says : " It grieves me, who am not prone to use such words— it grieves me to think how this daily half-hour, which is usually spent in learning the Catechism by rote, and with such poor success, might have been spent in learning small portions, such as the Lord's Prayer, the Commandments, and the duties towards God and ourneighbour, thoroughly and well and with intelligence, and how in the course of those years which result in such grotesque results as I have recited almost every recorded word of the Redeemer might have been stored in the memory, norar to be forgotten." That I think ought to show us that we ought not too hastily to condemn the view of those who think that the schoolmaster is not a fit person to impart religious in• t•truction t a his scholars. The basis of the arrangement between the reli g ious and the secular parties is this, that tile rate shall be granted to every school, that the reli gious teaching in the existing schools shall be 1-ft pre cleely upon the Fame footing as that which it now rests, and that every school, whether it be a Church of Etig land school or a Dissenting school, shall be allowed to teach its tenets to the children who attend it, but that there shall be no violation of conscience, and therefore that children shall not be compelled to learn the creeds or Ca.techistne against the wish of their parents. In a speech which I lately delivered elsewhere I said that it was most desirable that any new legislation upon this subject should be in the direction rather of supplement ing the existing state of affairs than of attempting to substitute another system which shoul I be whcely and entirely new. I have eudeavoured to have this bill drawn with close attention to that principle. It pro poses that the rate to be laid shall, in fact, be a rate in aid of the existing system ; that the pence now drawn from the children's pockets shall continue to be contributed by them ; that the assistance now granted by the Committee of Council shall not be interfered with ; but that the difficulty of giving certainty and permanence to the schools, which now exist, shall be removed by means of a rate in aid, to be levied ac cording to regulations laid down in the bill. At one time I thought of introducing a provision givinga power to establish free schools to be supported by this rate ; but upon rec tnsideration that part of the bill has been altered. (Hear, hear.) I shoul I myself prefer to see the general adoption of a free system, but I believe that at present, at all events, the country is not prepared for it, and (I think that it would not be wise to introduce such a system partially by legislation. 'Therefore, the only provision with regard to the establishment of free schools con taine'l in this: bill is that the local committee shall in particular localities, after clear proof of their poverty has been given, have po er either to establah free schools or to admit a certain proportion of free scholars into existing ones. Ido not know that there is any other important principle of the bill to which it is necessary for me to advert, with this important excep tion, that the framers of the bill are most anxious to make it perfectly clear that it is not intended that there shall be atey interference with the management of exist ing schools, beyond that point up to which interference may be necessary and inevitable in order to insure com pliance with these condi:ions without the observance of which the objects of the bill would not be obtained— (hear, hear)—but that the principle of the bill shall be with regard to religious teaching perfect freedom of con science, and with regard to the management and conduct of schools that there ehall be no unnecessary or avoidable interference with existing arrangements. I am quite aware that I run the risk of being assa led with those imputations which have been made on former occasions ; that I may be told that I am promoting an irreligious plan—(hear, hear)—that I am seeking to destroy an ex isting system which works well—(hear, hear)—and am introducing a measure which, if successful, will put an end to the voluntary exertions which have done so much. (hear, hear.) I can only say that, while I feel profound respect for the zeal and good feelings of those who make these objections, I feel bound to disregard the objections themselves. (Hear, hear.) I will not consent to be di verted from the line which Rey sense of duty has led rue entotioake upon this t th t i i s la s t u lo bject by objections which I consci foundeesdly. believe altogeth ervbeentur e to askof the erroneous hons e a i ndu n that they will i n a calm and dispassionate manner sconsidertha the case of necessity which has been proved, without re ference to party or to existingviews—l this call them pwrhejiouhdihcaess. now T b That e is en th s e o only way in which before Parliament be n t i o b n 0 , settled ; and I declare my firm belief as a Christian, as a Churchman, and as an E ng li s h politician that if Parlia ment' will adopt the principl es w hi ch I am about to pro pose, we shall not only promote the intellectual advance ment of the people, but shall do more than we can in any other way accomplish to extend soun d religion among them. On the other hand, it this bill do n o t pass, the discussion of such a measure can do nothing but good. I offer it as a contribution in a great cause, and I believe that the more we discuss such contributions, the more we analyse and debate this great subject, which teuche, every home in England, the more we shall soften preju dices, remove erroneous impressions, and elicit truth ; and that then we may hope ere long to arrive at a prac tical solution of this great and most important question. (Cheers) The right bon, baronet concluded by moving fur leave to introduce the bill. Mr. W. F. COWPER said that he did not think that anyone would oppose the introduction of the measure which the right hon. baronet had with so much perseverance, and acting from so high a mite of public duty, proposed for the mature and deliberate consideration of the house. The right hon. baronet had shown a most conciliatory spirit by not reproducing his measure of a former year, but turning his attention to meet the objections of some of his oppo n:pntea and i n t roducing a bill which should receive the anot o n l y o f himself and his friends, but also of omPeeorti those who had previonAly opposed him. Conse quently, this bill was e n titl e d to full consideration as being t hitherto eresult e o e f n a in compromisedi betwe en t wo par ti es w h o h a d (H r , r re eo ct and long- con ti nue d opposition lie each other. H ge ci of the per) did not at present feel com petent to e character of th a t comprom i se, b ut when the bill was bef ore i t the house would had bee n ma d e on ascertain what te h ju il the t cone7;aelieguis which inst ruc ti on theturnine eachsstas t e lt id o e. fo lv rce ith of h r t sg point would be whether, according to the terms of this co. promise, the master of a denomination a l school was to ore be . prohibited from giving doctrinal instructi on to those pupils " who were of the saws denomination as himself. The right hon. baronet was not very clear upon that point, which seemed to him (Mr. Cowper) to be the mostimportant one; for if .11 that was a-ked by the secular party was that no distinctive religious formulary should be taught to the children of those parents who objected to it, that was no more than was conctantiy done in national schools, the di rectors of many of which allowed children whose par,nts obj , cted to their being present to absent themselves during the time set apart for the teaching of religi , us formularies. The principle which was contained in the bill introduced by the right hon. member forManohester (lir. M. Gibson), and which was advocated by the secular party, was that no distinctive doctrine should be taught to the children by the schoolmaster. That was a principle to which the denomi national party in this country was not prepared to accede, and therefore if it formed part of this compromise the right hon. baronet would meet with a very formidable opposition from that party. To deprive the schoolmaster of the right of giving any doctrinal instruction wasto say that he should only give to his pupils a certain amount of information upon secular subjects, but should not appeal to their con sciences, should not give them moral or spiritual training, should be altogether silent upon everything which related to their higher faculties, and should not teach them the grand sanctions of all moral obligations. In the bill to which he had referred, however, it was said that, although the schoolmaster was not to teach doctrinal religion, he was to inculcate truthfulness, morality, and the other virtues. It was assumed by those who prepared that bill that it was perfectly easy to inculcate all the cardinal virtues, without teaching doctrinal religion. From that position he (Mr. Cowper) entirely dissented. How could the master teach a child his duty to himself without a reference to the self-denying principles and examples of Christianity ; his duty to his n e i g hbou r , w ithout teaching him something of Christian love; or his duty to the Al mighty, without speaking to him of the covenant under which he is placed, and his relationship as the child of a , heavenly Father? To say that the schoolmaster should not ' teach doctrinal religion might amount to saying that he should teach no morality, and that he should not inculcate the conscientious duty of acting rightly. If, however, it were only intended to prohibit the schoolmaster from teach ing certain formularies, then he (Mr. Cowper) had no objec tion to the arrangement. The right hon. baronet had re ferred to the faulty manner in which the Catechism had been taught in certain schools inspected by the Rev. Mr. Brookfield; but it seemed to him (Mr. Cowper) that this did not go so much against the teaching of the Catechism altogether as against the mode in which it was taught; and he was afraid that the teaching of it only at a particular hour, instead of allowing it to be enclosed and enveloped, as it were, in the ordinary teaching of the schoolmaster, would have a direct tendency to encourage its being taught in a perfunctory and ill-arranged manner—being learned by rote, and not being understood. Upon this point, how ever, and upon others connected with the arrangement mentioned by the right hon. baronet, he would not now pronounce an opinion, because the house was not TlM ciently informed upon the subject. To the other principles stated by the right hon. baronet he thought that no rea sonable objection could be taken. Whatever might be the objections to proceeding by a vpluntary and local ar rangement, yet at present this was the only way in which we could proceed. It was pretty clear that no system of national education to be supported by rite could be adopted so as to be comulsory upon the whole country, but it was quite possible that certain parts of the country --such, for instance, as the city of M a nchester, which was most anxious to be allowed to rate itself— (" No, no," from Mr. Hadfield)—might gladly adopt some such system as that now proposed. There was also great use in dealing separately with towns and rural districts, as there was always a difference in the circumstances of those two classes of places, which rendered it essential that there should be distinctions made in the mode in which they were dealt with. The right hon. baronet had quoted as prece dents two cases of successful permissive legislation. Per haps he (Mr. Cowper) might be allowed to add to these the Public Health Act, which had now been adopted very ex tensively throughout the country, and under which many large towns had obtained advantages which they would have rejected and repudiated had it been sought to force the measure upon the whole country at first. He was glad that the school committee to be elected by the ratepayers was to have no power to interfere with the management of existing schools, because such a provision would preserve the great advantages of the present system, the voluntary management of particular schools with aid from the gene ral funds in the country, and would add such further as sistance as could be given by a local central authority. As regarded the help to be given to schools from local rates, he thought that any one who had witnessed the great diffi culty experienced by the friends of education in raising the funds necessary for the support of schools must feel that such assistance would be a great benefit to them, especially the clergymen, who were now constantly obliged to provide from their poor pittances funds for the support of schools which they did not like to see neglected. If the arrange ments proposed by the right hon. baronet for establishing a system of local permissive rating wen# agreed to, the bene volent persons who were now bearing the burden of sup porting the schools of this country would be relieved from the necessity of attending to the wants of children under 11 or 12 years of age, and would be able to devote their atten tion to those young men and women who, having left the primary schools, needed help to enable them to pursue their studies in the evening, and we should then make some real advance in the education of the people. ( Hear.) He could not at present commit the Government to the adoption of any particular course in regard to this measure : but he should offer no opposition to its introduction. (Hear.) Mr. E. BALL complimented the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) upon hie industry and perseverance, but ex pressed his opinion that a system of education to be na tional must be religious. He therefore regretted that the right hon. baronet bad introduced a bill which, to a great extent, excluded religious teaching, and had accepted the secular, which on former occasions he had himself repu diated and rejected. (Hear, hoar.) Lord R. CECIL said that this was an attempt to get in the thin edge of the wedge, which was sought to be intro duced by the resolutions of the noble lord the member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell), which were so sig nally defeated. The instancing of the police bill, which had just been changed from a permissive to a compulsory mea sure, was a clear intimation of what was the ultimate in tention of the light hon. baronet, and showed that the only advantage over the rural districts which ho designed for the towns was that of being eaten first. Having caught the towns, he fully intended to catch the rural districts, which he said required such a measure still more. In his representation of the several parties into which the friends of education wore divided, the right bon. baronet had en tirely forgotten the adherents to the Privy Council system. His (Lord Robert Cecil's) objection to this measure was that its supporters were too hasty, that they were in too groat a hurry, and would not allow the existing system to be sufficiently tried. That system had been in existence only tan years; we had had no census for six years, and we had therefore actual information as to the result of 'only four years of its oreration. It was hasty and unjust to condemn a system on such slender evi dence as this. The right honourable gentleman had, it seemed, for the first time discovered that the secu larists wore not anxious to prevent children receiving religious instruction in the course of their education. If he ever entertained the belief that the supporters of the secular scheme had such anxiety, he must have enter tained it alone in that house, for no one else could ever be lieve that persons of sense, persons knowing the feeling] of the people of this country, would seek to exclude religion from education. He had found that they sought merely to exclude religion from the domain of the schoolmaster, because he taught it inefficiently, and he cited the report I of the Rev. Mr. Brookfield, who said that we ought to pro- 1 vide more efficient instruments for ti aching religion; but I did this bill provide them ? The right hon. baronet had regaled the house with figures showing the frightful igno rance and deetitution in which the juvenile population of our large towns were plunged; but would he tell thorn that the home; of these children would furnish them with more efficient religious teaching than that now given by the eohoolmaieer, and to which he sought to put an end 9 He had said that th e mone y o f th e ratepayers was not to be . applied to the support of doctrinal teaching, but he had at the same time said that it was to be applied in aid of ex isting schools. Would he tell the house how many schools there wore in the country in which doctrinal religion was not taught ? It was of no use urging other objections, because the right hon. baronet had given notice that he did not intend to be convinced—(a latigh)—and he (Lord Robert Cecil) would therefore confine himself to the ex pression of his opinion that in exact proportion as you raised money by a rate in that exact proportion would subscriptions fall off. In support of this position he ap pealed to the experience of any hon. members who had during the last few years been engaged in promoting the establishment of reformatories. He bad heard of cases, and no doubt there ware numbers of instances, in which persons hal promised to saLscribe to the erection of reformatories by means of private funds, but with drew their subscriptions as soon as they heard that" the Government was going to contribute. It had been tried in a hundred cases and had always failed. You never would get both voluntary subscriptions and Government aid for the same object and within the same limits. (Hear.) Mr. COBDEN—The objection urged by the noble lord who has just spoken has rather surprised me. He accused the right hon. Bart. (Sir J. Pakington) of haste. Now, I think it is more than 20 years since this question of educe tier was launched in this house. I have witnessed the die. cussion of many knotty subjects in this country, and 12;vo been a party to some, and have always been accustomed to consider that seven years is about the natural duration of any agitation or any great movement for effecting an im portant political change. This measure of education has to my knowledge had three seven years of discussion is this house, and therefore I think that, whatever other fault may be laid to tho charge of the right hon. baronet opposite, he ought not to be accused of haste or precipi tancy. I do not now intend to go into the details of a bill which is not before us, but I have always been prepared for the difficulty which has already been thrown in our way —the question of religious teaching. The noble lord who has just spoken asked whether it was intended that the rate should be applied to pay fur doctrinal teaching. I answer, " No ; that is not contemplated." (Hear.) The essential difference between this bill and others which have been bro t u o g t h e t a c i t h r o e i h g i i s o n house h i e s i th r at n w s h c i h l a o o i s e t a d v oe e n e o n t °pmr di nations- pose to raise a rate to pay for that teaching ; and it at the same time stipulates that parties having schools in connexion with churches or chapels shall set apart a particular time when their own doctrinal religious instruction shall begiven, an 1 during that time they shall not be subject to theinspection of the inspectors, nor shall children who are not of the reli gious denomination to which the school belongs be required to attend. Well, surely there is nothing so difficult about this that it cannot be accomplished, if we are in earnest and wish to accomplish it.. It is not a question of prin ciple, bat merely a question between 9 o'clock in the morn ing and some other hour. If I am to be told that it is not possible to set apart a particular portion of the day when the Catechism can be taught, it must be equally impossible to set apart a particular hour for the teaching of geography, arithmetic, history, or any other subject; yet it is essen tial to the well-ordering of a school that you should have a time for each subject, that the times should be defined Dy the master, and that one study should not run into another. Surely, if doctrinal religious teaching be of that importance which those who object to the right hon. baronet's bill attach to it, you yourselves will say that it is of so much moment that a time should be named when such instill 3- tion should be given. It is done already. When this subject comes to be fully discussed it will be found that your national schools have already adopted this plan; that many national schools are now receiving children of all denominations, with the understandin4 that they aro not to be taught the Catechism. And how are you to carry out that in good faith, unless you have a particular time when the Catechism is taught ? Then see how the middle classes overcome the difficulty. In the city of London you will find a school kept by that excellent man Dr. Mor timer, who will tell you that he has Jews, Roman Catho lics, and every denomination of children. If you ask him how he gets over this difficulty, he will tell you what every man who is worthy to be at the head of a school will tell you, that he has forms of prayer — which he, w ill s h ow y o u —which are read by the children; and that when this is over he directs their attention to iirench, to German, to mathematics, or to classics, but that he does not, nor would any other man of sense, yen one study into another, and Newt in the minds of his pupils things which are en tirely unconnected with each other. There is really no difficulty, and the r seson why I am so glad that the right hon. baronet has brought in a. permissive bill is this, that when the matter comes to be put to a practical test, when you have one municipality which does itself the honour to lay a rate in the cause of education, you will find that all this religious difficulty will vanish—(hear, hear)—and that we have been amusing, or rather terrifying ourselves for 20 years with a mere bugbear. (Hear, hear.) There is no practical difficulty iu the matter. In the Bluecoat School you have from 300 to 500 boys, but you have no difficulty about this religious question. There are also in different parts of the country many proprietary schools. There is the celebrated school at Birmingham, of which the present Bishop of Manchester was head master, and it is his boast that no one was ever excluded on account of his religious opinions. The Bishop of Manchester gives his sanction and approval to this measure. He was head master of this Birmingham school, in which there were 1,200 or 1,300 keys. He had children of all denomination, but he did not attempt to proselytise them and turn them from the faith to which they belonged to his own. There is really no difficulty about this question if we set honestly to work ; and I do sincerely hope that at this day, in the year 1857, we shall not lay ourselves open to the reproach which was made by Sir Samuel Romilly in his diary some 30 years ago. When speaking of the discussions concerning education in this house, he wrote—"l am afraid that people are not in earnest about education ; that they are afraid of the tax that would be imposed upon them to educate the people." We have come to a time when we are all in earnest, all wishing for a better system. If so, Ido not think we shall have any difficulty in carrying out some plan, and I don't think there has been any scheme submitted to the house more likely to meet with general acquiescence than that which the right hon. baronet bee proposed. Ido not in tend now to go into details, but I thought it necessary to allude to the religious difficulty, which has been thrown in our faces so long that it is high time that we should in some locality put to the test this groat bugbear, which I apprehend will instantly vanish, and we shall then find that we have been alarming ourselves with a shad rw. Mr. HENLEY—Sir, I am quite ready to concede at the outset that the discussion of questions of this kind does good, and leads eventually to the discovery of the truth ; but I disagree with my right hon. friend as to the effect of the decision which the house came to on his scheme last year. It is taking a very narrow view of that decision to say that it was based on the simple fact that the measure was intended to be general and compulsory in its operation. The bill of my right bon. friend both last year and the year preceding was objectionable, because it would have completely sapped, and ultimately done away with, the existing system of education ; and that was the ground on which the house rejected it. The hon. gentleman who spoke last told us that the religious difficulty is a bugbear, and that no man of common sense has any trouble in over coming it. Every man has a perfect right to hold his own opinions, but the assumption of the hon. member unques tionably implies that some three- fourths of the people of this country are destitute of common sense. A great many parsons, quite as earnest in the cause of education as the hon. gentleman have applied their minds for many years to this subject, without discovering religious educa tion to be a bugbear. Mr. COBDBN—The right hon. gentleman must excuse me. I attach as much importance to religious education as he does. I say the bugbear is—not religious instruction, but—the diffieulty of separating doctrinal from secular in struction. Mr. HENLEY —I thank the hon. gentleman for his cor rection, because I am the last person who would fix upon another man the result of my own misapprehension; but he must allow me to say that the religious teaching which is confined to half-an-hour or an hour per day, and is im parted simply as you would teach French, German, and mathematics, or as you would give any other lesson, is not a teaching likely to reach the hearts of children, but will prove wholly barren and inoperative. Religion must be diffused over the whole surface of their training, or it can never be useful in regulating their conduct. Hence arises the difficulty when the matter comes to be fairly worked out. This point was well touched upon ty the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Cowper), who said that if this hie portantlaranch of i ns t ruc ti on cou ld b e li m ited to half an hour each day it might eas il y be dealt with, but that when you come to teach th e c hild hi s ru l e o f lif e d oc t r i na l re li g i on meets you at ev er y t urn an d cons tit u t es y our rea l difficulty. As far as I gathered from my right hon. friend's statement he makes'no provision whatever for new schools. How then is the deficiency to be supplied? All that his scheme does is this—there being a certain number of schools now in ex istence, the greatest proportiovi of which are attached to some religious denomination or another, it is proposed that you should all the funds of these schools by a rate. This is what my right hon. friend, in very gentle language calls a local contribution. (A laugh.) Why, we have local contributions now, only they happen to be voluntary, and ere not exacted by the tax-collector. My right hon. friend putting his case with great skill, said, " I am forlocal con tributions and local management." Well, so am I for local contributions and local management ; but I am also for religious freedom. How does my right hon. friend deal with that point ? There are numerous schools in the country, each affiliated to some religious community, at whose cost, either entirely or in the main, they hare been built and supported ; and what has been the great incentive to the public to devote its money, and, what is a thousand times more valuable, its time, for the or ganisation of the vast machinery now at work? Un doubtedly, the mainspring of it all has been the desire to give a religious educa`ion to the children of their neighbours. (Hear.) In this state of things my right hon. friend interposes. " True," he says, " you have got your schools and your schoolmasters ; true, you are making no complaints; but I think you have EA enough money. I must levy a rate and pay you a certain sum from it for every child that comes under your training." The schools, however, having been established on the express condition that the scholars are to have religious instruction, my right hon friend says, "I will give you money to take a number of children who shall receive no religious instruction at all." That is the principle of his scheme. Let us see how it would work. Suppose a Presbyterian school to be set up iu a locality where many Roman Catholic children re side. The Presbyterian schoolmaster is to be compelled— on the principle of religious freedgm, forsooth !—to admit any number of these Roman Catholic children for whom there is room in his school, and to teach them everything , else, but not a word of religion. What is that but ignor ing religion altogether, under the specious guise of religi ous freedom, and doing palpable vi o l ence t o th e consc i ences of the mon who, in order to give instruction, set on foot almost your present machinery, and who are nevertheless to have pupils thrust upon them (in place of those whom they now teach) of whose education reli g i on i s t o f orm no part? True, my right hon, frie n d says h e i s f or re li g i ous instruction, but the supporters of the secular system hold that the school is not the place for teaching religion. Sir J. PAKINGTON—I do not say so. Mr. HENLEY—I am aware that my r i g ht h on . f r i en d does not say this, bat his new allies do. H o differs in opinion from them, but then he pr o p oses a sc h eme t h at will do exactly what they say. (Laughter.) The house must not run away with the notion that this bill is only permissive. Permissive for wh a t ? —th a t i s t h e question. Is it under the vote of a narrow majority, obtained in a canvass you don't know how, to permit a system to be set up for giving any instruction except religious? If so, where there are 100 people in a place, and 51 of them are a favourable to such a proposal, the remaining 49 being st g i a •o i n n g st ly opposed to it, this large minority will b e t axe d , their consciences, ces, to teach anything in the world except our duty to God and man. (" Oh," and " Hear.") I cannot believe that the people of this country will ever be content with such a state of things; and in so grave a matter 1 for one doubt whether they ought to bo allowed to establish it. I know it is said that unless persons pos sess a great deal of secular knowledge your labour in attempting to give them religious instruction is thrown away. (Cries of " Hear, hear," in which Sir J. Peking ton was understood to join.) My right hon. friend cheers that statement, lam sorry to hear him cheer it. All I can say is that I differ from that opinion as much as light differs from darkness. I do not believe that the most ignorant man who over drew the breath of heaven was not amenable to the truths of Christianity. (Cheers.) Those who have bad the most extensive experience on this point will tell you that the best examples of a truly Christian spirit are often furnished by the most illiterate of our fel low creatures. The Divine message of mercy to man is so wonderfully adapted to the wants of man that while the humblest peasant can understand and receive its gracious accents, the highly intellectual and most cultivated of our race will esteem it their greatest privilege to submit them selves to its lessons of humility. (Hear, hear.) If you assert that our duty to God an d man is to be sought only through the intellect, y ou h ave only arrived, as the result of seven years of discussion, at what you might easily have seen from the beginning was the radical difference between us. I say that you must invert the process. You must first teach our duty to God and man, and as a consequence, of that teaching induce people to cultivate their intellects ac cording as their means and opportunities enable them. I hold, then, that you never will teach the young their duty to God or man if you attempt to do it through the intel lect. Stich an attempt strikes at the root of the whole reli gious teaching of this country ; and I trust, that when my right hon. friend's bill is before us it will not be found to be based on so pernicious a principle. If, however, it is otherwise, I can only promise him to give him my warmest opposition. There is an essential difference of opinion on this subject between two parties in this house; but I am not sorry that this discussion has been raised, because I believe it will elucidate the truth. (Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I am glad, sir, that the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich has again brought the question of national education before the attention of this house. I cannot but admit—although I do it reluctantly— that the bast, or at least the moat prudent, course is to make the bill merely permissive and local. At the same time I have no wish now, any more than on any former occasion, to conceal my individual opinion that it is the duty of this country to render national education compulsory and pe remptory. Yet I am quite aware that that lathe view taken by this house, and that such difference sof opinion prevails, among the public that it would be utterly impossible at present to obtain a general assent to any plan founded on such a principle. I think, hO - wever, that the right hon ourable gentleman does well in endeavouring to take a step in advance with the view of giving an impetus to this great question. lam afraid, indeed, that the prospect before us, partially opened though it is, is not quite so en couraging as the right hon. g en tl em an seems to imagine; and that local and permissive as this measure is and con - fined to promoting the success of the existing schools though it appears to be, still it is liable to misconceptions and misrepresentations, producing unfavourable opinions, which always impede the progress of a measure cf this kind. The right hon. gnntleman in some degree represent ing as ho does the sentiments of others, seems tome rather to th , rates are not t o go towards religious instruction. What p lace a bar in the way of hi s own bill when he says that is intended is that they shall be applied in aid of schools belonging to different religions denominations, in which, under the present system, doctrinal instruction is given. Sir J. PAYING TON — My expression was, "not directly applied." Lord J. RUSSELL—I do not quite see the value of that distinction. The rate will go in aid of a national school — say, in Birmingham or elsewhere, and that school will con tinue to give doctrinal instruction in precisely the same manner as it is hitherto done —that is to say, the Bible will be read, the Catechism taught, and the great truths of Christianity impressed on the pupils exactly as is the case no w. Therefore there is no room whatever for the ques tion just raised by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Henley) —vie., whether religion should be taught by the intellect, or whether the heart is to be reached at once ; because that religious instruction is still to be continued with which that right hon. gen tl eman h i mse lf an d a lso the no ble lord (Lord It. Cecil) are p er f ect ly srtisfied. The only q uestion regarding th e app li cation of the ra t e i s th a t th e money will not be di rec tl y and professedly given for the purposes of that doctrinal instruction ; that that in struction will be imparted at certain fixed hours, which will be duly notified ; and that children may be admitted who do not accept it, and who will be absent during the time that it is given. But, then, it is not a correct description of the scheme to sae that the rates will not go in aid of doctrinal teaching;. They will support the school ; east the school will still remain a nations' or a denoruinetional school, as the case may be, in which religious instruction will be given exactly as heretofore. I have heard of a pro position, emanating, I believe, from a section of the volun- j tary party in Scotland, to the effect that, while consenting to give religious instruction in the public schools, there should be a separate payment for that instruction. This appears to me a very objectionable proposal, but I don't understand it to form any part of the right hen. gentleman's scheme. Therefore notwithstanding all the ohjections urged , to his plan, the right hon. gentleman does propose thatthis rate should form an additional fund for schools in which religious instruction is given, and given, too, not according to a mode of which some hon. members disapprove, al though I do not—viz., by the teaching of the Bible only. but according to the form now adopted in the national and many other schools. This being so, it does not appear to me that the right hon. gentleman has made any such dangerous concession to the secular party as the last speaker seems to suppose. On the contrary, that has itself made an import ant concession—namely, that the religious teaching of the schools shall be supported from the rates, provided only that religious liberty is not infringed by compelling those of the pupils to attend such instruction whose parents dissent from it, and that it is given at certain fixed hours, to be duly notified. The right hon. gentleman elsewhere stated fairly the opinion of the secular party when he said that they hold that the children ought to be religiously brought up, but that the schoolmaster is not the person nor the school i the place for doing so. My view, agreeing with that of the right hon. gentleman ie, on the other hand, that the school is the place and thel schoolmaster the person. (Hear.) At the same time, if you support a school by rates—if you require that people not.of one, but of many different de nominations, be they Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or Jews, shall contribute towards the maintenance of that school—you cannot after that well insist that only a particular kind of doctrinal instruction shall be given or that the children of those who do not receive that instruction shall be excluded from the school. Thus far I think the bill of the right hon. gentleman accords with the principle of religious liberty. I don't quite un derstand v-hether or not he proposes to assist by a rate a school in which the secular principle is followed, and no religious instruction given. (Hear.) Such a provision, if it formed part of the measure, might create considerable difficulty. It has ha Ino place in any scheme which either the right hon. gentleman or I have ventured to propose to the house. We shall, however, be Letter able to judge of this bill when we have had an opportunity of carefully examining its various clauses ; and I can only trust that until that time no hon. g entlemen will raise a prejudice against a scheme intended by its author as a concession to objections which he does not himself feel, but by conciliat ing which he hopes to be able to take a step towards the attainment of a proper system of national education. For my own part I heartily wish the right hon. gentleman every success, and sincerely trust he may be able to obviate the objections to which his scheme is liable. (Hear.) Mr. IL.4.DFIELD regretted that the right hon. gentle man (Sir J. Pakington), in his review of the educational condition of this country, had omitted to notice the 2,500,000 children now regularly receiving instruction, under upwards of 300,000 teachers, in the Sunday schools of this country. The right hon. gentleman had hitherto identified his advocacy of education with a section of the clergy of the Established Church, but he now suddenly turned round and threw himself into the urine of the secu lar party, whose views he sought to embody in his scheme. He lately went down to Manchester to hold a conference with the leaders of that party, and in a two hours' inter view with them he professed to have settled this great ques tion off hand for the whole world. How powerful must the spell of the right hon. gentleman's genius be when with a single wave of his wand he could set at rest the vexed question that had so long agitated the country. Sir .f. PAKINGTON_I never said that. Mr. HADFIELD hal not heard the statement himself; his only authority for it was the newspaper reports. This bill would stir up and perpetuate a greater amount of secta rian bitterness from one end of the country to the other than had ever been produced by the agitation about Church rates or Maynooth. The Roman Catholics would not send their children to the Protestant schools, and the conse quence would be that the Roman Catholic schools would also have to be supported from the proposed rates. The hon. member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) vehe mently condemned the vote of 20,000/. a-year frcm the public funds for the College of Maynooth; but what would he say to a measure like this, which would probably saddle the people with taxation to the extent of several hundreds of thousands per annum for the support of a religion often described by the hon. gentleman in terms which he (Mr. Hadfield) would not venture to repeat ? The sacred prin ciples of religion were made the football of parties in that house who ought to set the people an example of respect for them. He was confident that this bill would be unpo pular with the country, and would share, as it deserved to do, the fate of its unlucky predecessors. Mr. W. EWART said that the state of education in our rural districts was positively disgraceful, and that until the education of the female population of the humblest ranks of life was better attended to, instead of being, as at present, grossly neglected, it was vain to expect the home training of the young to be what it ought to be. The true system of national education was the voluntary sys tem, but that would be best conducted by means of a rate. If a rate could only be imposed, as in the case of the Libraries Act, by the declared will of the majority, was not that essentially a voluntary species of taxation ? Religious training was, no doubt, the highest of all educatien, but then religious instruction was per fectly compatible with religious freedom. This bill sanc tioned doctrinal teaching where it now prevailed, and did not impose the .secular .system where it did not exist. If the right hon. gentleman would introduce a clause providing that, while the religious teaching should be free, the conductors of a school should nevertheless see that no child was left without religious instruction of one kind or another, religious freedom would thereby be maintained inviolate, and religious instruction at the same time ex tended. It was quite right to make this a permissive bill only, and it was to be hoped that when the good effects of the system had been shown in one or two instances it would be adopted generally throughout the country. Under the Factory Act a certificate of attendance at school must be produced before they could be employed, and he was in favour of extending this principle to agri cultural labour as well. A crisis had now arrived in the educational question, and it behoved all parties to unite to solve it in a conciliatory spirit, for unless some system of national education were adopted there was but little hope of preserving our prosperity or of bettering the condition of the people. Sir J. PAKINGTON, in reply, protested against Lord Robert Cecil's version of what he had said. The objection of Mr. Henley that the measure made no provision for new schools was quite correct. The bill had been advisedly drawn in that form, because it had been far more difficult to keep than to establish schools. (Hear, hear.) He knew a case in which a very good school-house had been built, but which had never been opened, because sufficient funds could not be obtained. (Hear, hear.) He perfectly agreed with all the right hon. gentleman had said with reference to the fitness of ignorant men to receive the gospel, but at the same time the concurrent testimony of all clergymen was to the effect that the ignorance of the population was tte greatest difficulty with which they had to contend. (Hear, hear.) Leave was then glean to bring in the bill, Mr. Disraeli and Lord Stanley being associated with the right hon. gentleman for the purpose of preparing it. ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND). Mr. WHITESIDE moved for returns of any csmmu nications addressed to the commissioners for the sale of encumbered estates in Ireland, or to any of them, relating to the removal of Baron Richards from the office of chief commissioner, and of the dates of said communica tions, if any ; of the order or communication addressed to Baron Richards, containing his removal from said court, and of the date of same ; and, of ale , order or warrant for the appointment of a third commissioner since the removal of Bacot; Richards. The hon. and learned gentleman said that much interest was created on the other aid, of the Channel by a paragraph which recently appeared in the public papers, announcing the fact that A certain eminent lawyer had been appointed to the office lately held by Baron Richards in the Encumbered Estates Court, at a sa lary of 3,000/. a year. It would be recollected that a com mission had been issued about two years ago for the pur pose of investigating the true state of things in the En: cumbered Estates Court. That commission recommended that the business of that court, and its arrears, should be handed over to the Court of Chancery. A committee was subsequently appointed, composed of some of the most eminent men in that house, to consider the matter. It was stated in that committee, of which the Attorney-General wan the chairman, that the two Vice-Chancellors could transact all the business of Chancery done by the four masters, as well as all the business of the En cum b ere d Estates Court with its arrears. The amount of those ar rears, however, was never stated, nor was it over thought necessary to summon over Baron Richards to inform them of it. It was understood that Baron Richards should be restored to his place in the Exchequer, and. that the re maining commissioners should transact all the business of the court. No communication was ever made to Dr. Long field or Mr. Hargraves of the intentions of the Govern ment, in order that they might make arrangements for the disposal of the business in the absence of Baron Richards. They, as well as the public generally, only discovered the fact on finding a notice one morning on the door of the court that Baron Richards was removed. What was the discovery then lea le as to the arrears in the learned baron's court ? It appeared that there were 700 peti tions in his office, 500 abstracts of titles lying unread, and which should be read before any of the estates relating to them could be put up for sale, and 20) ache dales were unsettled which should be settled before a far thing of money could be paid in respect to them. The bill brought in by the Government was one to create two vice chancellors, with all their staff, who were to transact all the bushiest; of the Court of Chancery ; and, according to report, it appeared that a third commissioner was to be appointed. He trusted that the house would not suffer a now place to be created until they knew the whole facts. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by making his motion. Colonel DUNNE leconded the motion. Mr. HORSMAN said that the hon. and learned gentle man had evidently founded his statements upon a news paper report, without taking the pains of ascertaining the accuracy of them by putting a simple question across the table. Although the hon. and learned gentleman had now thought proper to speak in terms of praise of the two corn missionen, they have had on former occasions reasons to complain of the charges which he had brought against them. The commissioners had performed their duties faithfully, zealously, ably, and beneficially to the country as well as to the Government, and the Government were desirous of giving them every assistance in their power. As to the arrears in Baron Richard's office, it appeared to him (Mr. Horsman) that all the returns rola.' ing to them had been laid before Parliament. Why, the First Minister of the Crown, in answerto complaints made against the Encumbered Est Ates Court, had long ago stated that Baron Richards would be removed from that court to the seat which he had before occupied in the Court of Exchequer. Why, the hon. and learned gentleman himself had frequently complained of the way business was transacted by the three commissioners, and stated that two were amply sufficient for the discharge of the duties. The Attoinay-General had refused to give any pledge that a third commissioner would not be ap pointed. It appeared that his right hon. and learned friend was entirely in the right, and the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, as was not unusual with him, entirely in the wrong. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rorsman was proceeding with his observations, when he was sud_ denly interrupted by The SPEAKER, who intimated that it was a quarter to six o'clock, and the discussion was then suspended. NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART. Mr VERNON moved for a copy of any correspondence between her Majesty's Government and Mr. Sheepshanks, respecting the gift of his collection of pictures to the nation.—Agreed to. TEA DUTIES. Mr. GLADSTONE gave notice that, on Friday, he should submit a motion to tho house in committee on ways and mean; that this house does not grant any addi tion to tho tea and sugar duties of the act of 1855. The house adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock. STATE OF TURKEY. The following letter, of recent of date, from Con stantinople, may be found interesting. It contains extracts from a memorandum * or report addressed to the French Government by a person who has an intimate personal knowledge of the places he de scribes, and who, for aught I know, may have been employed there on a special mission. - The letter in question is from a French source, which will sufficiently account for the manner in which the writer speaks of the impoitant part France is called on to play in the East : " CONSTANTINOPLE, Fee. 9. " Nothing but complaints against Lord" Redcliffe among the diplomatic corps I His impatient temper, his arrogant tone, and his constant interference with the internal affairs of Turkey ; the ascendant which he has acquired in the councils of the empire, and which he abuses to such a de gree as to impose ou the Sultan the choice of his High ness's Ministers—all these things aggravate the ill-will against him. The late war, we hear it said on all sides, was under taken with the object of relieving Turkey from the absorb ing pressure of Russia. The object was attained ; but has Turkey, though delivered from the Muscovite yoke, there fore recovered her independence and her liberty of action ? Has she not rather changed her protector and her tyrant ? The position which Prince Mensehikeff aimed at occupying in Constantinople, is it not the same now held by Lord Bed ell& ? Yes, it is indeed Lord Bedell& who reigns and go verns on the shores of the Bosphorus. It is through his in fluence that England has been enabled to turn to her own profit the advantages acquired to Turkey by her aimissien into tke European family, which was meant to be for the advantage of all. We have only to look at what passes in the States of the Sultan and in the Black Sea to be convinced of the fact. For many months back England bas acted in that sea absolutely as if her intention was to esta blish herself there permanently, or at least to take possession of it at a future period. All • the bays, all the ports, every corner and nook, have been visited ind minutely inspected. The British flag has appeared in every part successively of the coasts of Asia Minor and Turkey in Europe, on the sea board of Russia,. and in the mouths of the Danube, and wherever it floats, England seems as if she, and she alone, were mistress. " In the meantime Constantinople has undergone an invasion of another kind. A crowd of English agents has flocked hither, ardent and indefatigable in the demand for concessions. Turkey hai been covered by them with industrial and commercial establishments which place her in complete dependence on Great Britain. The Turks are accustomed to see English ships of war everywhere, English shipbuilders and engineers, English capitalists and traders. Whether from weakness or calculation, the Turkish Govern ment itself encourages this invasion of its territory, this absorption of its material resources. From this to complete submission there is bat a step. Such is the language oue hears in this city among the diplomatic corps, and such are the complaints frequently uttered. I have reason to believe that they:have 'formed the subject of a collective note addressed to certain Cabinets, and thdt they are the real cause of the departure for Paris of the First Secretary of the French Embassy. M. Thouvenel has, it is said, demanded fresh instructions from his Government. God forbid that I should undertake the defence of Lord Stratford de Red cliffe, or that I should attempt to justify his irrascible cha racter and his more than haughty manners, which snit rather the minister of some Eastern despot than the repre sentative of a great nation like England. But, after all, are we really justified in reproaching him with his exertions to forward the interests of his country ? If those exertions affect other parties, they are all the more bound to redouble their efforts to establish their influence also. Nothing can be more just. But, to speak frankly, France has taken no part in the great enterprises which are destined to completely change the face of Turkey, and from which she may obtain immense advantages. Who is in fault? Is it not to the apathy of her children that she owes it rather than to the in trigues of Lord Stratford ? The French in general are distinguished by a certain promptitude of mind and a power of initiation, but execution is . not their strong point; in this they do not shine. They do not possess the spirit of association, nor the boldness nor speculative genius of the English. They who are so brave, so brilliant in the field of battle, and who seem to derive fresh energy from the ardour of combat, are soon discouraged by the obstacles inherent in every great enter prise, and they no longer know how to advance. It is amusing to hear the French talk about these things. Ac cording to them their failures are attributable to foreign intrigues, and also to .the want of support from their own Government. The French Government is invariably made responsible for every misfortune that occurs, and, according to them they are never sufficiently pro tected. The Government does nothing to support them against foreign competition, nothing to open new marts to their trade ; in a word, nothing ef what it ought to do. The French are, it appears, like the Pope, infallible by their nature ; every one is blamed for their failures except themselves, who, in fairness, ought to bear exclusively the blame. As for me, who have been an eye witness of these things; I can assure you that the French Government is far from meriting these commonplace accu sations. On the contrary, it employs all its efforts to give the greatest possible development to its marine and its com merce, to extend its relations and its influence on every point of the globe ; and nothing that can contribute to it escapes its attention. You have heard, for instance, of the French frigate the Sibylle going to Muscat and the Persian Gulf. The Sibylle has orders to explore the whole of that gulf, and after leaving she will proceed, it is said, to the Red Sea. It appears that the Emperor intends to obtain from the Shah of Persia the concessions of divers points on the coasts of that Sovereign's States, and that negotiations have been already opened on that subject with the Persian Am bassador. These points are Bunder-Abbas and Mohanamerah. Abbas, which is admirably situate to connect commercial operations with the Isle of Bourbon, is under the dominatio n of the Imaum of Musc a t.- Th e Sh a h lets it to him at a yearly rent ; it will therefore be easy for the French Government to take his place on the same conditions. " As to Mohammerah, it is in a position possessing im portance of a far different kind. Lying at the entrance of the Karun, which is navigable as far as Shuster, one of the most flourishing spots of the empire, the little town of Mohammerah has drawn to itself all the advantages which Busserah formerly enjoyed, and that to which it owes those advantages is the application, unique in those countries, of free trade. What would it not become if it were in the hands of a great European nation ? It would be one of the most active and 'richest entrepots of the East, a new Ormuz, .which would soon supplant Bagdad and Bussorah. It is not without reason that the French Government has turned its attention to that quarter. Its attention was principally at tracted by a memorandum,.or report, addressed to it by a person who has traversed and profoundly studied Africa, and in which are indicated the points which it will be most isoful to take and to occupy. Here is an extract : " The bay from Diego-Sauriez to Madagascar, a port near Jubb, Cape Guardafui, the entrance to the straits of Babelmandeb, and a creek in the Red Sea near Massonah, in Abyssinia—such are the points which appear to me suit able to form the chain of our colonies in the western part of the Indian Ocean. The taking possession of them would not be attended with any great difficulty on the part of the natives. It would admirably promote the plan of con necting our colony of Bourbon with the isthmus of Suez by a line of steamers. The points indicated would furnish coal,- iron, timber for shipbuilding, and provisions in abundance ; and they are, moreover, situate in a healthy c;imato. The Bay of Diego-Sauriez, independently of the advantages it offers to .the extension of the French navy, would secure our line of defence. If we consider the situa tion of the Isle of Bourbon, it will be seen how exposed is that colony in its isolation, Bourbon, which is so distant from our possessions in India, which are so trifling in them selves, is everywhere surrounded by the English possessions: —Mauritius, the Cape, Mahe, and the Seychell es , and Port Natal. Bourbon is alone' and distant in the mid s t' of these seas, which are under • Indo-Britannic domination. It has not even a port to shelter our ships which go to Port Louis for repairs in sight of the British flag. The Treaties of 1814 have reduced us to this humiliating ne cessity. It is urgent to remedy this state of things, and, in the meantime, to insure to our colony resources to make it respected, and at the same time to our marine a harbour of refuge, in which it may repair its da mages under the protection of French batteries. The occupation of the Bay of Diego Salaries would at once realise those conditions. But this would not be the only one ; for that bay would become the cntrepot of the trade of Western Africa ; it would be the point for our ships to tench at and take in provisions, and whither would come the Portuguese and Dutch ships as well as the American whalers. Another Singapore would arise in those places, which would be the centre of a colony, the development of which would be faci litated by the divisions in the island, and the impatience of the "Suclavas under the Hove domination. The fertility of the Malagash territory, the exuberant vegetation of the soil, which produces all the tropical plants, the low price o f manual labour, the character of the inhabitants, would tri umph over all difficulties which' the colonial system en counters elsewhere. If an objection be founded en our unsuccessful attempts on the shores of Madagascar, it dis appears when we take into consideration the nature ef the place. It was, in fact, on the eastern side ef the island, between the Bay of Antogil and Port Dauphin that France had her first establishments. - Now the unhealthiness of these coasts contrasts with the climates of northern regions, to which all our naval medical men , render the most satisfactory testimony. " regard to tho point which I have indicated at the entrance of the Red Sea its advantages are not less evident. In point of fact the Strait of Babelmandeb may be henceforth ' regarded as the principal port of the Indian Ocean. It is by that the trade of Europe must pass when it shall resume the path of Suez. It is therefore of importance to maintain the freedom of that passage, and not to allow the keys of it to fall into the hands of England. Once posted at the mouth of the Arabian Gulf, nothing can pass without our permission. We may have the Gibraltar of the East, and we can, when we please, obstruct the communications of England with her In dian colonies. " As an entrepot the establishment now proposed would attract to it the trade of Choa, of the Adds, and of the Gallas, which would descend by the Hawash into We lake of Houssa, and would then be little more than 72 leagues from the sea. " The investigations carried on in Abyssinia and all the in formation furnished by the natives, demonstrate that the countries which approach the most • southern sources of the Nile, evou to the Indian Sea, aro extremely rich in tropical products of every. kind. There, at tho foot of the Mountains of the Moon, known, though imperfectly, for a long time, is the real country of the plant which gives us coffee. It is there of a larger size and a finer growth, and its prbducts ar superior to that of Yemen, which is Sfo famous. There, also, is produced the plant known as the Kat, or Tchat, of which the leaves afford a tea which may one day surpass that of China. Rico, indigo, cotton, gums, spices, ivory, and dyeing woods abound, and supply material of easy and lucrative exportation, and all these pro ducts may be acquired at a price much inferior to what they . _ cost in India. " All these districts, the ports of Djedda, Mokha, Ho deida, comprised in Yemen, contain more than 20,000,000 of consumers, with whom we should have to apprehend no other competition than that of the Arabs and the I3anians. At the present moment that trade produces a movement of more than 80,000,000, of which the articles manufactured in Europe form the greatest part. Such a market would b ecome ex tremely valuable after the opening of the Isthmus of Suez, << is then of the last importance to be beforehand with other nations, and to occupy positions which m a y enable us to maintain, with advantage and security, extensive coin_ morciai relations. These positions would be o f extreme im portance in the event of A war with England, Th ey would , furnish us with means of action more pressing against th Anglo-Indian Empire.' You wid perceive, then, from the foregoing extracts of the memorandum addressed to the French Government, that it is doing its best to find out new openings ft.r its trade, that it neglects nothing that may develoi., and extend its power, and to introduce its influence into re gions the most remote and the least visited in our days. H * it does not succeed as it deserves it is because it is badly served by its people. The French are fond of home, they do not like to quit it, or to emigrate to a distance. Moreover, they have not the spirit of enterprise, the genius for specula• Jaz and adventure—if I may use the word—which charac terises the British people, and which render the latter so eminently suited for the establishment on their own soil as abroad, of the most collossal undertakings. The French have many fine qualities, but they have not that; and in the want of it lies the secret of their discomfiture at Constan tinople." KINGSFORD v. MERRY. All the stages of the great dock warrant queition connected with the case of " Kingsford v. Merry" appear worthy of each other. In the first instance the Court of Exchequer decided that Messrs. Merry and Sons, as innocent holders of a dock warrant for a valuable consideration, could not be forced to re fund its proceed•, although the warrant bad been _ - wrongfully acquired by the person from whom they received it as a pledge. This was perfectly io ac cordance with the feeling of the mercantile commu nity and the judgment• was rendered still more satisfactory by - a - aecl , tration from Chief Baron Pollock, that If any other view were to be adopted it would be impossible for business to be safely carried on. Upon a further bearing, moreover, bi fore a full Court the bench re-affirmed the decision. It wos then, however, carried by appeal before the Court of Error, and here the judgment was reversed. The scandal of such contra.dicti , ,ns having attracted great attention, it was apologetically represented that none of the judicial authorities were at vari- ante, but that th; difference between the two de- _ _ cisions had been consequent upon the case having' been differently stated before the two Courts, ) The solicitors and counsel employed forthwith proved that this allegat:on was erroneous, and that - all the points placed before the one Court had been equally submitted to the other. The fact that the confusion lay with the Courts themselves; and that the only mEans of obtaining an absolute declaration ' of what the law really is would be by an appeal to the House of Lords having thus been establisbed, the mercantile community considered it time to urge on the Government the necessity of intro ducing a measure that would free them for the future from *the danger and uncertainty of such' ruinous litigation, and at the same time fix the matter on a basis in conformity with the principlee which had always been considered to prevell• Although nothing is more difficult than to induce ` the merchants and bankers of London to move . 3 11 a body on any commerc i a l su bj ec t , t h e i r action 11 1 , this case was pr o mpt an d v i gorous, an d at one -o ff the largest and most influential meetings ever held • a committee was appointed by a vote, to which . there was only a single dissentient, to adopt the re quisite proceedings. Baron Rothschild, as member for London, occupied the chair, and heartily con curred in the resolutions. The next that is heard. of the question is that the Government would . be happy to promote an adjustment of the. law, but that they have had no satisfactory evidence that the mercantile community entertain any general wish upon the subject. On the contrary, they knew that the "chairman of the meeting (Baron Rothschild) was himself o pp ose d t o th e o bj e cts of it." A public and unequivocal statement then followed that this idea about Baron Rothschild was an entire mistake, of a niece with all the other discrepancies of the a ff air. Next comes a ca' munication from Mr. Freshfield, addressed to the Committee of Merchants deprecating any change ill the existing law. This at all events seemed calcu late ed to exercise a definite influence on opinion, sine!, commercial men could How ascertain the views o f one of the most eminent solicitors connected wits the, commercial practice of the city of London. But instead of promoting a solution, it was on ly a s ign al for new perplexities. Instantly on its appearance it was met by a full reply from Mr. Lavie, a gentle' man who, like Mr. Freshfield, occupies one of the highest positions as a commercial authority in the metropolis, and who has for 30 years given °spec , '" attention to the state of the law in its bearing 9 11 analogous points. We have thus the whole matt° brought to that peculiar degree of confusion until' ' tainaile extept where legal gentlemen are the eP' pounding parties, and - whi c h f or m s a chapter for merchants and financiers almost as instructive 9 ,5 the proceedings to secure speedy and economicelre • lief for the unfortunate shareholders and d e peeiters of the Royal British Bank. —Times City Article. Country Markets. EDINBURGH HAY AND STRAW MARKET FEB. 17. Supplies of all kinds these last six days again large- Oat straw, from 8s al to 10s 6d per kemple of L 6 stone: tron; wheat do., 6 s Od to 8 s 6d; barley do.; 7y 01. t° Od. Hay from 12d to Is. 2d. EDINBI7RGII MEAL—F - aa. 17. There were in the market to-day 12 sacks oatmeal, each weighing 2801 b imperial, which sold at 37s and --1. DALKEITH MEAL MARKET—Fzu 16. , There were in the market to-dap 6 bags of oatmeal, 0 a barleymeal, and 0 pot barley. Sales dull. Oatmeal, per sack of 2801bs First. I Second. Thir d a j IMperial 3sa Od —a Od s Ekirleymeal, per ditto -a Od —s Od I—s Ots Pease/flea', per ditto Flour, new, per ditto Od I—s Od --s Pot-barley, new, per ditto —s Oct s Od — 0 `" BRISTOL SUGAR —Fan. 18. Beyond the sale of three cargoes of Mauritius sod ono of Hays.nnah afk at, at very full prices, we have nothing report. The brokers' offices are quite bare of sample'', an 'farther arrivals are anxiously looked for. DUBLIN, FEB. 17. - - White wheat, 31s 61 to 34s 6d ; red ditto, 31e Od to 32g 6d; ditto new, — a; b ar l ey, malting, 16s to 25s 6d ; ~ ing, 15s to 203 6d ; oats, old, lls to 13s ; ditto, new, ....- Oct to 153 Od; oatmeal, 149 to 15s OJ; bare, new, 16s to-180 01; rapesa, d, 303 Od to 32s Od per brl ; bakers' flour, 64 to 26a 01 per cwt; Indian corn, 3!a 01 to 37e Od 480 lbs. COAL MARIEET.—Fzn. 18. Prices of Coal per ton at the close of the market.. WsMond, ko. d• Hatton ll 6 south Hetton 17 Lambton 17 0 Pensher 16 6 Hough Hall 15 9 Russell's Hatton 16 6 roes l7 I. d. Bates's West Hartley l3 0 Bebside's Hartley 14 6 Bell's Primrose l2 6 Howard's West Hartley Netherton 15 0 Longridge's Wst Hartley 14 6 Ch ester Main , l5 0 North Percy Hartley _l3 0 ranfield Moor l3 9 tanfield. Moor Butes 13 9 Walker Primrose l3 0 West Riding Hartley 12 9 Davison's West Hartley 'l5 3 1 Btewart's 17 i 3onth Kelloe 16 6 Hartlepool Hetton 16 _g* Riddell l5 tv Halton l5 .3 a Hilda 14 Braddyll . 16 6 Wsllsend, Eden Main ...............16 3, Ships at market...l2: I Sold 6B LOCAL SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, FEB. 18. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market was steady to-dnlt at a considerable advance upon the rates of yesterilaP' Eastern Counties, 101. ls. 3d.—Lancashire and Yorkshir_4; 994 4—Caledonian, 32i 32 3 34—North British, 10G lis. 3d.—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln, 35i —East . Lancashire 4 shares, 6 per cent., 81. 13s. 9d.—Ditto 1-sth shares, 5 per cent., 5 .3—North Eastern, Berwick, 21f—South Eastern, 22 I I- I—Midland, 831 .3—Lancaster and Preston, 4 shares, 20j—London and North Westerns 107i—Ditto, halves, new, 4 dis.—Buffalo and Lake Huron. 1 pm.—Luxembourg Con., 101 dia.—Sheffield 6 per cent., 12k.- BIRTHS. 01 • BON. On the 17th inst., at Westbonrne-street, Hyde.park• gardens, the wife of the Rev. R. W. Browne, On the 17th inst., at Homerton, the wife of David Craven, Esq. OF A DAIJGHTIR. On the 16th inst., at Ayott St. Lawrence, Lady Emily Cavendish. On the 18th inst., at 1, Leinster-gardens, Hyde-park, the wife of Mr. Lawrence Henry Winckwortb.- MARRIED. On the 18th inst., at the Royal Bavarian Chapel, St* James's, George Frederick second son of the late John Meredith, Esq., of Harborne, near Birmingham, to Eliza, only daughter of Wm. Seholefield, Esq., M.P. On the 13th inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square. Lieutenant-Colonel A. C. Bentinck, 7th Dragoon Guards, to Miss Elizabeth Sophia, the eldest daughter of Sir Si. Vincent and the Hon. Lady Whitshed. DIED. On the 16th inst., Theapbilus Russell Duckworth, Eecl°o of Cockley Cley Hall, Norfolk, aged 62. On the 16th inst., at Cheltenham, Mary Stirling, wif of J. Stirling Donald, Esq. On the 15th inst., at Forestville, n ear N o tti ng haal Samuel Whitehead, Esq., aged 83. On the 16th inst. , at Star Cro ss , Mi ss Bcan, _ aged 79. On the 16th inst Victor Louis Chemery, Esq.. aged 49. On the 16th inst.,, at Brighton, Anne Brutnmell, wido' ( of the l a t e W m. Brumm ell,Esq., of Wivenhoe-houses co. Essex, aged 71 On the 16th inst., at Margate, Margaret, widow of tilt late Captain Thomas Hillas, 6th Dragoon Guards, of P orchester-terrace, Bayswater, aged 77. On the 15th inst., at Walsall, Henry Rutter, Ea ( l , o aged 76. LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG. of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Oiliest N o. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the _Savoy, le the cool tY of Middlesex, Thursday, February 19, 15157.