The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-28 00:00:00

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.

Mr. ANGERSTEIN asked the Secretary to the Treasury
whether her Majesty's Government would consent, during
the present session of Parliatncnt„to place tb.o rating of
Greenwich Hospital upon the saute footing already conceded
to other places where there is a large amount of public pro-
PertY, the justice of which was acknowledged by a clause in
the Greenwich Hospital Bill, laid upon the table of the
house in 1561 by the Government ?
Mr. F, PEEL said that the bill referred to had no bear-
ing on the claims brought forward by the hon. member in
referenft to 9reenwich Hospital, which had funds of its
own.

FAIRS AND MARKETS (IRELAND) BILL.
In reply to Mr, timNEsay,
Sir R. PEEL said that he thought it would be bet'er to
proceed with the bill, but he was ready to consult the wishes
of the Irish members on the subject.
PROSECIIMIt EXPENSES BILL.
Sir
this bill G.
until GRE
tho 15th of A Y said he did not propose to proceed with
A
-o Y, and he would move that the
of the bill this evening should
Order for the second reading
be discharged' _^ _____

SO UTHERN
Sir G. GREY said that he hoped thehon, baronet (Sir
G. Bowyer) Tt
would postpone his motion „
Southern Italy, in the absence of his noble :11. subject of
annul the Fre-
mier.
Sir G. BOWYER said he wished for some tilt°
on the subject of some intelligence which he hodrlZthli
The hon. baronet then alluded to certain reports which had'.
appeared in Italian newspapers as to some very string.,,,t
reenlations being adopted in some of the communes, "4
proclaimed in reference to the brigands in South Italy, and
to persons affording them shelter.
Mr. LAYARD said that the hon. baronet had given him
no nntieo of his question. All ho could say woe, that the
Government was not responsible for any,rumours or reports
in newspapers. With respect to the proclamation referred
to relative to the brigands, it hail been brought under the
notice of the Government of Naples, and it appeared that
Such proclamation was not sanctioned by the Government,
and it had not even been printed. He thought the question
Lutel7
by the hon. arenet wonhi have been best asked in a
arliantent of Turin. (Hear, hear.)
_ THE ISED CODE —ADJOURNED DET3ATE.
Mr. WRITEsiDr. resumed— the adjourned debate on
the motion "That
this house immediately resolve itself

into a committee to consider the best mode of distributing
the Parliamentary grants for the education now adminis-
tered by the Privy Council." The right hon. gentleman
strongly advocated the merits of the existing system which
the Revised Code proposed to supersede. He referred to
that of Scotland, and to the success which attended native;
of that country in different avocations, which he ascribed
to the system of national education which prevailed there.
He contended that the tests on which the Privy Council
proceeded in arriving at the conclusion as to the inefficiency
ei the existing system were most unsound, for they entirely
excluded migratory children, an important element in the
consideration of the subject. He also alluded to the eon.
flitting statements between the schoolmasters and the in-
spectors, and argued that the vice-president of the Board
of Education had entirely failed to make out a case. The
commissioners had entered into the question respecting the
masters, and had reported as to their manners, conduct, and
what was called conceit, with which they had been charged
and had affirmed that they found nothing against the
schoolmasters as a class to justify the allegations which had
been made to their prejudice, and testified to their intellec-
tual qualification end good moral character. The right hon.
gentleman alleged that the masters were dissatisfied with
their position ; but had it not often been the case in higher
conditions of life. that when a man got one good place he
grumbled until he got a better—(laughter)—but that did
not affect his moral character. (Hear, and a laugh.) The
right hon. gentleman said that the masters had not a very
favourable opinion of him, and told the house why he should
have no very favourable opinion of them. He (Mr. White-
side) never read a speech that gave him more pain than that
delivered by the right hon. gentleman. in that speech the
right hon. gentleman said that the masters were dissatisfied
because they only received on an average £122 a year, and
because the work was spoiled by the interference of the
clergy. (Hear.)
Mr. LOWE.--It is in the summary of evidence.

Mr. WHITESIDE understood it perfectly, as he would
presently show. The right hon. gentleman proceeds from
the national schools to the British schools, and speaks of the
satisfied state of the masters of these schools, because they
were free from "priestly tyranny," (Hear, from Conserva-
tive benches.) The right hon. gentleman had two objects in
view in quoting what he called a " summary" of the evi-
dence, but which was not so. His first object was to
insult the clergy, and next to cast a slur upon the whole
body of masters . connected with his own depart-
ment. This was shown by the fact that he fixed upon the
only point in the evidence which was offensive to the
clergy. Would the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, who was looked upon as a great friend
of the Church—who admired the clergy, and who was ad-
mired by them—agree in this language of his colleague in
which he had held the clergy up to contempt ? (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. 'gentleman (Mr. Lowe) shook his
head and disclaimed this imputation, but he (Mr. White-
side) repeated that the right hon. gentleman designedly
dulled out the passage, and not fairly, from the appendix
to the evidence collected by Mr. Wilkinson. That gentle-
man himself had reported most favourably of the education
work of the clergy, and 26 out of the 27 witnesses who were
examined concurred in this opinion. These were all Church-
men ; but the 27th, Mr. A—, a Dissenter, alone expressed
the opinion that had been quoted by the right hon. gentle-
man against the interference of the clergy. That dissenting
witness had a right, if he pleased, to speak for himself and
for the master of the British school, but he had no right to
speak for the National schoolmasters or the Church.
(Cheers.) Mr. Wilkinson, in his report, declared that edu-
cation was progressing in the metropolis, both in quantity
and quality, and that the people recognised the necessity of
religion being a material ingredient of it, It was his opinion
that the grant for education should be ihcreased. Now,
with respect to the resolutions proposed by his right hon.
friend (Mr. Walpole), the two last were highly important,
because they raised the Constitutional question, which the
house should not hesitate to give an opinion upon. The re-
ports of the commissioners having been laid upon the table
of the house, the right hon, gentleman, in reply to a question
from his right hon. friend (Mr. Walpole), said that any
change in the system of education would still be regulated
by the opinion of those whose hands had maintained it.
A few days afterwards, on the 29th July, the new code
was published, and on the 12th August the Privy Council
issued the order commanding obedience to that code. He
asked if that was consistent with the answers which the right
hon gentleman had given to the questions put to him upon
the subject on the 12th July ? Did he mean to say that his
scheme was approved of by all who were interested in edu-
cation, when that statement was directly contradicted by
all who took any practical part in the work of education in
either England or Scotland, and especially in Scotland ? He
had heard of drum-head court-martials, and Austria being
called a Despotism, but what could be more despotic than
for a department of the Government suddenly to announce
that great changes were to be made—to call for submission
on the part of those affected by such changes without in-
quiry or remonstrance ? (Hear, hear.) He thought that
Parliament was bound te teach the Government to treat it
with that respect to which it was entitled, and to ensure for
the future that such sweeping changes in the administra-
tion of a public grant for great national purposes, should in
future be fully and properly brought under the considera-
tion of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gen-
tleman said the system was expensive and ought to be re-
duced in cost ; but the fact was, we had too long neglected
the education of our poorer classes. (Hear, hear.) There
had been endowments, foundations, and provisions for the
education of the middle and upper classes, who in this way
had been stimulated and incited to emulation in knowledge,
but we had done nothing for the education of the poor. The
Scottish Parliament had done much, and with the happiest
results. He trusted that when the house came to discuss
the question, they would recollect how small was the
amount spent upon tho education of the poorer classes when
compared with the sums expended in iron-plated ships, of
instruments of human destruction, and in guilty wars that
filled the world with widows and orphans. (Hoar, hear.)
He trusted that they would remember that there were vic-
tories to be gained over ignorance, vice, and crime; and if
they persevered in that great conflict—there were battles to
be won, triumphs to gain—we should come safely out of
the contest, and the results would add to the glory of Queen
Victoria's reign. (Long-continued cheers.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he could not help suspecting,
from the tone of the right hon. gentleman's observations,
that he rather differed from the right hon. gentleman who
introduced this subject, in a desire to make this somewhat
of a party question. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Osborne)
would endeavour to steer clear of anything of the sort, be-
cause the solution of so great a social problem ought not to
be reduced to the level of a party conflict. (Hear.) The
right hon. gentleman had told them of the difference be-
tween the ingenuity of a witness and the fairness of a judge.
His speech appeared to him to show more of the ingenuity
than the fairness. '(Hear, and a laugh) He had spoken
very highly of education and its results in Scotland, and of
what Buller called the profound principle of truth which it
diffused; but though the right hon. gentleman might have
read Lord Macaulay, ho did not appear to have read the
evidence of Mr. Di iseoo betore the committee, or he would
have found that the morals of some of the ladies of that
country were not of the moat brilliant character. (A laugh.)
He could not conceive why so much condemnation should
be thrown on the vice-president of the education committee.
He for one thought that great credit was duo to him for
the moral courage—(hear)—and the industry he had ex-
hibited in grappling with, unravelling, and simplifying a
system which by successive orders of successive committees
had become so unwieldy and complicated that it was puzzl-
ing to the few, and absolutely unintelligible to the many.
(Hear.) As to the opposition the new system had had to
encounter, it was natural in the course of events that when
the Government endeavoured to check the growth of an
artificial system which had created an army of managers,
teachers, pupil teachers, and others, all participating in a
public grant, the most determined opposition should be
exhibited by those, so interested. The right hon. gentle-
man had spoken of the opposition of the clergy of all de-
nominations. He (Mr. Osborne) was not at all surprised
that those who hated each other for the love of God in all
other cases should yet agree when their object was to drain
the public Exchequer non shit. When they did agree their
unanimity was wonderful. (Hear, and a laugh.) No
doubt the changes involved individual hardship, but that
was no question for that house. The real and only ques-
tion it had to decide was, whether these changes were for
the public benefit. (Hear, hear.) Now, divested of all
technicality and details, they had simply to consider, in the
first place, that this system which had been in existence
some twenty years was always spoken of as provisional
and temporary. (Hear, hear.) What had been its cost
during these twenty years? Four millions and a half
sterling. It had risen from an annual grant in 1839 of
the modest sum of £32,000, to the sum of £815,000 last
year, asd the cry.was still "Give, give," " More, more."
W hat was the prospect if this was not checked ? Dr.
Temple in his evidence (and he was a good authority) said
that to carry out the scheme fully would cost £5,000,000,
and even the most sanguine supporters of the old scheme
estimated its cost at two and a half millions annually. And
what had we got in return, either for this large past or pro-
spectively larger outlay ? The answer was to be found in
the report of the Royal Commission, which, after two
years' careful examination of the whole subject, was fatal
to the whole system as it at present existed. They stated
that the junior classes, who formed the majority of the
scholars, do not learn, or learn very imperfectly, reading,
writing, and arithmetic. (Hoar.) This was, ha con-
tended, to give up the whole case. In the name of com-
mon sense, what were children sent to school for but to
learn reacting, writing, and arithmetic? (Cheers.) But
!hen the discipline was spoken of. Could any discipline
public (locum
I),better than that involved in the acquirement of these
entarY and ,Qpntial branches of instruction ? (Res newed chsertn
g.) He would not quote any but
was, whether theseUe had tried to read Mr. Chadwick's
pamphlet, reene.,,,tBc.4
candidly eauf„,,,a r by the right hon. gentleman, but he
ti,iisae borne him down. What he asked
this army of supesnurre:ees, teachers, pupil-teachers, 'and
, were to be allowed not only
to frighten the Goveseniftenlit's.
mends, but to present an eleel'ititoQ compliance with their de-
mands
to the heads
of members of that house, and
them kith the loss of
their FPats t the next. Oectiral if then
not vote for the
continuance of the grants in their preasuldt
n•
mm ee
For his own part he only complained that its, t; (Hear)
not go far enough, It had been urged that this Z e did
aTa
-
veil-

gious question. The right hon. gentleinan opposite, who
was peculiarly the friend of the clergy had said:much on that
point, and insinuated that the right hon. vice-president
(Mr. Lowe) was not the friend of the clergy or of religion.
Now he (Mr. Osborne) utterly denied that the question
had anything to do;with religion. Dr. Hook, the estimable
Dean of Chichester, had shown in his evidence that in a re-
ligious point of view the system was a complete failure, and
observed that it was a mockery to suppose that because
children were allosted to dogs'-ear their Bibles in school
they learned anything of religion. (Hear.) The Rev. Mr.
Brookfield, one of the most eminent inspectors, reported
that out of 6,000 scholars he eXamined, 3,344 were unable to
answer even one of the simplest questions in the catechism,
with the exception of 142 out of the whole number. Mr.
Fraser and Mr. Fester said that the religions instruction
was learned. merely by rote; and Mr. Jelinger Symons
said that he found the children could tell the weight of
Goliah's spear, the length of Noah's ark, and the dimen,
sions of Solomon's temple, while they were utterly ignorant
of all the first principles of Christian life. (Hear, hear.)
The truth was that it was not a religious but a breeches'-
pocket question (hear, hear) whether the country
should go on paying, and the schoolmasters receiving, as
at present. Everybody agreed that something must be
done, except one, and that was the hon. member for Hert-
fordshire, who told them that be had practised in the Court
of Chancery, and seemed to want to get the house into
Chancery, too. (A laugh.)
Mr. PULLER—I did not say that nothing ought to be
done.

Mr. OSBORNE—The hon. gentleman at all events called
the revised code an " immoral act," and he was very much
surprised to see the hon. gentleman at that moment in con-
versation with the author of an "immoral act." (Great
laughter.) Was it not notorious how petitions were got up
The Rev, Mr Scott details the plan how hon. members were
to be worked up, as appeared by a letter he (Mr. Osborne)
held in his hand, dated March 12, from Westminster, in
the neighbourhood of the house. He was writing to all
persons belonging to the Wesleyan connexion, a body that
received from the grant nearly £300,000 a year, and
very naturally had more to fear than others. Well, what
did he say ? "All legitimate influence," he writes,
" should be used with our representatives in Parliament.
Few of them understand the subject of the Revised Code—
(laughter)—so well as to have any opinion about it."
(Laughter.) He (Mr. Osborne) did not know if that were
parliamentary language; but Mr. Scott proceeds, "They
are, therefore, the more likely to act for their consti-
tuents if they plainly and honestly expressed their opi-
nions." Hon. members ought to know what that meant.
(Hear, hear,) It was a threat " looming in the future,"
and was evidently written for the purpose of getting up
petitions in the schools against the proposed code.
(Hear, hear.) Who, in point of fact, was to petition in.
its favour, when no organisation was set on foot, and when
it was well known that nothing could be more unpopular
than to stop grants of
public money which had been
given for years. He believed the right hon. gentleman
the Vice-President of the Council was one of the best
friends the country ever had, not only on economical
grounds, but from his attempt to save the country the con-
sequences of the lavish expenditure to which it was annually
subjected. As to what was said about " vested interests,"
that he believed to be what was called "a pocket pistol," to
induce the hon. gentleman to continue the present system.
The hon. member for Hertfordshire said the faith of the
country was pledged to continue the teachers. How did-
that occur ? Did he mean to say that the system of educa-
tion now carried on was not for the benefit of the children
of the poor of this country, but for that of the schoolmasters,
who received their education at the public expense and now
turned round on the Executive because it presumes to alter
the system ? He was surprised that, with the experience
Whatslb subject?"—"
tleareit.
which the hon. gentleman said he had in the Court of Chan-
he
pceoryrt,ohf ethsehonulodyalma:oemzeishsiaonstastaeymoenntt.
may be said that the State did excite expectations, and
gave teachers a moral right to think the system would
be continued ; but that was not the case, as the sums
voted were always annual, and not ipermanent. Indeed it
was notorious that it has grown up by degrees, and that
the propriety of altering it was always considered as cer-
tain." Ho could hardly believe that the experience and
knowledge acquired by the hon. gentleman in the Court of
Chancery could have permitted him to assert that the
country was pledged to continue these certificated teachers.
The hon. member for Bradford—his hon. friend, if he
would allow him to call him so ; for after his powerful
• speech the other evening any one ought to be proud to call
him so—but his hon. friend forgot himself at the end of it,
and called it " a pedantic and bureaucratic scheme." It
certainly was not " bureaucratic," because it decentralised
the present system, and gave away the whole patronage
from the possession of the Government. If it were
worth anything, its best argument was, that it simplified
that which previously 'existed. (Hear, hear.) What
business he (Mr. Osborne) wished to know, had
the Government to interfere with the question of
education ? It was never contemplated that the Privy
Council should do so. The right hon. gentleman
the member for the University of Cambridge endeavoured
to enlist the feelings and sympathies of the old Whiga in
that house, who generally went to sleep on those benches
at eleven o'clock—(a laugh)—by insinuating that what he
proposed was the scheme of Lord Lansdowne and another
noble lord (Earl Russell) who had now gone to another
and happier place. (A laugh.) But he denied that either
ever contemplated the continuance of the system under
the Privy Council. In 1839 Lord Lansdowne stated in the
House of Lords that a permanent settlement of it at that
time was out of the question, that the arrangements were
merely temporary, liable to be modified or enlarged; and
Lord John, now Earl Russell, said in this house it was
not intended to apply it to the whol3 of the country. • The
fact was, the machinery had so enlarged as to require
more clerks than were employed in . the office of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and
it appeared in evidence before the Royal Commission
that, notwithstanding its enormous staff, it was at the
present moment totally inadequate to perforrit its duties.
That was the testimony of Mr. Lincoln, the secretary of
the Education Committee, who had been 14 years in the
office, and whose opinion was, that if the system were fully
carried out it mint break down unless they procured a much
larger establishment than Parliament would grant, and that
if the whole grant were withdrawn education would not
fall back in any great degree. The same evidence was given
by Mr. Carster, the assistant secretary, who stated in addi-
tion that the Committee of Privy Council was so over-
whelmed with details that there was no time to ascertain
the practical working of the whole scheme. The Royal
Commission recammended that the payments to be made
should be entrusted to the managers altogether, so as to do
away with the idea that the schoolmasters were stipendiaries
of the State. Those people threatened the Government, and
the house should take care that they did not even go farther.
The right hon. gentleman who last addressed the house said
the system was a national one; but how did that appear ?
He found by referring to the report, that while there Ni ere
6,897 assisted schools, there ware no less than 15,925 who
received no grant at all. In the county of Cornwall
there were 71 parishes having 600 children at school, but in
not one of those places, except the borough of Liskcard,
which he had the honour to represent, was any of them
connected with the present system. Then, let the house
see what the nature of the teaching was. If any hon. gen-
tlemen looked into the whole matter, and read, as ho had
done, five large volumes of evidence, which gave him a
terrible vertigo, he would see that it was too high for tho
children of the poor, too ambitious, and too much cramming
of children, instead of imparting to them the essential rudi-
ments of education. Mr. Fetzer stated that the failure to
obtain local aid in support of these schools, was the opinion
entertained by landlords and others that it was vicious in
this respect. He then gives an instance where he found a
young schoolmistress employed very earnestly and sedu-
lously in the discharge of her duties, but engaged in teach-
ing children a sum in long division, although they were not
even able to read the figures. Then came what were
termed training colleges, which he believed had also failed,
although they cost the country £2,544,000. There were
31 of them in England and Wales, containing 2,065 stu-
dents, male and female. They were founded mainly on the
self-supporting system, yet the college at Cheltenham coat
the Government 99 per cent for its expenses, and the others
90 percent. The result was that they bad more school-
masters than they could employ, and those now educated at
the public expense were allowed to compete with the sons
of those who paid for them in obtaining situations in the
public service. (Hear, hear.) The Rev. Mr. Glass, the
principal of the Battersea training school, stated in his evi-
dence that the supply was greater than the demand, and
that tho local subscriptions had fallen from £1,500 to £3OO.
Ho would suggest to his right hon. friend that it would bo
a good plan to appoint a select committee to inquire into the
whole system. He thought the question of principle of na-
tional education had been lost sight of. The effect of Go-
vernment interference with education in this country had
been to cripple all efforts to promote voluntary education.
But they had also evidence of a most conclusive character
upon the point—the evidence of two men who, from their
public situations, must have had peculiar information, and
were well qualified to give an opinion on the subject. Dr.
Temple, the master of Rugby School, said the system of
education had done great good, and ho thought that it
might bo productive of great harm if dependent upon Go-
vernment aid. Ile also thought that although the good
was increasing, the harm was increasing in a still greater
ratio, and no doubt, if the matter went on as is had been
doing, the grant would soon become enormous. Dr.
Vaughan, late master of Harrow School, said that nothing,
not eventhe defence of our shores, was so important as
education;rightly conducted. Ent yet in the teeth of all
that evidence they were, about to consolidate this sys-
tem, without
inquiring first what was the principle
uponTey whichr
hGovernment s
ceud
susci ao tni o no n s htzltd
qpureoset
oend
Now he could not conceive how this was at the present
period, which was so favourable for settling this
question at least. There they wore free from any party
spirit, albeit they had had a little infusion of it to-night—
a tincture from the University of Dublin. There they were
in ." Reform." " Its voice is never heard—our lips are
loath to speak that once familier word." (Laughter.) Even
the war panic was gone by, end there was n political-mil-
lennium. The Conservative lion was lying down by tho
Liberal lamb. (Laughter.) And if the noble lord at the

head of the Government could only get an Irish Lord of
the Treasury everything would be smooth. The-calm had
almost reached a state of stagnation—the "chickweed" was
on the face of their debate. (Laughter.) Why, then,
could not the Government come down to the house and
propound a scheme of unfettered national education in this
country, free from the trammels of Government assistance,
by gradually diminishing the Government allowance?
Since looking into the subject he had come to the con.,
elusion that if they wished the country to be educated
on right principle—if they wished to improve the
community, they would not continue this lavish
system of Government grants, or of conducting
the education of the country under a Government
office. The political views of parties should have nothing
to do with the education of the people. When he heard the
opinion of the majority of the Council of Education was in
favour of the Government scheme of education, he might
refer to the opinions of two gentlemen of the minority, viz.,
Mr. Miall and Mr. Toulmin Smith, who was one of the
rising lights of the present generation. They desired that
the system of education should be free and that the Govern-
ment should gradually abstain from the lavish expenditure
upon it, and that they should not make further money
grants except for the purposes of building. He could not
help thinking that the report of the minority was well
worthy the attention of the house. They had never yet dis-
cussed on what principles proper education should be con-
ducted, and so long as they were content to lavish those
sums without inquiry he felt confident that it was not by
this revised code they would be able to deal with it fully ;
but that they would be obliged eventually to say once for
all, you should put a stop to this lavish outlay from the
public expenditure. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ADDERLEY observed it was agreed on both sides
that some revision of the code of 1860 was necessary; the
only question was as to the time and mode of the revision.
The proposed revision had been unjustly characterised as
intended to revolutionise the present system; its apparent
object was to limit the interference of the Government, and
to revive the action of voluntary agency, which had been
overlaid by Government aid. So far the proposition was
wise, but the mode of carrying it out was a more difficult
question. After referring to certain points which had been
misunderstood by the opponents of the Revised Code, he
observed that there were two difficulties which he could not
at present see his way through. One was the proposal for
the individual examination of every scholar, not having
heard by what machinery it was to bo carried out. The
other was the effect which the various causes, diminishing
attendance during examination, might have the income of
schools. One great object of the code ought to be to spread
the Government grant, and extend the use of it throughout
the country, the poorer districts keeping aloof from the
Privy Councillthrongh terror of Government inspection—an
objection which the Revised Code would remove. He de-
precated the discussion of this question in relation to parti-
cular interest ; the primary consideration to be kept in view
was the good of the labouring classes, and how far Govern-
ment should come in aid of voluntary action. If that had
broken down, then let the Government take the manage..
ment into its own hands ; but, if the voluntary principle
was still alive, let means be taken to check Government in-
terference.
Mr. GOWER noticed and obviated various misappre-
hensions of the scheme of the Government, explaining and
defending the alterations it proposed. He considered the
fears entertained as to the financial prospects of the schools
exaggerated. Under the present system the pupil teachers
were paid at the same rate all over the country, though
wages differed in different parts ; whereas by the Revised
Code the managers could adapt the payment according to
circumstances.

Mr. LIDDELL said, if the existing system of education
was cumbrous and costly, the Privy Council had made it
so, from two motives—to save themselves trouble, and the
Exchequer expense. He regarded the revision of the Code
as one of a series of financial reforms—one, however, which
the people least required. He admitted the utility of such
reforms, but there were two modes of reforming—the right
and the wrong ; and, in his opinion, the Revised Code was,
in many of its details, a wrong method. He explained the
objections he entertained to some of the proposed changes,
and the evils and dangers he anticipated from them, espe-
cially the grouping of children by age. He complained of
some statements contained in the report of an Assistant
Commissioner, the charges in which, though groundless,
formed a part of the evidence upon which the revision of
the Code was founded.

Mr. BAINES considered that it was a great fault in both
the old Code and the new that the public money was in a
very large degree wasted upon schools which needed it the
least, or not at all, while those that required most had little,
or none, of the Government grant. He referred to instances
of largo sums given to schools in wealthy districts, where
parents were able to pay for the education of the children,
and the managers did not know what to do with the
capitation grant. This was a gross abuse of the public
charity, which had a demoralising effect and other injurious
consequences. He appealed to strong testimony in support
of this assertien, and contended that, in a very moderate
percentage upon the wages of the working classes, there
existed a large fund untouched for the education of the poor,
and that if the people were left to themselves it would make
greater progress, their ability and their Willingness to make
prevision having been demonstrated.
Sir J. PAKINGTON felt himself bound to support the
resolutions of his right hon. friend the member for the
University of Cambridge, in opposition to the scheme of
the Government; but he was very glad to find that the
views he had himself put forward on different occasions on
the subject had been sanctioned both by the report of the
Royal Commission and by the speech of the right hon. gen-
tleman the Vice-President of the Council. No one could
doubt that the present system was too centralised and too
costly, and failed in reaching those districts where educa-
tion was most wanted. He always considered that the
quantity of education was immaterial, unless the quality
was good ; and certainly there could be no doubt that it
had materially increased, for he found that while in 1845,
out of every 100 persdns married 41 per cent. could not
write their names, in 1860 it was diminished down to 30
per cent. His complaints against the right hon. gentleman
was, that he was borne out in saying he did not meet the
difficulty. He submitted that, as far as the 920,000 chil-
dren were concerned, the right hon. gentleman's plan
might answer ; but he did not enable them to extend the
system to the 1,250,000 children. They all remembered
the evidence of Mr. Lynden, that so great was the increase
in the amount of business in the Education-office, that the
whole system must break down if some change in it were
not made.. The right hon. gentleman told them that one
of his objects was to correct the evil of " centralisation;"
but he apprehended the right hon. gentleman would never
succeed in that object. In his opinion there was but one '
mode of correcting this centralisation system, and that was
by the establishment of local boards, with power of control.
The right, hon. gentleman complained of the great expense
which was incurred in carrying out the existing system ;
tut that arose from the extravagant payments made to par-
ticular schools. The right hon. geneeman told them that,
on looking- at the list of schools, he found one in which
there were 200 children, for whom £4 per head was paid,
others for wbom'M Os. per head was paid, others £1 75.,
and others for whom only 19s. per head was paid. Now
he (Sir John Pakington) maintained that by the establish.
ment of local agencies and of local boards the amount
might be greatly reduced, and by that system there would
be no further extravagance in the distribution of the money
given to schools. He found, according to the statement of
the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), that 'a large
amount of Government aid had been given tc some schools.
Now what was the character of those schools ? They
were schools to which it was questionable whether any
relief at all ought to be given. He quite agreed with the
right hon. gentleman in that opinion, and he must say
that the evil of endeavouring to carry out the education of
the country by a system of centralisation WAS 'a system
of extravagance they could not keep up. The right hon.
gentleman said Government were determined to adopt
the system of paying by results. He would tell the right
hon. gentleman that that system would not succeed. He
was anxious to know what was the principle upon which tho
Government were prepared to proceed. Was it the inten-
tion. of- the Government to maintair. the grant hitherto
given, and to make it spread over a wider area, or was it
their intention to reduce the grants altogeter ? In his opi-
nion, the right hon. gentleman's plan was intended not
merely to benefit and promote the welfare of schools, but
more especially so to promote the welfare of the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon.
gentleman stated in ono of his speeches that great extrava-
gance had resulted from the system of management. (Hear,
hear.) The Government, hb sail, were willing to give
.e. 500,000 in one year, and they were not unwilling to pro-
pose £600,000 in the next year. That was a serious charge.
In 1857 the right hon. gentleman charged the officers of
the Government with deluding the country. Did the right
hon. gentleman make that charge at present ? Now he
(Sir J. Pakington)
must say ifsever the charge was sub-
stantiable the ground for it would be found in the speech of
the right hon. gentleman. He did not want to recommend
any extravagance in the grants, but the question of extra-
vagance did not turn upon the amount, but upon the
manner in which they expended the money ; and if
they found assistance granted to schools that were not
entitled to it, and withheld it from other schools
that stood in need of it, ho must say that that was a sys-
tem of extravagance on the one hand, and of injustice on
the other, that could not fail to give dissatisfaction. Now
the establishment of local boards would correct that
system of abase, and the leading principles of the present
system were, according to the report of the Royal Com-
missioners, simply to combine the representative with the
local system, and thus enable the children of the country
generally, in all cases whore necessary, to participate in
the' advantages of national education. He did not agree
with the right hon, gentleman that a system of rates would
be unfair because it would throw the burden upon a smaller
fund. If it did so, at all events the burden would be borne
by those who derived the benefit. Wits there no defect in a
system which permitted such a state of things as this—that
in- the three counties of Hereford, Devon and Somerset
there were 605 Parishes with under 600 inhabitants each,
and only eight of them had schools in connexion with the
Privy Council, yet they bore their share in the taxation.
The injustice of the scheme was apparent in the extent to
which it drew revenue from a portion of the country which
derived no.benefit. The right hon, gentleman next referred

IVE SUN, LONDON. FRIDAY eVENDIG, MARCH 28, 1862.

test was not attendance but what Taus really :earned'
It
Take the regiment of Staffordshire militia, for trceance.
consisted of 846 men; out of this number 316 could read,
231 could read imperfectly, end 250 could not read at all.
On the contrary, take a regiment in South Holland, where
the attendance was worse, out of 688, 526 could read per-
fectly. Again, in the Birmingham House of Correction it
was found that out of 407 persons who had been at school
from two to five years, 70 were unable to write, 178 unable
to read, 32 only were able to work a rule in compound
arithmetic. These facts showed the necessity of pressure
being applied in the only proper quarter, namely, to the
managers of the schools, through the medium of examina-
tion. It was not merely a question of comparative education
and comparative cost with which they had to deal. In Eng-
land we did not pretend to do more than supplement private
and vgluntary effort, and to do that we paid £825,000 yearly.
But in France, where the State defrayed the whole cost, there
were 5,000 schools, educating 3,500,000 children, at a cost
of £1,700,000. In Ireland, where we took upon ourselves a
similar responsibility, the cost was £285,000, or 10s. a-head;
while in this country, for less efficient education, it was 11s
6d. a-head ; and In Scotland something of the same kind
might be seen. He had been asked what the cost under the
new system would be. How could he tell what education
would be given under the new system until it had been
tested by examination. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wal-
pole) had said it was doubtful whether it would be either effi-
cient or economical. If the house adopted his resolutions
there would be no doubt the education would neither be effi-
cient nor cheap. The fact of the matter was thatno one could
foresee what efficient examination as a constant stimulus
would effect. The work of a school was never done. It might
be described as a luminous circle surrounded by a large dark
belt of ignorance. Every successive generation that came
Into the world added to that black belt, and it was the mis-
sion of the school to illuminate it to the greatest possible
extent. The eases of individual hardship had been pointed
out. But how could a central department of Govern-
' meat deal with such cases ? Was it intended that there
should be Rome 20 or 30 different sets of rules, under any
one of which the Minister for the time being might place
applicants according to his pleasure. If so, it would im-
mensely increase Government patronage, and make the de-
partment itself a den of iniquity. He therefore saw no way
to administer the grant except under a general code. If
the system had been other than it was the administration
might have been different, but he took the system as he
found it, sanctioned by Parliament and successive Govern-
ments. He did not impugn either the decision of Parlia-
ment or the commission; all he wanted was that it should,
as far as possible, be administered,honestly, efficiently, and
economically. The real difference between himself and the
right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich was the
system of examination, but how could they test the effi-
ciency of the teaching in the schools unless it was adopted ?
The right hon. gentleman the member for Cambridge com-
plained that, in regard to religious teaching, there was no
safeguard whatever; but how did that appear? In the
first instance, religious instruction was absolutely insisted
on, or the grant would be entirely withdrawn, and surely
that did not look as if such instruction were discouraged.
Again, if the children in any school could not read, write,
or cipher, one-third of the grant given to each child not
being able to do so was withdrawn—and when it had been
said religion was entirely neglected, he could only say that
the penalty for neglect on that head was the heaviest; and
for a proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic, the
very lightest. With respect to what had been said respect-
ing inspectors, he could only say that they would be in the
same rank of life as the managers of schools; and as to the
pupil teachers, instead of being subjected, as under the old
system, to the caprice and very often tyranny of the mas-
ters who employed them, they would now be engaged
directly by the Government for five years, with
liberty on each side to give six months' notice.
The noble lord the member for Stafford made an attack
upon him the other night for having, as he alleged, ex-
posed the pupil teachers because their agreements were not
stamped. Now, so far from that, his object was to protect
the pupil teachers against the injustice to which they were
exposed by the mere quibble by which they had done in-
justice to them, and the object of the Government was to
see that they should be properly paid. (Hear.) The system
of pupil teaching had worked admirably, and the pupil
teachers had shown themselves very clever and very able
instructors. He was greatly gratified at the manner in
which this debate had been carried on. It was most satis-
factory. It was quite certain that the existing system could
not go on, and that it required great alteration in relation
to the application of the grants. He hoped, in conclusion,
in order to place this question on a proper and sound foot-
ing, every gentleman in the house would give him such
assistance on the way, and application of grants, as would
secure to the children of the poor of the country a sound
education. (Hear, and cheers.)
Mr. WALPOLE admitted that his right hon. friend had,
in many instances, made a very able reply, but ho, in some
points, was not satisfactory. For instance, in the case of
the pupil teachers, the right hon. gentleman said they had
been treated with injustice.
Mr. LOWE—Most improperly so.
Mr. WALPOLE—WeII, then, when the Government,
who paid for their instruction, saw that they were treated
with injusticee,:bcause their deeds of apprenticeship were
not stamped, why did they not take stops to remedy that
defect, and protect the teachers against the injustice com-
plained of. The right hon. gentleman concluded by saying
he would persist in his motion.
The house then went into committee pro forma, and it
having been arranged by Sir G. GREY that the Revised
Code would stand as the first order to-morrow (this day),
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again.
The house resumed.
COPYRIGHT (WORKS OF ART) BILL.

to the recommendation of the commissioners, that the
Charity Commission should be united to the Committee of
Council, and that a large number of small endowments, in
most caseeuseless, and in some cases mischievous, should
be appropriated to the educatien of the poor of the district.
In an anonymous pamphlet which had that day been placed
in his hands he found a tabulated statement, from which it
appeared that in various parts of England there were 547
endowed grammar schools, and 2,405 other endowed schools,
and of the latter it might be said, that they were doing no
good whatever. There were several of them in Worcester,
and they were the Very worst schools he knew. By follow-
ing the advice of the commissioners a considerable sum
would be made available. If the right hon. gentleman had
framed a statesmanlike measure, which combined the re-
commendations of the conamiseioners with the best parts of
the present system, he might have settled this question, not
for eVet, perhaps, but for a brig time to come. But the
right hon. gentleman had not the courage to grapple with
the question in this spirit, and the result had been that they
had committed a most serious mistake, giving us all the
evils of change without the advantages of improvement.
This was not a question of principle but of detail. It might
be said, perhaps, there was the principle of payment by re-
sults, but that principle was as old as the Privy Council
system, and this was only a question of detail se to how it
should be carried out. He contended therefore that the,
question raised by the Revised Code was a question not of
principle bat of detail, and that all its details were objec-
tionable. He was not at all insensible to the defects of the
present system, but he should not be prepared to abandon
it till he was sure of something better. The right hon. baro-
net quoted from a letter published by the Archdeacon of
Worcester, eatteral statements setting forth the objection-
able features of the nevised Code,and showing how it would
press with peculiar severity on that district. He then asked,
what was the answer to be given to that etatement ? How
would the difficulties connected with the uncertain attend-
ance of children at the eehools be met? They had heard it
stated the other evening, by Alt hon. gentleman on that side
of the house, that in his district not tam than 50 per cent.
of the children of the labouring classes gave 169 attendances
in the course of the year. What would it be in remote dis-
tricts, and in the crowded enbarbs of towns ? Then again,
who were those managers of schools ? In the immense ma-
jority of does they were the clergy of this Country. (Hear.)
Their conduct had been beyond all praise, and it ivenld be a
most unwise and unjust return to tell them that they =tat
incur risks which it would be imporriMe for them to afford.
According to Mr. Fraser's report the average subscription of
the clergy to the schools was at the rate of 10 glikreas per
annum, while the landowners gave £5 each on an average,
and landoccupiers considerably below that amount. In the
district alluded to by Mr. Fraser the burthen fell on the
clergy. Would it be wise to expose those men to the chance
of incurring unknown risks, or the certainty of increased
payments ? Against the want of wisdom in such an ar-
rangement he must protest, because he believed the result
must be to undermine the beat portions of the present
system. From the report of Mr. Watkins they learned
that in the northern district not one half of the children
remained in the schools for one year. Many of them re-
mained for eight or nine months, and went away before
the day fixed for the examination. How was the manager
to be remunerated for the labour, care, and anxiety be-
stowed on their- elementary education ? Evidently the
proposed plan would in this respect be a direct inducement
to the masters of rural schools to neglect the education of
those children—those who were most dull requiring the
greatest attention. Moreover, there was the chance of the
clever children deserting him at the last moment. That
portion of the scheme, where the right hon. gentleman pro-
posed fourth-class certificates, was one which he approved,
because he believed it would benefit the humbler and
lower classes; but he could not find words to express his
feelings of regret at the intended withdrawal of all Go-
vernment aid from those• schools which were attended by
the most destitute and pitiable of all classes—he meant
the ragged and industrial schools. (Hear, hear.) Now,
from that decision of the Government he dissented, and he
certainly must confess ho had hoped that when an op-
portunity was presented to the Government of revising the
educational code, they would not have withheld the benefit
of State assistance from that class of schools which stood
more in need of it than any other class in the country.
(Hear, hear.) He regarded the whole of the plan of the
Government with feelings of regret; and he could not re-
frain from expressing his surprise that the noble duke
now a member of the Cabinet, who had so ably discharged
the duties of chairman of the Royal Commission, should
have consented, as he supposed he had consented, to the
introduction of a system which, really and practically,
ignored and repudiated the laborious results of that com-
mission. (Hear, hear.) For a far different result, indeed,
he had looked. They had heard a great deal of the un-
willingness of hon. members to give a party character or
complexion to the consideration of this most important
question. If any man in that house had a right to say that
he was free from party bias in connection with the subject,
he (Sir J. Pakington) thought he was that man. (Hear.)
On more than one occasion he had risked his connection
with that party, with whom he acted during the whole of
his political life, because he refused to abandon his strong
convictions on this subject. (Hear, hear.) When Earl
Russell introduced his resolutions in 1856 he stood almost
alone on that side of the house in giving his beat support to
the plan of the noble earl: He did so because he believed
the principles on which the plan was based were sound,aud
he believed so still, and in the same spirit had he been able
to concur in the plan of the right hon. gentleman, no party
considerations would have deterred him from giving it his
warmest support. (Hear, hear.) He regretted the propo-
sal of the right hon. gentleman and of the Government.
He regarded it as absurd, and he should meet it with a de-
cided negative. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOWE said the right hon. gentleman had told them
he would show why ho opposed the proposition of the Govern-
ment, and why he supported the plan brought forward in
opposition by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole). He
regretted, he said, that Government had not taken advan-
tage of the report of the commission,and thrown the expense
upon the county rates, He (Mr. Lowe) thought he had a
right to complain of the course which the right hon.gentle-
man had pursued, but be could not at that time of night
trouble the house with any remarks till they should go into
committee. On the 27th of February, he understood they
had come to an agreement that they would go into com-
mittee, and that being so, he did not think he would be
justified in going into matters which must be gone into in com-
mittee. His right hon.friend the member for North Stafford-
shire had stated certain difficulties which lay in the way of
the proposed plan, and had asked for answers.. The first
difficulty his right hon. friend sail would be to got the
children to attend the examination. As he (Mr. Lowe) had
stated he could not go into details now, but he might be
permitted to observe that the attendance of the children at
the school when it was being inspected was 7 per cent.
larger than 'during the year; and as to the second point
started he (Mr. Lowe) did not think there would be any
practical difficulty in examining the children. Mr. Coo'4o
and Mr. Norris both bore testimony to the fact that there
would be no practical difficulty c n that point. The right
hon. gentleman then referred to the personal charges which
he said had been made against him by the right hon. and
learned member for the University of Dublin (Mr. White-
side), and contended that the facts of the case would not
warrant the right hon. gentleman in making such charges.
Ile thought that the statement made by the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Adderley) was a complete answer to the
charge brought against him on this point by the right hon.
gentleman the member for the University of Dublin. He
was therefore right in saying that it was upon the report of
the inspectors that the grants were made to the schools.
Why was he the only man, then, that could entertain such
an opinion ? Ho now came to the third charge brought
against him by the right hon. gentleman. He alluded to
the fact that the right hon. gentleman charged him (Mr.
Lowe) with making use of the report of the inspector refer-
red to to justify the allegation that "priestly tyranny" had
been exercised by the clergy over the master. Now, what
was the fact ? Why, that he referred to the report for the
purpose of denouncing it, bat at the same time to show that
the masters were a discontented class. It was not likely that
he who knew the interest which the clergy took in the suc-
cess of the schools which were placed under their control,
and of the improvement of the pupils, would ever allow
himself to use words towards them as calculated to show
that they exercised a "priestly tyranny" over the nets-
ters. But the right honourable gentleman was not content
with making this charge against him, but he used the
very report to which he referred for the purpose of show-
ing that ho (Mr. Lowe) adopted it in order to libel the
masters. The right hon. gentleman seemed to him to deal
with this great and important question for the purpose of
introducing into it some miserable petty squabble more
suited to the politics of an Irish pariah than to the conside-
ration of so great a subject as that now before the house.
But the right hon, gentleman, with all his ingenuity, had
not thought it right to make himself acquainted with the
details of the question, as now shown by the way in which
he dealt with the subject of the examination of children.
Why, the deliberate opinion of the inspector was, that exa-
mination was the test by which the system was to be regu-
lated. Passing, then, from the right hon. gentleman—which
he did with great pleasure— (a laugh)—the first question
related to the deficiency of the education of the children.
Ile based his argument on this subject on the report of Mr.
Norris, the inspector, who had said that three-fourths of
the children had left the schools without being properly
educated. That error bad, however, been very properly
pointed out by Mr. Birko, whose lettor had been quoted in
the course of the debate, and from which it appeared that
the report of the commissioners said that three-fourths of
the children left school without entering the first class. He
admitted his error. There really was no means of knowing
what number of children were improperly educated, and he
had been mislead in following the authority of Mr. Norris
in reference to that point. The right hon. gentleman then
referred to the evidence of Mr. Cooke, one of the Govern-
ment inspectors, for the purpose of showing that the
reading, writing, and ciphering of the children iu
schools was not such as could bo desired. The
conclusion to which the commissioner's came was,
that the present system was too ambitious in its aims,
and that it effected too little at too great. a cost. The
hon. member for Bradford seemed to think that because,
in comparison with otfior nations, we stood highest in the
list except Prussia, as to the amount of attendance at
schools, that therefore
.our education is Pod, but the

The amendments on this bill were considered and agreed

MARINE MUTINY BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
OFFICERS COMMISSIONS BILL.

- _
The Lords' amendments on this bill were considered and
agreed to.
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACT (186 l).
This bill was read a third time and passed.
REGISTER OF VOTERS BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this bill, the
house divided, when there appeared—

For the third reading 6l
Against it
Majority in favour
The bill was then read a third time.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES.

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN moved for leave to bring in a
bill to facilitate the appointment of stipendiary magistrates
in cities, towns, and boroughs, of 25,000 inhabitants and
upwards.
It was subsequently road a first time.
The house adjourned at I.P.

DEPRESSION OF THE SHIPPING
. INTEREST.

.~----♦-

(From the Liverpool Telegraph.) -
A fow days ago we called attention to the depressing in-
fluence of the American struggle on the shipping interest,
as evidenced by the fact of a decrease of 338 vessels in our
port in March, 1862, as compared with the corresponding
month of 1861. From our own sources we have compiled
the following statement of the decrease of registered ton-
nage comprised in this "falling-off" of vessels, the docks
being arranged as they are placed in our Dock Directory :
111AncH 21, 1861. MARCH 21, 1862.
Tons. Tons.
Birkenhead .. .. 11,240 Birkenhead 29,327
Canada .. .. 41,035 Canada .. .. 33,237
Huskisson .. 27,153 Huskisson .. 20,359
Sandon .. 18,032 Sandon .. 11,313

Wellington .. 13,338 Wellington .. 8,725
Bramley-Moore .. 35,044 Bramley-Moore .. 19,369
Nelson .. .. 10,144 Nelson .. .. • . 7,100
Stanley .. 22,770 Stanley .. .. 9,275
Salisbury .. .. 4,319 Salisbury .. 6,761
Collingwood .. 2,808 Collingwood 711
Clarence Half-tido.. 1,050 Trafalgar 299
Victoria .. .. 13,404 Victoria .. .. 9,922
Waterloo .. .. 17,753 Waterloo .. 8,947
Prince's .. 33,060 Prince's .. 28,383
GeOrge's 10,487 George's 8,775
Canning .. 4,996 Canning .. .. 1,805
Salthouse .. 15,218 Salthouse 7,425
Albert .. .. 20,611 Albert .. 7,037
Wapping .. .. 10,940 Wapping .. .. 3,506
Do. Basin .. 2,766 Do. Basin .. • . 569
King's.. 17,806 King's 8,423
Queen's 30,705 Queen's • . 19,592
Do. Half-tide .. 3,915 Do. 14;1f-tide .. 759
Coburg .. 21,902 Coburg •• .. 12,711
Brunswick 41,711 Brunswick • • .. 24,118
Toxteth .. 2,083 Toxteth • . . • 767
Harrington .. 1,285 Harrington •• .. 964
Graving Docks.. .„ 32,445 Graving Docks.. 12,921

_467,997 I Total ..813,100
Total
p ee.re .asen 1862 .
As compared with March 21, 1861, there is thus a decrease
i. 154,897 Tons.
of tonnage in our docks in this corresponding month
(March 21, 1862) of 154,897 tons, or more than one-third
—a convincing fact of how deeply we are interested in the
termination of the American contest, and pregnant with
thoughts of loss of business, straitened means, and destitu-
tion in Liverpool and the manufacturing towns. That this
lamentable decrease may be attributed to the contest raging
on the other side of the. Atlantic, few at all acquainted with
commercial matters will deny, for, with freights to the
Bast Indies, China, and elsewhere good, and shipping
arrived
et a
employed
to most parts, no other sound con-
clusiont, and we can only wish the end of
gener a ly
can well
be
rri
the struggle was as equally clear. 'With the exception of
Birkenhead, all the docks show a decrease in March of this
year, and a word of explanation is perhaps here necessary.
The more than doubling of the tonnage at Birkenhead
arises from the fact that most vessels lying up go there
from considerations of economy, so that the increase is more
apparent than real, and must not be set down as an excep-
tional instance of increase, or as a fact denoting increased
local prosperity. That we shall have a revival of commer-
cial prosperity there is little question, but it will be a work
of time to restore things to the equilibrium of 12 months or
two years ago ; and when this does come to pass, many
now struggling on in hope, from day to day, of a better,
state of things, will -then perhaps bo indifferent about' the
matter, and regard the change merely as disinterested spec-
tators,

NEWARK.

There was only a small am(
and very few farmers at marl
lower. Barley and other grai:
White wheat, new, 60s to 63s
Red do. sss to 51s
Old white 6os to 63s
Red do.. 468 to 56s
Barley, malting 32s to 39s

.ROMA.NTIC CASE I9F BIGAMY
MANCILES,TER.

At the Leeds assizes last Satt.u•day, before Mr. Justice
-Mlles, Isa,be.lla Milward, who haol been out on bail, sur-
rendered to t,a,ke her trial on a char,Te of bigamy. The pri-
ep mourning, and appeared to be nearly 40
Ii • Sept., 1845, a person- of the name of Thos.
• to be an idle, dissi pated, and cruel bus..
•ed to the prisoner act Prestwich Church.
••els, and tempwary separations, Mil-4
yearss el
r avo .fd
11
isv ago.
dr
aa o r
Millard turned out .
band. After many oar.
ad had never lived.with her since
ward deserted his wife,cal.
.ged in Net v castle- on-Tyne, and
1851. In 1852 the cholera ra.
hand had, died of that disease,
prisoner hearing, that her la-Lek
of the name of Renshaw/
of
was married in 1854 to a person
who died in 1856: and the widow was denied to a man
, the name of Roberts, who sometime
nshaw and of :Igo also died. During
the time the prisoner was the wife of itt
berts, she had saved a considerable 0101 of money, which
Roberts had frequently wished to get hohl of that he might
invest it for his own advantage, but she hoe, always rwishedesisted
-r to ad-
his entreaties. When Roberts died the prise %
minister to her husband's estate with a view •ef having her
own savings legally invested in herself. Who' the widower
intention of administering became known to the brother of
the deceased husband, measures were taken to prey 'out letters
of administration being issued ; and to justify this course it
became necessary to invalidate the marriage of E oberts,
by endeavouring to prove that Milward, the first hug !band,
was not only alive at the time of the second and third mare
riagea, but that he was actuaily living at Birkenhead: tt :so
late a date as the 11th of January last. The prosec utiou
called witnesses to prove that the prisoner was marrit wl to
Milward, and that, with her knos"ledge of his being living
at the time, she was married a seco..ad time to a person of
the name of Renshaw ; and also, after Renshaw's ileatll7
with the knowledge of her first husband being alive, she
was married a third time to Roberts. Witnesses for. the
prosecution could not remember the prisoner ever going
into mourning for Milward. For the defence it was con-
tended that Mr. Owen Roberts, the brother of the deceased
husband of the prisoner, wishing to become possessed of the
property which the woman had saved, had contrived to get
a number of poor women to depose to assumed facts neces-
sary to prove the case of the prosecution, and thereby leave
him next of kin to the deceased. Several witnesses were
&led to prove that the prisoner, in 1852, went into mourn'
ing, and put her children also into mourning, she having
heard that Milward had died of cholera, in Newcastle-or
Tyree witnesses also proved that there had been a quarrel
betwen Owen Roberts, brother of the deceased, and tho
prisoner, about the property deceased possessed. The learned
judge in his summin,l up told the jury if they believed that
the prisoner, within seven years of either of her marriages,
bad a knowledge of he:* ,Irst husband being alive, they
must find her guilty. The ).-IrY found the prisener guilty;
and she was sentenced to ono day's imprisonment. The
sentence was received with claplling of hands by a crowded
Court. The applause was, ho
vrever, immediately or'
pressed.

COUN2BY L2S.

~,,,,,,,,

LYNN—MAncs 25.
The supply of wheat was limited, and iho trade rule'
dull, at Is decline. Barley scarce, and at extreme prices.
Oats, beans, and peas unaltilred.
Old white 56s to 60s i Barley. 34s to 369.
RA.. .. 54s to 55s 1 Oats.. .220 to 26.-:
Beans .42s:to 48s I i'/eas 37s to 3P;

—MA-itton 26.
oust oS business done to-dait
ket. "An:leat and oats rather
in also at. a reduction.
Barley, gi finding 29s to
31
Oats, old, , • oos to .5g
New d 0.... 23s to 210
1 8ean5....... 4ss to 470
Beans, new.. • 44s to --3
.488 to 545.

PLYMOUTH—MARCH 25.
The market was poorly attended, with an average, cle_l23#4.
for wheat and flour at a decline on last week's rates. W
wheat, 65s to 66s ; red, 63s to 64s per qr ; French do., DV'
to 62s ; American, 61s to 63s ; Spanish, 74s to 76s ;
P
sian, 60s to 625. Barley at higher rates-34s to 3SSJ U'A
qr for malting ; grinding, 28s to 30s ; oats, 22s to 28s ; 51;1"
beans, —s to —s ; flour, 43s to 46s Od.

EDINBURGH GRAIN—BIAncn 26.
Wheat on the top 2s 6d up .average is Id do'
on the top is Od up. average Os 3d Maio
Oats on the top is Od down average Os ld up.
Beans on the top is 9d down average is Od up.
Total Supply and Sales.
Wheat .1090 qr 5........ Sold` 814 qrs
Barley... ' 913 qr 5........ Sold 618 qrs
Oats 2075 qr 5..... .. Sold 99.1 qrs
Beans 286 qrs ....Sold :165 qrs

CORK—MARCII 26. lied
The following were the quotations this morning
wheat, 22s 9d to 24s 6d ; white, 31s 6d to —s Od; barleY
Od to 13s Od ; oats, 5s Od to 16s Od.;

DERBY SMITHFIELD—MAiteu 25.
There was a short supply of fat beasts to-day, and
th
price slightly advanced, with plenty of buyers. The suprY,.
of sheep was also short, and higher prices were asked.
and store calves were an unusually large show, and the
shoW of fat pigs was good.
Beet
Mutton ... 6d to 6/d Veal . ..........
Lamb 71(1 to Sid Pork ......... 6d,
Od to Od Rough fat, 45 ipt
r stone.
Hides, 3d to 4/d ; calf skins, 5d to Gu•
to tqd