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

GLOVE TRADE.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from Yeovil against the importation of foreign gloves.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

The Earl of RODEN had a variety of petitions to pre-
sent from parishes in eight different counties of Ireland.
The petitioners resided in distant parts of the country, and
differed in their religious persuasion; but they all agreed
in the same prayer, and in the declaration that the system
of education proposed by his Majesty's Government was
impolitic, impracticable, and unchristian. In this decla-
ration he perfectly concurred. He was an individual, who,
in common with the mass of Irish Protestants, conceived
there could be no system of education which was not little
worth, excepting that which was founded on the plan of
instilling moral principles into those under its care, and
that there was no rule of sound morality but that which
was to be found in the unmutilated word of God.—(Hear.)
He proceeded to say, that it appeared from evidence given
before the Royal Commission in 1825, that the Roman
Catholic population were not averse to Scriptural educa-
tion, but the Priests were ; and he particularly alluded to
the evidence of a Mr. Griffith, having first remarked
that it was well to understand that there was a difference
between the Kildare-street Society and the London Hiber-
nian Society. The first courted the favour of the Priests,
by forbidding any oral interpretation of the Scriptures in the
schools ; the latter insisted on it. He then proceeded to read
extracts from Mr. Griffith'sevidence, wherein he stated that
he had abundant opportunity for observation, and had
come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic
population were not averse to Scriptural education
The Kildare-street schools had greatly increased. Their
number last year, when his Majesty's Government had
withdrawn all public support from them, was 1,634 ; and
the number of scholars 132,500. After reading an ex-
tract from the explanatory letter of the Chief Secretary
for Ireland to the Duke of Leinster, with reference to the
powers of the Board of Education, the Noble Lord pro-
ceeded to declare, that the regulations to which that let-
ter adverted, and which prevented the Scripture from
being read in an unmutilated form in the schools of Ire-
land, was contrary to the wish of many of the Roman
Catholics, and of the great body of the Protestants of
Ireland. The Protestantsiof Ireland from north to south,
from east to west, were adverse to these regulations. He
could assure their Lordships that the Protestants of Ire-
land were a most enlightened body of men. They wore
above two millions and a half in number, and possessed a
moral energy not to be surpassed by any class whatever.
They were unwilling that for any political experiment, or
fur any supposed political expediency, that one word of
that Bible, for which so many of their fathers had bled,
should be omitted in the instruction of their offspring.
The result of this act of his Majesty's Government was to
render them most unpopular throughout Ireland. They
were popular neither with the one party nor the other ;
and he denied that there was any third party, except the
few individuals whom the purlieus of the Castle-yard at
Dublin might hold. In proof of this statement, the
Noble Lord read an extract from a document signed by
230,000 Protestants of Ireland, condemning the sys-
tem adopted. There was also the opinion expressed
at the county meetings of Fermanagh, Sligo, Armagh,
Tyrone, Cavan, and Monaghan; at all which meet-
ings the High Sheriff was in the chair. So much for
the laity. Nov, what was the opinion of the Protestant
clergy in Ireland, of all denominations ? In the first place,
there was the opinion of the clergy of the Established
Church in that country—a Church which deserved every
praise that cou Id be bestowed upon it. The Noble Lord
here read a letter from a clergyman of the Established
Church in Ireland to Dr. Sadler, protesting in the strongest
terms against the disuse of the Bible in its entire form.
Then there was the Pre,bytery of Ulster, consisting of a
great many men of influence and character, and of active
and irreproachable conduct. He hoped that their Lord-
ships would give to this most important question, occurring
as it did at this most important crisis, the attention which
it deserved. The country was most anxious on the subject.
It was no trifling interference to interfere with matters of
conscience. He warned his Majesty's Ministers not to
persist in their present course, and not to bring down upon
themselves the indignation of God, by withholding from
any portion of the people those Scriptures, which He had
commanded should be disseminated through the earth.
The title of the first of the petitions having been read,
Lord PLUNKETT said, as far as his observation went,
and as far as the observations of others who had extensive
means of judgment went, the opinion of the great body of
the Protestants of Ireland did not coincide with that ex-
pressed by the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord said that
there were only two parties in Ireland ; those who were
ultra on the one side, and those who were seditious on the
other. God forbid that Ireland should be in such a condi-
tion ! He denied that
afi
shi t
ontehnhtwsopebEcyostoofsdpsuoo:
nff.raf
toeeerdrlryaeA.ntnliydt,
vesl
tathweperesmrgentee:::tep:
Dr,toevri
preservation
becamet
ti
unanimousiooto hnbnel
eooN of
Lf
ootdtbhlrierl
ndeee.
people of Ireland were sound in their doctrines and feelings,
de-
sirable sn,rdaeibrrolte tranquillitye asserted
t condemnationt toltrstyet andhthe
a spt restedarafeos ttsoyeefshrottti
Lord refer to the Nobility of Ireland ? He (Lord
Plunkett) could inform the House, he could inform—or
rather he would remind the Noble Lord (for it was a fact
of which the Noble LOrd could not but be aware)—that
of all the nobility of Ireland only eight attended the meet-
urge to which the Noble Lord had alluded. The Noble

gin said that the aep;ne IH iteii Was the oat-
aimous opinion of the t clergy of Ireland; and
o
in support of that Noble Lord read a letter
from a Protestant clergymititFivho certainly did agree with
the Noble Lord, to another Protestant clergyman %he as
certainly did not agree with the Noble Lord—no very
convincing proof that the Protestantelergy of Ireland were
unanimous in their opinion.—(A laugh.) 'With respect
to the letter in question, it was written in a taunting,
ironical style, and with a spirit which in his (I oid
Plunkett's) humble. opinion was altogether inconsistent
with that of Christian charity.. And to whom was; it ad-
dressed ? To Dr. Sadler ; as pious and as respectable' a
man as any in the Church. He confessed that he had
never heard any letter upon so serious and important a
subject, which appeared to him to be expressed in so re.
prehensible a manner as this letter quoted by the Noble
Lord. If it were the true Scriptural it were the
proper style of Protestantism, as the Noble Lord seemed
to suppose—then he (Lord Plunkett) would beg leave to
observe that there were persons who fancied they had ar-
rived at the acme of Protestantism, without having taken
the paths of Christianity,—(Hear, hear, hear.) With
truth.—.(Hear,
petitionerseusei
._(ct tolitela r
,e petitions,
represented t h e
tNoblethe
g iLeoartd
hfiordsyt assumedth at
Pro-
testants of Ireland, and next assumed, as facts, a series of
proposition, which were totally at valiance with the
hear.) The subject of national edu
cation had been frequently before their Lordships
He wished they were all duly impressed with its im-
portance. He quite agreed with the Noble Lord on the
especial advantages of education in Ireland ; on the value
of giving to the various parties habits of discipline, of
obedience, of moral conduct, and of conviction of the
sacred truths of religion. He agreed with the Noble Lord
that no system of education could be safe or useful in any
country which was not based on the great principles of
religion—in a Christian country which was not based on
the great principle of the Christian religion. Note, there
were but two modes that presented themselves to his mind,
in which such an education could take place in Ireland.
Either there must be separate schools for Protestants and
Catholics, or there must be joint schools for both. The
first was to be deprecated as tending to perpetuate the dif-
ferences and animosities of the two parties. The best
mode of effecting a joint education, therefore, was the ob-
ject which ought to be pursued. To do this they ought
to have a system of education founded on the great prin-
ciples of religion—founded on the great principles of Christi-
anity, but not so constructed that either of the great parties
into which Ireland was divided could not join in it. W. re
they then to adopt a system which should preclude the
Roman Catholics from participating in its advartages.
Every rational person must see, that although the Roman
Catholic and Protestant differed on some points, they
agreed on the principles of our religion. They
agreed in acknowledging one God—they agreed in ac-
knowledging the same Redeemer—they agreed that men
were to be judged according to their actions—they hoped
for the remission of sins by our Saviour. Now, was there
nothing in all these points of agreement, on which to
found a system of joint instruction. Nor did he rest this
on the reason of the thing, he rested it on documents
which, attached to the Protestant religion as the Noble
Lord was, he must regard with respect. In the first place,
however, he begged to tell the Noble Lord, that it never
entered the head of any human being to say the sacred
Scriptures ought to be withdrawn from either the Protes-
tant or any other schools. Such assertions had been made,
but he would take the liberty of saying that never were
assertions so unfounded. The proposition was this :
There shall be public schools established for the joint in-
struction of Catholic and Protestant children. On four
days in the week they shall receive instruction in common,
of a literary and moral character—not excluding the Bible
under certain limitations ; and on two days in the week
they shall be under the superintendence of masters belong-
ing to their respective churches, when they may study the
Scriptures without any limitation whatever. Now, was
it fair to say it was the intention of his Majesty's Govern-
ment to debar the children from the use of the Scriptures?
Could anything be more untrue than such an allegation ?
Nor was that all. Even on the four days on which the
Protestant and the Catholic children were to receive in-
struction in common, the children of both parties, previ-
ously to going to school, and after their separation, were
to have access to the Scriptures, and might receive instruc-
tion in them. Nor was that all. Even in the school-hours
selections from such parts of the Scriptures as were fitted
for moral lessons, and calculated to make the children good
men and valuable citizens, were to be read by them. But
the Noble Lord said they must have what he called the
unmutilated Scriptures. He really did not exactly un-
derstand the Noble Lotd. Did the Noble Lord mean that
the whole of the Gospel must be read at all times ? On
what principle did the Noble Lord maintain that there
ought to be no selection from the Scriptures? Whatever
the principle might be, it was contrary to the practice of
the Protestant Church ; for what was the principal part of
the service of that Church but a selection from the Srip-
tures? The Noble Lord might as well charge with irre-
ligion the pious pet sons who framed our Liturgy, and call
upon the heads of the Church to substitute for it some un-
mutilated form. There was, however, something more
extraordinary than all, in answer to the view which the
Noble Earl had taken on this subject. He held in his
hand a document, dated in October, 1812. It was the
fourteenth report from the Commissioners of the Board of
Education in Ireland. Front that report he would, with
the permission of their Lordships, read a passage. The
Commissioners, speaking of the books for the new schools,
said—" In such a selection of books for the new schools,
we doubt not but it will he found practicable to introduce
not only a number of hooks, in which moral principles
will be inculcated in such a manner as is likely to make
deep and lasting impressions on the youthful mind, but also
ample extracts from the sacred Scriptures themselves, an
early acquaintance with which we dee:n of the utmost im-
portance, and indeed indispensable, in forming the mind to
just notions of duty and sound principles of conduct." Were
these the " mutilations" to which the Noble Lord alluded?
The report proceeded :--" It appears to us that a selection
may be made in which the most important parts of
sacred history shall he included, together with all the pre-
cepts of morality, and all the instructive examples by which
these precepts are illustrated and enforced, and which shall
not be liable to any of the objections which have been
made to the use of the Scriptures in the course of educa-
tion." Was this the profanity—was this the mutilation
of which the Noble Lord spoke? But still further :
" The study of such a volume of extracts from Sacred
Writings would, in our opinion, form the best preparation
for that more particular religious instruction which it
would be the duty, and, we doubt not, the inclination also,
of their several Ministers of religion to give at proper
times, and in other places, to the children of their respec-
tive congregations." Here,. then, was the origin of the
conspiracy against the Protestant Church in Ireland de-
nounced by the Noble Lord. And who were these dan-
gerous conspirators? William Armagh, the Primate of
all Ireland, the late Dr. Stewart, James Killalla, Isaac
Corry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland in
Mr. Pitt's time ; Thomas Ebrington, Provost of Trinity
College, now Bishop of Ferns, the very champion of Pro-
testantism ; J. Whitelaw, Richard Lovell, Edgeworth ; and,
moat
the substanceeteixtraor of thelinaryofa rll,,prt ofie CommissionJoohnL.tFiost—(li of 18
Foster.—(Hear.)
This
w
Ile would nosy take leave to read to their Lordships a few
extracts from the report of the Commission of 1825. That
Commission was composed of Mr. Frankland Lewis, a
gentleman who had devoted much time to the question of
Irish education, and who was deeply impressed with its
importance ; Mr. Leslie Foster, Mr. William Grant, a
gentleman well known to many of their Lordships, Mr.
Glasford, a Protestant Dissenter, and Mr. Blake, the
Chief Remembrancer of Ireland. These were the gentle-
men composing the Commission, and he would read one
or two extracts from their report. Atter observing that
the differences which prevail on the subject of religious
instruction render it impossible that the old system could
be continued, the Commissioners proceed thus to state the
course which they recommend We propose that public
schools of general instruction shall be established, one at
least in each benefice, in which literary instruction shall
be communicated to children of all religions persuasions.
That two teachers, to be appointed by the general superin-
tending authority (the establishment of which we shall
subsequently recommend), shall he employed in each
school, where the extent of attendance shall be suf-
ficient to justify the expence ; that they shall each of them
be laymen, and that one of them shall he a Roman Catholic
where any considerable number of the Roman Catholics
are in attendance on the school; and that a Presbyterian
teacher shall be provided in those schools where the num-
ber of children beloneing to that communion shall ren-
der such appointment necessary or expedient ; that on
two days in the week the school shall break up at an
early hour, and the remainder of the day be devoted to
the separate religious instruction of the Protes ants ;
the clergyman of the Established Church attending for
the purposes at once of superintendence and assist,axie.ns;
and the Presbyterian Minister likewise, if he shall so
oilierk
fit, fur the children of his communion. That o
° instruction
days of the week the school-room of general
Roman Catholic
shall, in like manner, be set apart
approved of
a read the Epistles and
tie uri-
nute which we have given, they shall
eiritpauslt:;e4(ewrii;:rtaatyu
of Rsutan
the week, as therein mentioned,. and receive
children,Catholic ol
any which
teacher, occasions,
Gospels under
rthteheca
mentionedr care
oi
ian
ssuoctlando,thifertbreeyligthioial i6sts)tristhcatiloindsiraesetth,

taot'see, that in the Rowaa Catholic Church there are
Epistles and Gospels appointed, riot fur Sundays only, but
fir almost 'every day in the year, and they comprise
altogether a large portion of the Old and New Testa-
ment,"—And here he would observe, that it was stated
as a remarkable fact by Mr. Daly, a Protestant clergyman,
as the result of his experien e in his own parish of Powers-
court, that those children in the schools who read the
Scriptures with the comment made a greater progress than
those of a higher clasp, who had not the same advantage.
Ile addressed this particularly to the Noble Lord, who ob-
jected so strongly to the use of any comment on the Scrip-
tures, under the authority of the Kildare street Society.—
(Hear.) The report then goes on to state the opinions
of Dr. Murray on the subject, and the recommendations
of that Prelate with respect to instructions. He pro-
poses that the Scriptures should be read by the
Protestants at the time the Catholics are taken apart
fer their religious instruction. Indeed, no greater mis-
take could lie committed than to suppose that the Scriptures
were at any time denied to the children of Protestants.
He (Lord Plunkett) contended, however, that they should
be read with both note and comment, and in this opinion
he was supported by the authority of some of the most
eminent men of past and present times. Among many
others he might mention Mr. Locke, whose opinion of the
Scriptures might be collected from that truly beautiful
description in which be said that they had "God for their
author, salvation for their end, and truth, without any
mixture of error, for their matter." Every one, however,
recollected the valuable comments which Mr. Locke had
made on the sacred works, and he believed there were
few adults who would not find their minds relieved of
many difficulties in the perusal of the Epistles of St. Paul,
by consulting the Commentaries of Mr. Locke. He now
come to the propositions of the Commission. It was nut
for him (Lord Plunkett) to decide on its propriety. He
merely stated what they considered best calculated to en-
sure the end proposed—the instruction of both classes, and
the promotion of harmony and good-will. They proposed
then, as the best plan for a system of united education,
the, there should be at least one school in each parish in
which instruction was to be given to all classes, Protestant,
Catholic, and Presbyterian, and that there should be one
Catholic and one Protestant teacher for each. That on
two days of the week, the school should break up at an
early hour for the purpose of enabling the Protestants to
receive religious instruction in their peculiar creed. That on
two other days the school should also break up at an early
hour in older to afford the same benefits to the Ca-
tholica ; and th it the two other days should he
devoted to the purposes of general education—the
Catholics to be placed under the authority of a lay Catholic
instructor. They agreed also that it would be necessary to
provide a Harmony, compiled from the Four Gospels, to-
gether with the Book of Proverb., and such school books
as histories of the Deluge and the Creation; but they by
no means proposed that any of these works should be a
substitute altogether for the Holy Scriptures themselves—
(Hear)—which were to be reserved fur the time of se-
parate religious instruction. Now, he would ask, had the
plan been fairly represented ?—(Hear, hear.) Was there
any mutilati •n of the Holy Scriptures in this? Or were
they to he branded as enemies to the Christian religion for
upholding a system of religious education of which the
Scriptures were to be the basis, and which they were, on
ail fitting occasions, to form the principal part? The
Noble Lord had, however, read a letter, in which the con-
duct of the Irish Secretary was severely impugned, for his
presuming to dictate in any manner with respect to the
expenditure of the public money. What ! the Secretary
for Ireland to dare to interfere in the distribution of a
public grant ?—(Lord Bonze; here intimated his dissent
with respect to this assertion.) Why, had not the Noble
Lord read a letter reflecting on the course pursued by Mr.
Stanley ? and was not Mr. Stanley the Secretary for Ire-
land ? anil the greater part of the letter was intended to
question the authority of Mr. Stanley to support any sys-
tem which was proposed to found religious instruction on
a mutilation of the Gospel. The children must, accord-
ing to the Noble Lord, he educated in the way he pleased,'
or !hey must not be educated at all. If the Noble Lord
was not satisfied with the Society's instruction, the better
way would be for the Noble Lord to form a society by a
public subscrip'ion, in which he might have tie Scrip-
tures read as often as he pleased ; every hour, indeed,
or every moment, as Dr. Cooke seemed to think, would
be the better plan.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Passing, how-
ever, to these reports of 1812 and 1625, they were both
referred to a Committee of the House of Commons ; and
that Committee, after duly considering them, came to a
certain resolution, in which, allowing for the peculiar
circumstances of the case, they recommended a system of
education which would give four days in the week to gene-
ral moral instruction, and two days to the separate reli-
gious education of Catholic and Protestant. The report
e Committee of the House of Commons was made in
182 S, when the Noble Duke, whom he saw opposite, was
at the head of the Treasury. A second report was made
by a subsequent Committee, in 1630; but that Committee
of 1830 adopted the report of the Committee of 1828 ;
in recommending the measure which had been adopted ;
so th It, whatever praise or blame is connected with it,
must be shared with the late Government, whose Secretary
for Leland had prepared a Bill on the subject before he
retired from office. The Noble Lord and the House
might per. api gather some information on the subject
of the disposition of the Board of Management to muti-
late the Scriptures, when he mentioned that the per-
sons who composed it were the Duke of Leinster, the
Archbishop of Cashel, Dr. Sadlier, Mr. Holmes, and
Mr. Carlisle.—(Hear, hear.) And whom did they suppose
thts Mr. Cat lisle was? Why the Secretary of the Hiber-
nian Bible Society.—( Hear, bear.) And this, the Secre-
tary of the Hibernian Bible Society, was one of those
who had entered into the conspiracy to mutilate the Gospel,
and extinguish the use of the Bible.—(Hear, hear.) In
addition to these gentlemen, there was Mr. Blake, the
Remerribrancer, a et ntleman well known to many of their
Lordships, It might be sufficient, however, to read a part
of the instruction of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Stanley), whose interference had been complained of. That
R W.it Hon. Gen.lenian says in his letter—" They will
require that the schools he kept open for a certain number
of hours for four or five days of the week, at the discretion
of the Commi.sioners, fur moral and literary education only,
and that the remaining one or two days in the week be set
apart for giving separately such religious education to the
children as may he approved of by the clergy of their re-
spective persuasions. They will also permit and encourage
the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of
their respective persuasions, either before or after the ortii-
pary school hours on the other days of the week. Although
it is not designed to exclude from the list of books for the
o..mbined instruction such portion of sacred history, or of
religious and moral teaching, as may he approved of by the
Board, it is to be understood that this is by no means in-
tentii.A to convey a perfect and sufficient religious educa-
tion, or to supersede the necessity of adequate religious in-
struction on the days set apart for the purpose." The
Board had not, he believed, as yet promulgated any defini-
tive course in fulfilment of these instructions, unless he
might mention a kind of lesson which was to be fixed up
in the school-room, which had been drawn up by the
Protestant Archbishop, and the adoption of which was
moved by the Catholic Archbishop. This lesson wes as
follows :—" Christians should endeavour, as the Apostle
Paul commandeth them, to live peaceably with all men,'
even with those of a different religious persuasion. Our
Saviour Christ commanded his Disciples a to love one
another.' He taught them to love even their enemies, to
bless these that cursed them, and to pray for those who
persecuted them. ale himself prayed fur his murderers.
Many men hold erroneous doctrines, but we ought not to
hate or persecute them. We ought to seek for the truth,
and hold fast what we are convinced is the truth, but not
eseet harshly those who are in error. Jesus Christ did
opt iptenei his religion to be forced on men by violent
emeauffl. If would not allow his Disciples to fight for hill'.
If any persons treat u 3 unkindly, we roust not do the same
to them ; for Christ and his Apostles have taught us not
to return evil for evil. If we would obey Christ, we must
do to others not as they do to us, but as we would wish
them to do to us. Quarrelling with our neighbours and
abusing them is not the way to convince them that we are
in the right, and they in the wrong. It is more likely to
convince them that we have not a Christian spirit. We
ought to show ourselves followers of Christ, who, ' when
he was reviled, revised not again,' by behaving gently and
kindly to every one." lie would now real adocument
of a different desctiptiun. It was a Land-bill which had
been very extensively circulated through the metropolis.
He knew not what effect it bad in producing the 200,000
s gnatures cf which the Noble Lord bail spoken, although
he disclaimed any intention of imputing to the Noble
Lord a connexion with its authors. The hand-bill to which
he alluded ran thus:—." Who is en the Lord's side?
He that is not with me is against me.' Luke xi. 23.
Protestants, awake ! Friends of the Lord Jesus Christ and
the Bible, to your standard ; a conspiracy is formed.
The powers of earth and hell are combined against the
Lord and hie Anointed.. The armies of Infidelity, of
Romish Papacy, and Liberalism, are united to extirpate
the word of God from the earth. They have begun their
experiment upon Ireland ; and if you suffer them to make
good their ground there, you may rest assured that they
will speedily extend their conquests. Shall the Bible be
wrenched from the hands and hearts of the children of
-Ireland? Shall the word of God, and all that has been
done by Christian liberality for Ireland, be trampled under
tut and scattered to the wind at the bidding of the Roman

Catholic priesthood ? God forbid. Ye that lore the Lord
Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth will never suffer such
dishonour and indignity to be done to his name. Adopt,
then, the only means you are called upon at present to use
to prevent such a sacrilege : add your names, without
delay, to the petition about to be presented to both Houses
of Parliament, requesting them to interpose and prevent
the proposed measure taking the Scriptures from the
children of Ireland being carried into effect."--(Cheers
followed the reading of the various passages of this adver-
tisement.) He repeated, he did not mean to say that the
Noble Lord bad any knowledge of this most mischievous
and wicked paper ; but if it was put forth to swell the
number of signatures to the petition, it was not sufficient
for the Noble Lord to say he bad no knowledge of the
means made use of to procure those signatures. Ile saw
that the advertisement was dated from 32, Seckville-street
—a place in which, he believed, the society held some of
their meetings; and also from 12-1, Oxford-street, which
was probably connected with it.
The Archbishop of ARMAGH believed that it would
be found that the new system recommended by the Go.
vernment for the education of the people of Ireland would,
if persevered in, undo much that bed been done, and
would be found total'y inapplicable to the wants or wishes
of the people.---(Hear, hear.) He saw no necessity for
their depriving the people of the free use of the Holy
Scriptures after they had begun to receive the greatest ad-
vantages from them, and to feel a deep interest in the
study of the sacred history.—(Hear.) It was the prin-
ciple of the Roman Catholic Church to debar the people
the free use of the Scriptures; but, he maintained, that it
was not consistent with the principles of the Pro•estant
Church to establish any system of education founded on
such pretensions.—(Hear, hear.) The Protestants pre-
sumed not to interfere with any system which the Roman
Catholics might conscientiously believe to be right. But
if the Roman Catholics were anxious to be consistent as
Roman Catholics, so also should the Protestants labour to
be consistent as Protestants.--(Hear, hear.) In the hope
of securing unity and concord, and that they would be
met by a corresponding spirit on the part of the Catholics,
the Protestants had gone as far as it was prudent for them
to go.--(Hear.) The point they insisted on was, that an
adequate representation of revealed truth should be given
to the infant mind, founded not on the tenets of any
particular Church, but on the warrant of the word of
God. This was the opinion of the Protestant Prelates
and in conformity with that opinion a selection from
the Sacred Works was prepared by the late Arch-
bishop of Dublin, and that Prelate was the more induced
to believe it would be acceptable, because it was founded
on a work of the same kind which had been extensively
circulated among the adherents of the Greek Church in
the Russian empire. It was the plea of the Commies.
sinners that a work of this kind should be composed of
extracts from the New Testament and the Epistles, and
that it should he a book common both to Catholics and
Protestants, and to be introduced, not to the exclusion of
the Bible, but as at those times when religious instruction
was to form a portion of the task of the day. The Ca-
tholics objected to works of this description, not because
they were unfaithful records of the Scriptures, but because
they were taken from the Scriptures, and from the Pro-
testant version of the Scriptures. He concurred fully in
the opinion of the two Commissioners of the late inquiry,
who declined signing their names to the final report.—
Their opinion was, and the Right Rev. Prelate read it
froth the report, " That it appeared th_t, during the two
years since the first report was made, other and not less
formidable circumstances had arisen to interfere and keep
up the exclusion." The Society had obtained the respect
of the public, and every thing which had occurred had
strengthened his belief in its utility. Ile saw nothing to
induce him to suppose that the measure proposed by the
Government was necessary. Government was about to
embark in an untried experiment—an experiment which
was not supported by the established clergy, nor by the
clergy of any other class of Protestants_an experiment
in which even the Roman Catholic hierarchy itself would
not join, as they had been taught by former experience,
unless every Protestant principle was conceded to them,
and the whole of the national education placed in their
hands.—( Hear, hear.)
The Earl of WICKLOW said, if there were not a sys-
tem to be at first introduced—if there were no system of
education established in Ireland, he might not object to
the plan proposed ; but he did object to substituting that
for an old and approved system. He regretted that the
subject had not been noticed in that House during the last
: Session, and that the Noble Marquis, the President of the
Kildare-street Society, had not stood up in his place, and
demanded from the Government some explanation of its
reason for abandoning the Society. He had the honour
to be one of the Vice-Presidents of that Society, and could
say that no system can be better adapted to the purposes
than the system followed by that Society. If that Society
were now opposed by the Roman Catholics of Ireland, it
must not be supposed that it was on account of general
education. He admitted that a great clamour had been
raised against the Society, but between 1816 and 1822 it
had lo en approved of and supported and advocated by the
Catholics of Ireland. He could show that by the evidence

of the very highest Catholic authority—that of Dr. Doyle.
The Noble Earl read some question put to Dr. Doyle by a
Committee, and his answers, to show that the greater
number of the schoolmasters in Dr. Doyle's diocese were
educated in the schools of the Kildare-street Society.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland even,
in proposing the abolition of the Society, bad shewed its
great utility, for he had mentioned, in the very speech in
which he recommended that the grant should be withdrawn,
that since 1816 the number of schools under the Society
had increased to between 1,600 and 1,700, and that they
contained 133,000 scholars—one-half of whom were Ro-
man Catholics. The clamour had been raised by the lead-
inc Catholics, and that shewed that the other Catholics
were not unfriendly to the Society. The Government had
not been influenced, as one of its Members said, by the
whisper of a faction, but it had been influenced by the
roar of clamour, and Lad bent beneath it like a willow
beneath the storm.—(Hear, hear.) At the very time
that Mr. Stanley was making his statement, a friend of
his was near Mr. O'Connell in the other House of Parlia-
ment, and, on expressing his surprise at the course taken
by the Right Hon. Gentleman, Mr. O'Connell observed,
" If you knew as much as I do, you would he still more
surprised. Mr. Stanley declared, only fourteen days be-
fore he left Ireland, he meant to support the Society "
" How, then," said his friend, " came Mr. Stanley to
change ?" " Oh," replied Mr. O'Connell, "we have
threatened him into it." That was not a proper situation
for any Government. The Noble Lerd then referred to
the construction of the new Board, and stated that he did
not think his Noble Friend (the Duke of Leinster) well
calculated to preside over it. Otherwise it was nominally
well balanced. He under-tood that as yet the measure had
❑ot assumed any determinate shape; it was not yet a law;
and he there fore lisped the Government would re•con►ider
its plan ; and he was sure that it would promote the
peace and tranquillity of Ireland if it would abandon the
measure.—(Hear.)
Viscount MELBOURNE had much misunderstood the
Right Rev. Prelate, if he did not admit, in his statement,
that all hope of establishing a system of joint education
Ireland had passed awoy. Admitting that it was ne-
cessary for the Government to do something, or give up
all hopes of establishing any system of national education
whatever, that which was about to be established was re-
commended in all reports. The report of 1812 was pecu-
liarly deserving respect, because it was drawn up when the
parties were much more calm than at present. They
were then not influenced by the exasperation which a long
contest had since excited. The report recommended a
system like that new proposed ; but it was not adopted
because tempos ary expedients were embraced. The Kil-
dare-street Society was such an expedient, and was on that
ground a vicious system. He admitted that for a con-
siderable period the public had approved of it ; but in a
season of exasperation, every thing was arized on that
could influence it, and the Kildare-street Society among
the rest, and it was hell as hostile to the Catholics.
From 1822, when the hopes of the Catholics were first
excited with a prospect of success, to 1826, there was
a continual system of collision. Attempts were made—
he did not impug❑ the motives of those who made them—
to convert the Catholic!. A dispute was got up be-
tween the two religious parties, that was increased and
inflamed ; and a wide separation, a wide alienation
took place, rendering it more difficult than formerly to
bring the parties to agree. From that period the Kildare-
street Society became an improper instrument for educating
the people. Though the Catholics might not dislike
the schools, when they could only send their children to
them by stealth, or fall under the denunciations of their
priests, those schools ceased to be of use to them. They
became too a means of proselytizing the children.—(Hear.)
He knew that some Noble Lords tisought that was quite

right. But though the Government did not act on the
principle of the Noble Lord, he thought it was highly
wrong to represent it as depriving the people of the Word
of God. He found that such assertions formed one prin-
cipal topic at all Protestant meetings, and they were not
denied or contradicted by what was asserted in other places.
There were other charges which were neutralized by what
was said by conflicting parties. The Protestants at their
meetings held forth against the distribution of patronage,
and declared, that from his Noble Friend at the head of
the -Government, down to the most humble individual,
the Protestants were neglected, that they found no •pro-
tectore, and that 311 the offices of the State were bestowed

on the Roman Catholics. When he turned, however, to
the speeches of Mr. O'Connell and the other gentlemen of
his party, he found that the Government was continually
abused for giving all places to its enemies, and bestowing
every good thing on those who were opposed to the Ca-
tholics. These opposing statements showed that the Go-
vernment was pursuing a fair and even course.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that the subject of
education in Ireland had engaged his attention for a very
considerable period of time ; in fact, since be had been
Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that was about twenty-
five years ; and yet lie bad not as yet been able to make
up his mind upon the course which ought to be pursued.
He agreed in opinion with the Noble and Learned Lord,
who had declared that opinion with so much eloquence,
that any system to succeed must have a foundation in re-
ligion, and that it could not stand on any other founda-
tion. The Noble and Learned Lord had truly said, that
this was to be desired, not simply front the advantages to
be derived from religious instruction, but from the pro-
motion of those habits of obedience and discipline which
it was necessary to instill into the mind of youth. He ad-
mitted that the system proposed by Ministers was, as the
Noble and Learned Lord opposite and the Noble Secretary
bad stated, founded on and justified by the reports of the
Commissioners and the reports of Committees of the other
House. But the doubt he entertained was this—whe-
ther the system laid down in the reports, and laid down
in the letter of the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland, was
a system which would inculcate those habits of discipline
and obedience required by the Noble and Learned Lord,
and which would alone satisfy his mind, that in adopting
it they were doing that which they ought to do. This was
his apprehension. What he felt was this—that there was
much doubt whether the new system of e location in Ireland
would go to the education of nearly 500,000 persons in
the same advantageous manner as was now done by the
existing societies—by the London Hibernian Society,
the Sunday-school Society, and the Kildare-place Societies.
What he would say was, that already there was going on
a system of religious education to the amount of nearer
500,000 than 400,000 persons—a system of real religious
education founded on the Scriptures—which could be in-
terfered with by nobody—priest or other man—and which
was so directed by the Kildare-place Society, as not to give
offence to soy body ; and now, when the Government was
about to establish another system (which he had admitted
they were justified to do by the reports), he doubted much
whether it would not be attended with less advantage than
that which had already existed. He was, himself, by no
means satisfied that the system to be substituted was so
good as that which they proposed to aliroaate. If the
system were to be changed, he considered that it would be,
perhaps, better to have separate schools for the Protestants
and the Roman Catholics. Although he admitted this
would he attended with many incinveniencies, still he was
inclined to think it would be better than the scheme pro-
posed, and did not conceive that it was iaconsistent with
the plan suggested by the reports. The first report, that
of 1812, by no means urged a system of joint education.
As to what had been said by the Noble and Learned Lord
and the Noble Viscount, he differed. On the subject of
public, as distinguished from private education, he dis-
agreed with them. He really could not see the difference
between public and private education ; or why causes of
dispute should arise between two classes of persons if edu-
cated by public grants, rather than between the same classes
if educated by private means. In conclusion, he stated
that he never could make up his mind that the system
recommended by the reports was a good one.

The Earl of RADNOR objected to the spirit displayed
by the Noble Earl, who introduced the subject, and con-
tended that the cry against agitators came with a very bad
grace from one who indulged in the expressions used by
that Noble Lord and his party in that House and else-
where.

The Duke of RICHMOND took the opportunity of
contradicting, upon the authority of the Right Hon. Se-
cretary for Ireland, the statements put forth the other
evening, to the effect that he had never changed any opi-
nions upon the subject of education in Ireland, which he
had professed in the House of Commons. Therefore Mr.
O'Connell, Colonel Perceval, and the Noble Earl (of
Wicklow), who had relied upon their authority, were mis-
taken. He reprehended the practice of choosing the
House in which a Minister did not happen to sit, to make
an attack upon him. Before the Chief Secretary was at-
tacked there, these Hen. Members should have asked him
in the House of Commons, if be had changed his opinions?
But this was not the only occasion on which such a course
was pursued by the party opposed to Government. With
all their elequence, they dared not rise in the same House
with the object of their invective ; this, he was tempted
to say, might be Irish justice ; but he trusted it was only
the feeling of those, who, in their anxiety to render a Mi-
nistry which they thought a bad one, odious and ridi-
culous, never cared what they said. He did not mean to
say that they did not believe what they said ; but their
utter hostility to the Administration rendered them cre-
dulous in the extreme.

The Bishop of LONDON feared that the plan of Go-
vernment involved a principle with which be could not be
satisfied ; but he thought that the Ministers ought to be
dealt with more liberally and fairly. The overcharged
statements in which some had indulged were calculated
only to do injury to the cause of truth. The most that
could he truly said against the Government was, that in
striving for a good purpose, they had made a great mistake.
A system of religious education was going forward in Ire-
land, supported by public grants; these grants had been
withdrawn by Government. Why? The only answer
that could be given was, because the Scriptures were read
in the schools. At the same time it should be known
that Government had no objection to have the Scriptures
read in the schools; and of his own knowledge he could
positively say, that the Right Hon. Chief Secretary for
Ireland had none. But the reading of the Scriptures in
an unmutilated state was opposed by the Roman Ca-
tholics; and the Government, to promote the purposes of
education and conciliation, yielded to their objection, and
ordered that selections only from the Scriptures should be
read—selected, he was afraid, by those who would not be
content to give an impartial view of Scriptural truth.
As a Minister of the Protestant Church, he could not over-
come the difficulties which this plan presented. The Mi-
nisters had taken away from them a Scriptural education,
and had given them one not that was unscriptural, but
which was something that he feared was not Scriptural.
It was thought this would prevent contention ; nothing,
he considered, was more likely to promote it.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that the reason
the grants were withdrawn from the Kildare-street Society
was, that it was found not to answer the purposes for
which it was instituted ; and the reason fur this was, that
the indiscriminate reading of the Scriptures was inconsist-
snt with the Roman Catholic faith. As to the plan sug-
gested by the Noble Duke (Wellington), of separate
schools, it would raise up still greater hostility than the
present. They would have, instead of 200,000 petitioners,
500,000 petitioners. He thought the Right Rev. Prelate
should not have abandoned the Ministerial plan without
giving it a fair trial, more especially when the children
were engaged in reading extracts four days of the weeks,
and had the advantage of schoolmasters, of Scriptural in-
struction from their own persuasions, on the other two days.
Front sonic cause or other an opinion had sprung up
among the Roman Cathol cs of Ireland that proselytism
was at the bottom cif all the purposes of the various
Protestant Societies. This opinion excited an opposi-
tion calculated most effectually to defeat the great blessing
of education. He was at a to-s to conceive how giving
ing a moral and a religious education to all parties was
inconsistent with giving a Protestant education to Pro-
testants. A wholesome and religious education to the
children of
edl achda troeert
kindly
heartilynrnt
ydp blessing.
ro,
.us feelingsi
nrsutegi ol.ni
subject,
cd:
among
annhrnoti
itsni ego defß,,
for
rctgt
grounds
etrehtinomoe
utlni
dan,rnsi
oi.:phohFws producing Friend,
heiuooni
isc
he
it'auhauarrerdeur Chief
is:btafoen:Sv(
e
which, if it could be carried into effect, would, he was
persuaded, be productive of the greatest b nefits in Ice-
land. He trusted, therefore, that his Right lion. Friend
would persevere. His proposition was founded on the
reports of Committees who had been for thirteen or four-
tee❑ years deliberating; and it was sanctioned by the
opinion of the most eminent members of the Church of
England, and of Members of both Houses of Parliament.
The Duke of WELLINcvros and the Marquis of LANS-
DOWNE mutually explained.
'Lord CLONCURRY adverted to the origin of the Kil-
dare-street Society, and observed that it was in consequence
of the departure of the Society from the purposes for which
it was founded, that it had been thought proper to with-
draw the public grants from it. The Catholics in Ire-
land now amounted to six millions. Was it desirable
that they should be left in ignorance? It was the danger
of that evil which had induced Government to model the
system under consideration.
The Esrl of RODEN made a brief reply.
The several petitions were then read ; and at a Quarter
before Eleven o'clock their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRVAItr 28.
Sir G. SKIPWITH presented a petition from certain
coal and iron masters in the county of Stafford, in favour
of the Birmingham and London rail-road.
The Marquis of CHANDOS presented a great number
of petitions against the Birmingham and London rail-toad,
among tthich were those from the trustees of the

Stoney Stratford turnpike-road, from the trustees of
certain roads in Buckinghamshire, from certain owners
and occupiers of land in that county, from the trustees
of the Dunchurch roads, from the mortgagees of the
Stratford roads, from the inhabitants of Dunchurch,
from certain coach-proprietors of the town of Dunchurch,
and one complaining that the standing orders had not been
complied with.
Sir GRAY SKIPWITII then moved the second read-
ing of the Bill.
The Marquis of CHANDOS, in consequence of the
instructions he had received, rose to oppose the motion,
and in so doing declared lie was in no way interested
in the proposed rail-road. His only desire was to ad-
vocate the interests of those who resided on the Tiro-
-1 posed line of road. Those who disapproved of the Bill
were far more numerous than those who approved of it,
and if some further time were ailoweJ, petitions against
the measure would be presented to the House from nearly
all the persons on the line of road. He therefore hoped
the Hon. Member (Sir G. Skipwith) would consent to
postpone the second reading, otherwise he (the 111arquis of
Chandus) would take the sense of the House upon it. He
should also inquire of the Speaker whether the standing
orders had been complied with? By the standing orders
one-half the necessary sum should be subscribed for
by persons who bound themselves or their heirs to pay the
money subscribed for, and yet a clause was introduced in
the Bill which went to dispense with that standing order.
The SPEAKER said that the standing order alluded to
by the Noble Lord was of modern introduction, and it was
fur preventing fraudulent speculations ; its introduction
arose from what occurred in 1825. Subsequently many
Bills had had clauses introduced, following precedents of
an anterior date, and making it questionable whether the
standing order had been complied with : if the Committee
found that it had not been complied with, it was usual to
s•rike it out, and if they did nut do so, the House had the
power of doing it.—(Hear, bear.)
The Marquis of CHANDOS, in continuation, said the
proposed rail-road was to extend 112 miles ; of the owners
of land on the proposed line there were only 239 who
assented to it, while 531 dissented, and there were still a
great number who had not given their opinion.
Sir GRAY SKIPWITH could not see that the pro.
vision in the Bill was contrary to the standing order al-
luded to by the Noble Lord ; he was perfectly willing,
however, to abide by the sense of the House on the
second reading of the Bill.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, whets there
appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority

The Bill was accordingly committed.
Mr. SADLER presented petitions from Dewsbury,
Renfrew, two places in Yorkshire, and from Gla.gow, in
favour of th • Bill for shortening the hours of labour for
children in factories.

Mr. STRICKLAND and Mr. HUNT supported the prayers
of the petitions.
Mr. SADLER presented a petition from Shakerly,
complaining of distress.
Mr. EWART presented a petition from an individual,
stating himself to he part proprietor of a vessel which had
been seized by the Brazilian Government, for which he
had not received compensation, and praying the House to
take the case into its serious consideration.

Mr. DIXON considered it disgraceful to Government
to allow these transactions to go on. . .

Lord SANDON expressed his full concurrence with
what had fallen from his Hun. Colleague (Mr. Ewart).
Mr. HUME felt somewhat sorry that the Noble Lord
(Palmerston) was not in the House, because it was
about two years ago that he had presented a petition
from individuals who had lost 600,0001. in the Brazils,
►which he believed was unpaid at the present time.
Such facts as these indicated a want of vigour in
the British Navy, and in the British Government.
He was sorry that it was the British merchant
alone, who asked in vain of the Government fur pro-
tection. The American and French Governments had
demanded compensation in similar cases, and it had been
granted. The Hon. Member now wished to ask if the
British Commissioner in the Brazils had resigned his
situation ; fur it appeared that he had now no duty to
perform, and if he had not resigned, it would be satisfac-
tory to know if any and what salary he now received ?
Lord ALTHORP said he was not prepared at present
to answer the questions.
After a few words from Mr. EWART,

Mr. DIXON gave notice that he would, in the course
of next week, move an address to the Crown upon the
subject.
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
Mr. DIXON presented a petitien from the soap-manu-
facturers of Glasgow, praying for the reduction of the
duty on soap.—lt was laid on the table. .

Mr. DAWSON wished to put a question to the Right
Hon. Secretary at War, relative to the Bill for the Regula-
tion of Vestries, which was introduced into the House last
year. By the wording of that Bill it was found to be impos-
sible to give the necessary notices in the form therein set out
to the churchwardens, in consequence of the shortness of
time allowed, unless the inhabitants were to meet
in a body for that purpose, which would have the effect
of destroying a portion of the benefit which was
expected to be derived from it. He wished therefore to
know, whether it was the intention of the Right Hon.
Gentleman to introduce a short Bill to remedy the defect ?
Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE was never more surprised,
than when he heard that Counsels' opinion had been
taken upon this point, for one of his objects was to dispense
with large assemblages of persons. The words " required
to meet" were in the Bill when it passed that House, but
tt.e House of Lords id expunged those words, andin-
serted " are required to signify their votes." Ac, however,
there was some difference of opinion, he would bring in
a short Bill to prevent litigation.
SOAP DUTIES.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON then rose for the purpose
of bringing forward his promised motion with respect to
the soap duties. In the course that be intended to advise
the House to adopt on the present occasion, he thought
he should not be sacrificing part of the revenue without
giving a full equivalent; but the time had now arrived when
this unfair and unequal competition between the fair
trader and the smuggler should be put an end to. The
duty on soap at the present moment was at least 100 per
cent. The lower descriptions of soap paid 120 per cent.,
while the higher sorts, chiefly used by the affluent, paid at
least 170 per cent. In Ireland and Scotland, however,
no duties were payable ; the consequence was, a great in-
crease in the exportation of that article to those parts
from which it was sent back again to this country, and
a great drawback duty allowed. This had been
almost the ruin of the Irish soap manufacturers,
and bad become very justly a matter of great com-
plaint with them. Ile would now call the at.
teution of the House to the way in which the system
worked in the country, and he was very much mistaken
indeed if he did not show that one-third of the soap ma-
nufactured in England paid no duty whatever. By
reducing the duty one-half, from 3d. to lid., and impos-
ing a duty of I 1. on soap manufactured in Ireland, no
loss of revenue would accrue from this assimulation of
duty ; he should therefore move that the house resolve
itself into a Committee to take into consideration the
propriety of reducing the duty on hard soap manu-
factured in England and Scotland, from 3d. to lid. per
lb., and imposing a duty of 1 id. per lb. on hard soap
manufactured in Ireland.
Mr. DIXON seconded the motion.

Lord ALTHORP did not expect that the Hon. Alderman
intended to take so general a view of the subject, and to
submit a proposition for such extensive alterations. He
thought that the Hon. Alderman would merely have called
the attention of the House to a petition from the soap ma-
nufacturers, without making any motion upon the subject.
He would not however plead surprise, because his atten•
tion had been frequently applied to the subject, and as lie
was in full possession of the whole facts of the case,
the great objection to the proposition of the Honour-
able Alderman was, that it would hazard a very
great reduction in the revenue. That, however, in the
present circumstances, he did net feel himself justified
in ri~l:ing. He did not believe, that although the re-
duction of duty would have a tendency to diminish
it would entirely abolish smuggling, and as this was the
ground on which all the propositions on which all the
calcul itious of the Honourable Alderman were founded,
he was afraid it would fall to the ground. As far
as regarded the equalization of duty between Eng-
land and Ireland, he thought it would be very advanta-
geous, and it was a great inducement for Government to
take the question under consideration, but, on the whole,
he felt himself, from the state of the revenue, reluctantly
compelled to oppose the proposition.
Mr. G. ROBINSON was of opinion, looking at the state
of Ireland, that Government could not attempt to levy any
new tax in that country.
Mr. lIIJAIE thought, that one great reason for the repeal
of the duty on soap was, that, by retaining it, the same
excise establishment was necessary, and the officers were
obliged to visit the tallow manufacturers, although there
was no duty on tallow, to see that they made no soap
without paying the duty. Another reason was, that the
duty was a great hindrance to the improvement of the soap
manufacture. Besides, the pressure of the duty was felt
most severely, riot only by the poorer claws of consumers,

who had the moat need of the article, LAI !tlso by the poorer
manufacturere.

Lord GROSVENOR did not think any reduction of
;oration expedient in the present state of the finances of
the country.

Mr. LAI3OUCHERE said, that taxes pressing upon the
wealthier classes ought to be substituted for those which
pressed upon the poor. If any such commutation could
be effected, the tax upon soap was the first that ought to
be repealed.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the present system was
annihilating the soap manufacture in Ireland. In every
instance the Irish manufacturers had reason to complain of
the partiality of the officers of Excise in favour of the
British manufacturers. They contrived to manage mat-
ters in such a way as to give the soap manufacturers of
Liverpool an advantage over the Dublin manufacturers in
the Dublin market.

Mr. GOULBURN contended that no alteration of the
duty on tallow would be productive of any advantage to
the public. The effect would be to raise the price of
candles twopence in the pound.
Mr. HUNT' suggested that Ministers should repeal the
duty on soap, and make up the deficiency to the revenue
out of their own salaries.

Mr. BRISCOE complained of the hardships which the
manufacturers of soap suffered throughout the kingdom
under the present system. He desired that the whole
subject might be referred to a Committee up stairs.
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN said that the law, as it now
stood, was most injurious to the soap manufacturers in
Ireland.

Mr. EWART was understood to speak in favour of the
reduction of the duty on soap.

After afew words from Mr. Alderman Tisomrsox in re-
ply, the m,•tion was negatived.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose for the purpose of re-
questing that the Right Hon. Baronet behind him would
postpone the motion of his which stood for that evening,
for the purpose of enabling the House to proceed with the
Reform Bill.

Sir WILLIAM INGILBY consented.
Mr. O'CONNELL was ready to follow so good an ex-
ample, and agreed to postpone his motion.
Several other motions were also postponed.
Mr. GEORGE BANKES said ti at one part of the
motion which he had to make could not well be postponed,
seeing that it related to returns which were connected
with the subject—the silk trade—!ikely to come before the
House on Thursday next. .

Lord ALTHORP objected to the motion, on the ground
hat it would tend to disclose the private transactions of
.tidividual traders.

Mr. G. BANKES denied that it bad any such ten-
dency, hut
The motion was negatived.
REFORM.

The House then re,olved itself into a Committee on the
Reform in Parliament (England) Bill.
After some conversation it was agreed that they should
further postpone the boroughs not yet decided on, and pro-
ceed at once to schedule C, of which Manchester was the
first.

Mr. CROKER did not, of course, rise for the purpose
of making any objection to the town of Manchester send-
ing Members to that House, but he wished merely to call
the attention of the Committee to the similarity which sub-
sisted between the cases of Manchester and Liverpool.
There was a portion of that town, called Toxteth Park, a
district which contained twenty-five thousand inhabitants.
It was proposed that it should have a Member ; but that
proposition was negatived. It had been since proposed
that Salford, which was a part of Manchester, should have
a Member ; to that proposition the House acceded. It was
hardly possible to imagine any two cases more perfectly
analagous ; there was no one who looked at the map of
Manchester, who must not at once see that Salford formed
an integral and undivided portion of that town : certainly
as much so as Toxteth Park formed a part of Liverpool.
The population of Liverpool was nearly 165,000—of
Toxtetb Park nearly 25,000. The total was something
upwards of 189,000—that was the gross population of
Liverpool. The population of Manchester was 143,000
—of Salford 40,000, making a total of 183,000 ; thus it
was proposed to give a third Member to a place of 'mallet
population. If Salford were at any distance from Man-
chester—if they carried on a different trade, there might
be some show of reason in the arrangement. He did not
look so much to giving Salford a Member as he did to the
application of one rule to one place and quite a different
rule to another.

Mr. HA YWOOD observed, that Salford was as ancient
as Manchester—that it was not a suburb, and that it pos-
sessed a separate municipal government.
Mr. ENVART said, that Toxteth Park was clearly an

integral portion of Liverpool.
Lord ALT HORP remarked, that there was a clear dis-
tinction between Salford and Manchester, but that there
existed no distinction whatever between Toxteth and Liver-
pool. The two former possessed separate jurisdictions and
separate interests. The people of Toxteth Park would evi-
dently rather vote for two Members than for one. There
was no application from Toxteth complaining of the ar-
rangement, whereas there was every reason to believe that
the people of Salford would feel much discontent if they
were united with the people of Manchester.
Sir C. WETHERELL said, that for all political and
commercial purposes Salford and Manchester were one and
the same place—they merely were divided by a stream,
and each had a different constable. Giving a representa-
tive to Salford was completely throwing away a Member
of Parliament. _ .

Mr. MASON should vote for including Salford with
Manchester.

Mr. CROKER repeated, and explained the view which
he took of the question.

Lord ALTHORP observed that the question was,
whether or not they should give two Members to Man-
chester ?

Lord SANDON said, that in Liverpool they had no
wish for, or expectation of an increase of Members.
Sir C. WETHERELL thought, that as they were en-
gaged in the work of framing a new Constitution, they
ought not to allow themselves to be influenced by the
wishes of the inhabitants of any particular place.
Mr. JAMES stated, that as Toxteth Park was occu-
pied chiefly by the private residences of the merchants and
traders of Liverpool, and as they had otherwise than by
those residences votes for the town, the inhabitants of that
place could not desire a Member far themselves.
The question was then put on Manchester, and agreed
to—the boroughreve and constables to be the returning
officers; Birmingham, the two Bailiffs ; Leeds, the Mayor.
Agreed to.
On the question that Greenwich, Kent, stand part of
the Schedule—
Sir 11. PEEL had objections to this vote; but as he
considered Greenwich, in fact, as one of the metropolitan
districts, he should postpone his observations till the
motion of the Noble Marquis (Chandos) was before the
House.

The vote was then agreed to.
Sheffield, Yorkshire—Returning-officer, the Master
Cutler.—Agreed to.
Sunderland, Durham—Agreed to.
Devonport, Devonshire—Agreed to.

Wolverhampton, Staffordshire—Returning-officer, the
Constable of the Manor of the Deanery of Wolverhampton.
Mr. CROKER objected to Sedgeley and the village of
Bilston being joined to Wolverhampton, in order to entitle
it to two Members.

Mr. LITTLETON said, that the Right Hon. Gentle-

man knew very
h le ti tilae ( i a
endeavoured
inhabitants.bout t
Bh the t
, besidesmatter,
t o p rswtuhl aai
des
this,
the
hi he
eee
Noblecalledß i
Right
h
t
Bilston a village. That little village happened to contain
GentlemanwLll:oirni,ci.htowjaosina lmy ea:sgweoabfsui notrnye
ot
rois: verysvtae
ni.ctiiel
s._. consistent_ (vll eo in
er
,ah
flo4r olarstlsioon
METROPOLITAN DISTRICTSghi
Mr. CROKER said, that if he was inconsistent, it was
only because he followed the Reform Bill in his arguments,
.sreeaerd.)to.
argument,
The CHAIRMAN—Tower Hamlets, Middlesex.
metropolitanof which
The Marquis of CHANDOS—This, I perceive, Sir, is
the right moment for me to bring forward the proposition
I have
districts.
I
already givenfeel
tnotice
whatwith I respectleave
eto propose
to the
is not calculated to make me very popular with tbe me-
tropolis ; but I nevertheless feel that I have a duty to dis-
charge, and that that which I have to suggest is calculated
for the hest interest of the country at large. I can assure
the House that I do not oppose these additional Members to
the metropolis, for the purpose of attacking the Govern-
ment on the principle of the Bill, or with the intention of
throwing obstacles in the way of giving the country a pro.
per representation ; but I oppose it on the ground of their
being unnecessary and uncalled for, and not tending really
to the benefit of the country at large. Sir, I always have
bear)—nor can I consent
prove detrimental to the
been, and am an advocate for the extension of the elective
franchise ; but when I am asked if I am willing to give
boroughsgear within the metropolis,
the franchise to the 10/. householders of the metropolis, I
bt oe
t'i
general interests
of the country, and form the germs of
great excitement wbenever any popular question shall be at
ies,fi
formation
n answer—decidedlymatyiaonp
opinion
inoont
thesel--
they (
will
issue.—(Hear, hear.) If we look back at the times that
are passed, and the popular questions that have at different
periods been agitated, it will be found that the metropolis
has never proved lukewarm in forwarding the opi-
nions of the inhabitants of England ; and on a Ties-

tion of this magnitude I am aware that every one
must feel an intense anxiet)—an anxiety not only to
possess au individual suffrage, Lot to see a measure car-
ried to which the people at large are looking for so
much benefit. But though this is the case, we must not
lose sight of the real interests of the country, nor forget,
that if we give too much power to the metropolis, we shall
I,e affording it the means of guiding the helm of all public
affairs, by putting into the hands of its constituency a much
greater power than can be safe for the general common
weal of the empire.—(Cheers.) I do not mean, and God
forbid that I should, ever make any offensive, allusion to
any gentleman for his conduct in this House, either against
his honour, his credit, or his independence; but still I
cannot help recollecting, that when a Member of this city,
actuated, no doubt, by the most honourable feelings,
thought prover to vote accordinc, to the dictates of his con-
science, he was immediately called' to account by his con-
stituents, and overhauled, as I may say, for his conduct in
Parliament, and told not to vote again in the same man-
ner at the risk of losing their favour and his own seat.--
( Hear, hear.) lam one of those. who say that in this
House a man is called to do his duty independently of all
out.of-door considerations; and if we are to come here as
the delegate', and not as the representatives of the people,
I, for one, shall never wish to retain a seat in Parliament

—though, while I am here, no consideration shall make
me flinch from advocating what I believe to be the true,
real, and lasting interests of all England.—(Cheers.) But
my objection to the present vote also rests on the forma-
tion of separate boroughs in the heart of London ; and I
think that the Government might, by enlarging the repre-
sentation of Middlesex and of Southwark, exeecise a com-
plete justice towards the people, and do as much or more
benefit to the cause than they are now effecting by the
course which they at present pursue. Sir, I propose, if 1
should succeed in defeating this vote with respect to the
Tower Hamlets, to propose an immediate addition to the
representation of the county of Middlesex, by which we
shall be giving an additional protection to the great agri-
cultural interests of this important county.—(Hear,
hear.) Ido this, Sir, in order that both the moneyed
interests and the agricultural interests may be represented.
But what is it that we are now doing ? We shall, if we
agree to this vote, be placing these district boroughs in the
hands of individuals who will have nothing but local in-
terests to protect, and who must necessarily have a strong
leaning towards popular questions—and that in a degree
far too warm to be constant with the real interests of the
country. Sir, if I should succeed in my present attempts
I would propose to arrange the franchise in the following
manner :—I would attach Lambeth to Southwark, Mary-
lebone to Westminster, and the Tower Hamlets and Fins-
bury to the city of London. Why do Ido this? On the
very ground on which the Government has professed to
act all along—( Hear, hear)—viz., that of increasing the
constituency of places that are now to be represented;
and I think that if we do this, we shall be giving to these
places the power of exercising a right of voting perfectly
in unison with the intention of the Ministerial Reforo
Bill. When we are told that Finsbury, the Tower Ham'
lets, and Marylebone are not represented, I would ask
whether there has ever been any question brought for-
ward affecting the interests of those places that hal
not received the fullest attention from this House
(Hear, hear.) Look at the case of St. Saviour's church.
Remember the question of the inclosing of Hampstead-
heath ! And then if it' he asked who represent the
interests of the metropolis, let it be answered, et
least three or four hundred of the Members of Oil'
House.—(Cheers.) No one, I think, then, can say after
this, that the metropolis is not fully represented ; and
when it is further recollected that there is never a period
when there are not at least 150 Members of this House
residing within its limits—Members always liable to be
called on to assist its interests—Members always open to
communication with all parties—never let it be said that
the metropolis is without its due influence within the walls
of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) I am not one of those who
can be frightened by being told, that if we do not agree CO
this additional representation of the metropolis, we shall be
destroying the principle of the Bill. Sir, we have already
agreed to the two main principles of this Bill—the destrue-
tion of the nomination boroughs, and the conferring the
elective franchise on the occupiers of ten-pound houses.
After this, I beg to ask Hon. Gentlemen whether they
consider themselves indissolubly pledged to the giving
those additional Members to the metropolis ? I beg to as/'
them whether they consider this feature of the Bill so ne"
el
oe
os skai rnyg ttoe the
he wrei
gl f
tai r o
te
hand
nd
e r Englandto
o thatth e
et
fhet, y
ni
dl
y without
go
fo
ward and give that power to the metropolis, which I, for
one, certainly feel jealous of, besides entertaining the opi-
nion that it might be better disposed of in another way ?-•••
(Hear, hear.) I think that having stated thus much, le
cannot do better than to take up no more of the time 0'
the House, more especially as I know that there are mall
Hon. Gentlemen who are desirous of expressing their
opinions on this question to the Committee. I will,
therefore, only say one more word in order to explain el
feeling more fully. In the first place, I object t°
the grant of these Members to the Tower Hamlets; and
if I should succeed in my opposition, I shall follow that up
by proposing to give two Members to the county of Mid'
dlesex, by which that important county will obtain fool'
representatives. I shall then leave the other six Meer,

bets to be disposed of by the House as in its wisdom it wsl
think fit. Are there not all England, all Scotland, and
all Ireland ?—(Hear, hear.) And who shall tell me 60
places cannot be found for these Members without giving
them to the metropolis, in some places of which I sin'
cerely believe that there is a disinclination to receive tbi;
elective right, from a feeling that it will lead the way tet
much dissension and turmoil, and produce circumstance;
which will tend to break the good understanding and destrof
the peace and tranquillity of thedistrict.—(Hear, hear.) ;
shall not now trouble the House any further. I leave the
matter in their hands. All that I wish is really to make,
the Bill a better Bill, and not deprive the inhabitants of
the metropolis of any of their just rights. On the CO;
trary, I say let them have the elective franchise; but le
it be for those places which already have the right to real'
Members—let them be joined in union with London, wit)
Southwark, and with Westminster.—(Cheers.)
Mr. JOHN SMITH—No one could give the Noble
Marquis more credit for the purest intentions than l 3
did ; and indeed there were some parts of his speech
which he most cordially joined. For instance, he per
fectly agreed with the Noble Marquis that the inhabitant;
of the metropolis had never displayed any apathy toward°
the great questions that had agitated the kingdom ; and be
thought it much to the honour of London that that '00;
the case.—(Hear, hear.) That was one of the main ree'
sons why he insisted that the metropolis ought to be more
perfectly represented than at present. It happened wio
him to be very well acquainted with the Tower Hamlets'
and he could take on himself to say that that district coo'
twined many of those manufactures and trades which cote;
posed the great commercial power of the metropolis.
.13!,
he had heard it stated that this immense population
likely to be troublesome on any question that particular,/
referred to their own interests; but his answer was, there
was no great r probability of that than that the nhabitan°
of Westminster should prove troublesome in the same we
And let him ask, had the House ever heard of their int/
fering improperly with the proceedings of Parliament)
He could assure the House that some of the most emioeli
commercial individuals were to be found in that district;
and, let him ask, had not those persons interests to deferlao
Had they not property to care for? And had they P
the same claim to be represented as those small boroughl'
the franchise of which was still retained?
Lord ALTHORP—The Noble Marquis rightly ob;
served, that this question practically is, whether the Oa
metropolitan districts are to have representatives or not;
And I must say, that looking at any of the principle' e
which an enlarged representation can be given, it is 01'
possible to propose any measure without including tbe,r,4
districts, when we take into consideration the wealth, evi
population, and the intelligence they contain.—(Cheers''
Let gentlemen only consider what these districts I)
)
which we now have under discussion. We have gi':e
Members to the large manufacturing towns, and to
other large districts throughout the country ; but if ;pt.
M
instance have we been able to give embers to any disee'r,
so important to those metropolitan divisions.—(loo
hear.) And what is the objection to this? Why, itel
said, that there is danger of its producing discontent ;-11
tumult. Now, I think that this objection has been 1;',0
answered by my Hon. Friend ; for how can we have
much danger and discontent by given them representatil` •
as by depriving them of that privilege?—(Cheers.)
think, then, that if we are to look to discontent as a pat
of the argument in this case, it may justly be contenue,
that we shall have much mere of that if we refuse ;'l,
franchise than if we grant it.—(Loud cheers.) The -Nob
Marquis has very candidly stated to the Committee
his intentions are, in the event of his succeeding in
vote. He proposes that we should increase the represtl
tation of the county of Middlesex by giving it two adiO
tional Members ; he also proposes to unite the Tower
lets and Finsbury to the City, Illarylebone to Westroili°
ter, and Lambeth to Southwark. Now, Sir, what is
object which the Noble Marquis has in view by all this? ,
says that be is afraid of the confusion arising from ;''
elections that will take place. But how, under his orl
arrangement, will be have less confusion ?—( Hear, bear,'
If lie would have us depart from the provisions of
Bill, which directs that the poll sha I be taken in dfferer,
places, surely thene will be immense confusion, when ;
Lambeth anti Southwark have to vote together, or 11