The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-18 00:00:00

therefore, if they existed, were owing more to political and
party feelings than to:any religious feeling. It was natural
therefore that on those grounds distinctions of %religion
would be fostered and kept up in schools of mixed educa-
tion. It was to be expected that from party motives, and
from the restraints imposed by religious impressions being
taken away, persons educated in these schools would be
more likely to disagree and quarrel. On these grounds
therefore he thought both experience and theory would
teach them that a mixed system of education would not
be conducive to the putting an end to religious dissensions.
Then they had been told that Roman Catholics ought to be
contented with these terms. But he would wish to ask what
there was unreasonable in asking that Roman Catholics in
Ireland should receive the same concessions which Roman
Catholics in England and in the colonies received with the
approbation of the house and of the Government. (Hear.)
It was perhaps only natural that those who taught in the
schools should be willing that the present system should
last, because they were interested in the denominational
system. But although he fully agreed with the right hon.
gentleman in much of what he had said against the
system of mixed education, he could not agree in
the resolutions, because they did not extend to Roman Ca-
tholics the same advantages as they offered to Protestants.
He did not deny that many Protestants might have con-
scientious objections to purely secular education. These
objections, however, were not a bit stronger than those
which were felt by Roman Catholics. Apparently the rule
was as favourable to one class as to the other. The rule
which excluded one excluded the other also ; and Protes
tants were not placed under the slightest disadvantage.
But no Roman Catholics approved of the separation of re-
ligious and secular education when they could avoid it.
They would willingly have no religion taught in schools
but their own; but they were all agreed in desiring that
secular and religious instruction should not be separated.
Protestants were not universally so strict. Even in the
university which the right hon. gentleman so ably r epre-
sented the objections to purely secular instruction felt by
Protestants were not so strong as those which were felt by
Roman Catholics. The reason why Protestants had re-
fused this means of education, and Roman Catholics had
not refused it, was very clear, from the situation of the two
parties. The Protestants had schools of their own commu-
nion; the Roman Catholics had no schools at all. (Hear.)
If the Roman Catholic did not accept the grant, education
for him was a mere nonentity. (Hear.) The grant no
doubt was offered to both. When the'state came to offer its
aid, it was somewhat extraordinary that the class which had
the greatest advantages should have rules made which were
more lenient for them. (Hear.) Because Protestants pos-
sessed many schools, it seemed that the rule was made far
more stringent and binding upon Roman Catholics, who
were most in want of Govetment aid. But should not a
grant be made rather in proportion to the wants of the peo-
ple than to the advantages which were already possessed by
them ? (Hear.) In the present case the nominal right to
which the right hon. gentleman's party objected was im-
partial to both classes. (Cheers.) He did not intend to
trespass much longer on the attention of the house;
but, in conclusion, he must again express his accordance
in opinion with many of the statements made by the right
hon. gentleman. But he did not believe that the resolutions
would bear the interpretation which had been put upon them
by the right hon. gentleman. He believed that if they were
carried to-night, the interpretation which would be put on
them in Ireland would be very different from that which
the right hen, gentleman wished. When once an indiscri-
minate reading of the Scriptures was admitted in schools,
full and free liberty of religious instruction would not be
granted to. Roman Catholics. The Scriptures were a great
element, but they were not the sole or even the chief part
of religious instruction amongst the Roman Catholics.
Upon these grounds, therefore, he (the O'Conor Don) found
himself compelled to differ from the resolutions proposed
by the right hon. gentleman. If the right hon. gentleman
had proposed resolutions more in accordance with his
speech, or in accordance with the amendments put forward
by the hon. member for Youghal, he should have found
himself not only at liberty but most happy to support the
resolution of the right hon. gentleman. The honourable
gentleman concluded by thanking the house for the atten-
tion with which they had listened to him. (Upon resum-
ing his seat the hon. gentleman was loudly cheered, and
received the congratulations of several hon. members ;
amongst whom—the :peaker having left the chair—Mr.
Disraeli crossed from the opposition side of the house and
shook hands with the hon. member.)
At the close of the hon. gentleman's speech a motion was
made tat the house be counted, and there not being forty
members present the house adjourned at 25 minutes to 9
o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENC:—May 17.

GUILDHALL. EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF
CHILD hTEALING.—CharIes Nicholson, described
in the police-sheet as a clerk, having no fixed
residence, but who was stated to have lately kept
the Woolpack Tavern, at Romford, and John 'ruler,
who was formerly in the service of Nicholson, and
now described himself as a clock maker, residing
at 16, Hermes-street, Pentonville, were placed at
the bar befog Sir H. Muggeridge and Alderman
Humphrey, charged under the 9th Geo. IV. c. 31.
a. 21, with feloniously and maliciously taking
►way by force and fraud a child, five years old,
named Charles Harry Waterman, with intent to
deprive the parents of the possession of the said
child.
Mr. Lewis, jun., appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. Beard conducted the defence for both pri-
soners.

Mr. Lewis said it was his duty to prosecute the
persons at the bar upon a charge of a very serious
character—so serious, indeed, that upon conviction
they would be liable to a punishment of seven
years' transportation. There were, however, cir-
cumstances connected with the case of a very
peculiar character ; and however painful it
might be to the parties concerned, he
thought it only right to
the facts before the Court, i place the whole of
n order that the ma-
gistrates might not hereafter complain of anything
having been kept back. It appeared that the pro-
secutor, Wm. Harvey Waterman, was a builder's
clerk, living at Battersea, and about 12 months ago
the prisoner Nicholson, who at that time kept the
Woolpack Tavern at Romford, became acquainted
with the prosecutor's wife, and induced her to take
1 up her residence with him, and for some months
they lived together as man and wife. For the sake
of his child, however, the prosecutor forgave his
wife her past conduct, and she accordingly returned
to his home. Under such circumstances one would
naturally expect Nicholson would have refrained
from molesting her, but, on the contrary. he had
used every endeavour to coerce her into abandoning
her hifsband, in order that she might return and
continue to live in a state of adultery with himself.
She had received ail his overtures with the utmost
scorn and contempt, and after hovering about her
house for a considerable time, he at length arranged
an interview for the purpose of giving up clothes
and other things belonging to her to the value of
£2O, which he had detained. They accordingly
met at the steamboat pier at Blackfriars-bridge, or,
which occasion Nicholson was accompanied by
Tuler, Mrs. Waterman having with her her:hus-
band's mother and the child iu question. At the
suggestion of Nicholson they all repaired to a
publichouse in the neighbourhood, and on arriving
there Nicholson told Tuler to take the child out and
buy him a cake, but as Mrs. -Waterman refused to
let him go, Nicholson engaged her in conversation,
during which Tuler stole away unperceived with
the child, but leaving his own hat and stick behind
him. When Mrs. Waterman missed the child,
Nicholson said it was all right, he had paid Tuler
to take the child, and it would be 100 miles away
before night. Mrs. Waterman ran out but could
see no trace of her child, and on the folloss ing day,
a warrant was obtained at this office for the appre-
hension of the prisoners. The conduct of the detec-
tive officer, Baker, in securing them the same even-
ing was beyond commendation, and the prosecutor
was greatly indebted to him, for had it not been
for the prompt and energetic manner in which he
acted, and the intelligence he displayed in the
matter, the child would not have been restored to its
parents as it was that evening, by Tuler, on learn-
ing that Nicholson was in custody for stealing the
child. One aggravating circumstance in the case
against Nicholson was his avowal at the police-
station, that he would have the prosecutor's sis 6
even if he had to steal the child again. Mr. Lewis
said he would prove these facts, and then ask for a
remand, with the view to the ultimate committal of
the prisoners to take their trial upon the charge.
Mr. Beard said this was one of those cases that
involved an expose alike discreditable to all the
parties concerned, and he had hoped for the sake of
public morals, as well as the characters of those
accusing and the accused, that the charge would not
have been pressed forward as it bad been. If, how-
ever, the case went on, he should show that the
person here represented as the injured husband was
not entitled to the sympathy of the Court, and that
his own conduct, is the absence of his wife, had
been as immoral as that which it was stated he
hafi so magnanimously forgiven in the mother of
the child in question.
Louisa Elizabeth Waterman, a rather attractive
young person, said—l am the wife of W. H. Water-
man, anal live at 2, Oak-pace, Bridge-road, Batter-
sea. My husband is a builder's clerk, I have been
married to him about, ten years. This is the only
child I have living out of three. I have known
Nicholson about 12 months. About nipe months
ago I was away from my husband, and was living
past, and I have since livee.4
with Nicholson as his wife, and continued to do so
until about two ruouthe ago, and then I returned
I have returned to ray husbandassistNicholson
eatlorhtaa:ely
eere. Since
seen Nicholson hovering
I live., I also saw Tuler with .
him on Tuesday
lasts and in consequence fw'reiqttluelinly.
of a communication I
received from ra—
; mother-in-14w, I went with