Russell on the subject of education, who had said that
the people of this country evinced a right instinct when
they declared openly that they would have a religious
training in their schools, and it was an indispensable
condition of receiving government assistance that, except
in the case of Roman Catholics, the Holy Scriptures
should be used by every child in the schools. This very
condition, however in Ireland, offered an insuperable
bar to the obtaining aid from the state, and some of the
clergy in that country considered the practical restrictions
upon the use of the scriptures in the schools not
merely repugnant to their conscience, but to involve a
violation of their ordination vows. He noticed the
issues which had been raised in former debates upon this
subject, and, in explaining his own views with respect to
the national system of education, he admitted that it
must be considered as one of the institutions of the
country, and that the inquiry should be with a view,
not to its destruction, but to its improvement, and to the
rendering it more comprehensive and national. The
question was, he said, a practical one, deserving the
fullest investigation; whether a united education had
been attained or was attainable, and if not, whether the
failure was attributable to one party or the other, or to
the deep and conscientious conviction of both parties on
the subject of religious instruction in the schools.
Recapitulating the ground of his motion, he disclaimed any
hostile spirit in proposing to that house, as the guardian
of the public funds, the examination of a question which
ought to be settled.—Mr. WIGRAM seconded the motion.—
It was opposed by Sir J. YOUNG, Lord MONCK., and Lord
LUCAS; and supported by Mr. NAPIER and Lord NAAS.
—Sir. J. GRAHAM said that having been associated with
Lord Derby in the establishment of the system of national
education, having always felt a deep interest in its
success, and believing this motion to be an attack upon
the system of mixed education, he should not, he thought,
discharge his duty if he did not address the house. He
resisted the motion in the interest of the poor of Ireland,
on behalf of a system which had succeeded to the fullest
extent that could have been expected. He stated the
principles upon which the system had been originally
founded, and showed, from the essential distinctions
between the circumstances of England and Ireland, that
the same system could not be applied to both countries.
It appeared to be the fact, that the great body of the
Protestant clergy of Ireland concurred with a large
portion of the Roman Catholic priesthood in a desire to
overthrow the existing system, and to obtain separate
grants. The pretension of the church education society
was for aid from the public purse for the teaching of all
who attended their schools a creed from which the
largest portion of the population dissented. If the house
agreed to this motion, there would be a separate system
with separate grants, and the result would be that the
claims of the Roman Catholics could not be refused; they
would take the largest proportion; the flames of religious
discord would spread throughout the country, and under
religious differences would lurk a bitter character of
political animosity.—Mr. WHITESIDE observed that the
answer just given to the motion amounted to this—that
the national system of education in Ireland was endangered
by it; yet that the system was so admirable, that the
more it was inquired into, the more its merits would be
discovered. The question was not about a majority or
a minority, but of reason and right. The clergy of the
Church of England had a right to read the scriptures in
the church schools, yet they dared not do it if they had
a grant from the national board.—Lord John RUSSELL,
observed that Mr. Whiteside had sufficiently disclosed
the object of the motion when he said the clergy of the
Church of England claimed the right to read the
scriptures to all the children in the schools. If this should
be conceded, the Roman Catholic priests would claim a
similar power, and the whole system would be destroyed.
It was a question, therefore, of maintaining the system
or abandoning it. After an attempt to adjourn the
debate, which was negatived by a large majority, the
house divided upon the original motion, which was
rejected by 179 to 109.

On Wednesday, April 27, the Annuities Commutation
Bill passed, after a complicated discussion on
several amendments proposed upon it.

Mr. WHITESIDE obtained leave to bring in a bill to
facilitate the Sale of Lands by the Court of Chancery
in Ireland. Under the encumbered estates act, he
said, 1000 estates were waiting for sale, and of the
proceeds of sales, which up to the 1st of April amounted
to £8,657,685, no less than £3,731,491 remained
undisposed of, owing to the pressure of business in the
court, arising from the working of one of the clauses of
Sir J. Romilly's bill, so that the delay was now greater
than in the Court of Chancery. The remedy he
proposed was to adopt the cheap procedure of the
summary jurisdiction bill of 1850, and to engraft the
principles of the encumbered estates act upon the Court
of Chancery in Ireland, extending them in all cases to
suitors, encumbrancers, and owners.

On Thursday, April 28, in committee of Ways and
Means, the adjourned debate on the Income Tax was
continued. The principal speakers in support of the
ministerial resolution were. Mr. COBDEN, Mr. RICARDO,
Sir F. BARING, and Sir C. WOOD. It was opposed by
Mr. SERJEANT SHEE, Mr. FRENCH, Lord LOVAINE,
and the Marquis of GRANBY.

On Friday, April 29, a warm conversation took place
on the subject of the recent Police Proceedings against
Messrs. Hale, with which the name of M. Kossuth had
been connected; and observations were made by Sir J.
WALMSLEY, Mr. COBDEN, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. PHINN,
and Lord Dudley STUART.—Lord PALMERSTON
observed that he had been taken to task because he had
not answered questions which no man had a right to
put to him. Had he replied in the manner desired, he
would have been greatly departing from his duty. As
to the question whether the procedings now pending
had been instituted or authorised by him, he replied
that "they were." The refugees in this country were
as free as the land they trod, so long as they did not
violate the law, nor abuse the shelter afforded them.
But he held it to be the duty of the Secretary of State
to adopt measures for punishing any man—Englishman
or foreigner—when he rendered himself amenable to
the tribunals of the country.

The adjourned debate on the Income Tax Resolution
was then resumed. Mr. CARDWELL was the principal
speaker in support of the resolution, and Mr. HENLEY
against it. The debate was again adjourned.

On the motion of Mr. FITZROY, the Aggravated
Assaults Bill was read a third time and passed.

On Monday the adjourned debate on the Income Tax
Resolution was again resumed. The principal speakers
were Mr. DISRAELI on the one side and Lord
John RUSSELL on the other. Mr. DISRAELI gave his
approbation to the general principles of the budget,
which were the same as those which, four months ago,
he had himself twice endeavoured to impress upon the
house. He had then urged that we must assimilate our
financial policy to our new commercial system, though
the idea of revision of taxation had at that time been
ridiculed by Lord John Russell, who, he was glad
to find, had somewhat changed his opinions. He had
urged first that a Chancellor of the Exchequer should
not shrink from making a deficiency to be supplied
by new taxes, and secondly, that he should not bound
his operations to the horizon of the current year; but
these heretical doctrines had been then received, the
first with horror, the second with indignation, by the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends.
And now we had a budget for seven years, accompanied
by financial propositions which fixed the rate of interest
for nearly half a century. Having thus given his
approbation to the principles of the budget, as identical
with those he had sought to carry out, he would see
whether he could equally approve the application of
those principles. And first as to the income tax.
After contrasting some remarks by Lord John Russell
seven years ago on the desirability of parliamentary
control over the national resources, with objections
recently expressed in the Economist to such resources
being perpetually under discussion, he said that he
differed with the latter authority; and though, in
conformity with precedent, he had proposed to renew
the income tax for three years, still, if the choice were
between seven years and one, he should prefer the
latter. Then, as to the assessment of the tax. He