these schools belonged to the heritors. They were nothing but trustees, and the power which had placed them there to administer that trust was competent to take it from them. No doubt the schools were supported by an assessment upon the land, but they were established for the education of the great body of the people. Upon these grounds he entreated the House not to mutilate or reject this proposition, which was that in the only part of the United Kingdom where the people were perfectly ripe for a common system of education, they should fill up the void which existed upon the principle of a common faith, and that they should altogether abolish sectarian differences, which were bad enough where they were inevitable, and which it must be the wish of every one to dispense with where possible. Scotland was perfectly ready for this important work, and he was satisfied if it were not marred by such propositions as that of the hon. Member for Elginshire, that it would be a good day for that country when the Bill passed. Many philanthropic people thought that they might build up a system of secular education which should embrace all classes of religionists, but it was clear from the speech of the hon. Member below the gangway (Mr. Bowyer) that that would not suit the Roman Catholics. As Roman Catholics would be required to pay under this Bill for the Presbyterian system, it would be the height of injustice to withdraw their present Privy Council grants. Seeing the great masses of Roman Catholics that inhabited the large towns-those hotbeds of crime he thought that the grants ought to be continued; and looking to the poverty of the Roman Catholics in Scotland, his own individual opinion was, that it was a fair subject for consideration whether they might not be administered even upon a more liberal scale than hitherto. MR. HADFIELD said, that he could not agree with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, that it would be a good day for Scotland when this Bill passed. Letters, which he received every day from that country, informed him that there were very many dissentients to the proposed measure, and that the people were becoming more and more convinced of its impolicy. He denied that the majority of the people of Scotland were in favour of this Bill; there was a large body in Scotland opposed to it. [Oh, oh!] He would be heard for the short time that he was anxious to address the House. [Cries of 66 vide, divide."] Well, if they would not hear him, he would move that the House do now adjourn. The hon. Member's voice being drowned by Cries of "Divide," he concluded abruptly by moving "That the House adjourn.' MR. SERJEANT SHEE said he had voted for the second reading of the Bill because he was desirous of giving to the people of Scotland a system of sound moral and religious education; but it was the duty of those hon. Gentlemen who, like himself, were returned by Roman Catholic constituencies, to take care of the interests of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects in every part of Great Britain. The right hon. and learned Lord had stated that he expressed only his own individual opinion. with regard to the Catholic population of Scotland THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he must beg to explain that he had said, on the part of the Government that it was not intended by this Bill to effect any change in the position of the Catholic population of Scotland as regarded the Privy Council grants, and he had added that, in his own opinion, the case of the Roman Catholics in the large towns for more favourable terms was very deserving of consideration. MR. SERJEANT SHEE said, he was aware that this Bill did nothing which would prejudice the interests of the Catholics of Scotland, and if the right hon. and learned Lord had spoken with the authority of the Government he should feel quite justified in voting with the Government to-night; but if there were any doubt upon that point, it must be cleared up. The Government would not have the benefit of the votes of the representatives of Ireland, unless they distinctly stated their concurrence in the sentiments and opinions of the right hon. and learned Lord. therefore, called upon the right hon. and learned Lord to give a distinct assurance that the Queen's Catholic subjects in Scotland should be fairly treated, and he would then again vote for the moral and religious education of the Presbyterian people of Scotland according to their own religious opinions. He, LORD JOHN MANNERS said, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) to continue his remarks, and to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he had only to say, in reply to the hon. and Di- learned Serjeant's appeal to him as to MR. HADFIELD said, he objected to proceeding at that late hour. The LORD ADVOCATE said, he had no serious intention of proceeding at that time with the Committee, and should therefore move that the Chairman do report MR. HADFIELD said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would consider in the meantime whether, after the division just taken, he would proceed with the Bill at all. He felt confident that the people of Scotland would, if time allowed, express such an opinion as would render it impossible to go on with the measure. {MAY 21, 1855} whether the Lord Advocate had expressed the opinion of the Government, that that which his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate had stated with regard to this Bill was perfectly true; it made no change in the condition either of the Catholics or of the Episcopalians of Scot-progress. land. The hon. and learned Serjeant then wanted to know something altogether independent of the Bill. He asked, as he (Lord Palmerston) understood, whether it was the intention of the Privy Council to alter the present system of administering grants to the Roman Catholic schools in Scotland. That was a question which the Committee of the Privy Council would have to consider, but it formed no part of the matter now before the House, and it must, therefore, be left open for the consideration of the Government and of the Privy Council, which would act according to the circumstances of the case. But, as far as the question now before the House was concerned, it was manifest that the hon. and learned Serjeant ought to vote in support of the Bill. The House resumed. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he had moved the adjournment of the Committee for different reasons to that suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield; but first, because of the lateness of the hour (halfpast twelve), and next, because the settlement of the main question by the division just taken would allow many hon. Members who had opposed it to assist the Governin concerting any improvements which might be desirable. The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, May 21, 1855. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS. - 1 Weights and MR. HADFIELD said, he called upon the hon. and learned Serjeant not to support the Bill, as the noble Lord had given no information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Privy Council grants. He had received letters from gentlemen in Scotland, who assured him that a feeling of opposition to the measure was growing up, which would prevent its being carried into operation. The United Presbyterians had met in synod, when forty-three out of 113 who were present voted against the Bill, and even the seventy who approved it objected to the 27th clause. The course they were now taking would, in his opinion, check the progress of education in Scotland, and throw into the hands of Government a power which they would not be able to exercise. He opposed both the present Bill and that of the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling), as he thought it impossible to take State pay for education" of the people without committing moral injustice. He would not press his Motion for adjournment. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 149; Noes 142: Majority 7. Main Question put, and agreed to. 2 Customs Duties; Spirit, &c. Duties (Excise); RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved, that this Bill be read a second time, with the view of its being hereafter referred to a Select Committee." LORD REDESDALE would not oppose the Motion, but wished to guard against its being understood that he concurred in the principle of the Bill, which was one requiring, he considered, a great deal of consideration. The Bill might, he thought, afford facility for persons being induced, by those who were discontented with the clergyman of a parish, to attend a species of worship which would be neither strictly private nor strictly public, and might in that way create disunion and give rise to most objectionable consequences. Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow. of the commoners, or squatters, who were, in consequence, deprived of their pasturage; and the Bill was also accompanied with the total destruction of Her Majesty's deer. The whole management of the forest was then placed in the hands of a Commissioner. Mr. Kennedy, the late Commissioner, was now gone; and of that gentleTHE NEW FOREST-INCENDIARY FIRES. man he might say, that he did not belong THE EARL OF MALMESBURY wished to either of the categories of official gentleto call the attention of the Government to men described the other day by the noble the deplorable state of the New Forest Lord the Secretary for War, when he said during the last two winters. He was sorry that there were two kinds of men-one to say, that during that period there had round men, fitted for round holes; the been a great number of incendiary fires, other, square men, fitted for square holes; not only in the forest itself, which had Mr. Kennedy belonged to neither, for he burned a great deal of the grass and heath was a three-cornered man-a most decidall over the forest, and some of Her Ma- edly triangular man, and unfitted for any jesty's plantations also, but which had hole whatever, and it was under his iron. spread to the neighbouring properties, se- rule that these depredations began. The veral of which, including his own, had whole source of the evil was this-that been burned. Last year the crime of Mr. Kennedy, when he received the apincendiarism was exceedingly prevalent in pointment of Commissioner, at once put the New Forest, and yet the Government an end to all the permissions that had been took no pains either to put a stop to it or previously given to people to cut turf to detect and punish the offenders. From and pasture their milch cows in the forest. January to May, 1854, there had been no Hence a great deal of discontent and disless than twenty-four incendiary fires, and satisfaction had been created. In addition in more than one instance cottages were to the acts which he had mentioned, poachburned to the ground, and the inmates had ing had also immensely increased; and if difficulty in escaping with their lives. But Government had any wish to keep up the what had the Government done with a view stock of game in the district, he could to prevent these acts? Nothing; posi-assure them that they would not be able to tively worse than nothing; for they had do so unless they changed the system and reduced the number of keepers, and dis- augmented the strength of the staff emmissed four policemen who had been appointed to look after the depredators. Last winter these acts of incendiarism were renewed, and amongst other property destroyed was a lodge. Three weeks ago he (the Earl of Malmesbury) visited that part of the country, and saw three or four miles of the New Forest in a blaze. It was two or three days before the flames could be extinguished, and of course very considerable damage was done. This district, as their Lordships were aware, was a wild one, far removed from any large town, and not partaking of that civilisation which districts in the neighbourhood of large towns enjoyed. One would think, however, that that would have been a reason for exercising a more careful supervision; but as he had just shown, the Government had been most supine. About five or six years ago Lord Seymour brought in a Bill, which was afterwards passed into a law, for the inclosure of a considerable quantity of the New Forest, and this measure occasioned a loud outcry on the part ployed in the forest. As yet, he believed, not a single person had been detected or brought to justice for the crimes to which he had alluded; and it was only within the last fortnight that a reward of 501. had been offered by Government for the detec tion of the offenders. In these days of civilisation and improvement of all kinds, it was absurd to suppose that any district could be allowed to exist in this country that was the resort of ill-disposed persons amenable to no law. If the New Forest was to be retained as an appanage of the Crown, then the least that Government could do was to place such a force there as would be sufficient to prevent the perpetration of those crimes. In its present state he did not think the forest would be much longer tolerated by the public; it was high time, therefore, for the Government to consider whether they ought not to bring it gradually within the pale of civilisation; or, if they thought that it should still remain an appanage of the Crown, whether it might not be used as a hunting ground for the Queen's hounds, for it was well known that at this moment Her Majesty's hunts could not be held as formerly in the vicinity of London. The New Forest was exactly fitted for the service of the Queen's hounds; and he would recommend, therefore, that it should be made really useful for some public purpose, or that measures should at once be taken for preventing so large a tract of land, some 60,000 or 70,000 acres in extent, remaining exposed to the crimes and depredation which had occurred of late years. mitted the crimes. The persons to be employed in that capacity ought to be strangers. House adjourned till To-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, May 21, 1855. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS. -2° Coal Mines In- 3° Alterations in Pleadings. THE LATE CAPTAIN CHRISTIE-EX- MR. ROEBUCK said, he begged to give notice of his intention to move for all papers relating to the conduct of the late Captain Christie as commander of transports in the Black Sea; a statement of the dates at which such papers were received at the Admiralty; a copy of any letter written by Sir James Graham as First Lord of the Admiralty, ordering an inquiry into the conduct of Captain Christie; the date of such letter; a copy of any letter written by Sir J. Graham, ordering a court-martial to be held upon Captain Christie, and the date of such letter. EARL GRANVILLE said, the noble Earl was correct in stating that there had been many fires in the New Forest lately -four had occurred during the present year, but it did not appear that they were all incendiary, and one was proved to have been accidental. There could be no doubt that the extremely dry state of the ground, caused by the protracted drought, had much facilitated the operations of incendiaries, and had led to greater destruction than would otherwise have taken place. He could assure the noble Earl that there had been no delay or neglect on the part of the Government; but it was very difficult to catch the criminals, as by some means a fire might be kindled and the criminal be four or five miles distant before the breaking out of the fire was discovered. SIR JAMES GRAHAM: I do not With regard to the dismissal of police, it know, Sir, that it will be quite regular for was considered by the surveyor of the me, upon a mere notice of motion, to adforest that it was better to have a larger dress the House; but I think that in a number of watchers and fewer policemen ; matter personally affecting one of its memand as soon as Government heard of the bers the House will extend that courtesy fires they sent him orders to appoint as to me which I now crave at its hands. many watchers as he pleased. A reward The House will remember that on the of 501. had been offered, as the noble Earl motion for the adjournment on Friday last stated. Three persons had already been the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. arrested, and the cases of two of them Layard) made some comments in the most were now before the Attorney General. pointed manner alluding to myself. I had The attention of the department within not the slightest intention of addressing whose jurisdiction the New Forest came the House upon that occasion, but the had been particularly drawn to the state allusions were such that I thought it abof things of which the noble Earl com- solutely necessary to rise in my place. plained, and every exertion would be made At that moment I had not in my hands with a view to correcting the evil. With any official documents, nor had I an regard to the suggestion of the noble Earl, opportunity of referring to dates, but that the New Forest might be appropriated without the least preparation addressed to the service of Her Majesty's buck the House according to my recollection hounds, his noble Friend the Master of and impressions at the moment. If I the Hounds (the Earl of Bessborough) remember aright I stated on that ocwas not then in the House; but it seem-casion what was my strong opinion, ed to be a very good suggestion, and he would communicate it to his noble Friend. THE EARL OF MALMESBURY was not at all sure that men who were appointed watchers might not be the men who com that considering the freedom of debate in this House it was absolutely necessary that the members exercising it should use the utmost caution with respect to the accuracy of their statements, and also 831 The Late Captain Christie- {COMMONS} Explanation. 832 Captain Christie was issued before, and not after, the debate in which the hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke of that officer, and that it was not in consequence of the debate to which I have alluded that Captain Christie was removed by the Admiral from the command which he held in the Black Sea. Fortunately I am in a condition to show that the error was perfectly unintentional on my part, for before the Committee, over which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) presides, I produced the original document from the Admiralty, in which the order was given to inquire into the conduct of Captain Christie. That document is dated the 28th of December, 1854, and the order having been produced before the Sebastopol Committee, with the permission of the First Lord of the Treasury, I think I may venture to read it to the House. It is to the following effect : that it was incumbent upon them, when any error they have committed shall have been brought to their knowledge, to take the earliest opportunity of correcting it. I am still of that opinion, and I believe that unless the course I have stated be pursued by all the members of this House, the freedom of debate itself will be brought into disrepute. Now without any opportunity afforded to me by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, of offering him an explanation on this the first day after the debate to which I have referred, he thinks, and thinks rightly, that there was an error in the statement which I made on Friday last, and to my surprise the first intimation which I received of that error was reading this morning in one of the public papers a letter signed by the hon. Member-not giving to me in my place an opportunity of tendering any explanation upon any inquiry made by him. I stated also on Friday last, that when an explanation was required by any Member with reference to an error in his statement, I did not think that want of courtesy in the mode of asking it formed any justification for refusing it; and, acting upon that principle, I am now about to tender to the House an explanation of the error into which I fell on Friday night, and which has been commented on by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. On that occasion I was strongly impressed with the opinion that the speech made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury with reference to Captain That is the order dated the 28th of DeChristie had been delivered in the Session cember, 1854, which I produced before before Christmas. I had no opportunity the Sebastopol Committee. It is perfectly of looking to the authoritative record of what took place, and made my statement simply under a strong impression to the effect I have stated. But the hon. Member in the document to which I have referred, calling for an explanation, has stated two things. In the first place, he refers to my speech on Friday last, and quotes the following passage:- "I believe the first serious question raised with respect to his competency was raised in this House by the hon. Member for Aylesbury." I then went on to say, "I ordered an inquiry to be instituted-after that debate to which I have alluded-by the Commander in Chief on the naval station as to whether, in his opinion, Captain Christie had effectively and well discharged the duties of the station to which he had been appointed." There is, Sir, an inaccuracy in that statement. I am now aware that the order to inquire into the conduct and efficiency of "I have to call your particular attention to the grave error committed by Captain Christie, in sending certain Turkish troops to Balaklava instead of Eupatoria, as adverted to by Lord Raglan in his despatch of the 8th instant, and with reference to the general conduct of the transport service in the Black Sea, their Lordships wish to be furnished, as speedily as circumstances will permit, with your opinion and report as to the manCaptain Christie, and as to the perfect competency ner in which those duties have been discharged by of that officer to carry out the intentions of the Government, and his capability to fulfil the duties devolving upon an officer holding so important a post." correct as stated by the hon. Member for Aylesbury in his letter, that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) on the 23rd of February, referred to an order that had been issued by the Admiralty antecedent to the statement of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, on the 19th of the same month. After I sat down on Friday evening that debate was called to my recollection, and I had reason at once to believe that I had made an incorrect statement. On Saturday morning I wrote to the first Lord of the Admiralty, and asked him to furnish me with copies of the offi cial documents. I have not yet received those copies, but referring to the document which, as I have stated, I produced before the Sebastopol Committee, looking at its date, and remembering also a further despatch addressed to Sir Edmund Lyons on his assuming the command of the fleet |