people.

The report of the committee was presented at too late a period of the session, to be made the basis of any enactments.

Various discussions took place during the session on particular circumstances connected with the state of Ireland: but none of them led to any result, or produced much discussion, except a motion made on the 26th of May by Mr. Spring Rice "for the production of copies or extracts of any letters or despatches which had been received from the lord lieutenant of Ireland, respecting the origin, nature, and effects, of religious animosities, in that country, and the best means of allaying those animosities with a view to the tranquillization and good government of Ireland, and the strength and security of the empire." The motion was opposed by Mr. Peel, Mr. Goulburn, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and other ministerial members. No ground, it was said, had been laid for the motion: no measure was stated of which it was to be the foundation. It did not appear whether any such despatches or letters as it alluded to had been written; and, if any such were in existence, the production of them would tend to excite rather than to allay the state of the public mind. Mr. S. Rice did not divide the House upon the question: but the debate, on the part of the opposition was animated and keen. So far as they were concerned, it was a funeral dirge over the present fate of the Roman Catholic question, in which the wailings of lamentation were varied in some of the speakers by the keen sharp tones of resentment and disappointMr. Brougham indulged

ment.

direct sarcasms against the duke of York: and he assailed the lord

chancellor with even more than the usual bitterness of personal hostility.* Sir Francis Burdett arraigned, but with that decorum which the honourable baronet seldom, if ever, forgets, the strong language in which lord Liverpool had expressed his opinions in the late debate in the House of Lords; and even went so far as to insinuate that the noble lord had not acted with candour, but had allowed the friends of the Catholics to entertain hopes, that his opinions had undergone some alteration. Why, said sir Francis, on a question of such vital importance, had that noble person kept his feelings and opinions in a state of such mystery? Or why, rather, had he held out hopes to persons most likely to be informed, hopes with which they had inspired the country: thus raising expectations which were not only not to be realized, but for which it afterwards appeared, from the noble lord's violent and unstatesman-like speech, there was less foundation than ever? He did think it a little hard upon these persons who had stood forward in support of the Catholic claims, that they should have been allowed to remain in that state of misapprehension and delusion, which led them to excite hopes, the disappointment of which might expose them to serious inconveniences, while the prime minister of the country kept aloof in that equivocal state, in which he appeared at one

The cause of this attack seems to have been, that it was rumoured that the

lord chancellor had in the House of Lords kett "as being lawyers great in their alluded to Mr. Brougham and Mr. Plunown estimation."

moment to encourage expectation, which he had determined not to realise. This was unjust to the Catholic deputies; it was unjust towards the Catholic bishops and clergy; it was hard, for instance, upon a man like Dr. Doyle, who had been induced, by the ambiguous conduct of the prime minister, to express his concurrence in measures, to which, but for the prospect so held out, he might not have given his assent. Was this conduct on the part of the noble lord generous? Was it even just? In his opinion, it was ungenerous, unwise, unstatesman-like, and the public had a fair right to arraign it. The conduct of the noble lord was the more to be regretted, when it was considered that this question, at all times one of great importance, had become, since a recent declaration, still more important, and more pressing than at any former period. The charge here made against the minister was frequently repeated by those who differed from him in opinion. And it was most undoubtedly true, that the friends of the Catholic question had very industriously circulated a rumour, that lord Liverpool's opinions on the subject had undergone a change, and that he was inclined to the side of concession. The policy of this course was obvious: by increasing their seeming strength and bettering their apparent chance of success, it might induce some of their opponents to waver in their adherence to their former system, or to desert it altogether. It was a rumour, however, which seems to have been circulated entirely without authority or foundation; and whether it originated from policy or from too sanguine hopes, it is surely a little unreasonable to blame a statesman for disappoint

ing expectations of patronage or support, which he had never given any one reason to entertain, but with which they had gratuitously flattered, or pretended to flatter themselves.

Mr. Hume did, as usual, his best, to familiarize the minds of men to the idea of the' spoliation of the Protestant church of Ireland. On the 14th of June, he moved two resolutions:-1st. "That the property now in the possession of the established church in Ireland is public property under the control of the legislature, and applicable to such purposes as in its wisdom it may deem beneficial to the best interests of religion and of the community at large, due regard being had to the rights of every person in the actual enjoyment of any part of that property." And 2nd. "That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, appoint a select committee for the purpose of considering the present state of the Irish church, and the various charges to which ecclesiastical property is liable." They were supported by Mr. Brougham and sir Francis Burdett; and opposed by Mr. Canning and Mr. Peel. The first resolution was negatived without a division: the second, by a majority of 126 to 37.

In consequence of the report of the commissioners on Education, which showed that enormous abuses exist in the administration of the chartered schools of Ireland, sir John Newport called the attention of parliament to that important subject. He stated, that it was in consequence of a petition from the archbishop, the bishops, and many of the dignified clergy, and distinguished laity of Ireland, that the charter-schools of that country were originally founded, and en

dowed with lands for the support and the furtherance of the objects of their establishment. The plan of founding these institutions began in 1734, and carried with it so powerful a recommendation to the patronage of the public, that one individual subscribed 46,000l. three per cents towards their support; another person about 20,000l., and several other private individuals very large sums. The rental of these schools now amounted to upwards of 7,000l. per annum; and since the Union, nearly 600,000l. had been bestowed upon them by the public. In 1808, a report was given in to parliament, signed by the archbishop of Dublin and other distinguished personages who had visited these schools previously. In 1817, Mr. Thackery was appointed to examine into their condition; and afterwards Mr Lee. These commissioners stated, that at the period of their visitation the condition of the schools was far from satisfactory, and the system pursued in them most vicious. It appeared that there was a marked superiority of intelligence, vivacity, and apparent contentment, observable in the half-naked children of the neighbouring peasantry, over the children brought up at these schools; that cruel enormities were practised by the masters, in the punishment of the children; such as seizing them by the throat, half strangling them by that means, and at the same time administering severe flogging with a cane; and that they employed them on Sundays in preparing specimens of penmanship to be laid before the visiting committees of fifteen, while on week days some of them compelled the children to weave for the profit of their tyrants. In the chartered school at Stradbally, the VOL. LXVII.

boys were asked by one of the visitors, whether they were well used; and though, in fact, they were cruelly treated, such was their terror of the master that they answered in the affirmative. At that school, one boy was in a single day flogged nine times with a leathern thong, and received about 100 lashes. As to the system of education, some of the boys were unable to tell whether the word "Europe" implied a man, a place or a thing. The master was a farmer; and made the boys work for him in his garden. The late bishop Pocock had left a bequest for the establishment of a weaving school at Newport, and the erection of a building for the purpose of affording the scholars religious instruction. Out of thirty-six scholars in that establishment, there were only thirteen who could read, and only six copy-books among them all; the master could not teach. At the charter-school of Clonmel, there were only two scholars and no books; the master was a cripple, but he had a salary of 50l. per annum, and twenty-four acres of land, at a rental of 25s. per acre, though the adjoining land let commonly, at the time of the report, at eight guineas, and now at six guineas per acre. Not only were the objects of these charities perverted, but all complaints were prevented from reaching the committee. There was an understanding, indeed, between the registrar and the masters of these schools, who constantly made him presents, and advanced him monies without interest. Sir John Newport concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, expressing the marked sentiments of regret, and indignation, with which the House of [G]

Commons perused the details of unwarrantable cruelty practised on the children in several of the Charter-schools of Ireland, contained in the report presented to both Houses of Parliament by the commissioners appointed by his Majesty for examination into the state of the schools of Ireland, and praying that his Majesty may be pleased to direct the law officers of the Crown in that part of the United Kingdom to institute criminal prosecutions against the actors, aiders, and abettors of those dreadful outrages, as far as they may be amenable to law."

Mr. Peel candidly admitted, that, from the report itself, the inference was inevitable, that the system of the charter-schools was one which did not admit of correction, but ought to be extinguished altogether, as soon as possible. He added, that the report was not two days in the possession of government, before an order was sent, prohibit ing the admission of any more children upon those foundations. At the same time, he thought that, if the masters could be proved ju

dicially to have been guilty of such atrocities as were stated in the report, dismissal would not be punishment enough; they ought to be prosecuted. In that case they should have the benefit of a fair trial: and parliament ought not to interfere, so as to prevent an impartial decision, which they would do, if they adopted the words of the proposed resolution. He therefore hoped that the right hon. baronet would so far alter the wording of his motion, as not to assume the existence of the guilty practices, which were to constitute the subject of inquiry.

Sir J. Newport, in compliance with Mr. Peel's suggestion, withdrew the original resolution, and the following motion was agreed to unanimously, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to the law-officers of the Crown in Ireland to institute criminal proceedings against the persons concerned in the cruelties detailed in the report of the commissioners on Education, so far as they may be amenable to law."