Friend for leave to bring in the Bill, which MR. BRADY said, he rose to contradict : Question put; The House divided: REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) Order for Committee read. Clause 1 (Sheriff or Magistrate may ad only taken the oath by e unfortunate attorney who th for the Archbishop and fee for doing so, had since eminent divines, but that sured him that he must s of eternal fire for the at he had therefore been Lambeth Palace with the to entreat the Archbishop and to relieve him from y he had so incautiously at his Grace had refused to left him in his miserable . Bowyer) did not wish to rev. Prelates with perjury; not think that this oath ed to bind them in their mbers of the House of did ask for Roman Cathoterpretation of their oath the House of Commons. ing in a Bill to reform the and, it would be one to her; because that Church, ed originally by force, and up by law, was in no true ď a national Church. He -, from coveting the wealth ment either in England or e Roman Catholic Church holesomer condition than se if it was possessed of ; and her bishops with . or 500l. a year were as e, and as saintly as any orld. The hon. and learned e wished to improve the osition of the Established away what appeared to t; but he (Mr. Bowyer) Protestants were the best themselves. He did not e with their affairs, just ed the Protestants not to he monastic institutions. his Bill, he could not con. and learned Friend (Mr. n the principles upon which because he thought that ating to the Established d could satisfy the people if it did not deal root and injustice, that abuse and pletely settle the question. of his hon. and learned t settle the question, and elieved, satisfy the people vertheless he should vote of his hon. and learned children in the scho MR. MAGUIRE said, that these schools were viewed with the greatest suspicion by the Roman Catholics, of whom there were not fewer than 100.000 in Glasgow alone, and 250,000 in the whole of Scotland. He had been desired by one of the highest dignitaries of the Church to which he belonged to oppose the further progress of the Bill. It must not, however, be supposed that he was averse to the principle of reformatory schools; on the contrary, he believed that the plan was one of the wisest and most benevolent that could be devised for the reforming young criminals, who were often rather the victims of accident than of their evil passious. The statement which he was about to make referred chiefly to the school at Edinburgh. In 1847, the Rev. Dr. Guthrie published in the newspapers an eloquent address; calling upon persons of all denominations to unite for the succour of this unhappy class. That appeal was most successful; it was responded to by Catholics as well as Protestants; but the cloven foot of fanaticism soon made its appearauce. A demand was made to know the principles on which the schools were to be conducted; and the Committee, after much pressing, admitted that the reading of the Bible was to be accompanied with such comments and explanations as were fitted for Protestants. Dr. Guthrie himself admitted that of the they were each Te made to educate a miserable at y the power to ma ted to the reform the Bill first in MR. DUNLOP said, that the Bill undoubtedly, give the magistrate power of sending a child to Dr. Gu school; but he did not consider that a proselytising school. He had t that he meant to introduce a proviso which the magistrate would be obli send the child to any particular sch wherever there might be more tha school; and he had no doubt but the man Catholic schools would be estab in all towns in which Irish labourers found in considerable numbers. 297 children in the school, one-half were were struck out upon consultation Catholics; and this declaration of the some of the promoters of the Bill. Committee excited the greatest astonishMR. LUCAS said, he thought ment and displeasure, not only amongst case of greater oppression could Catholics, but also among the supporters conceived than that a magistrate of the schools generally. The late Lord be empowered by Act of Parliam Jeffrey, amongst others, addressed a re-send a child to Dr. Guthrie's prosel monstrance to the Lord Provost, showing school, where it should be kept till t that a large portion of those for whom the of fifteen under the penalty of wh schools were designed were by this mea- and imprisonment." sure practically excluded from their benefits. This description of the Edinburgh schools applied to all similar schools, whether in Glasgow, Paisley, or elsewhere. The Edinburgh United School was conducted on an entirely opposite principle. There the faith of the Catholic children was respected; religious instruction was given to Protestants and Catholics sepa-lected by the child's parents or gua rately, and they were each allowed to attend their own places of worship. Let the promoters of this Bill adopt the same principles, and every Catholic gentleman would say, "God speed your blessed work." In Dr. Guthrie's school half the children were Catholics, but they were supplied with food, and this secured their attendance. The attempt was made to educate them in a sort of nondescript faith called "the great Catholic faith," which was neither one thing nor the other. When the children left school, they were at liberty to choose their creed; but it was easy to see what would be their choice, looking at the parties by whom they had been trained. This was nothing but a miserable attempt at proselytising by sweeping the very streets. Unless a provision were introduced into this Bill for protecting the faith of Catholic children, he should continue to oppose it. It was said the Catholic children might go to some other school; but there were no other schools; perhaps the Edinburgh United School was the only one in Scotland to which Catholics could send their children. Let the Government take security for protecting the faith of the Catholic children in these schools; he had no confidence in the promoters of this Bill, and recommended that it should not be proceeded with this Session. MR. M MAHON said, he should move the insertion of words which would give the magistrate the power to make inquiry of the children as to the condition and residence of the parents previous to their being committed to the reformatory school. MR. DUNLOP had no objection to the insertion of the words, and which were proposed in the Bill first introduced, but MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, he ed that there was some further obj view than appeared on the face of thi He certainly thought that it would be easily perverted into nothing but S to kidnap the souls of young chi Such a scheme could never lead t good whatever. A Irish children wer to be turned into Protestants in that ner; they might, while young, appe be perverted, but, in the end, it wou found that their minds were filled w farrago of religions, and that they in truth, of no religion whatever. knowledge of ethnological science however, show that their work in th spect would be perfectly useless; for might as well attempt to operate up young gipsy as upon a young Roma tholic child. MR. LUCAS said, he wished to whether, under the Bill, Roman Ca children could be sent to Dr. Gut school, which was admitted to be a pr tising school? THE LORD ADVOCATE said, t appeared to be entirely forgotten the very large proportion of the children would come under the operation of Bill were of no religion whatever, a appeared to be trifling with a great tion to argue its effect upon the chi of the Roman Catholic religion. could, in his opinion, be more fair or sonable than the proviso of the hon. ber for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) to gi No power of sending children | sent attempt to rescue the children in the ich the parent or guardian large towns from their present state of crime and misery. He was sorry to find the good intentions of the promoters of this measure frustrated. They had had many difficulties to contend with, and it was too bad, when they sought to take a wretched infant from the streets, to be told that their object was to proselytise him. Men actuated by such a motive would not have made the sacrifices they had. f Roman Catholics thought w the laudable example of d establish Roman Catholic hools, there was a wide field ercise of their philanthropy, dvise them to adopt such a NELL said, he felt greater er in this Bill, after the obn had fallen from the right ed Lord Advocate. The had not opposed the Go n this subject for England, vernment had promised to viding for Catholic children ading. That promise had why, it was for the GovernHe trusted that the Irish not allow themselves to be way again. MR. LUCAS said, he must assert that his party had met the matter in a fair spirit. When the question first arose in the Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill, they had attended the Committee, and proposed an arrangement which they thought would be satisfactory to all parties. The clanse introduced into the Bill to carry out that agreement was rejected by the Lords. When the Bill came back the bigotry of the majority of the House prevailed, and the Lords' decision was acquiesced in. They were prepared to adopt the same arrangement in the present Bill; the promoters had it in their power to obviate all objections. He had some time since suggested an Amendment to the hon. Member for Greenock to the effect that all the schools under the Act should be registered; if a school was intended for children of one denomination only, it should be stated, and those of any other religion should not be sent there. If a clause to that effect was inserted, all opposition would cease. AIR said, he must deny that e Bill was to tamper with Roman Catholic children. only object was to reclaim pless vagrants. The course an Catholic gentry ought matter was to accept the oposed by his hon. Friend r Greenock, and to build h children of their persuat. He (Colonel Blair) wishhon. Member for Greenock dany objection to change years to fourteen years? P said, he had no objection ange. MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, it was unfair to represent the Catholic Members as being bigots, and against the education of these children. All they wished was, that the schools should not be perverted from their proper and legitimate objects. MR. BRADY said, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate whether, in his opinion, the Bill gave any guarantee for the protection of Catholic children? KTON MILNES said, he I that the opposition to this 1 on such grounds as would empt to provide for the remixed population. Surely tholic Members would not children of that persuasion plunged in crime, rather - should come in contact bers of another religion. y believe that any person ee the children exposed to now beset them than to modification of their reliI be different if they said, ish to oppose you, but we afeguards." If they had that spirit, he felt cerromoters would have done MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, he wishheir power to satisfy them. ed the hon. Member for Greenock would en incurred a fearful re-read the proviso. MR. SERJEANT SHEE said, it appeared to him that they were disputing about nothing. The main principles of the Bill were conceded. He knew Scotland, and was aware that there existed a necessity for these schools. He would suggest that the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) and the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) should come to some arrangement. sought to defeat the pre- MR. DUNLOP said, the proviso was Advocate vish the Catholic schools to be ma so did not mee 11there were Catl ery district i the case. dment but AIR said, h RD ADVOCAT dents against bec most extravagant a large matures. If the B why was it not ta and its provis ? Cese resumed. ittee report progres the argent, and on th this, that if the parent or guardian of any | introduction of the Bill. The Lords MR. LUCAS said, that the proviso did SIR JAMES GRAHAM said, 1 not think the hon. Gentleman was of the nature of the Bill he (Sir J ham) wished to bring in. It did no to enlarge the powers of the High of Admiralty. The Act which the Gentleman complained of was an A COLONEL BLAIR said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman, who was so much afraid of proselytism, that a large number of Catholic children attended the parochial schools in Scotland, but there were no instances of their changing their religion. MR. BRADY said, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had not an-ercised by the Government on thei swered his question. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he was not aware that there was any provision in the Bill to guarantee the children of Catholic parents against becoming Protes MR. DUNLOP said, that those hon. Members who had opposed the Bill had said that they had done so from a paramount sense of duty; but where was their sense of duty when the Government Bill was carried through every stage? discretion, and not under the autho the High Court of Admiralty. Bu Bill had nothing to do with that su It was a Bill to enlarge the power High Court of Admiralty merely extent of enabling it to appoint Co sioners in the country to take affi similar to the power possessed b Court of Chancery. That provisio required by reason of a doubt having expressed in a court of law as efficacy of an affidavit taken by a Co sioner of the Court of Chancery matter cognisable by the High Co Admiralty. That was the first pro of the Bill. The second was to le affidavits taken before our consul other authorities in foreign countries third provision was, to allow suits instituted without the arrest of the MR. F. SCULLY thought the present Bill was a most extravagant one. He had been for some years a Member of the House, and he never saw a more wicked attempt to destroy a large class of his-this was a provision intended fo fellow creatures. If the Bill was worth anything, why was it not taken up by the Government, and its provisions extended to Ireland? House resumed. Committee report progress. ADMIRALTY COURT BILL. MR. FERGUS said, he objected to the benefit of commerce; and the fourt last provision of the Bill was to sub stamps for fees. Leave given; Bill ordered to be b in by Sir James Graham, Admiral ley, and Mr. Osborne. Bill read 1o. The House adjourned at five m before Six o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, July 20, 1854. ; Turnpike Trusts Arrange 7 Chancery; Merchant ShipSavings Banks; Marriages UCATION (IRELAND.) ILLE laid on the table evidence, appendix, and Select Committee on Na(Ireland). of Ireland were in favour of the present THE EARL OF DERBY could not but EGLINTON said, he ne Report to be presented os without saying a few As he understood that it ent for Members of that protest upon any subject a Committee, he would unity of expressing his m, and disapprobation of, his noble Friend had laid It appeared to him that ty-one Members of their e, most of them men of amentary experience, and owledge, having sat for pon this subject, having of the most intelligent uld be produced in Ireobtained evidence which d fill larger blue books et been laid upon their -the fact of such a Comg been able to come to subject so important as their charge appeared to h a degree of absurdity, reliction of duty, that he upon to take this opporg his hands of the whole could not conceive anytisfactory to Ireland, or the feelings of the Memmittee themselves, than ecision it could be called, ome to. important question, a L MONTEAGLE adopted on this occasion Tassel the sam taken in 1907 by both ment on this very subj Come of the Hous 15 the noble Earl opp Derby was a member a least be a distingu any assembly to which he asion the no was an aescing party that tee, which w evdenes they had taken Commis Teradation of their naccompanied THE EARL OF DERBY had no desire to enter the general question. complain of the ed by the noble Earl noble Friend (the he had charged d any Resolutio en, in point of come down w roted by an a L OF CLANCA ire this discussi Member of the Pe evidence now u was taken, to sa ence of observa m the noble Ea of the Committ Harness (the Marg beside him. It w rprise that I he ak of the nationa Ireland as being P there is nothing i y such a remark; zech from which to tadesion. The Com THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE said, that the Resolutions of his noble Friend (Earl Granville) were mere suggestions, and not Resolutions. They were submitted in that sense to himself (the Marquess of Lansdowne) with an intimation that they were not intended to be moved as Resolutions unless they were likely to meet with the general assent of the Members of the Committee. It was subsequently found, however, on further consideration, that there was no prospect whatever of these Résolutions receiving general concurrence, or of their having the very desirable effect of reconciling divergent opinions upon this ILLE thought it rather. e, on the presentation of ommittee, for a noble Lord the minority in that Comnd state over again his obclusion at which the ma. If his noble Friend's strong on this point, he t he had not moved ceror recommendations in the f. And when his noble che decision of the Comunsatisfactory to Ireland, e) begged to say that he t majority of the people Presses from above forty days; evel ee Earl to acknowle to the duct of the inquir cd unremitting at examined, and it |