Commons Sitting of 9 July 1838

THE EARL OF DURHAM.
Sir Edward Sugdenrose to ask some questions of the noble Lord in regard to what had taken place in Canada. The House were aware, that before the act relating to the suspension of the constitution in Canada passed, there were three public bodies, besides the Governor himself. There was the Executive Council, the Legislative Council, and the Legislative Assembly. By the act which had been passed this. Session, they had suspended the functions of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, but they did not interfere with the Executive Council. But that act authorised the Crown to appoint a Special Council, consisting of so many persons as the Crown might think proper to adopt; and, by a subsequent clause, no act was valid in which the initiative was not in the former, and that not less than five of the Council should be present. It appears by the last papers, that Sir John Colborne having received the act, on the 27th of March he proclaimed that act, and wrote a dispatch immediately to say, that he was enabled to appoint fifteen or twenty gentlemen to form a Special Council. By another despatch it also appeared, that he had appointed twenty-one, persons of whom eleven were French Canadians, two were Canadians, and the others were British. A session was held, in which business was transacted as it might be in that House, and he believed, that twenty-six
32
laws or ordinances were passed by this Council. Early in the month of May, Sir John Colborne dissolved the Council, and in a despatch, addressed by him to Lord Glenelg, he stated the great satisfaction he had derived from the unanimity which had prevailed in the deliberations of the Council. What he wanted, then, to know was, whether Government had authorised, by instructions, Lord Durham, not simply to appoint an Executive Council, but also to remove the existing Special Council, and to appoint a new Special Council; and whether the noble Lord objected to lay on the table of the House the instructions on these subjects, or either of them, with other papers, if necessary, He also wanted to know whether the noble Lord was aware how many persons, and whom, had been appointed to the two Councils; whether they exceeded five in number, and were the same persons? During the discussions in that House there had been published a dispatch from Lord Glenelg to Lord Durham, by which it appeared, that instructions were to be given for a convention of estates to ascertain the opinions of the people of Lower Canada. He wished to know whether the opinions expressed in the despatch to Lord Durham had been abandoned or not?
Lord John Russellwould endeavour to answer the questions which had been asked by the right hon. Gentleman. First, with respect to the appointment of the Executive Council, there had not been any special instructions upon that point. The Governor had the power to appoint for a time such persons, members of the Executive Council as he should think fit. Lord Durham had made use of that power by summoning as his Council certain persons whose names had appeared, and been published in the Gazette of Quebec. The number of the persons was five, and all connected in some way or other with office and the government of Lord Durham. With respect to the appointment of the Special Council, Lord Durham had authority given him to appoint a number of persons, not less than five, by his own act, to form part of that Special Council. The papers which were about to be given to the other House of Parliament he should have no objection to produce. The right hon. Gentleman made a correct inference when he said, that as Lord Durham had thought it expedient to call persons to his Executive Council not connected with the

33
parties in the province, he would probably follow the same principle in the selection of his Special Council. With respect to the further question of the right hon. Gentleman, whether the instructions that had been laid on the table were abandoned, his answer was, that these instructions remained in the same situation, and there had been no variation or abandonment of them. He was persuaded, that Lord Durham had exercised the powers confided to him to the best of his discretion, as far as he had gone. And he must also say, that, from the accounts that had been received from the provinces, it appeared, that his proceeding had met with concurrence and approbation, as expressed by addresses from various parts of the province.
Subject dropped.

CAPTAIN MITCHELL'S PENINSULAR SURVEY.
Mr. Leaderhad to call the attention of the House to a paper which had been laid on the table relative to the expenses of Captain Mitchell's mission to the Peninsula. All those who had read the excellent work of Colonel Napier were aware, that for the purposes of his work he wished to see the maps and plans of Captain Mitchell. He had been referred to Sir George Murray, who refused to let him see them, and never since had he been able to obtain access to them. These maps and plans had been paid for by the public money; they should have been deposited in a public office, where the public might see them. But now he understood, that these maps were about to be published as a private speculation. He wished to know if this were correct?
Viscount Howickhad a very simple answer to give to the hon. Member. All the information he possessed was contained in the return which was before the House. The transaction had occurred long before he was in office.
Mr. Humehad moved for a return, in order to ascertain whether the maps and plans were public property or not, as he considered it a matter of great importance. It appeared that nearly 5,000 l. had been paid out of the public purse for preparing these plans. He did not grudge the application of the money, but the public ought to know what value they had received for the money, and he thought it was the special business of the Government and of the Secretary at War, were
34
public property got out of the proper channel, to ascertain what had become of it. He thought there was neglect somewhere.
Viscount Howicksaid, that this subject was one upon which the War-office had no authority whatever, and it was therefore, totally out of his power to make inquiry on the subject. The original authority for the expense had been given by the Treasury of the day. The Secretary at War had not been consulted, and there had been no correspondence with the Secretary at War. A direct authority was given to the Commander-in-chief to incur the expense. The maps had never been in the custody of the War-office, and as Secretary at War he had no authority, and no responsibility on the subject.
Sir H. Hardingebelieved, that these transactions were twenty-three years old, and he was, therefore, not aware of the details, but there was one statement which the noble Lord made which seemed to him objectionable. The noble Lord seemed to say, that the Secretary at War could not be expected to give information upon military expenditure which had not passed through his own office. Why, almost everything that was expended passed through other channels, but the Secretary at War was always considered as one of the organs of the administration in that House, and when a question was put affecting his department he was always expected to give some explanation. It was, he thought, the province of the Secretary at War to afford explanation when the conduct of a general officer was brought before the House. These expenses had been incurred under the authority of the Treasury, and if the noble Lord had applied to Sir George Murray for the necessary explanation he would have experienced no delay. But the noble Lord refused any explanation, because the matter had not passed through his office. Under these circumstances he objected to the mode of answer given by the noble Lord, and he thought, that the noble Lord ought to afford the information required, and to state, whether he approved of the plans, whether he considered them public property, and whether they ought to be transferred into the hands of a private publisher, or published at the public expense? He thought it was competent to the noble Lord to give answers on these points.
Viscount Howicksaid, that the right

35
hon. Baronet had not quite correctly alluded to what had previously fallen from him. He did not refuse to give information, but he said, that he had already given all the information he possessed or could procure. He had laid Sir George Murray's own statement on the table. That was the only information he could obtain, and he would tell the right hon. Baronet why he could do no more. He did not wish to express an opinion upon the acts of his predecessors, but if the right hon. Baronet called upon him, as he had, for an opinion on the subject, the only opinion he could give, and he gave it very reluctantly, upon a transaction in which so distinguished an officer was concerned—his most distinct and decided opinion was that the transaction had been highly irregular. Those plans being made at the public expense ought to have been placed in some public office. Whether that office should be the Ordnance, or the Royal College at Sandhurst, or the Quartermaster-general's office, he was not prepared to give an opinion; but that in some public office plans made at the public expense ought, from the original time of their formation, to have been deposited, was undoubtedly his distinct opinion.
Sir H. Hardingewould only observe, that the plans had never been finished, and it would, therefore, be useless to have deposited them in a public department.
Viscount Howick: And the officer who had to finish the maps was employed in New South Wales. He thought, that these maps and plans ought to have been deposited, not in the custody of an individual officer, but in some public department; and the right hon. Baronet knew as well as he did that there were various departments in which they might have been deposited, which were independent of the War-office, and subject to no control from the War-office. He believed, that the best that could be done was now doing, and that the arrangement with respect to publication was the best that could be made; but the original transaction namely, incurring these expenses without the knowledge of the Secretary at War, was, in his opinion, a most irregular and improper course.
Sir H. Hardingewould not prolong the discussion, but remind the House that Sir George Murray had incurred a great loss of time and trouble in placing the troops in those plans, and that they were not yet
36
completed. Did the noble Lord mean to say, that these plans were not perfectly at the disposal of the public, or that Sir George Murray would not give them up if required? The only reason why they had not been given up was, that Sir George Murray, being deprived of Captain Mitchell's assistance, could not complete the plans, nor could he put the troops in till they were completed. They could not prevent a public officer like Captain Mitchell from going abroad, although the public service might suffer.
Subject dropped.

SUPPLY—CONSULAR CHAPLAINS.
The House resolved into Committee of Supply.
On the vote of 107,993 l. for the expense of the Consular Department,
Mr. Humewished to call the attention of the Committee to two items in this grant—namely, one containing the salaries paid to the chaplains at our different foreign factories, and another containing the expenditure incurred for building chapels abroad. He contended, that where the congregations were sufficiently numerous, they should pay the salaries of their own chaplains: for the rule now in force, that where the congregation paid one half of the salary, the Government would pay the other half, was most unfair, as in many of the foreign factories more than half the residents were Scotchmen and Presbyterians, and the rest were generally Roman Catholics from Ireland, whilst the chaplain belonged, almost as a matter of course, to the Church of England. He thought, that from this item 5,000 l. should be deducted on account of the salaries of chaplains, and 3,500 l. on account of the building of two chapels.
Viscount Palmerstonhad great pleasure in informing the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the grant for defraying the I salaries of chaplains was founded on more liberal principles, than he appeared to imagine; for it permitted contributions to be made by Government, to the chaplains of congregations belonging to the Church of Scotland as well as to the chaplains belonging to congregations of the Church of England. The condition on which, that grant was made was, that the congregation should themselves pay one half of the chaplain's salary, and, that the Government, on being furnished with the chaplain's receipt for that sum, should

37
immediately pay him the other half. Thus no demand could be made on the public purse, unless the same amount was paid by the congregation themselves.
Sir R. Peelwished to know whether the prohibition was universal, that our consuls should not engage in commercial dealings?
Viscount Palmerstonreminded the right hon. Baronet, that before the year 1826 our consuls could levy, not only fees on all notarial acts, as they did at present, but also fees on the tonnage of the different British ships which came to the port, at which they were stationed. This produced a great inequality in the amount of the emoluments received by our consuls, especially on the south American stations, and also led to various descriptions of abuses. His right hon. Friend, Mr. Canning, had discontinued that system, and had given our consuls fixed salaries in lieu of fees. The notarial fees, however, still continued; they were small in amount, and did not vary much from year to year. With respect to the prohibition, preventing our consuls from engaging in trade, he had only to reply, that it was not universal. The prohibition was given or not, according to the nature of the appointment. Wherever the consul was more of a political, than of a commercial agent, and had diplomatic functions to perform—as in most of the states of South America—there he was prohibited from engaging in trade? but in other places, as in Europe, where we had distinct diplomatic agents, and where the consuls had only commercial functions to execute, there he had no objection to let the consuls engage in commercial pursuits; for, by so doing, it enabled the country, to obtain consuls on smaller salaries, than it would otherwise be able to obtain them.
Grant agreed to.

SUPPLY—CORONATION MEDALS.
A vote of 3,703 l. to defray the expense of several branches of the establishment of the Mint, was proposed.
In answer to a question from Mr. Clay,
Mr. Laboucheregreatly regretted to state, that according to the general opinion of English artists, the execution of the medal for her Majesty's coronation did not answer the expectations entertained from the well-merited reputation of Signor Pistrucci. To show, however, how capable that artist was of elegant design
38
and able execution, he (Mr. Labouchere) need only refer to the coronation medal of George 4th. And though he fully admitted, that the late coronation medal was not executed in the manner that might have been expected from Signor Pistrucci, yet he believed, that the imperfection was entirely owing to an unfortunate circumstance, by which he had been almost totally deprived of sight for two weeks previous to the completion of the work. Signor Pistrucci was as sensible as anybody of the imperfection of the medal, and wrote to him (Mr. Labouchere) to state his regret and explain the cause.
Mr. Humethought it a great pity that these coronation medals could not be put into the pot and remelted. He was sorry for the misfortune of Signor Pistrucci, but he thought that if ever there was a case in which the credit of the Master of the Mint was involved, that something worthy of the British Mint should be put forth it was that of the medal struck for the late coronation, and he thought that corresponding efforts ought to have been made. Why, some of the medals that were selling in the streets for 1d. a-piece were as well executed as the reverse of the gold medals in question, and for the honour of her Majesty's Mint, they ought to be called in and re-melted. He must say, that he could not excuse his right hon. Friend, the Master of the Mint; he, or his deputy, ought to have seen that something better than this was executed. Before he sat down, he wished to know, as they had silver fourpenny pieces in circulation, which had been found very convenient, why they should not have threepenny and twopenny pieces of silver in general circulation also. These pieces were authorized by law and ancient custom; they would prove exceedingly convenient, and he did think that the public ought to have them.
Mr. Laboucherewould be very sorry to see omitted the coinage of these small silver coins, which was usual at the beginning of each reign. The practice had never been omitted, he believed, since the Conquest. The series of silver pennies was the most perfect of any class of our coins; but, he could not think that any public benefit could arise from the circulation of silver coins lower than 4d. One word more with respect to the coronation medal. He thought it ought to be borne in mind, that on occasion of the coronation of George 4th., the whole expense of

39
the execution of the medal was paid back to the public from the proceeds of the sale of that medal, which was executed by Signor Pistrucci; he mentioned this to show, that if the late coronation medal had not answered the expectations of artists and the public, its imperfection was not to be attributed to any want of zeal or ability, but entirely to the unfortunate accident which he had mentioned.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had been understood to hold out hopes at the beginning of the Session, of the re-appointment of the committee, which sat last Session on the Mint, and especially the engraving department, and he thought it very possible, that if that re-appointment had taken place, this imperfect production would not have appeared. He believed, that if the matter had been fully gone into, it would have been found, that the nation paid most extravagantly for the works designed and executed in the engraving department. With respect to a coinage of silver three-pennies, he thought such a coin would be xtremely convenient.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, he had been most anxious for the re-appointment of the committee of last year on this subject, but, at the same time, he had felt it would be useless to re-appoint unless they could be expected to come to a report in the present Session. This, however, he did not feel justified in expecting, because, the state of health of one of the principal officers of the department, whose evidence and suggestions as to improvements in the present system, it would have been most important for the Committee to hear, was such as not to permithis attendance.
Mr. Warburtonhad no wish to derogate from the real merits of the managers of the Mint. He thought, the greatest possible improvement had taken place in the coinage of the country, as would be seen by comparison of the present with the coins some years back.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—DISSENTING CLERGYMEN.
The sum of 4,500 l. having been proposed, as an allowance to Protestant Dissenting Ministers in England, poor French refugees, clergy and laity, &c.
An hon. Gentleman objected to the vote, as repugnant to the voluntary principle which the Dissenters professed, and
40
thought that it was money forced on their acceptance.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas decidedly opposed to the voluntary principle, and therefore, could not entertain any objection to the vote on that ground.
Mr. Hindleyproposed, as an amendment, hat the item of 1,095 l. (the portion of the vote allowed to the Dissenters) be left out.
Mr. Humesupported the amendment.
Mr. Bainesobserved, that it had been originally the gift of King George 1st. to the Dissenters, to whom he was indebted for important services. It had been continued as a gift by George 2nd, but his successor had it transferred to the shoulders of the public. He was of opinion, that when George 3rd made this transfer, the Dissenters, in assertion of the voluntary principle, should have declared against taking this allowance from the state, although there would be nothing objectionable in their taking it as a gift from the sovereign personally. If the matter should come to a vote, he (Mr. Baines) would vote for the discontinuance of the grant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad been applied to to withdraw this vote, but he could not do so; first, because he could not affirm the voluntary principle, to which he continued opposed; and, secondly, because, he could not withdraw that which had been conceded originally as a grant by King George 1st.
Mr. O'Connellwould decidedly vote against the continuance of this grant; and, in doing so, he would vindicate his uniform advocacy of the voluntary principle. He was favourable, however, to that portion of the grant which had reference to the French refugees, who were the descendants of the victims of an act of the basest treachery recorded in the pages of history—he alluded to the Revocation of the edict of Nantes.
Mr. Gibsonsaid, he should vote for the grant, were it only for the purpose of marking his opinion of the insufficiency of any voluntary system. The poorer ministers of religion could never be otherwise supported than out of the public purse.
Mr. Kembleobserved, that if the dissenting ministers felt, that this species of remuneration was inconsistent with their religious principles, nothing would be easier for them than to refuse it.
Viscount Sandonshould vote for continuing the grant, so long as it was received.
Mr. Wallaceon the part of the Dissenters of Scotland, and on the part especially of those whom he had the honour to represent, begged to say, that they had no wish to receive any portion of the public money; he should, therefore, vote for the proposed reduction.
Committee divided on the amendment: Ayes 16; Noes 84: Majority 68.

List of the AYES

Aglionby, H. A.

Turner, W.

Baines, E.

Vigors, N. A.

Bridgeman, H.

Wallace, R.

Brotherton, J.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

White, A.

Lushington, Dr.

Yates, J. A.

O'Connell, D.

Salway, Col.

TELLERS.

Tancred, H. W.

Hume, J.

Thornely, T.

Handley, H.

List of the Ayes

Abercromby, G.

Hughes, W. B.

Ainsworth, P.

Hurt, F.

Alsager, Captain

Hutton, R.

Attwood, W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Kemble, H.

Barnard, E. G.

Langdale, hon. C.

Barry, G. S.

Law, hon. C. E.

Bateson, Sir R.

Lefevre, C. S.

Blair, J.

Lefroy, T.

Blake, W. J.

Litton, E.

Blandford, Marquess

Lushington, Dr.

Blunt, Sir C.

Marshall, W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Martin, T. B.

Bruges, W. H.

Maule, hon. F.

Byng, G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Campbell, Sir J.

Ord, W.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Pakington, J. S.

Chapman, A.

Parker, J.

Clay, W.

Patten, J. W.

Clive, hon. R,

Pendarves, E. W.

Clive, E. B.

Perceval, Col.

Courtenay, P.

Plumptre, J. P.

Crawford, W.

Power, J.

Curry, W.

Pusey, P.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rae, Sir W.

Fitzroy, Lord

Rice, E. R.

Gibson, T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Greene, T.

Rickford, W.

Greenaway, C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Grey, Sir G.

Sandon, Lord

Grimsditch, T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hawes, B.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Hawkes, T.

Slaney, R. A.

Hayter, W. G.

Strutt, E.

Hector, C. J.

Surrey, Earl of

Heneage, G. W.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hepburn, Sir T.

Vivian, J. E.

Hilsborough, Earl of

Walker, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Williams, Wm.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Williams, W. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Wood, G. W.

Hope, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Horsman, E.

Steuart, R.

Howard, P. H.

Trowbridge, Sir T.

SUPPLY—SECRET SERVICE MONEY.
On the question that a sum of 35,900 l. be granted for the purpose of defraying the expenses of Secret Service,
Mr. Williamsobjected to so large a sum being expended without proper responsibility. He would propose, that it be reduced to 25,900 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdenied, that there was a want of responsibility as regarded secret service money. It was mainly used for the purposes of the Foreign-office, and no portion of it was disbursed otherwise than by the authority of the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary, who declared upon oath the amount so expended, and that the same was for public uses. All sums privately expended in other offices were similarly sworn to. He thought it would be hard if the circumstance of England being a free country should deprive us of those advantages in the way of secret information which our rivals and opponents were always enabled to enjoy. He further observed, that the amount had been gradually reduced, and was this year lower than ever.
Mr. Humethought the example of other Governments had been too much followed in this matter, and the time had now arrived when secret service money should be dispensed with altogether. It was only a cloak for improper proceedings. He should not vote for its diminution, but against any grant whatever.
The Committee divided on the original motion: Ayes 111; Noes 13: Majority 98.

List of the AYES

Abercromby, G.

Courtenay, P.

Acland, T. D.

Crawford, W.

Ainsworth, P.

Darby, G.

Alsager, Capt.

Evans, G.

Baring, hon. W.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Barnard, E. G.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Barry, G. S.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bateson, Sir R.

Gladstone, W. E.

Blair, J.

Grant, F. W.

Blake, W. J.

Greene, T.

Blunt, Sir C.

Greenaway, C.

Briscoe, J. I.

Grimsditch, T.

Brocklehurst, J.

Grimston, Viscount

Bruges, W. H. L.

Grimston, hon. H.

Byng, G.

Hawes, B.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hawkes, T.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Hawkins, J. H.

Chapman, A.

Hayter, W. G.

Childers, J. W.

Heneage, G. W.

Clay, W:

Hepburn, Sir T.

Clive, E. B.

Hinde, J. H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Cole, Lord

Hobhouse, T. B.

43

Hodges, T. L.

Rae, Sir W.

Hope, hon. C.

Rice, E. R.

Hope, G. W.

Rice, hon. T. S.

Horsman, E.

Rickford, W.

Howard, P. H.

Roche, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hurt, F.

Rose, Sir G.

Hutton, R.

Salwey, Col.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sandon, Visct.

James, Sir W. C.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Kemble, H.

Sheppard, T.

Langdale, hon. C.

Sibthorp, Col.

Law, hon. C. E.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Lefevre, C. S.

Slaney, R. A.

Lefroy. right hon. T.

Stewart, J.

Litton, E.

Strutt, E.

Lockhart, A. M.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Lushington, Dr.

Surrey, Earl of

Lushington, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Lygon, hon. General

Thompson, Alderman

Macnamara, M.

Thornely, T.

Marshall, W. C.

Troubridge, E. T.

Martin, T. B.

Vivian, J. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Ward, H. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

White, A.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Wilbraham, G.

Ord, W.

Williams, W. A.

Pakington, J. S.

Wood, C.

Parker, J.

Wood, G. W.

Patten, J. W.

Wyse, T.

Pendarves, E. W.

Yates, J. A.

Perceval, Colonel

Phillpotts, J.

TELLERS.

Plumptre, J. P.

Grey, Sir G.

Pusey, P.

Steuart, R.

List of the Noes

Aglionby, H. A.

Turner, W.

Blandford, Marg. of

Villiers, C. P.

Bridgman, H.

Walker, R.

Duke, Sir J.

Wallace, R.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Jervis, S.

Hume, J.

O'Connell, D.

Williams, W.

Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—EDUCATION.
On the vote being proposed, of 20,000 l. for the Erection of School-houses, in aid of private subscriptions for that purpose, for the education of the children of the poorer classes in England,
Mr. Slaneyobjected strongly to the present mode of distributing this vote; some efficient system of inspection was indispensable.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped, that next Session, some legislative measure for establishing a system of inspection over these schools might be carried.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonthought, that perhaps it would be felt desirable to appoint a minister of public instruction.
Mr. Goulburnprotested against the
44
encouragement, on the part of the State, of mere secular education, without any religious instruction.
Mr. Wysethought the locality ought to provide for the religious instruction of the resident poor, but that the Government ought to provide the means of intellectual education. The locality ought to settle the point as to the mode of communicating religious instruction, but the Government should see, that it was communicated, and, at the same time, take care that a system of literary education was established.
Mr. Aclandwished to know what was to be done in a small parish, where there were members of three different religious communities? Would the hon. Gentleman have three schools established? He thought, that the management of railroads and public works might be very well carried on by boards of direction; but, he thought it was not consistent with our English habits, to establish boards of education, and he hoped it never would be. He did not think the Government, being a human institution, ought to have the control of the religious instruction of the people. The institutions of this country were happily bound up with the Established Church, and that constitution of things ought to be respected. He must say, that there was a very efficient inspection of the national schools carried on by the clergy in each parish, and the benefits of those schools were not confined to the children of members of the Established Church, for a very large portion of the children of the Dissenters attended them.
Mr. Villierssaid, that the whole of the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down, was intended to prove, that there was sufficient inspection, because the schools were under the superintendence of the parochial clergy. But what was the fact? Was not the complaint general, that the country, in respect to religious instruction, was in a state of destitution, thus clearly showing, that an improved system of inspection was wanted? The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the establishment of a board as hostile to British habits; but surely that was no argument, for he believed, that England was far behind Prussia, and other continental countries, in point of education—a fact which was nowise creditable to England. He hoped the House would consider, that there had been nothing advanced against some im-

45
proved system of superintendence; and when they voted the public money, it was surely their duty to see how that money was applied. That money at present was given to two societies, and it appeared to him, that the only rule for its distribution at present was, to give it almost exclusively to the most wealthy sect. Now, it was clear that it ought to be applied fairly to the general purposes of education, and he sincerely trusted, that a better system of inspection would be established so as to insure a fairer distribution of the grant.
Sir R. Ingliscould not consent to the doctrine, that because Parliament of late had interfered with the property of the Church, they had a right to interfere also with the religion and mode of instruction adopted and sanctioned by the Church. For himself, he should be sorry ever to see Government interfere in the instruction of the people to such an extent as some hon. Members seemed willing to sanction, as he believed, that such interference could only tend to retard rather than to promote the advance of instruction amongst the people. He objected to the mode in which the grant was disposed of at present, as he considered, that the education of the people ought to be in the hands of the national Church. He would never scruple to say so, because such was his conscientious opinion, and he believed, that there was in the country a growing feeling, that instruction ought to be under the superintendence of the Church.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that all they wanted was fair play, while the hon. Member for West Somerset seemed to wish for a dictatorship in favour of the Established Church. As the grant was the contribution of all sects in religion, they wanted that grant to be fairly divided amongst Protestants, Catholics, and Dissenters. They were all met there on equal terms, and all that those on his side of the House asked for was, equality and justice, and that the Government should superintend the distribution of the money, leaving the instruction to the care of the pastors.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that he should afterwards, he trusted, have an opportunity of exposing the system of education commissions, when he brought the general subject of commissions under the consideration of the House. When, however,
46
he saw, that the Irish Education Commission had cost upwards of 114,000 l., and when he reflected on what the Education Commission for Scotland, which had not yet concluded its labours, had already cost the nation, and when he considered what had been the results of the investigation of those two bodies, he could not help saying that the expense attending such inquiries was a gross waste of the public money.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS BILL.
Mr. Warburtonmoved the third reading of this bill,
Colonel Sibthorp opposed it, and moved as an amendment, that it be read a third time this day six months.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 63; Noes 14:—Majority 49.

List of the AYES

Alsager, Captain

Mackenzie, T.

Archbold, R.

Macleod, R.

Ashley, Lord

Maher, J.

Baines, E.

Maule, hon. F.

Barrington, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Beamish, F. B.

Murray, J. A.

Bowes, J.

O' Brien, W. S.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

O'Connell, M. J.

Burroughes, H.

Pakington, J. S.

Divett, E.

Parker, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Pease, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Perceval, hon. G.

Filmer, Sir E.

Pringle, A.

Finch, F.

Rae, rt. hon. S.

Gladstone, W. E.

Rice rt. hon. T. S.

Gordon, R.

Roche, Sir D.

Grey, Sir G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Grimsditch, T.

Rundle, J.

Hawes, B.

Russell, Lord J.

Hawkes, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Hindley, C.

Sandon, Lord Visc.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Sheil, R. L.

Hodges, T. L.

Stanley, E. J.

Howard, P. H.

Steuart, R.

Hughes, W. B.

Style, Sir C.

Hutt, W.

Thornely, T.

Hutton, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Jackson, Sergeant

Wallace, R.

Langdale, hon. C.

Wood, G. W.

Lefevre, C. S.

TELLERS.

Litton, E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lockhart, A. M.

Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.

Bagge, W.

Cole, Lord Visc.

Blackstone, W. S.

Darby, G.

Blandford, Marq. of

Hinde, J. H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hodgson, R.

47

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Waddington, H.

Perceval, Col.

Plumptre, J. P.

TELLERS.

Rose, Sir G.

Dungannon, Lord

Rushout, G.

Sibthorp, Col.

On the main question being again put, Colonel Sibthorp was determined to oppose it as long as he possibly could, and he therefore moved an adjournment.
The House divided on the adjournment;—Ayes 14; Noes 51;—Majority 37.
The question was however postponed.