The Sun. — London, England, 1844-04-17 00:00:00

Ws‘ l "'P m the Vool' tition in the weir tition rair,St ; pet- Dis' rcoble this Igge St ) that until went' post• trteeu ;0413' from terian hyour 116 00 and II lin' fry .01 ) th' • AND . .; reot‘ tes • gr. a ,. not orted e had thtl/ .stoo a L otbet oce 3 " n k ing of Ob j e ct atutes en a t ' st fed be en este r ' r t gain' ga r d I. A tilde [lasi , Lid 011 it the ting 4 FM . tb e las e Th e ad be ig tbe 'evill' deb" cer' yavp- , s yillg Parish frOo rrie' , s chly ire i . or Eitiveg 6 0 P °i o • t he the tub er o ;Id " t l3° Va il ' t °' e CO' [. he of n i t tee t he ft tri g a OP' roe rj 5 the if l: 0 1 " , t o , Iti 0 0 i tV State of the prison of the Court of Requests in the ho rl-41,h of Birmitighatn ? Sir J.*GRAHAM said that the Hon. Gentleman "ing been kind enough to give him notice of the ques t'9o he was prepared to give him a reply. He had re ceived from the Mayor and Recorder of Birmingham a rePort - respecting the statement of the prison of the uotirt of Requests in that borough, from which it ap bred that the prison was in a state which was deroga ,,trto the authorities, and that it was unfit for the re .;Ptaiton of debtors. He had, in cons,quence, directed '4, 1 1 inspector of prisons to proceed to Birmingham. inspector had made his report, which entirely con :l.:nod the complaints that had been made, and he (Sir ",..„ graham) then considered it his duty to inquire who Were the parties who were responsible for the state of I ` , .e prison. He was referred to the Commissioners . of ~'!e Court of Requests of Birmingham, and he imme lovely ,sent them the complaints he had received, re (Miring them forthwith to remedy the evils complained .04 with an intimation that if they neg;ected to do so, he tiold put th e l aw in force with regard to the prism. thin the last four days he had received a representa tion from the Commissioners, stating that they had "roplied 'with his request, and informing him that the PjsOn had been visited by the Mayor and Recorder, 1 0 bad e x p resse d t h emse l v es s a ti s fied with it. He had, ;wever, sent down the same inspector who had before ; 11° Ited -on , it, to ascertain if he concurred with the ayor and Recorder, and in the course of to-day or to morrow he should receive his report, when he should °I able' to give the Hon. Gentleman every information. Mr. STANLEY expressed himself satisfied with the ..P l anation, and believed he should take the most judi- G~ Course • by leaving the matter in the hands of the vernment QUARTER SESSIONS. utr• 41AWES said that a Bill respecting the quarter , ti l s3 ' o lls in citi e s a nd boroughs had been brought in by we a Hon. an d L earne d M em b er for Worcester (Sir T. 11 4 ' 4 0- As the Bill was first introduced, the Right Hon. su ' r ullet the Secretary of state was not prepared to 1 3 1 3 0 rt it. Since then some alterations had been made Z,he Bill ; he now wished to know whether they were " c a as the Ricrht Hon Baronet would have wished, and whether e, • thee in its present shape the Government was pre pared to support the Bill I' 61 r. J GRAHAM 'aid the alterations that had been , JTe in the Bill e...re certainly i-trodstc-d at his (Sir Graham's) request ; but ire re - . iced some 'epee= teatations from seve. - al Recorders on the subject, which t o t hought were entitled to further coniideration ; he l e .7.Fht, also, that there was not much necessity for e 'Bl3t ing' on the question at all, since the Secretary of had powers. under the Municipal Act, to make re ' :Cons according to varying circumstances. I t HAVES .said the Bill stood for to-morrow. He shed t o k now if it Would come on so early. Sir th a GRAHAM said the Government had no wish t the Bill should be proceeded with. 81 1 4 POOR-LAWS. „ • PEEL (1):, , command) laid papers relative to tt y?or-laws nn t h e t a bl e of the House. i4,11-013TION OF CRIMINALS IN THE EAST. - M: MILNES wished to ,know fr , in the Right 4'411. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether gay objection to lay .on the table of the house ti4Veolivenient, ihe pape,rs respecting theConsta negotiations ell.her ,Majesty's Ambassador atConstantinople et i,„! l "le Ottornan Porte, with regard to the execution of th,'"thala on . religious grounds. He understood that t or s e negotiations had terminated in a manner satisfac ii a nd - honourable to all parties. to. 1 r ROBERT PEEL said. :he was not prepared p ul p all the papers on the subject on the table, as the A ot • i eltien of them at the present moment might be'ob ‘ ' PUBLIC OFFICE ( R )f S th . e byr.uersE moved for a return eo a __ names, offices, T e a of birth, salaries, and . , ag 4-e es.in the Customs, Excise, a s n df Post I mt persons office p holding epa r.. un their ne . tileritS of the . United Kingdom, w n ith l t t he wo d u a l t d es be of :40intnient, and present lo n ca t tr e . House the importance .of s rY for him to impress on employed in the public and ~, Jle motion. The officers sums of money, tr.treents collected large He oeY were ' paid large riortted that there waswi sums improvement m oney. . r s itit.e those, departments no small ef Jhould like to see the servicethinth: f th la e st pu te b n lie o3ffieaeeds . of parties to "'attain t• much established to try . the fitness t• -• ' 41 ,. e as a profession as the Bar or the Church,. and i , , a tons h very good e ec th' these offices. There were some . instances in fr wh t i_ch i,;4t,systern had been tried . -, tile War -office, the in different parts of theith r espect to the public service wrt Excise, and the Treasury. h to be some recipreod tit ettlpire, he thought there . i4ou the subject, that Enli e shmen a s n h d o i tild sh ia m e e e n mp in h, l y tree.. 11,,,gland, Scotehmen in Scotland, t in a particular b. - " , 4 Re thought it was unfair I to e m xc en lude . altogether h employment dr: e lile of one country from ‘Partieehe Si r u of the Right from the spirit N... .. • PEEL decidedly objected to theyeturnsmoved The I to *He could not discover t. IL Gentleman's speech the object lai n of ed the ti r a e t tu t r h n e s r . e was got Hon. Gentleman had cote en employed in the e;"; a due proportion of Irish 111'11°48 departments uncrer the En G to o l v d the ~Itight Hon. Gentleman Government en fi t inou House that w the • 4, 4 S ecretary of the Post-office R t then, the Secraary le t , an Irishman. Hear, : st- offic e in Scotland was in Ireland to n Irishman.—( _ , Honourable %ntl -ttr'and a laugh.) The a Right eft} eman complained not an Irishman. But he (Sir le polico in Ireland was that the gent'i . man at the head tha t lis Peel) would remind . R. Peel's) duty to appoint appoint Gentleman the police force, he laugh.) I)()?igentlemen to superintend the operation of the New e e Act and to govern a _ Point d ' ' ' two Iri -hmee___( EI Il e th . e Englishmen, et . Irishmen, or of d find for the ear, hear : and S tet e ls?°•ght not .of ,__, e , c ui da t , ",len, but of the two h. st tn , e " " tl e '''.'° be performed, and he !La suppose Now, suPp . 311.1.11 t no credit f such appointment. motion with settl e t„,,,,. or appointed two Irishmen, rtip,e,msashman were to make . a similar . what would th is." ttl r e Who e se i , ht ~ cent appointments(:lies W 3 se) say to it? Was t he pitton. Gentleman a _ Pottinger, in China, _ ? Sir Henry er argrieht „ en 'oPentiary in Chi --,( R e es t r roop s an Irishman. of th n.n?---(Hear, hear.) n Who was the command in China? ht of complaining of thes e ' he ar.) But who thought Sir Hugh Gough, questions as to th__ aPpointruents, or of asktpg anybirth? w hom i t Zin,. or their country, or their in Again, lndia ? per illeY selected for the chief commandutwhat was the Pe ~,ugh G ough. —(Hear, hear.) But 1 an had in view in - , s ite the Right Hon. Gent.em d for the names and i ) l 4e, g for these returns ? he aske in the Excise, 'dust 0 birth of all the persons employed Police of I,Vand— it pos, Post -office, and Revenue Sir Robert Peel) was ak a I, °r what earthly purpose he ( persons should .s th h e . litas''ss even to guess, How Tan)• several establish fed eht„e,suPpose were employed in these were 11,000 em- Ple v ,,' In the Customs there . in the Post ofrq ; in the Face e, 6,000 persons, e s Police, Revenue ,00 0 ' 3,000 persons ; in the 22,000 per *eh, :, total, 22,000 persons. And of these age, ap. 'Piiie',,, t4 e Right Hon. Gentleman wanted the besides. A4,1 - ' ° , ll t, and he (Sir R. Peel) knew not what the - P,:nen he had got them, who was there in f them ? It th 14.t.,Mise that would move the printing e had qu e mend o ourable Gentleman thought that injustice case let him specify that e, andl in any Particular ' mustprotest against 41 ? eh call for inquiry ; but he not satiation tie 3 . e. tnotion as the present. He_ . e ‘ o e u. 1 that when any Pers,„ueh Principle. He did not . be le individual to a Pnbe; w4a,s called upon to appoint. an ma .e as to what 1 %„a. 3 th"lee any inquiry Nve . evr,r, made i birth.—(ChecTs.) 4 1, e ai d e •Place of trod inclivlclua h e of an man's nei n , 15.,10t believe that the eircumstane slightest preju . tli ee' e .:l 4 in Ireland would create the upon 22,000 , peiss ,sainst hint. They were about to call birch. He had ,- sll O 4. -to state the localities of their most erro too__ . that such a return would lead to the upon that I,oltes_ inferences being drawn ; but it was not not right et o ld that he opposed it. He thought it was notthis teet-jhOuse to sanction the principle upon n subjects of th e 41 ' 4 Wei founded. —(Cheers.) We were all of the sa4r,„4.oeereign were all united in the enjoyment t to ad kit aa"'e rights ea cl ' privileges, and we ough h t . no on that trauakdistitietions as to the locality of birt NI,. pi,;.lopßosed the motion. the etii,,f.' rEPHEN FRENCH contended that all t o Engfi iti,l3o.intinents in every department were given si r u s ~,olen and Scotehmen. C, . • rEEL 1,,,, appointment to the United Lykes. (ch, ---. The last kr, p---. pr,pe,rs,) Irishmen Wer e a " N CIT did not deny that some he still deoar_PPointed to situations of authority, bat _ eet thatallth le a Ireland England an__ were filled e higher officersin Of 80,000/. I t Yea r . by Englishmen and Scotchmen. cl 60,000/. h a ~, ..13_,ald to heads of departments in Irs , lan . believed tha t v t ` i : t4 to Englishmen and Scotchtnen. He Wi nk ? Mine disproportion prevailed in the appointment show W heth ri°r officer 4, and the report sought for would the te . ,it_ er he was right or wrong. He did not wan l man totiildt 22,000 nanaes but the Right Him Gent e Whi c hg i ve return of ' the different clerks and officers, Ike h _vc-ould show whether he was right or wron o g l Ir. tq been. told th f th ish ale. a ere were not three per cent an f s aid th a mong th m. The Right lion. Gentleman The 8 ere , was no opportunity of making these return=. iirni,:h;o reply had I een made t,3. the S•crelary to the le r '' to him ( ' .r. le. Pent.,), when he hail moved kith similar rettn ii expecting the Navy. - He belitvel ae td , 4 return cooed I e made, end that . it h Ehed show that of the hundred appointments which eee h ven made by the Hadditigton, nut one had been ~ to an Irishinen —(Elear.) He thnught his Hon. item _ . • 4 the ief_ was eittitled to the return, and he regn-tre-, ifat el th e .t.,_ Government. nieti r ' AJM.E felt reluctantly obliged to oppose the tie4l,ll. Everything that tended to keep up the na lata:l distinctions between England, Ireland, and Scot -lethe't; was wrong, and on that ground he opposed the ° , 4 . The return with respect to naval officers would -had I ,'? tnost eerspositioun of njust and tuff dr inferenc es . It was not tat ti the Irish to go to itecl e' tll6 prop or ti on of Irish navalsea, officersconse- was eae th 84 compared with Englishmen and Scotehmen. assnple '°oght the motion would be attended with un tea ,t and bad results, and he trusted, therefore, that si Prig Hon. Friend would withdraw it. / iee r II -A-PIER said, that in that potion of the ser lieulvith which he was best acquainted, he did not be tteiti_4llY questions were asked about country. The ke-Z4, in was who had got mast interest.—(Laughtrri.) tlieved the reason why there were not 1 . mire Iris l as eti,PPointed, was that they had not as much interest ther e , ~.k.rnfrlrr a few words from Mr. WARBURTON, at Y. STUART said that the motion of his Right thatt IFriend at least showed there Vk as a strong feeling wili, did not get that fair share of patronage ttitle". they were entitled. He trusted that, in the *0(oei„-listribution of patronage, a lhir proportion, not 4 4 ,1) the higher offices, but of the minor appointments, r tt . fell to Irishmen. —(Hear, hear.) WithteYYSE having replied, the motion was negatived .‘ a division. K 4r • WI, I NCO.ME-TAX. --.- - - • %el l ,_ CQ ',• SE t hen moved for a return of the amount of "‘UIe iiiliCh ia assessed to the property-tax i Great Britain, distinguishing the amount charged under each schedu;o. lie stiou.it Lot go into any details, but simply move for the return. Sir R. PEEL said that the papers already printed stated that there were no returns which would enable the Commissioners to furnish the information required. Mr. WYSE under those circumstances would with draw the motion. ANATOMY ACT. Mr. Alderman COPELANI) moved for an address to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to lay before this House, a copy of all Commis sions, with the names of the ommissioners, appointed to inquire into the, working of the. Anatomy Act, and also into the official conduct of any inspector or in spectors of schools of anatomy for England, Scotland, and. Wales ; with the dates of each Commission, and reports (if any) of evidence taken by the said Commissioners. Mr. P. BORTH WICK seconded the motion. Sir J. GRAHAM said that this was a subject not only of great delicacy, but, as it appeared to him, unsuited to discussion in a popular assembly. With respect to the Anatomy Act, his experience in the office of the Home Department had confirmed him in his opinion of the successful working of the measure. Indeed, its quiet and silent op-ration was the best test of its usefulness. He would remind the Honourable Gentleman, that previous to the enactment of that measure, there was hardly a churchyard within a hundred miles of the tropulis, where the sanctity of the grave was not violated, and the state of the church yard was such as to render human life in the neighbour hood quite insecure. He had had a quarterly return made to him, which it was his duty to inspect, and, like all his predecessors, he could answer for its accuracy. Some irregularities had from time to time been brought under the notice of the Secretary of State. Commis sions of inquiry had ben issued, evidence had been taken ; reports had in some instances been made, in others it had been thought better to confine the information to the Secretary of State. If any subject could with profit be left to the Government, this could. He did not ask for a blind confidence ; but it was notorious that the evils which this Act of Parliament was passed to remedy had disap peared. The schools of anatomy were sufficiently and regularly suppl ed ; all outreges on public decency were avoid d ; and it was his opinion that the greate,t leconvenienee would arise from the pro d a •ti of t h rerirts to which the Hon. Gel,l e,oau s inudon was .irected ; and he hoped, there fore, that the House would support him in refusing the Hon. Gen tleman's motion. Mr. - FRENCH said, that when he brought forward a motion on this subject some years ago, he was met by a statement, that it was under the_considera don of the Commi,tionere. If they had maintained the delicacy which the Right Hon. Gentleman wished them to maintain, thpy would not have procured the retire ment of Dr. Sullvaan.—(Hear, bean).- The. Right lion. Baronet had affixed the epithet " noxious agita tion" to a motion brought forward by a supporter of the Government__ Sir JAMES GRAHAM—I did not use the words. Mr. F. FRENCH said:there never was a more ill-used man in the c .untry than Mr. Roberts. The most emi nent scientific men in the country had borne testimony to the merits of that gentleman. Mr.. WAItBURTON agreed with the Right Ho nourable Baronet that nothing could be more injurious than this species 31 . noxious agitation. Of the way in vthich the Honourable Alderman (Copeland) had brought the subject. before the House there was little to complain. One expression, only, should he (Mr. War burton) comment upon. In speaking of the c,nduct of the late inspector, Dr. Sullivan, the worthy Alderman bad said he had been permitted to retire on receiving the the sum of one hundred pounds. Having • investigated every charge brought against htm, he (Mr. Warburton) could declare, upon his honour—and he believed every Commissioner concurred in the opinion— that Dr. Sul livan's conduct had been conducive to the public interest, and that throughout every circumstance he had con ducted himself well. He (Mr. Warburton) also knew he had not been permitted to retire, but that he had been dismissed from his office with a gift of one hundred pounds. He believed that Dr. Sullivan had received a complete and honourab:e acqeittal from every charge brought against him. Sir J. GRAHAM said the fact was there had been a second Committee, and the report of that Committee had been in favour of Dr. Sullivan. Mr. P. .13 , /IiTHWICK said this subject was certainly not one peculiarly adapted for popular discussion ; but he had felt it his duty to present to the House the peti tion which had been entrusted to him ; and every petition, properly worded, sent to him, he should consider it his duty to present in like manner. The agitation that had been ailuded to had been shared in by some of the first men in the medical profession— Str Astley Cooper, Sir Benjamin Brodie, Dr. Birk beck, and others. Unless the evils which the petition he had presented complained of were remedied, it would be his duty, at a subsequent period, to call the attention o: the House to the subject of those complaints. It was in the power of the Home-office to rectify those com plaints, and he would rather it should be done there than by public discussion in that House. If he were compelled to bring it forward it would be contrary to his own inclination. Mr. WARBURTON asked the Hon. Gentleman if he intended to raise a discussion on that petition or not. He had repeatedly attended in expectation of a dis cussion, and it had repeatedly been postponed. Mr. BORTHWICK—It bad only been postponed once. He trusted it would be unnecessary to bring it on at all, if the question were taken up by the Home Secretary. Mr. MACKINNON thought they were bound to take the word of the Secretary of State. They must see the impo-sibility in which the House was placed with res pect to form ng an opinion on the sub,ect. Mr. Alderwan COPELAND, in reply, complained that the returns which the .House had ordered on this subject some years since had not yet been made. He &timed to know if the Commission of which the Hon. Member for Kerdal was a member had yet made their report to the Home Secretary ? If they had not, it was the duty of the Government to insist on that report being made. The Hon. Member for Kendal stood in a peculiar position with regard to the Commission. He was one of the principal persons connected with University College, and it could be shown that the Act had been worked to the advantage of that es:ablishment, therefore the Go vernment ought to call immediately for that report, He thanked the House for the attention with which they had heard him, and would beg to withdraw his motion. Motion withdrawn. OPENING OF CATHEDRALS TO THE PUi3LIC. Mr. HUME then moved the following resolution:— , " Thet this House, taking into consideration the exem plary conduct of the people during the exhibition of the Cartoons last year, and wherever they have been ad mitted to public edifices, and their general disposition to improve by the contemplation of works of art, approve of the following recooone.-dation of the Seleet Com mittee of this house on National Monuments, in 1841 : That your Committee strongly deprecate any course which could create an heal ression that churches were at any time to be considered merely in the light of places for the exhibition of works of art; but it is their opinion that as, by increased facilities of admission to the inspec tion of mere weeks of art, civilisation has been encou raged and public taste improved, so a more free admis sion to religious edifices, under proper regu'ation, may be made conducive, not merely to the gratification of cu riosity and the acquirement of historical knowledge, but to the growth and progress of religious impressions, by leading the mind of the spectator from the contempla tion of the building to a consideration of the views. with which, and the purposes for which, it was originally erected, and is still maintained. Yeur Committee entertain a hope that arrangements may be made by the cathedral authorities, to allow the larger portions of Westminster Abbey, and of St. Paul's and other cathedrals'throughout the country, to be open freely to the public daily, and especially , on Sundays,. reconciling such free - admission with the due and undis turbed performance of religious services, though it may be required to continue a small reduced fee,• or other sufficient restriction, in regard to the chapels and smaller or more intricate portions of those edifices. Your Com-.. mittee think it right to add, that if the greater freedom of admission to those churches should lead, as it pro bably must, to an increase of the number of officers employed in their superintendence, the additional expense ought to be defrayed from other funds than those belonging to the cathedrals.' " In bringing forward this motion, he hoped • be • should be introducing a mere - agreeable subject to the notice' of the House than the working of. the Anatomy Act.—(Cheers.) The improvement of the people . was the great object which he had in view,. and the mode of effecting that improvement was to make use of the means which the country poso.ssed to cnabl6 them to prochice an inipres • sion on the minds of the people which language could not convey. Some years ago there was an opinion pre vailing that museums and collections of art could only be studied by the rich—that the middle and lower classes were too mischievous to be trusted to view them. A great change had, however, taken place within the last t n '.ears in the national character, and Englishmen of ail cla , ses could now be trusted to view and to study veluOsie works of art without any danger to the objects of their study.—(Clieas.) The boon which had been conceded to the middle and working classes by the Dir. curs of the British Museum and the National Gal lery had been acknowledged with gratitude, and had bee , ' looked upon as an advantage. A marked benefit had heen derived froin the manner in which these insti tutions had been thrown open. The Commissioners of Police bore testimony to the marked improvement which had taken place in the manners of the people, and they attributed it to their increased sobriety, and to the means which the lower orders now had, in their leisure heirs, of improving their minds, by contemplating works of a t. In answer to the questiu.n, as to how far, in their ul inion, it would be safe to admit the public to • West minster Abbey, the Commissioners stated that they could with confidence depend that good order would be pre serv, d by the masses, if they were admitted there, and that they f e l t conviliced that the people would do all in their power to pr ,test and preserve the build ne and ever .) thing contained in it.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then quoted the opinions of Mr. Addison in the " Spectator,' in support of free admission to public huilding,, es caculated to elevate the national taste and the national morals. The Queen, soon after her ascent to the throne, commanded the Secretary of State for the Hume Department, the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London, to endeavour, by every means in his power, to open the cathedrals to the public. The Noble Lord wrote, in conformity with her Majesty's wishes, to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster and to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, but he wa s sorry to say these dignitaries did not carry into practical effect her Majesty's wishes. The .cathedrals were public buildings. The Deans and Chapters had only a life in terest in them ; and they should not be suffered to dis figure the noble and_costly architecture of these edifices by placing unsightly monuments in them. The monu meats of naval and tailitary heroes—men only famous from deeds of warfare and blood—should not be suffered to - pollute the temple of peace. The Government ought to prevent these abominations, for such he would call them.—(Hear, hear.) He would remove all such mo numents from these buildings. He entirely agreed in the opinion of Mr. Addison, that free admission to works of art would greatly tend to im prove the public taste. It had been urged that indiscriminate admission might prove injurious to the preservation of these edifices ; but if they consulted the opinions of many eminent men who had beer. examined before a Committee of that House, they would find that such danger need not be apprehended. Sir John Brit ton said, the conduct of the public in public places had vastly improved within the last few years, " so much so," said Sir John, " that had I been fifty years ago in a foreign country, and on my return witnessed the conduct of the lower classes in public buildings, I would not have believed that they belonged to the same nation, or were the same class of people at all. The only unseemly conduct Sir John Britton said he had noticed was that of the vergers, and such functionaries demanding money. Mr. Cunningham, the author of " Lives of British Artists," and other wo-ks of importance, was in favour of free admission to public buildings. He further said, that those men usually called " the mob "—the operatives—as far as he knew, generally conducted themselves in these places with great decorum.— (Cheers.) Mr. Edward R. Bray, the historian of West minster Abbey, bore similar testimony. It should be re collected that 45,200/. of the public money had been voted by Parliament in the years 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810, and 1811, towards the improvement of West minster Abbey, and those buildings abOut it. He (Mr. Hume) had received communications from the Bishops of Wells, Winchester, and Norwich, and all these pre lates were in favour of public admission to public build ings, subject of course to proper restrictions. Lord Melbourne had told him (Mr. Hume) that, when a boy, at Westminster, there was only a charge of twopence or threepence to the chapel—all other parts of the edifice were then open to the public. After some further ob servations the Hon. Member concluded by entreating the House to pass the resolution.—(Cheers.) Mr. WYSE seconded the motion, and, in doing so, said he thought that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Montrose, was deserving of the highest praise for the perseverance and intelligence which he had shown in bringing the subject before the House. He (Mr.Wyse) thought it was a reproach to the country at large not to allow the population to have free access to all our public works of art, and public monuments. He thought the time was, now come when that prohibition should be re moved. Let the House for one moment look at the con duct of the immense number of persons who witnessed the exhibition of the cartoons last year. Thousands upon thousands visited that exhibition without a single scratch occurring to any picture. Cheap catalogues were published, and fifty thousand were sold in a very short time ; and it was interesting to know that many who purchased these cheap catalogues were induced to pur chase the higher priced catalogues, for the purpose of obtaining more information with respect to the pictures than was obtained in the cheap books. Tranquillity and peace pervaded that exhibition, but, above all, there was improvement for the people.. If such a feeling was shown by the people last year on the occasion of the ex hibition of the cartoons, why should that feeling be dis trusted now with respect to the public exhibition of our monuments and works of art ? Look at the example of Bavaria and Poland, where the public monuments were opened without the least restriction. It was useless to think of encouraging an art, unless they at the same time endeavoured to cultivate a taste for it in the minds of the people. What was more likely to exalt the English character still higher, than placing constantly before the eyes of the people the history of their country? What better means could be found of placing that history constantly before their eyes than this, of freely opening our public monuments and works of art? He sincerely wished that the Government would follow the noble ex ample which had been set them in this respect by France, and it was with this view that he cordially supported the motion of his Hon. Friend. Sir R. H. INGLIS said he should oppose the motion. He thought there would be very little difference between the debates of preceding years, upon this subject, and the debate of that night. The only difference was, that this year the motion was brought forward in April, whereas, in former years it had generally been brought forward in July or August. He feared that in opposing the motion he would have to use the same argu ments which had been used from year to year on this subject, and that nothing new would be dis covered in what he had to say. The Hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this motion had done so on the ground that cathedrals were national property, and that by opening them freely to the public, means would be afforded of promoting not merely the intellectual en joyments of the people, but also of strengthening their religious principles. In the first place, how did the Hon. Gentleman make out that cathedrals were national property? They had not been endowed by the nation, and with the single exception of St. Paul's, not one had been built by the nation. Mr. HUME—They were given by Parliament. Sir R. INGLIS thought the utmost that the greatest latitudinarian had ever contended for was, that they had been transferred, but this he (Sir R. H. Inglis) was pre pared to deny. At the time of the reformation, these cathedrals belonged to the clergy, and when that clergy changed their. faith, the cathedrals went with them, and were still retained by them as their property. If the Hon. Gentleman could by any means show that the opening of the cathedrals would be the means of en lightening the people, then he (Sir R. H. Inglis) would be willing to admit that it would be competent for the Government to consider, looking to vested interests and the rights. of property, how far the proposition of the Honourable . Gentleman could be carried out. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not believe that there was a necessary connection between in tellectual and moral excellence, and, therefore, he did not feel called upon to support this motion. At the brightest period of the intellectual world, they had found that there existed the greatest masses of public and private corruption. Many were the instances of great taste being_ connected with great personal depra vity ; and for these reasons he was satisfied that, to make the people skilful judges of statuary and painting, was not the soundest mode of enlightening them in the doctrines of Christianity. He was, however, still less prepared to assent to the second Bert of the Hon. Gen tleman's proposition. The Hon. Gentleman reluctantly admitted that it was necessary to have come admission fee, in order to maintain the necessary officers. He (Sir R.ll. Inglis) would not enter into the question of whe the-r sixpence was a high charge or not t'or admission to Westminster Abbey, but this he would say, that it was a very small sum compared with what it was formerly. It was evident that some funds would be required, and there were but two modes of raising those funds, either by means of a small fee for admission, or by paying the necessary officers out of the taxes. He believed that it was not suggested that the funds'should come out of the ecclesiastical revenues; and of the two modes of raising those funds which he had mentioned, the best, in his belief, was by imposing a small admission-fee on those who were the recipients of the advantages to be derived from witnessing our works of art. The Hon. Gentle. man attached great importance to those advantages, but he (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not think they were so great as they had been represented. The Hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Hume) expressed a wish that what he called incon gruous monuments should be removed from St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey. To a great extent he sympathised with that feeling; he was one of those who could not regard without horror the mixture of allegory with truth, the introduction of heathen gods and goddesses into places of religious worship ; and he would be glad to see monuments which were open to this objection re moved. In the case of St. Paul's especially, where no one of the monuments objected to on this ground, that contained representations of Mars, Bellona, or Nep- tune, covered the remains of the deceased person, he could see no impropriety in the proposed removal. With respect to the monument to James Watt by Sir Francis Chantrey, he would venture to say that there was no person having the smallest . pretension to re ligious feeling, who would not consider that that monument was utterly misplaced. He was not pre • _pared to deny that there was great value in the sugges tion that it might be very convenient to remove from many of our public edifices. and especially from West minster Abbey and St. Paul's, those incongruous monu ments which had been placed in them within the last century and a half.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentle man had made another suggestion, which he thought was well worthyof his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel's) consideration. It was that of forming in England, what had long existed in France, a commission to take charge or national monuments. In his opinion it would be de sirable, if possible, to include other objects. There could be no doubt whatever that the owner of Stone henge might, if he chose, destroy the relics which stood there.— (Hear, hear.) No law proceeding, which could issue. from any Court would prevent their destruction. He ventured to hope, from the character of his country men, that the chances of such an event were very re mote ; but it would- be recollected that within the last twenty-five years, one of the Logan stones in Cornwall had actually been removed, although the party who had it removed had been subsequently induced to restore it to its former place. Differing, as -he had the m i s f or t une generally to do from the lion. Gentleman opposite on this subject, he _had thought it right, when he could agree with him, to state that agreement to the House. He trusted that the suggestions which had been made would not be neglected by his Right Hon. Friend, though at the same time he felt bound to resist the motion be fore the House. _ _ _ Mr. M. MILNES would not follow the Honourable Baronet through the various topics which he had intro duced into his speech. There was nothing in the motion which required that he should do so. There was no one phrase in this resolution which in any way raised the question whether cathedrals were or were not subject to the control of the State; still less was there anything in it which favoured the opinion that moral and intel lectual motives and principles were in any degree more important than religious.—(Hear, hear.) The proposal before the House was simply that they should confirm what hid already been confirmed by the report of the Committee, by the implied consent of the Noble Lord at the hind of her Majesty's late Government, and by the unwearied support which had been given to the views, stated in the resolution by the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the present Government.—(Hear, hear.) Now, cat the subject of receiving fees at the duors of cathedral churches, he was opposed to many for whose opinions he had the greatest respect. He declared, with unfeigned earnestness, that he regarded the reception of any fee at the door of a church as a gross desecration.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) The Hon. Baronet (Sir H. Inglis) knew as well as he did that these buildings were raised for far higher purposes; and to exclude people from the possi ble participation in those purposes was, as far as possi ble, to nullify the objects of their founders, and to render these edifices, which were .thepride of our. coun try, morally and religiously useless.—(Bear, hear.) Why was service performed w they every day, unless that iii THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNES DAY MORNING, APRIL 17, 1844. certain feelings might be excited, which he was sure the Right Hon. Baronet would be the last person 'to treat with disrespect ?—(Hear, hear.) If these buildings were thrown open free of charge, and the Govern ment would take steps to preserve the necessary order "and decorum, he firmly belioved that the rpeople would soon become their own police.—(Hear, hear.) He knew from his own experience of continental churches, that those great evils which were anticipated from the common participation of such advantages occurred much less often when the admission was free than when it was not free.—(Hear, hear.) They had every reason to be lieve that the,people of England were as fit to go and enjoy themselves—and, he would add, to improve them selves—in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's, as a French man in Notre DA ne, or an Italian in St. Peter's.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the character of these monu ments, he believed the chapter of St. Paul's had lately come to a decision not to admit any more monuments which had heathen subjects, and he believed they had only acted in accordance with public opinion. The question of removal was a very difficult one, and.required grave consideration. If they decided hastily for re moval they might take away from these buildings their national character as Pantheons, if he might so express himself, or representatives of the tastes of the different ages in which the monuments were erected. There were, in fact, evils on b o th s id es . He hoped the Right Honourable Baronet would with draw his opposition to the resolution. He had all pos sible respect for the religious services performed in these edifices, but he thought that every effort ought to be made to open them to the present generation, and he hoped that they would not suffer the stigma to remain that the English were. the only people who were unable to obtain free admission to their national cathedrals. _ _ Sir R. PEEL said he had had opportunities of ivfiness— ing the result of free admission to works of art and monuments of antiquity, and he saw no reason whatever to retract the opinion he had expressed on former occa sions. —(Cheers.) He thought every facility which could he given for admission to the cathedrals of this country, consistent with the preservation of the works of art and monuments which they inclosed, could have none but a good effect.—(Hear.) He thought that the moral effect would be good. Admission to these ancient buildings, which were recommended by their venerable appearance, and afforded proofs of a pious disposition on the part of the founders, and instances of the devotion of great skill and great science to religious purposes, must tend to excite emotions which could produce none but the best results. His Hen. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, had said, and said truly, that there had been periods in which great refinement and civilisation had existed, concurrently with great profli gacy. His Hon. Friend also said that there had been Instances of persons of great intellectual acquirements, who were not deeply impressed with the importance of religion. All that was perfectly true ; but it seemed to him (Sir R. Peel) to be entirely beside the question.— (Hear, hear.) The question was, whether or no the emotions which would probably be excited by free ad mission to edifices of this description were likely to pro duce a good effect on the minds of those who enjoyed this advantage.—(Hear, hear.) If his Hon. Friend's argument had any foundation, it would go much further than he carried it ; it would go to show that admission to such places must have a tendency to check civilisa tion.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He thought, how•• ever, that the emotions likely to be excited were emo tions calculated to wean from vulgar habits, and from debasing pursuits, and to refine and improve the mind. He did not contend that they would necessarily, in all cases, impress the parties who contemplated these edifices with the great truths of' religion ; but was it possible that the emotion produced could have other than a good effect? Could they do otherwise than civi lize and refine?—(Hear, hear.) If they did not create a religious character—if that must be derived from other sources—if the good were not complete and perfect, still let them derive as much benefit as they could from refinement and civilization. So far as public and politi cal results were likely to arise from them, he:certainly thought, that by leading the working classes of this country, those who deriyed their existence from daily toil, to these buildings, they would be teaching them to regard with veneration what came to them associated both with religion and with a long existence. Therefore, so far as public and political considerations were concerned, he could see nothing but good for the Constitution as likely to arise from encouraging feelings of this descrip tion. So far as moral and social results were concerned, he should contemplate, with great satisfaction, the free admission of the humblest classes of society to the cathedrals of the country. It was his opinion also, that this admission might be granted without incurring the risks which were sometimes apprehended. At present, liberal provision was made in Westminster Abbey for the admission of the public, not only on Sundays, but on every day of the week during the performance of di vine ser vice. But they said that if the public wished to enter at any other time they should pay a certain sum for admission. What was this but encouraging those who might have come from religious feelings to attend Divine service, to devote the time to the contemplation of works of art?- -(Hear, hear.) He had the strongest impression that if, on certain days of the week, they gave an unrestricted right of admission, the public would not avail themselves of that right to an inconvenient extent, but would act on a principle which very much governed themselves, who,,knowing that they had the opportunity of seeing very many curious and distant countries, were very well contented to stay at home.—(Laughter.) He thought the public would use the advantage, but not in such a manner as to interfere with the safe preservation of anything that was valuable He thought that nine-tenths of those who were admit ted to view public exhibitions of works of art were led by a real desire for knowledge and improvement. The experiment which had been made of the admission of the public to exhibitions of works of art had been highly fa vourable. There had been certainly one case of a per son injuring the pictures in th e N a ti ona l G a ll er y. But that was done by a person who was proved to be of obscured intellect ; and the same thing might, have occurred if the price of admission had been sixpence.—(Hear, hear.) He was in favour of the fullest freedom of access to all exhibitions of public monuments that could be afforded with due re gard to the preservation of monuments. He believed that the persons who had the charge of preserving the cathedr4l monuments were willing to give every, facility to public access. A resolution of the House of Com mons would not compel them to depart from their own regulations. It was by far the best course to leave it to those persons themselves. There was, a few nights ago, an attempt made to put down duelling by an Act of Par liament. He amongst others was opposed to legislation on the subject; and he considered that this also was one which had best be left to the persons in whose hands the institutions of the country had placed it. A resolution such as the Hon. Gentleman proposed would have the effect rather of raising opposition to his views than of promoting them. Sir R. INGLIS said that his Right Hon. Friend had entirely misapprehended him. He had not denied that there was a moral tendency in exhibitions of works of the fine arts. He had only protested against the state ment that such exhibitions were alone sufficient to Christianise the people. The fees must be paid some how, and by somebody ; and he had not absolutely ob jected to the reduction of the fees from a shilling to six pence. • Mr. rel to W e A x pßrTesssaain o d th p a in t i t o l n ie o o f bj th ec e t H of o t u b s e e, and motion n o w t to force it upon the ecclesiastical establishments. He meEsup ported the motion. The Right Hon.: Baronet had not answered the question whether or not he was willing to appoint a commission for the conservation of public mo numents. Sir R. PEEL said that he was by no means prepared to say that he would appoint a commission on the subject Sir WALTER JAMES said that he had seen in the newspapers a statement that, on Easter Monday, 41,000 were admitted to the British Museum, and 25,000 to the National Gallery, whereas only 200, on the same day, were admitted to St. Paul's. As a religious man, he de plored that freer access to the great churches was not given to the public, andihe regretted that the Church so much neglected • its own interest as to shut the doors of the cathedrals against the people.—(Cheers.) He should always wish that the religious character of the edifice should be impressed upon the minds of those who visited it, and therefore he would rather that the public should be admitted to these cathedrals on a week day, because he thought that there would be great crushing and crowding on the Sunday if the public were admitted indiscriminately. Some observations had been made as to the propriety of removing what were called heathenish monuments from the cathedrals. He ad mitted that some of the monuments which had been erected in the days of Anne and the Georges exhibited somewhat of a heathenish character. He did not, how- ever, object to the emblems of war being placed on the monuments of soldiers, because he thought it very pos • sible that a soldier might be a good Christian. Mr. PETER BOTHWICIC concurred in the object of the motion, and was glad to find that there was scarcely a dissentient voice in the House on the subject. They all wished that the cathedrals should be opened, but the difficulty was how they should convey the wishes of the House to the Church. This was one of the difficulties which arose from their not permitting the Church to control her own affairs.—(A laugh.) They threw blame on the Church for not doing that which they prevented her from doing; they tied the hands of the Church, and said, Why do you not • act ? They gagged her and said, Why do you not speak ? (A laugh.) The monuments in some of the cathedrals were most incongruous. The monnment of Dr. Johnson in St. Paul's, looked like an overgrown Hercules, placed there after he had rested from his labours, to grow to the monster which he was there represented to be. He must also censure the placing of guns and bayonets on the monuments of warriors. What we in our pre sumption called " the dark ages," had also their war riors, but on the tombs of the heroes of Cressy and Agincourt. we read the words " Non nobis Domine."— This was a proper inscription ; but the inscriptions on the monuments erected to the memory of the heroes of the present day, would lead the reader to forget that there was a God who directed their valour, and saved their country. It was monstrous, that under any circumstances, and at any time, a fee should be de manded for admission to our cathedrals. Not that he thought that they ought to be made mere sculpture gal leries ; indeed the taste of the public would not be improved by looking on the monuments in our cathedrals ; but undoubtedly they ought to be open from sunrise to sunset every day. If the House divided he should vote for the motion, but he believed it could not be carried out without the assistance of the Convocation of the Clergy, and therefore he hoped that that day week all who supported this motion would vote with him in support of the address he intended moving, beseeching her Majesty to restore the Convocation of the Clergy. Colonel WYNDHAM said the debate had now lasted since half-past six o'clock, and they were all agreed that the public ought to have access to the cathedrals. He was of- that opinion, but as he did not think that the House of Commas had any 414 to interfere with the privileges of the Church, he should not vote for the motion.—(Laughter.) It appeared that the Hon. Member for Hull was afraid there :might be a crush on Sundays. Now if any of the gentlemen who had spoken to-night would stand up in the cathedral on a Sunday and deliver his oration there, there would be no crush at all, for the people would be too happy to escape. Mr. HUME in reply said that he was happy to find that every one in the House agreed with him in opinion except the Hon. Member for Oxford, who ought to have been born 300 years ago, in order to have had an oppor tunity of carrying out the opinions which he advocated. He was gratified by hearing the opinions which had been expressed by the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, and was glad to find that he would lend his assistance to the good work. Even the Hon. Member for Sussex, who had never agreed with anything since he entered the House, participated in the general feeling, although he would not vote in favour of the motion. He hoped this general expression of opinion would produce a beneficial effect, and that next year they would find that their great object was attained. The Right Hon; Baronet seemed to appre hend some technical difficulty in the way of the motion, and in deference to the Right Hon. Baronet's opinion, he should withdraw it. The motion was then withdrwn. HONOURS TO THE PENINSULAR ARMY. Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY then rose to move an address to the Crown, that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to confer an honorary distinction on the surviv ing officers of the Peninsular army. Previous to the Easter recess he had given notice of a motion to call the attention of the House and of the Government to the services of the officers of the Peninsular army, leaving it to the House and to the Government to determine what line it would be best for them to adopt; but not finding that it was the intention of the Government to agree to his view of the case, he had determined to take a diffe rent ground, and to move for an address to her Ma jesty, praying her to bestow some honorary dis tinction upon the officers of the Peninsular army. It might be urged that this was not a re spectful course to adapt. He did not wish to dictate to the Government, but considering the circumstances under which the British army had served in these never to-be-forgotten campaigns, he felt it to be his duty as an humble individual to recal to the recollection of the House what were their services, and to advocate their cause before the Government, the House, and the coun try, and to leave it to them to determine what were the rewards which thesa services merited.—(Hear, hear.) He might be met with the objection that too great a length of time had elapsed since the performance of their services to authorise him in bringing forward such a motion as the present. lie would briefly recal to the recollection of the House the circumstances attending these campaigns which they seemed to have forgotten. It might also be said, that if any person ought to take up the case, it was that great and illustrious man who had conducted these campaigns in a manner so credit able to himself and so glorious to his country.— (Cheers.) The Duke of Wellington, however, he be lieved had .had no opportunity of bringing the matter forward. He had not taken the place of the Duke of York in the command of the army until the year 1828, and he believed it was an invariable rule with the Duke of Wellington never to ask for any rewards for his offi cers or for himself. In all promotions the only part the Duke of Wellington had taken had been when requested by the Government to recommend officers for promo tion to recommend such officers in accordance with the desire of the Government. Another thing also should be remembered that at that time medals and honorary dis tinctions were not so general as they had been of late years. He thought at that time the Duke of Wellington was not called upon to interfere. At another period, he alluded to 1840, applications were made to the Noble Duke by the officers of the Peninsula, but he had at that time relinquished the office of Commander-in-Chief, and therefore had no power to interfere. He believed that, as far as the interference or non- interference of the Duke of Wellington went, he was justified in the course he had pursued. But at the present time the circumstances were different, the Duke of Wellington was now Com mander-in-Chief and a member of the Cabinet, and, therefore, he might now properly interfere. He was sure of this, that the case of the officers he was about to bring before the House was most deserving of its atten tion.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Gallant Member then went at some length into the details of the services of the officers of the Peninsular army, and expressed his surprise that they had not been rewarded as they de served. What, he would ask, would have become of the Duke of Wellington and his forces had it not been for the Peninsular army ; and yet this being the case there were many men, whose names he could mention, who had received no distinction. Among them were Colonels Cavendish, Chatham, Vandeleur, Townshend, Lovell, Grant, Scott, and several others; they had received no medals for their services, while there was not a drum boy who had heard the sound of cannons at Waterloo who had not received distinction.—(Hear, hear.) Why, his Right Hon. and Gallant Friend opposite (Sir H. Hardinge) had received no medal for the Peninsular war, although, he would venture to say, he would consider it the highest honour he could have.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that all the greatness of the British army arose from the Peninsular war. The lion. and Gallant Mem ber then referred to the gallant conduct of several officers, all of whom had received no distinctions for the heroic course they had pursued.—(Hear, hear.) He had endeavoured to recal to the memory of the House some of the circumstances connected with the Peninsular war; and he should now state what was his intention with regard to the motion he had brought forward. That motion was for an address to the Crown, praying that her Majesty would be pleased to bestow some dis tinction on the surviving officers of the Peninsular army. In making this motion he did not wish to interfere with any course her Majesty's Government might think proper to take, and if his Right Honourable and Gallant Friend would state that the Government would take up the matter and do justice to these officers, he for one should be too happy to leave the question in their hands. It would be stated, perhaps, that the time had gone by—that it was impossible, even if they wished it, to confer these dis tinctions now. But nothing was easier, in reality, to effect. What he proposed to do was this, that medals should be granted to every officer now surviving who was in the Peninsula, and who served in any of the great actions of that war. He should propose also that, according to the last paragraph of the order by which these honours were formerly granted, in the cases of those officers who had died, the medals should be sent to their families.--(Hear, hear.) Nothing could be more simple than this. This was a large field to go over. It was a large field to examine to get at the records of so large a number of regiments ; but it was not so difficult to get at the details of that smaller portion of the British army engaged in the Peninsula. The cause he was ad vocating was that of fifteen regiments of ca*lry and sixty regiments of infantry, which all bore on their standards the noble distinction of the names of the battles in which they had served during that war. There was also another class of men, who ought not to be excluded from sharing in these honours. Those were the officers who had served in the Peninsular war, who were still living, but who had retired from the service. He did put it to the Right Hon. and Gallant Gentleman whether he would not support him in obtaining for these old officers these honorary distinctions. It might be considered folly at this time of day to talk about this question, but it was a fact that there was not an officer who had served in the Peninsula who did not consider himself degraded when he saw on others the decorations that had been lately bestowed. He did not talk of it as a matter of jealousy. Let the Governor-General of India distribute decorations to the whole Indian army. In his opinion the more that were given the better. In all services the more of these rewards that were given, the more likely that good services would be performed. Would any one tell him that any officer of Napoleon, wearing the Cross of the Legion of Honour on his breast, would ever allow an un decorated officer to pass him in the race of glory 2 (Hear, hear.) He believed that spirit of emulation was one of the great engines of Napoleon's military power. The enthusiasm of that army could not be described. He would mention one other fact connected with this subject. When the Russian army, under General Suvaroff, took the city of Prague by assault, he found iu the arsenal a stock of 20,000 musket-balls. These balls he had struck into medals, with the word " Prague" inscribed on them, and these were dis tributed among his soldiers. When the Russian army entered Paris in 1814 many of the veteran soldiers in its ranks wore and exhibited this mark of honour with pride and exultation. It had often been asked why should the House of Commons interfere in matters of this kind. It was said that it was by the Crown alone that honours and distinctions ought to be bestowed. But this was not the first time that this question had been discussed in the House of Commons. He found that after the battle of Waterloo, on the 29th of June, 1815, Mr. Charles Wynn, an authority he believed as high as any in that House on subjects connected with its privileges and rights, and the proper conduct of its business,—Mr. Wynn, on that occasion, proposed that medals should be given to all the survivors of the battle of Waterloo, and of the same ' materials both to officers and men. This proposal was made during a discussion on the propriety of erecting a national monument, the proposition of the medals being a substitute for that plan. With regard, then, to the form of his motion, he bad an authority to which he was sure the House would listen ; only two hours ago he had heard the Prime Minister of the Crown say, " Do not legislate on resolutions, why not ask for an address to the Crown." lie (Sir A. L. Hay) did ask for an address to the Crown, and he would ask his Right Hon. and Gallant Friend, who bore on his breast the blazon of nine victories, to let his own good feeling guide him in assisting to carry this motion. He had not brought it forward with any purpose of making a display or to secure an opportunity of talking in that House, for he did not often trespass on their attention. But feeling strongly for a large portion of as meritorious officers as ever shed their blood in the service of any country, who were aggrieved at not having granted to them what they asked, he had ventured to make this proposition. i As he saw the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Minister of the Crown, present, he would state in his presence that invariably since he had been at the head of the Go vernment, when he had seen him rise in his place to move the thanks of that House to officers for their dis tinguished services, he had seen him do it in a truly feeling manner. fie had not done it in that cold and official manner which was often exhibited on such occa sions. lie showed that he not only thought of himself while he spoke of those men—but that he thought of his country at the same time. lie therefore called on her Majesty's Government in the same manner to consider not only what the effect of this motion would be on the officers of the Peninsular army, but the effect it would produce on the country at large. The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman concluded by making the motion of which he had given notice. Lord ARTHUR LENNOX said he had been re quested, to second the motion of_his Hon. and Gallant Friend, and he now rose to do so with great pleasure. azythilig could suppose that a vote is - favour of this motion would be in the slightest degree opposed to the opinion of his Grace the Commander-in ; Chief, he should regret giving his support- to it, for in common with every officer in her Majesty's service, he felt how important it was to coincide with the Duke of Wellington in all points connected with the government of the army. After the speech of the Hon. and Gallant Officer, it would be needless for him to trespass at any length on the patience of the House,. but he should take that opportunity of assuring the Secretary at War, that he was perfectly convinced a feeling of the most intense interest prevailed among all ranks of the army, on the subject before the House. He did not speak of those who had the good fortune to be already decorated, but of those who were not sufficiently high in command during the Peninsular war, and who were. still undeco rated. He would mention one circumstance with respect to the decorations awarded to the troops in India. During the last campaign Lord Ellenborough granted medals to all the officers who served in that campaign. He could not conceive why the officers of the Peninsular war should be the only ones undecorated. He would mention one case, that of Major Grant of the 71st regiment, who had been engaged thirty-three times with the enemy, had served throughout the whole of the war, and who had been three times wounded. He thought it was a hard case that this officer should be presented at the levee of her Majestyat St. James's undecorated, while one had been given to Lieutenant Joyce for his services in the auxiliary force in Spain. Many foreigners could not distinguish between those who had served their country, and those who had served in the auxiliary force. He had great pleasure in seconding the motion. Sir H. HARDINGE would assure the House that he would concur with the general opinion that must exist as to the able manner in which the Hon. and Gallant Member had brought forward his motion. The claims of the officers of the Peninsula had lost nothing by the manner in which they had been advocated. There could be no difference between himself and the House as to the merits of that army, which certainly did perform services of a character never to be forgotten by the country. And he must say, at once, that he did not consider it any proof of insensibility or ingratitude on the part of the country, that a great number of the officers ' should remain undecorated. It must be recollected that thirty-four or thirty-five years had elapsed since that period of their exertions, and many of these officers were then serving in lower stations than could, according to the regulations of the time; receive the distinctions they were so much entitled to. Many of the remarks of the Hon. Gentleman did not go to this essential point. They did not show that the regulations of that period would allow those distinctions to be conferred. The motion raised a very important question, whether the Govern ment, forty-four years after an event, could go back to the acts of its predecessor of a distant day, and endea vour to do what the Hon. Gentleman called jus tice to the army, by granting rewards for services per formed when these officers held an inferior rank. It ' must be remembered that many portions of the army were engaged in other portions of the world besides the Peninsula. How were those officers who had served in Egypt to be satisfied ? Why were they to be excluded ? Certainly, that army had per formed very distinguished services, as they were the first who directly encountered the veteran troops of Napoleon, the conquerors of Italy. Then let them go to India. How could they pass over those who served under Lord Lake, 'in Peshawur, and under Lord Harris, at Se ringapatam? If the motion were conceded, these officers must be excluded, and this formed the great difficulty of dealing with the question. It should be remarked that honours were conferred to a considerable extent among the officers of the Peninsula. In 1812 medals were dis tributed for services in Spain to the number of 1,300, which were given to 776 officers of all ranks. They were granted according to the regulations of the army of that day. In 1813 an order was issued giving a cross and a clasp to such officers as had a certain number of medals. Some having as many as nine or ten, and the wearing of so many being incon venient, a cross was given instead of four medals. The Order of the Bath was also enlarged, and 300 Knights Commanders were nominated, making a third class of the order. These arrangements gave great satisfaction to the army at the time. The Duke of Wellington was applied to on this subject in 1840. He was not then Commander-in-Chief, and could not give any other an swer than that he did give. He stated very con cisely, as he always did, that he had faithfully reported the services of the army in the Peninsula, as well as those of individuals, and any or what rewards ought to be given was wholly for the Government to consider; and that it was no part of his duty to inter fere with such discussions, above all, when the ques tion had been considered and decided twenty-five or thirty years ago. He thought the time that had passed made it almost a matter of insurmountable diffi culty to confer these honours now, as it would be unjust to confine the honours conferred by the country to the Peninsular officers alone. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible the House could interpose with re gard to the officers engaged in the Peninsular war, with out going further back to those who fought at Seringa patam, Malwa,'Gwalior, and in America. There would, therefore, be great inconvenience in granting the mo tion of his Gallant Friend upon this ground. His Gal lant Friend proposed that medals should be granted to those only who fought in the great actions of the Peninsula, and that, where the officers themselves were not living, they should be sent to their relatives. Now he thought, that if the medals were to be confined to those who fought only in general actions in the Penin sula, it would operate very unjustly. One of the most extraordinary actions of the Peninsular war was the affair of El Budina, at which Sir Charles Colville com manded, and in which a very small number of infantry and cavalry checked fifteen thousand French cavalry, with a considerable force of horse artillery. The force under Sir Charles Colville distinguished itself in a manner unparalleled throughout the campaign—(Hear, hear)—and yet he would not be entitled to a medal by the motion of his Gallant Friend. Captain Jackson, Aide-de-Camp of Sir Charles Colville, distinguished himself very much in this affair, and how unjust it would be to deprive him of the honour of a medal, because he happened not to be engaged in a general action. This action of El Budina was a small one, but the officer who commanded had behaved with the greatestbravery, but according to the terms of the motion of his Gallant Friend he would not be entitled to a medal. This was one great difficulty against granting the motion. His Gallant Friend stated also that this honour was rarely obtained by the junior officers of the army. Yet it was obtained by 180 majors, 87 captains, and seven lieutenants. One instance occurred in the regi ment which he himself commanded at Albuera. That regiment, the 85th, went into action with 25 officers, twenty-three of whom were killed. The Major and Cap-, tain were killed, and the Lieutenant who survived got the medal, and every officer who could be proved to have commanded in the action obtained it. Whenever an officer,, however young, succeeded to the command he was entitled to the medal. The principle on which it was granted was a very intelligible one—it was this, that the officer who had the responsibility of command upon him was to have the medal. The same principle was adopted in the navy. Captains of vessels obtained the medal, but the inferior officers did not. Medals were so granted for the battle of the Nile and Trafalgar, for Lord Howe's and Lord St. Vincent's victories, and for several spirited single actions, as that between the Shan • non and the Chesapeake. These were not granted to the bravest men, but to the person highest in command, thereby reflecting honour on those whom he commanded. (Hear.) This principle was observed in the army during the whole six years of the Peninsular war, and afterwards with regard to several actions in 1817, which followed after the Penin sular war. The principle was adopted in the Nepaulese war, in the action at Bhurtpore, where the present Lord Combermere commanded, and in the war in which Lord Hastings and Sir T. hleslop distinguished themselves. Till the war of the Peninsula no medals were granted. Medals were granted to those who were engaged in the battle of Waterloo,' but they were not in that instance confined to the officers, but to the whole army.—(Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that they ought not to get it, but if that was so, they must grant it indiscrimi nately to all those who were engaged in the Penin sular war. He would not now discuss the question whether it would be right to grant . medals indiscri minately—he believed that it was never done until the battle of Waterloo, but he believed the usual practice was departed from in that instance because that was the last battle of the war; it was attended with great politi cal consequences, and the medals were granted as a spe cial mark of the favour of the sovereign of the country; but certainly the practice of the service had been not to grant medals in the manner contended for by his Gallant Friend.' If such had been the mode in which this honour was conferred would they now, by a vote of the House, force the Administration to rectify what might have been an omission on the part of the Govern ment of 1813 or 1814, in not granting medals indiscri minately to the army in the Peninsula? He had now come to the last instance in which medals had been granted, viz., to those who fought in the East Indies. Hon. Gentlemen would recollect that - these medals were granted after a great disaster had befallen their arms in Caubul. It became of importance to raise the spirits of the army,. and nothing seemed better for this purpose than to grant medals to Sir R. Sale and his troops who marched Jellalabad, and to General Nott, who marched from Candahar, and to General Pollock, who advanced upon Caubul. Sir C. Napier had nobly earned the medal he had obtained by thebattles of Meanee and Hyderabad. His Gallant Friend would confine the granting of these medals to the of ficers of the Peninsular army, or to the relatives of those who were dead. He did not see how they could s t o p there. He thought they must go to the survivors a nd relatives of the officers who fought in Egypt, and even to those who fought at Queen's-town, Lancennes, Java, and the Mauritius. There would be no end to the details they would have to enter upon if the motion were granted. He doubted whether the motion of his Gallant Friend was pleasing to the army. He had received a letter on the subject, expressing the greatest dissatisfaction at the motion. He stated in his letter that it would not only be offensive and unjuSt to other officers of the army who had served in other parts of the world with great zeal, but that it would be unjust to the men, who were exposed to the same danger and the same hardships with the officers. He asked why the common soldier should be excluded, see ing that the Waterloo medal had been grant ed indiscriminately, and that the Field-Marshal and the drum-boy received the same honour. He had re ceived this letter from an officer in the army, and he had also seen in military publications that the motion was not satisfactory to the army. It had been said that the Duko of Wellington was indebted to his men for the ducal coronet which he woke upon his brow. The Duke of Wellington did not deny it. Not only did the Duke of Wellington owe a debt of gra titude to his men, but the men owed a debt to the Noble Duke, who, by his great ability as a General, led them through every. difficulty. He thought the proposition of the Gallant Commodore more just than that of the Gallant (Nicer who brought forwardsthe present-motion: - z Z. The Gallant Commodore would include the men as wall as the officers who took part in great battles, among the parties to receive decorations; . but let them see to what inconvenience that system, if carried out to its full ex tent; would lead. The custom of the service was, that the relations of an officer who had been killed should get the medal which would have 'been awarded t o hi m . Now, if they were t o carry out the Hon. and Gallant Commodore's plan, they would have to give decorations to the relations of every soldier who died in the Penin sular war. Th ere wou ld b e thus not less than 50,000 . claimants, at least, for those medals; and if they pro ceeded to decorate, as in that case they would be bound to do, the survivors of the war in Egypt, America, and India, there would be not less than 250,000 claimants. Thus, by following out the Gallant Commodore's prin ciple, which was the only just one,. they would become involved in a labyrinth of difficulties. In resisting the present motion the Government did not mean to depre ciate the merits of the gallant army of the Peninsula— an army of which it was said, either by Colonel Napier in his History or by Colonel Jones, that they never oc cupied any position which they did not defend, nor attacked any position of the enemy which they did not carry. But it would be almost impossible to explain the great inconvenience that would result froM acceding to the motion of the Gallant Officer. Sir C. NAPIER could not agree with the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman, that because four and thirty years had elapsed justice ought not to be done to the officers and men :or the Peninsular war. After the battle of Waterloo the Government thought fit to give medals to all the officers and men who were engaged in it. He thought at the time that the Government ought also to give medals to all that were present at the great battles in the Peninsula. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that in that case they ought to go back to Egypt and America. He (Sir C. Napier) thought that they ought. It was never too late to do a good action. The Right. Hon. Gentleman said tha - t if medals were to be awarded to the relatives of soldiers there would be not less than 250,000 claimants. Why, it would be impossible to find out the widows and rela tives of soldiers who had died 30 years ago, and it would be therefore unnecessary to create any inconvenience in that respect, but they might do that which could be easily . accomplished, namely, give decorations to the surviving officers and men of the great military and naval battles. He thought that there ought to be a medal to commemorate every great battle, and that the order of the Bath should be given to every officer who distinguished himself in battle. They read in the dispatches of the Duke of Wellington that when he was raised to the Order of the Garter, he was directed to give up the Order of the Bath with which he had been previously decorated, and he wrote to retain it, as the officers who, for services under him, had been de corated with the same order, were desirous to see their General wearing it as well as themselves, but his request was not granted, nor did the Noble Duke get back the decoration of the Bath until that Order was re-modelled some years afterwards. Those decorations and honours were of great value ; and it was related of Sir Thomas Picton, when he was refused a peerage at the close of the Peninsular war, that he said " if a coronet were placed upon a fort I would have taken it." With respect to giving medals to relatives, he (Sir C. Napier) was of opinion that if an officer was awarded the Order of the Bath, and that he was killed in battle, his widow should be allowed to wear it. But they had now let down the Order of the Bath very much, by giving it for absolute trifles. If they gave medals to the men and officers who merited them, the country would be satisfied, and justice would be done to all parties. He would give his vote in favour of his Gallant Friend's motion. Mr. F. FRENCH wished to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the Government to the case of a widow of an officer, having four daughters of that officer by another wife, to maintain, and to whom a pension had been denied, because her husband had not held his com mission for ten years. This gallant man had served twenty-eight years in the army; chiefly as a private ; for his good conduct a - commission had been_ presented to him, but dying before he had held it for ten years, the only subsistence his widow and children had to look to had been denied, on the stringent rule laid down by the Horse Guards, that no pension should be allowed to an officer of less than ten years' standing, Sir H. HARDINGE said this rule was originally laid down to prevent too early and improvident marriages amongst officers. Cases had, however, come officially before him, in which much injustice was caused by a too strict adherence to it. The case now mentioned was one of that class.—(Hear, bear.) So very unjustly did the rule work in some instances, that the Horse Guards had altered its course of conduct in respect of them. Col. SIBTHORP said that, while according all praise to the officers whose services had been brought before the House, he considered that the motion, if agreed to, would create a great deal of dissatisfaction, and there fore he must, though reluctantly, give his opposition to it. Capt. BERKELEY said, when he came down to the Hodse he did so with the intention of voting for the motion of the Gallant Officer (Sir A. L. Hay); but after what he had heard from the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary at War, and when he reflected that the great man now at the head of the British army was equally' anxious for the honour of that 'army, he felt himself forced to ask his Hon. and Gallant Friend not to divide the House upon the subject. If any honour or decora tion had been given spontaneously at the time when gallant service had been performed, he (Capt. Berkeley) should, had he been lucky enough to be party to such gallantry, have rejoiced to receive such honour ; but after this lapse of time he should look upon it as a mere empty bauble. Lord C. FITZROY said he quite a„e•reed with the ob servations of the Gallant Officer who had last addressed the House, and trusted the motion would be withdrawn. Sir G. COCKBURN had had the good fortune to witness some of the most gallant achievements of the British army in every quarter of the globe, and he felt himself called upon to say that to award honours to the officers of the Peninsular army, and not to those whose gallantry he had referred to, would be most unjust. Ho quite agreed with the Gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier) that it would have been an excellent principle to have awarded decorations at the time of good service and gallant affairs, but as this had not been done, in his opinion it would be injudicious to com mence it now. Had the question been urged at the end of the war, he (Sir George Cockburn) would certainly have given his hearty support to it ; but now, at the end of half a century, since many of the most gallant affairs had come off, he could not °ive his sanc tion to the principle. The question having lain dormant so long, he thought it was unwise to agitate it now. He considered it was encircled with very great difficulty, and that no substantial advantage could accrue from agreeing to the motion before the House. Sir HENRY HARDINGE explained, as did Sir CHARLES NAPIER. _ _ Sir A. L. HAY said his object had been to do justice to the officers of the Peninsular army ; but, as he felt the House was not disposed to accede to his motion, he would withdraw it. The motion was then withdrawn. STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES. Lord EBRINGTON moved for a return, showing the dates of the appointments of stipendiary magis trates, from the 2d day of March to the 15th day of April, both inclusive, specifying the names of the several magistrates, the stations to which they were severally appointed by each warrant, and the cause assigned in each warrant respectively for the appointment. He felt great diffidence in intruding on the House, particularly as the matter was parely of a personal nature. Nothing but the absence of the Right Hon. Gentleman who made these charges could have withheld him from repelling many of them on a former occasion, particularly as most of them referred altogether to his father. He felt greatly embarrassed, and hoped the House would extend to hire that indulgence which they generally extended to Members when charges of a personal nature were preferred against them. He felt particularly uneasy, lest the character of his noble relative should remain unvindicated, and never regretted more deeply the absence of Lord Morpeth than on the present occasion. instead of apologising for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates, that Noble Lord would have, in the most unquestionable and satisfactory manner, justified their appointment. There was no fact More notorious than that from the days of Arthur Young to Captain O'Driscoli (who, by-the.hye, still remained in offiee) the Irish people had little or no confidence in the unpaid magistracy. It therefore became necessary to appoint a paid magistraFy. (The Noble Lord then quoted from the speech of Sir James G raham, . in which the Right Hon. Gentleman state d that for four years pre vious to 1840, there were only 59 stipendiary magis trates i n Ireland, and in this year and 1840, the late I r i s h Administration had appointed seven—viz., two in June, two on the sth of July, two on the 6th of August, and one on the very day that Lord Melbourne resigned the seals of office, and long after the House had lost the confidence of the country,—in short, said theßight Hon. Gentleman, on the last gasp of an expiring Government. The first fact stated by the Right Hon. Baronet was the number of magistrates in the years 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841. The Right Hon. Baronet put them down at 59 in each year. Now, from returns which he held in his hand, he (Lord Ebrington) found that in June, 1839, the number instead of 59 was 56 ' in June, 1840, the number was 58 instead of 59; and in 1841, instead of 59, the number was 62. It would be seen, therefore, that this statement of the Right Hon. Baronet was inaccurate. During the whole time of his (Lord Ebrington's) noble relative's Government in Ireland, he was continually add ing to the number of magistrates. (The Noble Lord then read from various documents which related to the ap pointment of the seven stipendiary magistrates which had been alluded to by Sir James Graham, from which it appeared that the appointments had been made after many memorials had been received by the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland on the subject.) He felt sure that the Right Hon. Baronet had been misinformed. when he made these statements : but at the same time he thought it would have been better if, after the lapse of three years, the appointments had been suffered to remain in obscurity. The Noble Lord then proceeded to refer to the ease of Mr. Alcock. Mr. Alcock was one of the leading gentlemen in - the enunty of Waterford. He had been a strong Liberal, but -DO re pealer, and was much respected by all parties. Mr. Alcock had written to him to request that he would in quire why he was the only magistrate who had not been re-appointed, and he begged to put that question to the Noble Lord. Ile hoped that he had vindicated the late Lord Lieutenant from the charges which bad been brought. The Noble Lord concluded by moving for the returns. _ The question having been put, Sir J. GRAHAM said that, as a general rule, he thought it desirable strictly to adhere to the rules of the House ; but, considering the circumstances of this case, he would not call upon the Speaker to enforce them in this instance. He admitted that he was inaccurate is his original statement ; and the mistake occurred in this way. He had to follow the Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, who addressed the House for three hours ill a" po wetful speech, almuulipg wig various topics,