The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-06 00:00:00

EVENING PD

agreed upon the want of education—they were al agreed upon
the benefit of education, and it would he a strange thing if
they should be p %Tented from carrying their object into
effect because they could net agree upon the manner in which
it should be carried into effect. lie could not help thinking
that this would be a matter at which some might laugh
and some might weep, hot would afford to those
who drew disparaging views of human nature some
nod for their satire, and some matter upon which
they might ground themselves. He trusted their Lordships
would not upon the present occasion, by adopting the motion of
the Most Rev. Prelate, throw obstacles on the object which
hey all had in view. The Reverend Prelate who presided
over the metropolitan districts, in the course of a very able
and powerful speech on the subject, stated the objeetion he
had to the present measure, and the apprehension be
ent-rtained of it. He would not deny all the facts stated
by the Rev. Prelate ; there might possibly exist in the country a
party hostile to the religious institutions of the country. that
might be so—such an intention might be entertained. There
was only one part of the Right Rev Prelate's statement that
he denied. He was pleased to assert that her Majesty's Go-
vernment were in the hands of that party—(Hear, hear.
hmr)—that they were so many puppets, and that all
their power and influence were derived at the hands of
those persons. He ( Lord Melbourne) knew not what the
Right Rev. Prelate meant, but of this he was sure, that there
was no foundation whatever for the apprehension he ent•r-
-t ained. The Right Rev. Prelate had passed a eulogium upon
the clergy of the Established Church. He stated the exertions
they had made in the cause of education, no doubt they de,
served that praise. It had never been stated in that
House in express terms that the Clergy of the Established
Church were hostile to the spread of knowledge, it
had not been even hinted at, and he only wished
to t ike notice of this in order that it might not be supposed that
there had been on the part of any one any imputation or insi-
nuation against any part of the Clergy of the Established
Church with respect to their zeal, industry, or their talents.
He had listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the
Most Rev. Prelate, who had introduced the debate ; but there
was a great deal in that speech that had no reference whatever
to the question which had been introduced to their attention.
The Rev. Prelate would agree to the grants made by Parlia-
ment to the Societies, but his objections to the Committee of
the Privy Council would apply stronger to the Lords of the
Treasury. He complained that the Committee would be ex-
clusive administrators of the funds, so were the Lords of the
Treasury ; that they were liable to the changes of administra-
tion, so were the Lords of the Treasury; that they were liable
to be influenced by political purposes in dispensing the grant, so
were the Lordsof the Treasury. Surely such a charge might be
made with more force against the Lords of the Treasury. But
the. Rev. Prelate the Bishop of London threw overboard a
great dea. of the arguments that were brought forward by the
Most Reverend Prelate, feeling that he was putting himself
out of Court by the approl a.ion of the Lords of the Treasury.
But he should think there was a difference between the late
mode and the proposed mode; and here the Noble Duke cosin
curred with him—namely, that the Lords of the Treasury
pointed on the grounds they meant to act upon. Whereas the
Committee of the Privy Council meant to proceed in the dark
hear, hear, hear.) Rut the order of the Privy Council went
to depart from the principles ailed upon by the Lords of the
Treasury in some instances. He did not mean always to ask
for a proportionable grant according to the local subscription.
The Rev. Prelate said that was right, foe otherwise it was the
wealthy only that would benefit by the grants. They also
proposed to assist other parts of the country which heretofore
derived no benefits from the grants. If they felt that they
could have no confidence in the Committee of the Privy Coun-
cil, their Lordships were right in stating it—but
he then knew no grounds for refusing all confidence to those
who were to take all their steps in the face of the publi,e,
who would come before Parliament every year for the money
that was to be voted. To refuse to place confidence in these
men would be to show a degree of diffidence and suspicion
which would appear in the highest degree absurd. But the
Not le Duke said that if they accepted the money, they did so
under terms which would subject their schools to the direc-
tion and controul of the Committee of the Privy Coun-
cil. Now, surely, even the Reverend Prelate must "ad-
mit that if the public money is advanced towards a
school by the Government, the Government have
aright to adopt means for ascertaining whether or not the
money is rightly applied, according to the principles of the
granters. But th:s would be all. It implied no submission of
schools to the direction of the Committee, it only implied that
they were to permit them to see that the schools were rightly
conducted. The Noble Duke stated that the Government
should have expound ..4 what they meant to do. Had not his
Noble Friend the President of the Council (the Marquis of
Lansdowne) made a clear and ample statement? The
course of the Committee must be public and promulgated,
and he begged to assure their Lordships that the Government
bad not the slightest idea to supersede or undermine the Esta-
blished Church, to hurt its right, to weaken its vigilance, or to
diminish its respectability He most emphatically repelled
such a charge. He thought there was a great Parliamentary
aed Constitutional objection to- the results proposed by the
most Reverend Prelate, besides the objection of his Ho.
nourable and Learned Friend. They meant to address the
Crown not to take any steps in this matter until theh•
Lordships had given their opinion on it. Now; did
they mean to say that the Crown had acted wrong,
or had exceeded its prerogative ? The House had a right to
remonstrate aeainst an exercise of the prerogative," but it
ought not to ask the sovereign to do by Act of Parliament
that which it might do of the sole and constitutional act of the
prerogative. He, therefore, thought the Rev. Prelate was-pro.
ceeding unwisely—a course which would neither tend towards
the dignity of the Church, nor the interests of the country'.
plaThe Duke of WELLINGTON and Lord BROUGHAM ex.
ined.

Lord MELVILLE, amidst loud cries of " Question,"
asked the Noble Lord whether the measure proposed extended
to Scotland, which used hitherto to receive 10,0001. a year
under the grants? In Scotland the Church of Scotland had
the exclusive superintendence of schools, and the Govern-
ment had better not attempt to cross the Tweed w;th such a
measure as this.--( Laughter.) If the Committee of the Privy
Council did more than inquire, they would come into collision
with the Church. who, on such a subject as this, would not
relinquish her privileges.
Lord Ha, lIGHANI and Lord MeLvir.i.x explained,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE could assure their Lord-
ships there was no intention of excluding Scotland from the
grant. He should take the sense of the-House on the Trevtous
question ; and after that he should move the omission of certain
words in the second resolution, so as to reduce it to the enume.
ration of a matter of fact.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared for the Re;
solution :
Contents Present ...
Proxies
........... . ......... 58
229
Not-Content Present
—BO
Proxies
38
----I 18

•
Majority in favour of the Resolution
The Marquis of LAMDOWNE then moved the omission
of the words of which he had given notice, which was agreed
to after a few words from Lord Ellenborutig,h.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY then moved that the
address of which he had given notice be presented to her Ma=
jestv by the whole House, and the Lords with white staves
wait upon her Majesty to know when it would be her pleasure
to receive it.
The motion was at once agreed to, and their Lordships ad-
journed at a Quarter past Three o'l:lock this morning.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. GULP 5.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. •
Pembertou's Divorce Bill was read a third time and
passed.

M. WILLIAMS brought up the Report on Hall's.
Estate Bill, which was read a third time awl passed,
Mr. HODGES brought up the Report on the Ships,
Propeller Company Bill.
The Bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Sir J. Y. BU LLER brought up the Report or
,the.
Committee ou Davies' Estate Bill, which was read a.
third time and passed.
On the motion of Sir J. Y. BULLER, the Lords
amendments to the Sid Mouth Market Bill were agreed
to.

Sir WM. MOLES WORTH presented a petition
from a parish in Lancaster of favour of a penny post.
Mr. ESTCOURT brought up the Report of the
Select Committee upon the Standing Orders: The
Committee reported that in the case of the Dublin and
Drogheda Railway Bill the Standing Orders ought not
to be dispensed with.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Lan-
cashire against the Government scheme for national
educatian.
Mr. E. TENNENT presented a petition from a
society in Belfast against. the Belfast Water Works Bill.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from
the parish of Christchurch, Southwark, in favour .of
penny postage.

- SMALL DEBTS BILL.
Mr. W. PATTEN inquired when the Report of the
Committee on the Small Debts Bill was likely to be.
presented ?

Sir GEORGE GREY replied that, in all proba-
bility, it would be presented on Monday, but it was un-
certain on which day it would be taken into consi-
deration.

Mr. W. P ATTEN thought the best course he could
take, was to move, on Monday next, that the Small Debts
Bill should be forwarded another stage,: and then 01
the third reading, if it were the pleasure of the House,
they could be put off till another Session.
CANADA.
Sir W. MOLES WORTH gave notice that on
Thursday, on the House going into Committee on the
Canada Government Bill, he should move, " That
every consider.►tion of humanity., justice, and poliCy,
demands that Parliament should seriously apply itsslf
without delay to le!islate for the permanent govern.
meet of her Majesty's Provinces in Upper and Lower
Canada."

ROYAL ACADEMY.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS gave notice that on Mon-
day next be should present a petition from the Royal
Academy in reference to certain returns ordered by
that House to be made on the 14th of March last.
GERMANIC COMMERCIAL LEAGUE,
Mr. BAINES gave notice that on Tuesday next he-
should move that there be laid before the House a copy
of the contract entered into by the States of Germany
in 1833, usually called the Germanic Commercial
League, and for'copies or extracts of correspondence
between the Government of Prussia and Great Britain
on the Convention, to be held at Berlin in July,
for the regulation of the Germanic Commercial League
SHIPWRECKS.
Mr, G. PALLIER gave notice that on Monday be
should move for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose
of preventing shipwrecks through overloading the deas
of vessels with timber.
The Brick Duties Bill, the Paper Duties Bill, and
the Prisons (Scotland) Bill were severally read a third
time and passed.
'The Glass Duties Bill Went through Committee.
METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENTS.
Sir R. INGLIS wished to know what course was
to be taken by the Government in respect to the Re-
port of the Metropolis Improvement Committee ?'
—TheCHAN-CILTOROT77. CACHEQUER7,II7I3
trnmedi deb, upon reeei% jog the Report the Treasury had
directed their attention to the subject. But In the mean-
time a Private Bill had passed this House, to effect some
improvements in the approaches to London Bridge,