The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-08 00:00:00

EDUCATION.

The Bishop of EXETER rose, pursuant to notice, to
ask a question of the Lord President of Council respect-
ing a communication with deputies of certain bodies of
dissenters, relative to the minutes of the Committee of
Privy Council on Education. He should not feel justified
in enquiring what might have passed between any Mem-
bers of the Cabinet and a deputation from the dissenting
body, but what had occurred at the interview to which
he alluded had been disclosed by a colleague of the
Noble Marquis in another place, and he therefore felt
no difficulty in putting his questions. He wished to
know whether any interview had taken place between
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government and the
Noble Marquis the President of the Council, and a
deputation from the Wesleyan body? Whether any,
and if any, what promise of an alteration in the minutes
in
terview?
and Council on Education was made at that
and whether any record had been kept of the same?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said soon after the
minutes of education were laid on the table of this
House, communications connected with the minutes were
made to his Noble Friend the First Lord of the Trea-
sury and himself, as President of the Council, from
various bodies, and a deputation from the Wesleyan
body, attended upon himself and his Noble Friend, to be
informed upon certain particulars relating to the
minutes. The explanations were given as required, and a
record of the explanations was kept, which would be ul-
timately laid upon the. table of the House. In pursuance
of that communication, a slight alteration was made in
the minutes, but not in their spirit. One of the chief ob-
jections urged by the Wesleyan body was that those who
filled the office of schoolmasters under the minutes, ought
not to be allowed to exercise ecclesiastical functions, and
to that extent an alteration had been made in the mi-
nutes.

The Bishop of EXETER hoped the Noble Marquis
would have no objection to lay on the table of the House
a copy of the paper or communication to which the Noble
Marquis had alluded. Very likely, when that paper
came before them, it might be necessary for him to pro-
pose to their Lordships the expediency of considering
the propriety of expressing an opinion upon some part of
the contents of that paper. It would be found that the
paper contained a distinct declaration that no person
holding any ecclesiastical office, or performing any eccle-
siastical functions, should be eligible to the office of
schoolmaster ; but nothing was said about Dissenting
Ministers boing excluded from the same office. It was
extremely desirable that their Lordship's should have an
opportunity of expressing their opinion upon this ques-
tion of education in all its bearings ; but, before they
could do so, it was indispensably necessary that they
should have this paper before them.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to
promise the production of the paper.
Lord STANLEY did not clearly understand the
ex-
planation of the Noble Marquis. The Noble Marquis
had told them that Ecclesiastical Masters were to be
debarred from exercising Ecclesiastical functions. Did
thr Noble Marquis mean that no schoolmaster must
have taken up holy orders ? If so, he thought the con-
cession highly objectionable ; what the Church most
wanted, in his opinion, was the services of
aninferior
class of ministers, and he thought no better persons
could be found to perform the functions of such minis-
ters, than those who had filled the office of school-
masters' under these minutes.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the funds raised
for the purposes of the minutes, could only be applied to
education. Besides the dissenting body would entertain
strong objections to such an arrangement as that sug-
gested by the Noble Lord.
Lord STANLEY reminded the Noble Marquis that he
had not answered his question, namely, whether a per-
son's being in holy orders would be deemed to be an ob-
tion to his filling the office of schoolmaster.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to
say that it would, but exceptions might arise.
The Bishop of EXETER did not wish to prolong this
discussion, but the Noble Marquis having stated one
thing as a fact, he was quite sure the Noble Marquis
would allow him to set him right upon that score. 'lb°
Noble Marquis had stated that it had always been
understood that a schoolmaster should apply himself
solely to the care of his school. Now he held in his
hand the minutes of the Committee of Council on
Education for 1839, in which he found the following
question:—" Does the schoolmaster devote his whole
time to the office or not ? If so, state what occupation."
Now, so far as he could understand the English lan-
guage, that question implied that schoolmasters were
likely to fill other occupations.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE did not object to a
schoolmaster holding another occupation which did not
interfere with the business of schoolmaster.

The Bishop of EXETER trusted the Noble Marquis's
reply would not be forgotten when they came to discuss
this question a. ain.
PEERS OF SCOTLAND (BILL)

The Earl of EGLINTON moved the second reading
of this Bill. 'He did not think that there would be any
opposition to the measure, and would not therefore trou-
ble their Lordships with any lengthened remarks upon
the Bill. The Noble Earl then briefly stated to their
Lordships the objects of the Bill, which appeared to be a
provision for the revisal of the roll of the Scottish Peer-
age, and certain enactments calculated to prevent fraud
in the case of the elections of Scottish Peers. The
Noble Earl considered that the whole subject was one
which required to be made the subject of a legislative
enactment, and ought not to be left to a mere resolution
of the House.

Lord CAMPBELL thought that the proposed Bill was
unnecessary; the objects sought by it being attainable
by a resolution of their Lordships House.
Lord REDESDALE supported the second reading of
the Bill.

Earl of ROSEBERY thought that the subject
was one which required legislative interference.
If a person presented a petition to that House claiming
a peerage, and, on the strength of that, presumed to vote
at the election of a Scottish Peer, the returning officer
would not allow the vote. He thought that the measure
would prevent the evils at present complained of.
The Duke of IIICHMOND said, from the experience
he had had in the Committee which had been appointed
on the subject, he had come to the opinion that the
defects in the election of Scottish Peers could only be
corrected by an Act of Parliament. He should, there-
fore, not only vote for the second reading of this Bill,
but support it in its subsequent stages.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed to-morrow.
IRISH VAGRANCY BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave notice that he
should move the second reading of this Bill on Thursday
next.

POOR-LAW SUPERVISION BILL (IRELAND).
This Bill was postponed for a few days.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time.
NAVAL PRISONS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time.
LUNATICS ASYLUM BILL (IRELAND).
This Bill was read a second time.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and their Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF G'OMMONS. June 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
NV ARWICK COUNTY PRISONS BILL.

This Bill was read a second time.

On the motion that the Bill be committed,

Mr. DUGDALE opposed the committal of the Bill,
and moved that it be committed that day three months.
Mr. WILLIAMS supported the amendment.
Mr. NEWDEGATE also supported the amendment.
Lord BROOKE was in favour of the committal of the
Bill. He thought, instead of the Bill having been hur-
ried on, it had been too much delayed.
Mr. R. SPOONER, supported the amendment moved
by Mr. Dugdale.
Mr. ADDERLEY opposed the amendment and sup-
ported the Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS supported the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE and Sir C.
DOUGLAS,
The House divided, when there appeared--
For the amentment 6O
Against it
Majority against committal
The Bill wa, consequently lost.
HORNE'S (FERGUSON'S) ESTATE BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
REPORTS.
The following reports were brought up :
Ashton Gras.
Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway (Deviation

-19

of Line, &c.)
Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway
(Stonrbridge and West Bromwich).
Chester and Holyhead Railway (Extension at Chester

and Alteration of Levels). -
Dnot.,rn Countiow P.iilway (Lynn and Ely Railway, and
Ely and Huntingdon Railway, and Lynn and Dereham
Railway Lease).
Edinburgh and Northern Railway (Improvement of the
Ferry between Ferry Port on Craig and the North
Shore of the River Tay).
Edinburgh, Leith, and Granton Railway (Leith Exten-
sion).
Edinburgh and Northern Railway, St. Andrew's and
Newburgh Harbour Branches and Road Crossings
(Newport Railway Extension).
Kilmarnock Police and Improvement.
Guildford Extension and Portsmouth and Fareham
Railway.
Leeds and Thirsk Railway (Eaglescliffe and Stillington
Extension).
Leeds and Thirsk Railway (Knaresborough and Bo-
rough bridge Branch).
Leeds and Thirsk Railway (Branch from Melmerby to
Northallerton, &c.)
Leeds and Thirsk Railway (Harrowgate and Pateley
Branch, &c.)
Liverpool Guardian Gas.
Lynn and Ely, Ely and Huntingdon, and Lynn and
Dereham Railways Amalgamation.
Norfolk Railway (Branch from Norwich to Aylsham,
with a Branch to North Walsharn).
Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Ra lway.
Stockport Manorial Tolli and Bridges.
Wolverhampton General Cemetery.
York and Newcastle Railway (Wearmouth Dock En-
largement).
York and Newcastle Railway (Pelaw Tyne Dock, &c.,
Branches).

THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and
passed:—
East Lothian Central Railway.
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Branch to
the Caledonian Railway and Diversion of Canal).
Shropshir.e Union Railways and Canal (Lease to the
London and North-Western Railway Company.).
Scottish Midland Junction Railway (Branch to Lau-
reneekirk).
The reports on the following Bills were further con-
sidered and agreed to:—

Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction Rail-
way, and Chester and Birkenhead Railway Purchase
or Amalgamation.
Direct London and Portsmouth, Brighton, and Chiches-
ter, London, Brighton, and South Coast, and London
and South-Western Railways.
Great Northern Railway (Purchase of Ambergate,
Nottingham, and Boston and Eastern Junction Rail-
way, &c.)
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, and
Manchester and Lincol❑ Union Railway, and Ches-
terfield and Gainsborough Canal Amalgamation.
Royston and Hitchin Railway (Sale or Lease).
Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Harbour and Bridge
Trusts.