The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-20 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 19.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
GLASGOW, PAISLEY. AND GREENOCK
RAILWAY.
Mr. HASTIE presented six petitions against the
Glasgow, Paisley. and GrPennek Railway.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Mr. GEEENE moved that this House will not re-
ceive a petition against a railway Bill after Monday the
3d day of May next, unless the petitioners shall com-
plain of any matter which may have arisen during the
progress of the Bill before the Committee on the Bill.
That, from and after the said 3d day of May next, the
Committee of Classification be empowered to refer to the
Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, toge-
ther with the Members ordered to prepare and bring in
the Bill, such unopposed Bills as they shall deem it de-
sirable so to refer.—Agreed to.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition against the Bills
of the Great Northern Railway Company.

REPORTS.
The reports on the following Bills were considered
and agreed to, and the Bills ordt,:ed to be engrossed :
Darwen Waterworks and Reservoirs Bill.
Newhaven Harbour, Ouse Lower Navigation, and Lewes

and Laughton Drainage.
Newmarket and Chesterford Railway (Extension to

Thetford).
Newmarket and Chesterford Railway (Extension to
Bury St. Edmund's, with a Branch to Ely).
HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.
Mr. WARD moved that the order, that Viscount
Morpeth, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Owen Stanley be Mem-
bers of the Select Committee on the Holyhead Her
hour Bill, be discharged. He made the motion
at the request of the Noble Lord the Member
for Liverpool, who was of opinion that the appoint-
ment of the Committee ought to he delayed until
the report of the Commissioners, app.inted to consider
the subject, was before the House. lie should lay that
report on the table either to-morrow or next day.
The motion was agreed to.
LONDON, OXFORD, AND CIIELTENHAM
RAILWAY. _

Mr. C. BERKELEY moved that the petition of the
inhabitants of Cheltenham, in favour of the London,
Oxford, and Cheltenham Railway, and agaiast the Chel-
tenham and Oxford Railway Bill, be referred to the
Committee on the Bill.—Agreed to.
FEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.

The SPEAKER said he had to acquaint the House,
that in accordance with the resolution of the House, he
had caused a list of fees payable on private bills to be
prepared.
NEWMARKET AND CIIESTERFORD RAILWAY

BILL.
This Bill, repealing the provision authorising thecompany to use the line of the Eastern Counties Rail.
way, was read a third time and passed.
GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF EDUCATION.
Mr. P. HOWARD presented two petitions from Car-
lisle against the Government scheme of education.
Mr. HASTIE presented several petitions from Scot-
land to the same effect.

Mr. TIIORNELY presented petitions from Devon-
shire and North Wales to the same effect.

Mr. W. PATTEN presented several petitions in favour
of the scheme, and two against it.
Mr. R. CURRIE presented a petition from North-
amptonshire against the Government educational scheme.
Mr. BAILEY presented petitions to the same effect•
Mr. WILLIAMS presented two petitions to the some
effect. The lion. Member also presented a petition
from a person named Williams, complaining that the
Irish Board of Works were guilty of jobbing practices
in connexion with their functions.

Mr. DUNCAN presented several petitions from Scot-
land against the Government Scheme of Education.
Petitions were also presented against the measure by
Mr. Beßead Yorke, Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Huntley,
Mr. Brotherton, Lord C. Fitzroy, Mr. Greene, by
Mr. Walker, Mr. Gisborno upwards of 20 petitions, Mr.
Godson, and Mr. Sharman Crawford, 26 petitions from
Wcsleyans and others from Rochdale.
Mr. HINDLEY also presented 700 petitions, from
various places.
Petitions in favour of the measure were presented by
Mr. Seymer, Mr. Finch, Mr. Greene, Mr. Ainsworth,
Mr. Hudson, from Sunderland ; Dr. Bowring, Mr.
Stewart, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Brooke, and Lord H. Vane.
Mr. MILES presented several petitions from places in
Somersetshire in favour of the scheme.

Mr. G. BERKELEY presented petitions from Glou-
cestershire against the Government plan.
Mr. ROEBUCK presented two petitions from Bath
against the scheme.
Mr. E. DENNISON presented one in favour and one
against ; as also did Mr. HAYTER.
Mr. I'. DUNCOMBE said he had from 300 to 400
petitions to present from various parts of the country
against the scheme—four or five of which were
peculiarly deserving the attention of the House, as
they were of a different character to the generality of
them. One was agreed to at a public meeting of the
inhabitants of Maidstone, objecting to the scheme as
unconstitutional; another agreed to at a public meeting,
held on Saturday last, at Ramsgate, deprecating the
House proceeding to decide on the scheme with haste,
and in favour of his (Mr. Duncombe's) motion for a
Select Committee of Inquiry; from the committee of a
society calling itself " The Central Committee of Na-
tional Associated Trades, and for the Protection of In-
dustry;" and another signed by 7,000 members of an
association, calling itself " The Association of Young
Men of the City of London," who were
also members of various mechanics institutes,
against the scheme and in favour of an inquiry ;
also a petition from thirteen of the clergymen of the
diocese of York, who stated that it appeared from the
Minutes of the Council of Education that certain pro-
positions were in some measure founded on the
representation of the Protestant clergy, while there
was no authority to show that the Protestant divines
as a body were in favour of the plan.
Mr. DENISON presented a petition from Surrey in
favour of the Government scheme of education.

Lord ARUNDEL presented several petitions from
Sunday-school teachers against the scheme.
➢lr. M. GIBSON also presented several petitions to
the same effect.

M. M. MILNES presented a petition in favour of.

Mr, HOLLAND Presented a petition against.
Lord DUNCAN presented 10 petitions from Bath

against.
Alderman HUMPHERY presented a petition against.
Col. SIBTHORP presented a petition against.
Sir G. BANKES presented a petition against.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented several petitions against.
Colonel T. WOOD presented several petitions against.
Mr. PUSSY presented several petitions in favour of
the Government plan.
Lord MORPETH presented 124 petitions from various
places in the West Riding of Yorkshire against the
scheme of the Government.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. BORTHWICK presented a petition in its
favour.

Sir R. PEEL presented three petitions from places in
Lancashire against the Government scheme.
Mr. WAKLEY presented several petitions to the same
effect.

Mr. VERNON SMITH presented petitions from
Northampton against the Government scheme of
education.

Mr. CHRISTIE presented similar petitions from
Weymouth and other places.
Sir GEORGE GREY presented similar petitions ;
also petitions from the Free Church Presbytery of
Glasgow and Ayr in favour of the measure. The Right
Hon. Baronet proceeded, amidst the utmost confusion,
to state the prayer of the petitions, and in an apolo-
getic tone added that he had been specially requested
to do so.—(Laughter.)
Mr. CONIPTON presented petitions in favour of the
Bill.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN presented petitions from
22 parishes in Norhamptonshire against the Bill.
Captain GLADSTONE presented similar petitions.
Mr. PATTISON presented petitions to the same
effect.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE presented petitions in favour
of the measure.
Mr. AGLTONBY presented petitions against the
measure.
Lord CHARLES SOMERSET presented petitions
to the same effect.
Petitions against the measure were also presented by
Mr. Barclay, by Mr. Sotheron, by Mr. Aldam, by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, by Mr. B. Escott, and by
Mr. Barker.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented 513 petitions in
favour of the measure (fourteen from the Chancellor of
the Exchequer).
Several petitions were presented also in favour of the
measure by Mr. Aldam, from Leeds, Sir 11. Inglis, Mr.
Barclay, and Lord Ingestre.
Sir DE LACY EVANS presented petitions from
several parishes in Westminster against all State grants
for educational purposes ; and against the Committee of
the Privy Council.—(A laugh.)
Lord M. HILL presented a petition against.
Mr. PARKER three in favour.
Mr. KEMBLE one from Clapham, signed by the
Archdeacon of Surrey, in favour.
Mr. BROTHEIITON petitions from different dissent-
ing congregations in Salford, and other places, against.
BOARD OF CONTROL—GAS COMPANIES.
Mr. HUME said that he desired to give notice that
he would to-morrow or on Thursday move that as the
Government of India had been vested in
the India Directors, the conduct of the Board
of Control in taking cognizance of certain
matters was illegal and impeachable.—(Laughter.) He
would also move that a statement of the rate at which
all gas companies had furnished the public with gas
for the last ten years should be laid upon the table.
DECIMAL CURRENCY—VICTORINES.
Dr. BOWRING would move on to morrow (this day)
an address to her Majesty, that she would authorise a
decimal system of currency, and that a coin of the value
of two shillings should be issued, being one. tenth part
of a pound, to be called a " Victorine."— (Laughter.)

TIIE POOR-LAW.
Mr. FERRAND said that he would wish to ask the
Noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown a question,
of which he had given notice : he desired that he would
name a day on which it was his intention to
bring forward the question of the new poor-law. If the
Noble Lord was unprepared to do this, he should con-
sider it his duty to bring the subject under the notice of
the House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it was his inten-
tion to bring forward that question on Thursday next,
or on to-morrow (this day) week.
Sir BEN. HALL said—Before we proceed to the
order of the day, I shall put a question, of which I have

p given notice, to the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment. It is of some importance, and may materially
effect the discussion of this measure. The question I
have to put to the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment, and of which I have sent him a copy, is to this
effect:—l may first state that there is a rumour preva-
lent in the city of London that an arrangement has been
made between the Government and the Wesleyan Com-
mittees, for the purpose of setting aside the opposition
which is intended to be made by the Wesleyans to the
grant for the Government:scheme of education. I think
twat the best mode in which lean bring the question before
the House, is to read a statement which appears in a
paper supported by the Wesleyans, and which is to this
effect. On account of an important communication from
high sources expressing a desire, without any solicita-
tion on our part, to enter into a negotiation with
regard to this scheme, we have judgcd it ex-
pedient to direct a Committee, in order that no misun-
derstanding may take place on either side, to enter into
a communication with the Government with regard to
the objections felt by the Wesleyans to the Minutes of
Council, and on which we have stated, in strong
but respectful language, our aversion to them.
An official reply has been received, placing
the present measure in a new light altogether,
and which, we are bound to say, removes in
a great degree some of the most grave and insuperable
objections which, as consistent Wesleyans, the Commit-
tees have urged. Now the statement made is this, and
I wish to call the attention of the Noble Lord anti the
House to it. Official but private overtures have been
made to the Wesleyans in London, offering these
concessions—first, that the Government exhibition
shall be made only to schools which use the
authorised version of the Scriptures; next that the
Wesleyans be permitted to use their own catechisms,
in schools devoted to the use of the Wesleyans, and that
the instructors should be of the Wesleyan persuasion.
The question I have to put to the Government is this,
first, whether this negotiation has been made to the
Wesleyans by Government, or any person authorised by
the Government, and if such concessions are to be
made, whether the Roman Catholics are to have the like

privilege?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said—l must say, in the
first place, in answer to the question of the Hon.
Member, that the communication with the Wesleyan
body was, as far as I know, not begun by any person
authorised on the part of the Government. A Noble
Friend of mine, whose name (although I have no
authority to mention it) I may state to the House
—I mean Lord Ashley—understood from some of
the Wesleyan body that they were about to enter into
resolutions describing the character of the minutes
in a way which was thought by him not appli-
cable to them. He told them that they had better wait
until he should communicate with Lord Lansdowne on
the subject, and thus through the secretary of the com-
mittee of council get an explanation on the sub-
ject. The secretary of the committee came to Lord
Lansdowne and myself, and asked our intentions,
on the subject, we said that we should have no hesitation
in answering any questions which the Wesleyans might
choose to put, and which might lead to a correct expla-
nation on the subject. I do not know that any blame
can be attached to us in consequence.—(Loud cheering.)
The first question was, whether any person, holding
ecclesiastical functions would be eligible to fill the
office of pupil teachers, and the answer we made
was, that they would not be eligible as pupil teachers.
—(Loud cheers.) The next question was, whether the
authorised version of the Scriptures would be used in
schools ? On this subject, the resolution of the Com-
mitts, dated the 3d December, 1839, in which reference
was made to a previous re olution, said that the condi-
tion on which they would give assistance to schools
would be that a daily portion of the Scrip-
tures should form a portion of the usual exercise
to the classes. The words " the daily reading of a por-
tion of the Scriptures," was understood to mean the
authorised version of the Scriptures, and in the same
report of 1839, it was stated that the intention of the
Committee with respect to the children of Roman
Catholics, was that the Douay version of the Bible should
be allowed. The next question was, whether the in-
spectors
of the Wesleyan school might be appointed not as
from the Wesleyan body, but with their concurrence ?
The Hon. Gentleman stated that they had hitherto re-
ceived assistance through the British and Foreign
School Society, and they said that it would be far more
agreeable to their feelings and the constitution
of their Society if the Committee on educa-
tion would recognise the Wesleyan body directly.
I admit that, according to that arranT2;ement, they were
not parties which, according to the minute, wok e
entitled to assistance from the grant. With re-
gard to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics
from the grant, it was no new question.
Ever since 1839 such has been the policies, and I do
not know of any grant having been mede to Romeo
Catholic schools exclusively as such. The question is,
therefore, left as beibre as far as Roman Catholics are
concerned. When the Roman Catholic Bishops came to
the Government and ask for assistance from the Go-
vernment grant it will be time enough to give attention
to the matter. At present there was considerable diffi-
culty in working such a grant on account of many
of the teachers in Roman Catholic schools being in holy
orders, and might be supposed to use their functions as
teachers to proselytize their pupils. With regard to the
grant for the present year, it will be this year the same
as the lest, viz., 100,0001., and it will be applied as before.
GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then proceeded to the order
of the day. He said—Sir, I will now proceed to
propose to read the order of the day with
the view of proposing in Committee a resolu-
tion for education. In doing so, the House, I
trust, will bear with me, and give me its indulgence,
while I endeavour to clear away some of the exaggera-
tion with which it has been accompanied.—(Hear,
hear.) And in connexion with which Honour-
aeckeldreinmbneorosrdinhaarvye m
abeenr a
nmisrepresented
give ern:-
aabttl
count of their conduct at public meetings and elsewhere.
It is done by those who say they come to protest against
an irresponsible power, it is done by those who endeavour
to show thet the body who will have the management of
this grant is unconstitutional, and that the grant made
from year to year—made by this House—placed in the
hands of the Ministers of the Crown, renewable at the
pleasure of the Sovereign, and who cannot hold office
any longer than they have the support of this House;
that such a mode of devoting money to the education
of the people was an unconstitutional mode
of proceeding. Why, Sir, talk of responsibility
how much more must we be responsible, hold
ing this power upon such a tenure, than those
who assemble together from various parts of the coun-
try, not responsible to any persons, and who have told
Hon. Members of this House that they will raise suer
opposition at a future election, that they shall no longer
have the honour of a seat in that House if they decide
according to their free and impartial judgment upon the
questions now to be brought before you. I trust, Sir,
entirely to the judgment and impartiality of this House;
and that they will not allow that these attempts at
exaggeration and misrepresentation shall hide from them
the real facts of the case.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, it
is well known that the education of the people
—of the working classes especially—forms no
part of the duty, either of the Government or, nationally
speaking, of the Church of this country. The whole
task of education has been left, of late years, to volun-
tary efforts. In the year 1784, a person of the
name of Raikes first started sublcriptions for
the purpose of establishing Sunday schools, and
was the means of diffusing a great amount of
education among the younger portion of the community.
In the beginning of this century, when Mr. Lancaster
came to this country, it was entirely by the efforts of in-
dividuals that the British and Foreign School
Society was established, altogether unaided by any
assistance from the funds of the Government.
So likewise when these schools were succeeded by the
National Schools upon the plan of Dr. Bell. Although j
the clergy took a great part in the establishment of nu sei
schools, it was done entirely by the money of the indi-
viduals among the clergy and the laity ; and
was in no way countenanced by the State. In the year
1832, I think a vote was proposed in this House, of a
very limited amount, as it did not exceed 20,0001., for the
purposes of aiding in the education of the working
classes. That sum was placed under the direction of
the Treasury, and was stated to be intended for this
purpose. - I have mentioned the National Society,
which was composed of members of the Church
of England, and by the British and Foreign
School Society, which had no other rule than this—
have the Scriptures read daily in the schools connected
with that society, which was constituted, not of Church-
men only, but of Churchmen and Protestant Dissen-
ters. Sir, the matter continued in this shape till
1839, when it was proposed to form a Com-
mittee of the Council ; and that the sums which
had hitherto been granted by the Treasury
to the different educational societies, should henceforth
pass through the Committee of the Council, and that that
Commitee instead of the whole Council, who being a
a large body, like the Treasury, was occupied with
other concerns, should form a committee of colleen, and
that that committee, by the direction of her Majesty,
should have ita attention expressly devoted to
this particular subject. The Lord President of
the Council was placed at the head of that
Committee, and he has taken the charge at all
times; whether under the then Government, the late
Government, or under the present Government. The
the Lord President of the Council has at all times taken
the charge of this matter, and of the distribution of the
funds for the purposes of education, and has brought
before the Council from time to time such regulations
the adoption of which, he thought, would be useful.
Sir, the appointment of that Committee in the first in-
stance gave rise to great differences of opinion in the
country, and a very protracted and vehement discussion
took place in this House on the subject. The Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, in the other House of Parlia-
ment, protested against the formation of that Committee,
and against any scheme of education which was not
brought by Bill before Parliament. It was evident for
some time the endeavours of the Committee of Council
on the one hand, and that of the church on the other,
were much weakened by these differences of opinion ;
and therefore the results were not so successful as they
would have been if they had not prevailed. The ques-
tion was in this shape when it was proposed that the
inspectors who should visit the national schools should
be appointed by the Council, with the concurrence of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, in the province of Canter-
bury; and with the concurrence of the Archb7shop of
York, in the province of York. That these should re-
port to the Committee of Council generally, as to the
secular education, and that they should report as
to the nature of religious ins ruction according
to the liturgy of the Church of England; and that
duplicates of these reports should also be sent
to the Archbishops, that if they withheld their concur-
rence from the appointment of that inspector as were
dissatisfied with what he considered the conscientious
discharge of his duties, his appointment ce&sed, and the