The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-26 00:00:00

Sir DE LACY EVANS then asked the Noble Lord,
the First Lord of the Treasury, in pursuance of notice
given. First—Should the supporters of an existing
national school, in a parish where Non-Conformists are
not sufficient in numbers to form a separate school, desire,
in consequence, to adopt a rule of management which
shall admit the children of Non-Conformists, with
exemption from attendance at Church and from
instruction in the Catechism, and should the
National School Society refuse their sanction
to such rule, will the Committee of the Privy Council on
Education consider the desire on the one part to adopt
this rule, and the refusal of the National School Society to
sanction or grant aid under such circumstances, as
reasons sufficient to form a " special case?" 2d. And in
the event of the Committee of the Privy Council deem-
ing a national school, adopting such tolerant rule and
practice, to be within the class of " special cases," will
the loss sustained by such school by reason of the refusal
of assistance from the National School Society, be taken
into consideration in determining the proportion of aid
to be granted by the Committee of the Privy Council ?
3d. It having been intimated that individual minutes are
contemplated by Government to meet the case of
Roman Catholics, will the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government inform the House, whether Con-
gregational Dissenters, who approve the principle of
Government aid to education, have a similar measure
of liberality extended to them which is thus so justly
intended towards their Ronan Catholic fellow-subjects,
and to which they are equally entitled ; to the effect,
that additional minutes may also be hoped for, to en-
able Congregational Dissenters, upon special applica-
tion, and without touching the previous minutes, as
affecting Church of England Schools, to accept Govern-
ment aid, without being constrained to render any ac-
count to Government on the religious knowledge or
duties of the monitors and pupil-teachers ?
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply, said—Sir, I will answer
the different questions which my Hon. Friend has put
to me, although, of course, I cannot enter into any par-
ticular case. With regard to the general principle on
which the Committee of the Council of Education are
prepared to act, I think it has been stated in previous
debates, that if the managers of any school should think
proper, while they conform generally to the rules of the
National Society, not to require the children to learn the
catechism or to attend church, and thus to admit the
children of Dissenters, thereby becoming, as I believe,
separated from the National Society, the Committee of
the Council of Education will feel themselves at liberty
to extend their aid to such schools.—(Hear, hear.) As
to the second question,—the loss to the schools owing to
the refusal of the National Society to give assistance,—
each case must rest on its own merits, and each case will
be considered on its own merits, and aid will be given
to Church schools generally which admit Dissenters in
aid of local subscriptions in each district. With respect
to the third question, the regulation has been introduced
not only to meet the case of the Roman Catholics, with
respect to whom a minute has been prepared, and the
draught of which has been submitted to the Catholic

Institute, but it has also been introduced to meet the ob-
jections held by Congregational Dissenters—objections
which I think of an extremely refined nature, but which
I still think ought not to prevent aid being given to
schools which would otherwise be assisted. The Go-
vernment minutes would be satisfied without the iu•
spector giving an account of the religious examination
of the schools, if the managers of the schools should
say that they were satisfied; this, I think, would amount
to no interference, but many Congregational Dissenters,
who entertain strong religious opinions, and who are
remarkable for praiseworthy conduct, think that this is
some interference, and if the Privy Council are satisfied
that this may be made a ground of religious objection,
they will not require that the local managers shall state
that they are satisfied. A minute on the subject has
been prepared; it lies by for consideration; but it will
be probably adopted at an early meeting of the
Privy Council. With regard to the Roman Catholics, it
is right to state, to prevent any misapprehension, that
the regulations will relate to future grants only, and that
the grants now made will be administered strictly in
accordance with the declarations made in this House.
We shall endeavour to extend education by Parliamen-
tary grants as widely as possible, but with respect to
grants already made, they will be distributed according
to the declarations made in this House at the time they
were granted.
The motion was then agreed to that the House, at its
rising, do adjourn till Monday.
EPISCOPAL FUND.

Mr. HORSMAN moved, " That an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be
graciously pleased to order that there be laid before this
House a return of the proceeds and application of the
episcopal fund from its commencement to the present
time," which was agreed to.
COMMERCIAL TREATIES WITH FRANCE.

Lord G. BENTINCK moved an Address to her
Majesty, praying her Majesty to be graciously pleased
to direct that there be laid before this House copies of
the commercial treaties contracted between Great Bri-
tain and France in the years 1786 and 1787.
Agreed to.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having moved the
first reading of this Bill, _ .

Mr. EWART wished to put a question to the Chief
Commissioner of Railways. He (Mr. Ewart) had heard
that large quantities of gunpowder had been conveyed by
different railways, for the purposes of blasting. He
wished to know whether it were true ?
Mr. STRUTT said that he had only heard of one
instance, and then the produce was conveyed only by a
goods train. lie considered, however, that the matter

was one of the greatest importance to the community,
and it should receive the early attention of the Govern-
ment.

The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be
read a second time on Monday.

SUPPLY.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved the order of the
day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of

lIORSNIAN inquired whether the Irish Railways
Bill would come forward on Monday?
Lord J. RUSSELL—Yes.

Sir 11. DOUGLAS then complained that in a recent
return there had been an error of 2,000 ships in the
third column of the ships for the year 1846, entered in-
wards. The right number was 9,720, and the number
returned was only 7,720. An abstract of the return
had been given that morning in a journal of wide circu-
lation and great influence, and persons would not look
for a correction to the amount of tonnage or the number
of men; and it seemed to be not a typographical but an
original error.
THE LATE PROCEEDINGS IN CHINA.

Mr. lIUME asked whether the dispatches relating to
the recent proceedings in China would be laid before the
house? It appeared that the order went out from this
country, and the proceedings had taken place in conse-
quence of that order.
Lord PALMERSTON said that almost all the in-
structions had been already laid before Parliament, but
it so happened that two_disPatches, as to the proceedings
which preceded; the , expedition, had not come to hand,
but he would take care that at an early opportunity
there should be laid before Parliament the whole of the
information respecting these transactions.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the Lords brought up the following
Bi(,Nielnlosio2w7hrinsch(iici_htehylesaierna Lordshipsain3di
on Greenwich)n
e s have Land Comp
Bill—Collectionagreedom
panty : —Ouo tf
Duties (Port Natal) Bill—Destitute Persons (Ireland)
Bill—
British American Land Company Bill—Ross, Crom ty,
and Part of Nairn District Roads Bill, without Amaernd-
went ;—Cemeteries Clauses Bill—Punishment of va-
grants (Ireland) Bill—Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill—
Edinburgh and Bathgate Railway Bill—Dublin and
Belfast Junction and Navan Branch Railway Bill—
Shropshire Union Railways and Canal (Lease to the
London and North Western Railway Company) Bill--
Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Stour Valley Rail-
way (No. 1) Bill—Warkworth Harbour Bill—Glasgow,
Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 4) Bill--
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway, and
Glasgow and Belfast Union Railway (No. 1) Bill—East
Lincolnshire Railway (Louth Navigation Purchase) Bill,
with Amendments.
CAPTAIN WARNER.

Lord INGESTRE rose to move the appointment of a
sioners appointed to investigate Captain Warners inven-
tions. lie said he could not forget the dictum of the
Gallant Member for Liverpool (Sir H. Douglas) that
these inventions were the greatest impositions ever
palmed upon the public. He would not inquire on what
authority he said so, but yet the dictum of the Gallant
Officer was just that with which he (Lord Ingestre)
felt himself called upon to contend. The Gallant Officer
ever since this subject was introduced, seemed to have
treated it throughout as a personal matter. But he
(Lord Ingestre) defied the Gallant Officer to achieve
one tithe of what could be performed by Captain Warner.
The Right lion. Member for Tamworth from certain
questions he put, and papers he called for early in
the session, seemed to participate in the sentiments of
the Gallant Officer. Still he (Lord Ingestre) felt him-
self called on to bring forward this subject if none should
stand by him. The Noble Lord then proceeded to read
a letter from Sir John M. Doyle, setting forth Captain
Warner's conduct in Portugal as honourable, ingenious,
and brave, inceontradiction to a letter formerly read by
the Hon. Member for Salford. The Noble Lord did
not think it fair in the Right Hon. Member for
Tamworth to have said that Captain Warner
would not proceed to test his inventions until ho should
be guaranteed by the Government for a compensation of
400,0001. ; for Captain Warner, in his last two letters to
persons in the Admiralty, dated previous to that debate,
distinctly said that he left the whole question, as to
money, to the arbitration of the Government. In the
whole, the Noble Lord said, that no full opportunity was
offered for that investigation which the subject deserved,
and which would have satisfied the public. Instead of
that, he was treated rather as an impostor, and the ques-
tions put to him were petulant and absurd. Shortly
after the Noble Lord took office, he (Lord Ingestre)
waited upon him, and met with the greatest kindness.
Two officers were appointed as commissioners, whom
Captain Warner at once accepted, and all the stipulations
and the instructions were fair and able. lie had nothing
to complain of in these. It was agreed that an
experiment should be tried. An estimate of the ex-
pense was furnished by Captain Warner, and the money
was given. The place chosen was Heywood Park,
granted them for the purpose by the Master-General of
the Ordnance. But the report was exceedingly short
and unsatisfactory. They reported that the experiment
was a decided failure. That was not his (Lord Ingestre)
opinion, nor would it have been theirs it' they had suffi-
ciently investigated the experiment. ,It was also said
that Captain Warner had chosen the place where his
experiment was to be tried. Now, so far from this