The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-27 00:00:00

were refused, the expenses of the office must be thrown
upon another fund applicable to other purposes altoge-
ther. The money asked for neve applied to the dissemi-
nation of spiritual instruction amongst other things.
Colonel SIBTHORP would not object to the granting
of a sum Jour times the amount of the vote asked for, if
he were satisfied that it wee necessary for the purpose
mentioned by the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord would,
however, pardon him for saying that he could not take
his representations of the vote.
Mr. HUME said that many thousands of pounds might
be saved if this Church property were placed in the
hands of two responsible individuals. He considered
that Church property was public property, and should
be treated accordingly. He wanted to know whether
tho Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge
(Mr. Goulburn), having a pension of 2,0001. a year, was
entitled to draw from the Church, as Commissioner, ano-
ther sum of 1,0001. a year? This was a matter of public
principle and demanded investigation.
Lund J. RUSSELL raid that the Crown had the
power of appointing two commissioners unpaid, and the
Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a third comni6-
sioner, who was paid. Mr. Goulburn was appointed by
the Archbishop, and received 1,0001. a year salary. He
(Lord J. Russell) did not think that that salary was too
great for the services he performed. The other stun
was due to him in consequence of past services in the
performance of his public duty. The cne bad no refe-
rence whatever to the other.
Mr. lIUME said that the Act prescribed that in the
event of such an officer being employed in a public office,
the former pension shall merge into the salary which be
received for the duties performed in the latter capacity
He put this case as a matter of law as well as a matter
of justice and (quay. He would support the reduction
of this vote by 'at all events 2,0001.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the Hon. Member for Montrose was quite mistaken in
his view of the law. The Right Hon. Gentleman al-
luded to did not draw his salary in such a way as W
constitute it a public salary.
Mr. 11. DRUMMOND said that whoever voted against
the grant to Maynooth and against the Regium donwn
were also bound in justice to vote against the present
proposition. It was not a question of amount, but of
principle, and they should set their faces against all such
votes.
After a few words from Mr. TRELAWNY,
Mr. W. J. FOX said that the simple objection to this
vote was that it was a tax upon Dissenters for the benefit
of the Church. He trusted that every such vote would
be opposed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the principle stated by the
Hon. Member for Surrey and the Hon. Member for
Oldham did not apply in the present case. This was a
sum of money for carrying on certain civil business
which refers to ecclesiastical arrangements —in
fact, to make certain reforms in the Church which the
State considered necessary. It was just the same as
if
they proposed a reform in the Court of Chancery or any
of the courts of law. It had nothing to do with the
performance of any duties belonging to spiritual personas
but for a civil office carried on by civilians.
Mr. BRIGHT denied that this was the seine thing
as a reform of the courts of law, for every one could
come into these courts. They were not for one parti-
cular class of persons, as everything connected with the
Church was intended to be. He thought that Church
property itself ought to pay for its own management.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS wanted to know why the Com-
missioners were to be paid 1,0001. a year, and the pub-
lic to be called upon to pay the clerks who really did
the work ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the public had a considerable interest in the question.
Mr. HUME asked what advantage the public bad, se
one farthing of the money did not come into the Ex'
chequer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that by the Hon. Gentleman's own argument, that Church
property was public property, the public must of course
have an interest in it.
Mr. J. B. SMITH said that the ecclesiastical
pro-
perty had been very badly managed by the Commis'
sioners who had allowed the secretary to run away with
10,0001.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared--•
For the vote ..• ••• "• 57
25
Against it• Majority in favour of the vote ... •--32
The vote was then agreed to.
211,0001., to defray the expenses of Poor-law Cora'
missions,
Colonel DUNNE complained of several items comprised
in this vote.
plated
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that it was contem
to reduce a great number of clerks, but this reduction
could not be carried cut in the present year. he
R Mr.o G. A.
Hon.A .Gentleman HAMILTON
the d d
Secretary
rneot
at
ry knowfor het
Irelandi Ie r was
in a condition then to explain the reason why sore.e.e.;
the most important tables in the appendices were oni!t.t,e_u_
in the report of that year. These tables were ot
greatest importance at the present time, in consequence
of the great changes that were going on in Ireland.
beto
involved
eldV.o
oSmOoM lio
oRmVpIbLo
aLtEe d s aoioclio
otlha et i tableso
d alludedtbat,
believed, was the cause of the delay in producing them:
Mr. CLEMENTS asked wby some explanation hascl
not been given of the mode in which the rate in aid an
the advances under the 300,0001. loan bad been ex-
pended in the different unions in Ireland?
also that some account had been given of the delay
syvihrd
which
had occurred in carrying out the works in many of the
unions.
Mr. REYNOLDS wished the whole vote to be post-
poned, in order to be better considered. He also wished
to know upon what ground Ireland was treated differ-
ently from England and Scotland with regard to union
schoolmasters and medical relict? 80,000/. was voted
for education in the workhouses in England, and 10,0004
in Scotland for medical relief, while the ratepayers of
Ireland were called on to defray the expenses of those
two objects. He did not think the Poor-law Commis-
sion in Ireland had been at all efficient. It had not Suc-
ceeded in feeding, clothing, or lodging the poor of that
country; and he would rather see it abolished altogether,
and the workhouses levelled to the ground, than a con-
tinuance of the present system. He also complained of
the delay in producing the returns ordered with regard
to the mortality in different workhouses, all of wbich
might have been prepared in eight and forty hours. Ho
moved the postponement of the vote.
The CHAIRMAN informed the Hon. Member that it
was not competent for him to make such a motion.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that the present was not
a proper time to enter upon a defence of the Irish Poor:
law Commission. When the fitting time came he hoped
to be able to satisfy the House that it had worked satis-
factorily. The returns referred to by the Hon. Member
had been laid on the table that day, and that no unne-
cessary delay had taken place in producing them would
be apparent from the evidence he held in his band
•
(The Right Hon. Baronet held up a bulky blue book.)
Mr. REYNOLDS had been informed by a gentleman
holding a high office in the Poor-law Commission, that
the returns might have been made in 48 hours. Ile Was
not prepared to negative the vote. He believed the re-
turns had been delayed for some sinister purpose.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
charges for education in the workhouses and for medical
relief in England had been transferred to the Consoli-
dated
Fund on the change made in the corn-laws in 184.0
In comparing the practice in England and Irelandlo,.
that respect it ought not to ba forgotten that halfst
580,000/., the expense of the Irish constabulary,
46
transferred to the Consolidated Fund in the year 18_
for
and that a mush larger proportional sum was voted fo
educational objects in Ireland than in England, the votes
being 150,0004 for England and 134,000/. for Ireland..
With respect to the advances under the loan of 300,0001.
the Hon. Member for Leitrim would find in the appen-
dices to the Commissioners' report a list of the unions
and electoral divisions which had obtained advances.
Mr. CLEMENTS said it was these appendices he
complained of, as they afforded no information of the
way in which the advances had been allocated and ex-
pended.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said if the Hon. Member
would point out any union regarding which ho wished
for a return of the nature alluded to he should do his
best to obtain it.
Sir It. FERGUSON wished to see Ireland placed on
the same footing as England with regard to the votes
for union schoolmasters and medical relief.
Mr. HENLEY noticed that the vote for union school-
masters had been reduced from 35,000/. to 20,0001. As
there were between 600 and 700 unions, that sum would
only allow about 301. for each schoolmaster• Ile was
afraid that that was not sufficient to secure the services
ila, so that they might be able to turn to
of a person capable, not only of teaching, but of training
somegp.isTrteofitatbolea occupation when they left the workhouse.
thereforeltthf eeth s)enecdrni w
rhe
was
regretted ny children,
one point more than another in which
h
s the
children
defective, e ft ehcet irveed,ui
et t
ionans
toabfse
tr
hewgeoarrbd
vote.be
theworkhouses.
s. educa-
tion
H 0
Mr. BAINES admitted the importance of the subject
alluded to by the Hon. Member for OXford, regarding
which considerable improvements had not only been
made, but were still in progress. It was a mistake to
suppose that the vote had been reduced from 35,000/. so
20,000/., for whatever the amount voted might have been,
not more than 20,000/. had been drawn by the Peer-law
Beard for the purposes of the vote in any one year.
Some unions, in which agricultural distress bad pre-
vailed, had applied for the reduction of the
the union schoolmasters, but he had resisted it, be-
lieving that those of cers were by no means
The Hon. Member was correct in saying seavl
ea
rr i.epsa
overpaid.
of
that there were
between 600 and 700 unions in England, but there was
not a schoolmaster to every union. The number of
schoolmasters was only 383, but there were 501 school-
mistresses, who in most, cases were better adapted for
the education of the children. A residence and rations
were allowed to the most meritorious—a bonus in addi-

Lion to the salary.
Mr. HENLEY was gratified to hear the statement of
he Hon. Member. Lie was afraid the vote bad been

reduced.
After a few words from Colonel RAWDON in favour
of providicg further mutes for educating the poor in

Ireland,
Alderman COPELAND suggested that some strin-
gent regulation should be introduced with respect to the

•
auditors.
Mr. EWART wished to know whether the recom-
mendation of the inspectors for separating children's
schools from the workhouses had been carried into effect,

and how tar the experiment had succeeded?
Mr. BAINES said that the Act of 1844 gave the
power of establishing district schools separate from the
workhouses ; but the Act was not compulsory to that
effect on the guardians of the poor. In many important
places, however, especially in the metropolis, these
schools had been established. Nevertheless, the rule
was the contrary, and the Poor-law Poard could not say
a great deal for the success that bad attended their

e6rts.
Mr. HAMILTON acid the question of Indust:is)