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

EVENING, JUNE 27, 1851.

ROUSE OF LORI)., June 26.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took hia seat upon the WO:):
sack at Five o'clock.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS.
Lrrd LYNDHURST presented a petition from the
trustees of the Humberstone Charity, praying for a better
method of investigating the accounts of trustees of
charitable trusts.

Lord BROUGHAM supported the prayer of the pe-
tition. Ho trusted that some effectual remedy for the
abuses complained of would be provided. Some such
remedy had been proposed, and it was the fault not of
one side of the House only, but of one side and a halt—
(A laugh)—that that measure had been rejected.
NATIONAL LAND COMPANY.
The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD then presented a
petition from members of the National Land Company,
praying for a redress of the grievances under which they
laboured. He presented this petition because it was re-
spectfully worded. He had received several petitions
complaining of the decisions of county courts in such
matters. He pitied the situation of the parties, but their
Lordships could not afford relief against the sentence of
a court of law. Their Lordships were not a court of
'Appeal for the county courts, and could nut therefore
afford these poor people any redress. He had had many
applications made to him on this subject, and he had not
been able to answer them relative to a Bill now before
Parliament on this subject.
Lord CAMPBELL thought it would be a great ad-
vantage if those interested in Bills in this House should
have facilities for obtaining copies of those Bills, and he
had incurred the charge of discourtesy for not forwarding
copies of Bills. He submitted that parties interested
in Bills should have an opportunity of obtaining copies
of them.

session of estates for hundreds of years, and managing
those estates, and yet, through ignorance of the purposes
to which they were to bo applied, violsting the ti ust.
He was not aware that any such charge had been
brought against the great companies. It was clear, as
far as they were concerned, that the trust had not
lapsed; that there was a regular annual audit of their
accounts by persons elected from amongst those who
were interested in the duo administration of the trust.
Charities were, with them, derived from deeds of gift
from those who were members of the same corporation,
and all the members of that corporation knew how the
charity was managed. Such charities as these, he con-
ceived, stood on a somewhat different footing from other
charities, and the grounds of exemption stated in the
Bill would apply generally to such companies. As the
al!, however, was to be referred to a Select Committee,
he had not any doubt but that the parties would have the
opportunity of making their case, though not through
counsel, known and stated, and he was sure fully consi-
dered and fairly decided upon.
The Earl of CHICHESTER supported the Bill, and
said it was the measure recommended by the second re-
port of the Charity Commissioners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR briefly replied, and
The Bill was read a second time.
The House then adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, June 26.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.
The House resumed at Five o'clock.

PETITIONS.
Mr. HUME presented a number of petitions from va-
rious places in Scotland against the Public Houses
(Scotland) Bill.
Sir H. HALFORD presented a petition from Market
Harborough in favour of the Pharmaceutical Bill.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from a Dis-
senting body in Lancashire against the Regium Donum.
Mr. ANDERSON presented a petition from the fish
curers of Orkney, against the Irish branding system.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented two petitions from South-
wark and Lambeth in favour of the Pharmaceutical Bill.
Similar petitions were presented from other places.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE presented a petition from Bally-
money, in the county el Cork, complaining of the pres-
sure and inequalities of the tithe rent charge.
COAST GUARD.
Sir DE LACY EVANS wished to ask the First Lord
of the Admiralty, whether the following descriptions of
services are intended to count in completion of the six
years' command of rated ships afloat, proposed to be re •
quired for being on the active list in the new scheme of
Naval retirement, viz.:—l. Service on the Coast Guard
under the Treasury; 2. As superintendents of hospitals
and victualling yards; 3. As superintendents of packet
service; 4. As commanders of ships in ordinary, not
being sea-going ships, though nominally in commission?
Sir F. BARING said the services of the coast guard
were never taken into consideration by the Admiralty,
but the others were.
BRITISH MUSEUM.

Mr. FIUME wished to ask Sir George Grey whether
any arrangements have been made, or are making, for
carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Com-
mission as to the future management of the British
Museum by a small executive board.
Sir GEORGE GREY said no alteration had been
made in the management of the Museum, but certain
changes were under consideration, which, if carried into
Effect, would confer great benefit upon the public.
Mr. HUME said he was not satisfied wish the answer,
and unless he saw some desire to carry out the recom-
mendation of the Commissioners he should oppose the
Museum grant.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

Mr. FRESHFIE LD ga;enaTce—that on the third
reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, he should pro-
pose a clause, altering the penalty and the course of pro-
ceeding in the event of a person having committed an
offence under the Bill.
MR. DISRAELI'S RESOLUTIONS.
Sir DE LACY EVANS wished to know whether it
was the intention of the Hon, Member for Buckingham-
shire to propose a motion which would have the effect
of preventing th 2 repeal of the window-tax?
Mr. DISRAELI said be understood the Honourable
Baronet to inquire the meaning of certain resolutions
which ho had laid on the table of the House, and which
if he had an opportunity he intended to move on Monday
next. He begged to inform him, in answer to this in-
quiry, that he would endeavour on Monday, with the
utmost brevity he could command, to explain the nature
of those resolutions.—(A laugh.)
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to know whether the Hon.
Member intended to propose an amendment on the Cus-
toms Bill, and also on the Window Tax Bid?
Mr. DISRAELI replied that the Hon. Member for
Huntingdon had given notice of an instruction to the
Committee on Monday in regard to import duties, and
therefore it was not possible for him (Mr. Disraeli) to
move his resolutions except on the second financial mea-
sure of the Government. There would, accordingly, be
two amendments proposed.
REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.
_ _

This Bill was read a first tinieOniiieLTtionOfi; G.
GREY, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow
fortnight,

SUPPLY,—DANISH CLAIMS.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. ROEBUCK, pursuant to notice, rose to call the
attention of the House to the subject of the Danish
claims, but in the then state of the atmosphere he pro-
mised not to occupy much time.—(Hear, hear.) These
claims he said were made by British merchants
in consequence of certain losses which they
sustained through the conduct of the Govern-
ment in 1807. The House was aware that about
that period France had succeeded in succumbing Aus-
tria, Prussia, and Russia; and England being the only
country that stood upright at the time, was
desirous of striking a blow which should
in some way or other cripple the power
of Napoleon. In order to do that, absolute secresy
was required in carrying out the necessary ope-
rations, and for that purpose means were taken
to prevent English merchants understanding what the
Government were about. Several English merchants,
therefore, were solicited to go to the Baltic, and upon
their receiving an assurance from the authorities that
everything was perfectly safe in that part of Europe,
many of them agreed to send large quantities of valuable
property to the Baltic. At this time England had a large
naval force under her command, which was then engaged
in the colonies, but it was almost immediately sent on a
sudden to the Baltic for the purpose of forming an ex-
pedition againt Denmark, and the consequence was, that
those merchants who had sent out their goods under the
assurance of these advisers of the Crown that nothing
was likely, or, indeed, could arise to disturb the
peace of the Baltic, lost all their property. He knew
that Chancellors of the Exchequer opposed motions
like the present on the ground that they were stewards
of the public purse, but personal vanity was at the bot-
tom of all opposition of that sort.—(A laugh.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer was, however, the last person to be accused
of personal vanity, for it did not enter into his composi-
tion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the
House and said he had no surplus revenue to bestow in
that way. Of course the Right Hon. Gennleman had
nothing to do with that case, which arose out of the
misconduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer i❑ the
year 1807. That was the feeling which guided all
Chancellors of the Exchequer ; but the question which
they had to consider was, whether it was becoming the
dignity of this country to deal with its merchants after
that fashion ? Was it not the fact that the British
Government had misled its merchants ? The use of
the word " reprisals" meant that there was no
war—that it was then a time of peace. But when
a nation doing an injustice refused to make reparation,
and war resulted, then those matters taken as re-
prisals became prizes of war, and then by every rule of
law the first application was to redress the injeiry for
which reprisals were made. It was after the Government
of this country had seizsd about 3,000,0001. worth of
Danish property that Denmark had made the capture
for which the present claim was made. The Hon. and
Learned Member went into a brief history of the various
occasions on which these claims had been brought before
the House. On the very last occasion they had been
successfully advocated by the Hon. Gentleman the
Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes), whose
support he trusted he would have on that motion. In
June, 1841, Parliament had presented an address to her
Majesty on that subject, to which she had returned an
answer, to the effect—" That she should always be
ready to give attention to the wishes of the House of
Commons, and should consent to the satisfaction of the
proposed claim, whenever Parliament provided the
means." The amount of that claim was 125,0001., and
as Parliament had decided upon its justice in 1841, he
hoped the House would not refuse in 1851 to ratify the
same, by agreeing to his motion. The Hon. Member
then concluded by moving that on Wedndesday next the
House should resolve itself into a Committee of the
whole House, to consider an address, praying her Ma-
jesty to take into her gracious consideration the report
of the 12th of May, 1840, made by the Commissioners
appointed to inquire into the confiscation of several Bri-
tish ships' cargoes by Denmark, in 1807, and to order
compensation for the same.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
should be as brief as the lion. and Learned Gentleman;
for the present case lay within a very narrow compass.
Indeed, after the able statement which the lion. Member
for Liverpool had made on the subject five years ago, he
was astonished that it should be ever revived. He could
assure his Hon. and Learned Friend that no vanity ac-
tuated him in the course which he then pursued.—
(Laughter.) It was incumbent, however, on the Hoe.
Gentleman to show why the people of Great Britain
should pay a sum of 125,0001. In the course of the year
1807 war existed between Denmark and Great Britain.
Ho put aside altogether the question of a declaration of
war. His lion. Friend know that at that time war might
be carried on without a declaration. With respect to
the three descriptions of goods liable to be seized, a
great distinction existed between goods ashore and afloat
and book debts. No state of war would justify the con-
fication of goods ashore or book debts; but it was difte-

rent with respect to goods afloat. The whole question
which they had then to decide was, whether at the time
those seizures were made war existed or not. On that
he thought there could be no doubt. Admiral Gambier
had sailed up to Copenhagen on the 3d of August, and
that was sufficiently indicative of hostilities. If war then
existed, the seizure was entirely according to the law of
nations; and all the evidence taken on the subject went
to confirm that fact. He, therefore, thought the Hon,
and Learned Gentleman had made out no case %Well
could call upon this country to allow a claim for indem-
nity, never.. yet allowed under such circumstances

amongst civiliz d nations.
Colonel SIB THORP said he would never shrink from
his duty, whether the performance of it pleased or dis-
pleased any Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Go.
vernment. The shipowners in that case had been led to
believe they might safely send their vessels to Denmark;
and that was a strong reason why their claims should

be allowed, however late in the day it was proposed to
do them
,justice. He would, te.erefore, nupport the filo-
tion of toe lion. and Learned Member opposite. Ha
wished to know where, then, was the Hun. Member for
Kinsale (Mr. Hawes), who had formerly votee fir those
claims ? He was at the Crystal Palece, perhaps—
(Laughter)—patronising the industry of all nations—
(Laughter)—when ho ought to be in his place in Parlia-
ment.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it ... ... 126
Majority against the motion ... --ee
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of
Supply, Mr. BERNAL in the chair.
A vote of 71,100/. to defray the salaries and expenses
of the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
was then proposed.
Mr. WILLIAMS did not see why there should be an
increase in that vote.
After a few words from Mr. C. LEWIS and the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
Mr. HUME said he only objected to the item' of
23,0001. for Queen's messengers and expresses.
The vote was then agreed to.
A vote of 53,6001. having been proposed for the ex-
penses of the department of the Privy Council, and the
office for trade, including the registry of seamen,
Mr. HUME took occasion to complain of the refusal
of the heads of the Colonial Office to exte\td representa-
tive institutions to our colonies. Ile wished particularly
to refer to the case of Demerara, and to give notice that
when the pspors connected with the state of that co-
lony were produced, he should call the attention of the
House to the subject.
Mr. HAWES stated that the authorities at the Colo-
nial Office thought that they ought to act with great
caution in extending representative institutions to colo-
nies in which hostile races resided.
Mr. HUME complained of the continuance of the
office for the registry of seamen, which was, he believed,
entirely useless.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, he believed that the abo-
lition of the office would be productive of great con-
fesion.
Mr. HUME said he did not know a single person who
approved of the system.
Captain HARRIS defended the system, and thought
that it could not be safely done away with. In time of
war it would be most useful for the purpose of enabling
the authorities at the Admiralty to know who were the
parties best fitted to serve their country in the Royal
navy.
Sir F. BARING said it was true that the present re-
gistry system was productive of great inconvenience.
But he thought that a registration of seamen was a ne-
cessary step towards any improvement in the condition
of the men engaged in the naval service.
Sir G. PECHELL said the true way to secure the
services of efficient seamen in the Royal navy would be
to give good pay and good food to the men.
Mr. HENLEY said he thought that a sum of 9,0001. a
year was too much to pay for the very doubtful or
very trifling advantages of the present registry system.
Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted that the system was
by no means a perfect one. But he felt convinced that
it operated to a considerable extent as a check against
desertion.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that many years had elapsed
since he had first recommended a registration of seamen,
and as other avocations had since withdrawn his atten-
tion from the subject, he was not perfectly aware of the
manner in which the system he had introduced had ope-
rated. He had proposed it, not as abstractedly desir-
able in itself, but as subsidiary for other arrangements.
He believed it would be a delusion to suppose that in the
event of a great naval war the system of impressment
could be altogether set aside. But he had always felt
that every effort ought to be made to avert as far as pos-
sible the necessity of having recourse to so extreme an
expedient. He had formerly thought that a system of
registration was absolutely necessary for the purpose
of carrying out the practice of a compulsory naval
service, for a limited period, in time of war ; but he
was not prepared to say that his opinion upon that
point had not since undergone some modification. He
was, however, disposed to think with his Right Hon.
Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir F. Baring)
that if there should be any measure passed for the
purpose of establishing a system of limited service of a
compulsory nature, in time of war, a well-organized sys-
tem of registration of seamen would be indispensable for
carrying cut such a measure. It appeared that the re-
gistration system, although by no means perfect, was s f
some benefit even in the mercantile service, by affording
a check to desertion; and, under these circumstances, he
was not prepared to vote for its abolition. He trusted,
however, that during therecess her Majesty's Government
would endeavour, as far as possible, to remove the im-
perfections of the system.
The vote was then agreed to.
A vote of 2,0001. having been proposed for the salary
of the Lord Privy Seal,
Mr. WILLIAMS said ho wished to know what were
the duties assigned to that functionary?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that the Lord Privy Seal was frequently enabled to per-
form important services by instituting special inquiries,
and discharging special duties to which none of his col-
leagues could find time to attend.
Mr. HUME suggested that the Lord Privy Seal should
be employed as a Minister of Justice.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he believed that the duties of
a Minister of Justice would be more properly discharged
by the Lord Chancellor than by any other person. Tee
position of the Lord Chancellor gave him greater autho-
rity in cases connected with the administration of jus-
tice than any other individual could pretend to. The
judicial duties of the Lord Chancellor had hitherto been
so burdensome that he had not been able to give the time
that was desirable to the general administration of jus-
tice throughout the country. But he (Lord J. Russell)
hoped that under the now Chancery measure which had
lately been introduced, and which had met with such
general approval, the Lord Chancellor would be enabled
to devote more of his attention to that important subject.
Mr. HUME said he thought that the Lord Chancellor
had to discharge as many other duties as he could con-
veniently attend to.
Mr. BRIGHT said it seemed that that salary was given
to a man who could be put to anything. Now a man
who could be put to anything must be a very able person.
It was, however, a remarkable fact, that able men were
never put into those offices to which no peculiar duties
were attached.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had gone as far as he could
have gone in reducing the number of public offices. The
salary attached to the office of Lord Privy Seal had for-
merly been 4,000/. a year, and was at present reduced
to 2,0001. a year. What the public benefit required was
that the public business should be well done. There
wero many important subjects which did not immediately
belong to the duties of any of the Secretaries of State,
and which were very advantageously attended to by a
functionary in the position of the Lord Privy Seal.
Mr. BRIGHT said the Noble Lord who filled the office
of Vice-President of the Board of Trade did more Go-
vernment business in that House than any other officer
of the Government. Several of the other members of the
Government had notoriously very light duties to perform.
He presumed that the arguments just uttered by the
Noble Lord would be used to the end of time. It was,
however, unfair towards the public to grant large salaries
to officers not really required. He thought that, con-
sidering the circumstances under which the Committee
was appointed, and the trouble they took to investigate
into the matters referred to them, the Government was
more or less bounsi to act upon their report.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted the great services of the
Noble Lord who filled the office of Vice-President of the
Board of Trade. He certainly discharged the duties of
that office most efficiently and creditably. But the Board
of Trade was a department which it was necessary to
have well represented in both Houses. He would, how-
ever, remind the Hon. Member that there was no ap-
pointment more severely criticised than that of Vice-
President of the Board of Trade, it having been said
that the former Master of the Buckhounds was utterly
unfit to hold any such situation.
After a few words from Mr. W. WILLIAMS and Mr.
MACGREGOR, the vote was agreed to.
24,7001. was granted for the salaries and expenses at-
tached to the office of Paymaster-General.
The sum of 6,2791. fur the salaries and expenses at-
tached to the office of Comptroller-General of the Ex-
chequer, being proposed.
Colonel SIB fIIORP objected to this vote. A more
gross imposition never was practised than that of pitch-
forking the Noble Lord nosy in another place into this
situation of Comptroller-General. His salary, however,
was now placed on the Consolidated Fund, and he (Col.
Sibthorp) had no opportunity of making any motion for
its reduction. He had before moved for a return of the
number of days which the Noble Lord referred to had
sat in his office. He would be very curious to see that
return. A more valuable and efficient officer in the dis-
charge of his duties there could not be than the Assist-
ant-Comptroller. This gentleman was quite able to dis-
charge the duties of the office without the assistencer.
()f
of
any fashionable Lord. This, it appears, was a cern
able way of extracting money from the pockets f °the
people.
said
s
every regulation which wisdom any__i frauds
had M
been el InUmMa made t preventwished to ktnhoewpwoshseibthileirty of any regulations
could w
being again practised in regard to Exchequer Qy bills?
The The CHANCELLOR of
orthe olcould devise
adopted as a precaution against these frauds.
The vote was then agreed to.
ee.
Mr- HUIIE
The next vote was 2,7004 to pay the salaries and EX-
penses of the State Paper O
In answer to a question from
the public hCli.cLfoErWthieS isnaeipdectthioant oefvedcuroyf'm facility
yas given to
in this office,
and nu fees were exacted.
In answer to a question from Mr.
W
Mr. C. LEWIS said that an indexß wasAR aboutl being
raeepdorttoion of the expenses of the Ec-
.
printed.
21:2h3e0v1.otteo
defrayw as ag
clesiasticsl Commissioners.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that the Church property,
and not the public, should be made to pay the salaries of
those officers. Ile would certainly take the sense of the
House against this vote.
Mr. TRELAWNY was also opposed to this vote.
Thero could be about half a million more raised out of
the Church property if proper measures were taken in
respect to it. One way was the sale of the Crown
livings.

Sii G. GREY said that the amount was not so large
this year as formerly, on account of reductions made in
the establishment. It was thought desirable that the
proceedings of the Commission should come annually
before Parliament, in orde; to afford an opportunity
to Hon. Members to ask for every information respect-
ing it.

After some observations from Colonel SIBTLIORP,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that two of the Commis-
sioners were paid entirely from the funds of the Church.
The Commission was absolutely necessary. If this rote

were refused, the expenses of the cffice must be thrown
upou another fund applicable to other purposes altoge-
ther. The money a keel for was applied to the dissemi-
nation of spiritual instruction amongst other things.
Colonel SIBTHORP would not object to the granting
of a RUM four tines the amount of the vote asked for, if
he were satisfied that it was necessary for the purpose
mentioned by the Nubia 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 sevsd 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
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge
(Mr. Guuleurn), having a pension of 2,0001. a year, was
entitled to draw from the Church, ns Commissioner, ano-
sppi
oroiwnneecrri,polwefhaondw appointing
demandedtwoi nevoems tmi
sastii
ec
e.
the: sum of I,oooi. a year? This was a matter of public
ArLehorbdishJe.pßoUlSSELL said th'at the Crown had the
Canpaid.terbury.
Gaopupi cbiunrtne d
waa
st h irdc
appointedom m ibsy-
r 3 unpaid, and the
the Archbishop, and received 1,000/. a year salary. Ho
(Lord J. Russell) did not think that that. salary was too
great for the services he performed. The other sum
was due to him in cons( quence of past services in the
performance of his public duty. The one had no refe-
rence whatever to the other.
Mr. HUAIE 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 he
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 equity. 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 lion. Gentleman al-
luded to did not draw his salary in such a way as to
constitute it a public enlary.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that whoever voted against
the grant to Maynooth and against the Regium donurn
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. Ho 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 persons,
but for a civil office carried on by civilians.
Mr. BRIGHT denied that this was the same 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 had, as
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
Against it
Majority in favour of the vote —32
The vote was then agreed to.
211,0001., to defray the expenses of Poor-law Com-
missions.
Colonel DUNNE complained of several items comprised
in this vote.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that it was contemplated
to reduce a great number of clerks, but this reduction
could not be carried cut in the present year.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON did not know whether the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was
in a condition then to explain the reason why some of
the most important tables in the appendices were omitted
in the report of that year. These tables were of the
greatest importance at the present time, in consequence
of the great changes that were going on in Ireland.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said, the tables alluded to
involved some complicated calculations, and that, be
believed, was the cause of the delay in producing them.
Mr. CLEMENTS asked why some explanation had
not been given of the mode in which the rate in aid and
the advances under the 300,000/. loan had been ex-
pended in the different unions in Ireland? He wished
also that some account had been given of the delay which
had cccurred in carrying out the works in many of the
unions.
Mr. REYNOLDS wished the whole veto 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 relief? 80,0001. was voted
for education in the workhouses in England, and 10,000/.
in Scotland for medical relief, while the ratepayers of
Ireland were called on to defray the expenses of those
two objects. lie 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 which
might have been prepared in eight and forty hours. ll°
moved the postponement of the vote.
The CHAIRMAN informed the lion. 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 hand.
(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. He 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 en the change made in the corn-laws in 1846.
In comparing the practice in England and Ireland in
that respect it ought net to be forgotten that half of
580,000/, the expense of the Irish constabulary, was
andtransferred t
hat amto u
sthh the
larger
proportional Consolidated
siunma the years
educational objects in Ireland than in England, the votes
being 150,000/. for England and 134,0001. for Ireland.
the
With
Hon.re s p.seicetmto b the Member
for Leitrim
advances unwd(e,
would
dthe
nloan n of vot
voted
o6r,
the3oo,Ooo/.
appen-
dices to the Commissioners' report a list of the unions
and electoral divisions which had obtained advances. _ e
Mr. CLEMENTS said it was these appendices h
way in which the advances had been
complained of, as they afforded no information of the
allocated ex-
pended.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said if the Hon. Member
regardingtowhhiechshohueldwdioshheids
fwoorual would p
returnoint
oofu out
taien
best to obtain ie.
Sir R. FERGUSON wished to see Ireland placed on
y nature union
alluded
the same footing as England with regard to the votes
for anion schoelmasters and medical relief.
Mr. HENLEY noticed that the vote for union school-
masters had been reduced from 35,000/. to 20,000/. As
there were between 600 and 700 unions, that sum would
only allow about 30/. for each schoolmaster. Ile was
afraid that that was not sufficient to secure the services
of a person capable, not only of teaching, but of training
the children, so that they might be able to turn to
some profitable occupation when they left the workhouse.
If there was any
one point more than another in which
t h eAier: o
rireArieNg regretted t ed
admitted the
the reduction
importance
o f
the system was defective, it was as regarded the educa-
tion given to the children in the workhouses. lie
r
alluded to by the Lion. Member for Oxford, regarding
which considerabletheof the subject
vote.
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/. to
20,000/., for whatever the amount voted might have been,
not more than 20,000/. had been drawn by the Poor-111 w
B‘ard for the purposes of the vote in any one year.
Some unions, in which agricultural distress had pre-
vailed, had applied for the reduction of the salaries of
the union schoolmasters, but he had resisted it, be-
lieving that those officers were by no means overpaid.
The Hon. Member was correct in saying 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 353, but there were 501 school-
mistresses, who in most cases were better adapted for
the education of the children. A residence and rations
wore allowed to the most meritorious—a bonus in addi-
tion to the salary.
Mr. HENLEY was gratified to hear the statement of
the Hon. Member. He was afraid the vote had been

reduced.
After a few words from Colonel RAWDON in favour
of providing further means 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 filo recom-
eaendatio
noftheinspectors for separating children's
schools from the workhouses had been carried into effect,
and how NI. 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 had attended their
efforts.

Mr. HAMILTON said the question of industrial