The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-05 00:00:00

the grant was, in his opinion, on the report of VAe
instructors as to the number of children properly

Park was a double trust of the Sovereign--viz., for the
,IlLblie, and for a e successors of the Sovri.,ig,n on tb
t uroup. It Was, therefore, highly desirable that the AT-
arneY-General should clear up the leg,dqucs;ion on this
point.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the lion. and Learned
Gentleman the Member for Newark had laid down a
doctrine which the Hon. Gentleman who had just
spelsoh should well consider--namely, whether it will
not decide a question of la w, and whether the Right
).:lon. Member fir the University of Oxford had not
gone too fer when he desired that the Helm should
come
to no decision on the legal question. The question
efore the House was not a question of law; it wastneely a question as t.) whit they should think it
Proper to do—to offer advice to the Crown in reference
to the exhibition in connexion with the rights of the
he
11),11hlics or not to offer such advice. That quesion should
i 8 kept clear from all others. If private rights were
ill fringed upon, and if priv rte prrties had chosen to en
P Y to the courts of law for redress, that House had
un-
doubtedly nothin to do with the matter. But such was
beotdthe„case. With respect, however, totheestionto
Ilectued, he was of opinion that the discussion which
ld takea place had been of some use, and tha,t. thte.
~o use had nearly come to a conclusion on the sunlj)eoc,e
live thought he represented the fooling of the 'was
duet' he said that no building of any permanency
estred, that no enormous dome should be erected,
and in that no injury should be done to the great trees
17
tue park.—(Hear, hear.) So far the Tie ,Lion
1 "perfectly clear. But he was also of opinion that the
e se did not think it necessary to address the Crown
n the subject of the exhibitien. If this was the case_,
there
b_s were only one or two points on which he (LordtwaJs.
..".1 bus
felt called upon to address the House. I
'l.lld that the Commission took an arbitrary view of the.
Ire. and said that if the exhibition was not to be
the
f idespark it would not be at all. That was not
.n
whole The Commissioners, having investigated the
pesos and examined' the most competent wit
that ad come to the conclusion early in February
f Hyde-park was the fittest and most proper place
known,
or the exhibition. This conclusion they made
tinesly to the people of this country, but on te Con-
th the general public, in short, was informed that
Con-
the exhibition was to be held in Hyde-park. Subee-
tllrtlaerl;lY the Commissioners issued proposals for working
to -1741 gs of Plans, on the suppoiition that Hyde-park was
only e the site. Having done all these things, they now
i..said it was too late to make any change if the exhi-
"Y" was to take place in 1851. They had examined.
ecg_ine!rs., surveyors, and architects; and. the entire
houlmission were satisfied that the exhibition should be
p cini:l Hyde-park, or it could not be held at all at the
ueti" fixed. The next point to be referred to was the
ctfeestion of sacrifice. As his Noble Friend suggeste,
there should be sacrifice somewhere, and he (Lord John.
~slell) certainly admitted that to put the exhibhic,ti6ocon
orin
re•park
wee a might cause some inconvenience to t
eon, .P nts of houses in its vicinity. It might
.also in-
caseßjd ethnleerre some riders in Rotten-row, though in their
could he compensation. But, on the othenr
weal tle sacrifice to the working classes of London
other be immense, if the exhibition was placed on any
o
Wouldi..ol site than Ilyde-park. Those, for example,. who
seven h.s,re in such case to make a journey of six or
eson mien would lose an entire day; while thos n
kaLe ',one the country would haveee second journey to
fore's; st a cost of money and a sacrifice of time. There-
the ' 4 was in the interest of the great majority that
exhibition should take place in Elyde-park.Hear.)
IN. ,he qeestion been brought before the House in
Si o•°tie s though he did not say that a different deci-
tire, would
be arrived at, still there would. be
of to change the site, if that decision was
could adverse character. As it was, the changed
441 not h
e, -e made. He trusted the House would
e disc on the amendment, because he believed that
ever ;set, ;
v „-BsLon would induce the Commission to make
Well' se..ort Possible to accommodate the public as
to protect private interests; but he hoped
"der'would not
een,..,,any circumstances that the House
_e.
hEttes'" to the motion for the adjournment of the d
•---(Hear )
An th '
would , 'NOURABLE MEMBER. asked whether the. park
aey ue opened during the whole time to public co ances ?
Lord J., 13
*o4ld . RUSSELL said, no doubt the Commissioners
Sir „give every facility.
to witit:., HALL would, after what had rassed, consent
The ura"
SPEAK motion.---(Cries of " Ob.")
bleat ER put the question whether the amend-
order should be wi hdrawn—(Cries of " Oh ")—and then
c0:11 the galleries to be cleared.
°ll thi'lnel SIBTHORP said he would divide the House
~,, :t great hunabug.—(Laughter.)
44 House then divided, ashen there appeared--
For Sir B.
'
Hall's amendment... •-• 47
Against it
••• ••• ••• •.• 166
1,,_ _ Majority against it ••• ... —Hs
sibru It Muse immediately afterwards divided upon Col.
"Ps amendment, when there appeared— Por the amendment ••• ... 46
Against it ... 166
• ... ..• •• .
Majority against it
••• ••• —l2O
EDUCATION.
On the motion for bringing up the resolution on the
On
the
41r. aur se, e
Ince he objected to a question of so much import-
The
‘" e Drought on at that late hour.
hour I,„I:IANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
House -"ghP°t so late (half-past ten o'clock), and if the
thee ,__(°) tented to proceeding with business at that hour
41.7,1!)(1 never be able to get on.
kept eeriNLEY thought the conduct of the Govern.
lion, 'lt% fair, considering the importancoof the ques-
keinhe't that advanced period of the night many Hon.
had leftrtakwhe were likely to take part in the discussion
be ue Roues,
bronee,under the impression that it would not
le -eus on
ear, mit , •
rosterrto, kreuse4nSt'attanerniedst cries of "Go on," "Adjourn,"
petitions against the grant. when
Ceti being d MANNERS rose to protest against the ques-
t. etng brought forward at that hour. It was taking
the Idouselisy_surprise.
thaLtearddvJ.
_ emu soloed period of
I.I.LISSELL did not think it unreasonable at
the session to ask to have the
41 mr.istroee,ded vvith at half-past ten o'clock.
ADS TONE did not think that was exactly a
fair etwatennaent of the ease. The question was whether
there
Would et a general understanding that the measure
tlveliatehheinweilliecist that hour. There was a question
to put to the Right Hon. Gentleman
tillet Secretary for the Home Department, with respect to
han.Ysra adopted at the training school at Keener-
th,„
c, e did not find it laid down that candidates at
eases'• s.hool for the office of schoolmasters. even in those
of
ilt.t which they were to be members of the Church
Would land,
would be examined on any subject which
hitiosil.,tl:eessneily identify them with the Church. Per-
te giv"..ltight Hon. Gentleman would be good enough s:_e..o.sue some explanation upon that point?
reeZbekir GREY said that those candidates who were
Itlperi B°f the Church of England would be under the the._ otendence of the principal, who would examine
fe„,Teih the formularies of the Church. But he had 11;4. rto observe, that the schoolmasters to whom the
wo64ll°h• Gentleman referred would be appointed for
With housesil and prisons and would not be identified
4,110_, e Church cf England in the same manner as the
loiterastera in the national schools.
a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
The
th,s CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
n""ne course which he was taking on that occasion
trecisely the course of which he had given notice,
to it. a . hoped that no further objection would be made
thlt.• W. MILES, who spoke in a very indistinct tone,
thedproceeded to address the House on the subject of
t.O ifferences at present prevailing between the Educe-
-4.‘,..11, Committee of the Privy Council and the National
which ha
The. Hon. Gentleman said that the system to
a wished to call their attention had commenced
j pthe year 1833, when the late Lord Spencer had pro.
sed a Rrant of 30,0001. for the purpose of education.
t_That grant bad been distributed by the Treasury be-
sweell the National Society and the British and Foreign
• °e,jety without any conditions which could excite the
Jt?stollsy or the disapprobation of either of those socie-
2es- But, in the year 1839, those famous Orders in
vouncil had been issued on the subject of normal and
111041 schools which had since given rise to so much dis-
ctusaion. Shortly after the appearance of those orders
}l
house e Archbishop of Canterbury had moved in the
of Lords a resolution condemning them;
and that resolution had been carried by a majority of
111. la the year 1840, what he might call the concordat
had been entered into between the National Society and
the Committee of the Privy Council, providing at once
for the connexion of the schools with the Established
Church, and for a Government inspection of them. But,
at the same time, a suspicion lurked among the founders
of Church schools that the Committee of Privy Council
were taking too much upon themselves, and that they
were endeavouring to force improper conditions on the
different schools. lie should next pass to the year
1846, Immediately after the accession of the present
Government to power a great excitement had prevailed
the Council Office, and minute after minute had been
issued. Eventually, in the
year 1847, the minutes with
respect to the management of schools had been made
eernpulsory. Now, it was to o compulsory clauses
that he mainly objected. It appeared that the managers
of certain schools had refused to comply with the condi-
tions which had been so laid down. lie merely asked
the Government to interfere as little as possible with
sect or
Merely
in matters of education. He
les' and
wished them
to rely upon the fundamental principles,
allow the managers of those schools so to conduct
tthheieeirrsnehools that the education to be communicated
d
might be in accordance with the tenets
and
$
principles of the respective churches to which the
Mils belonged. One of the petitions which he had the
nenour to present, and which was numerously andhr a
spectead antesed, after complaining of many of t ehs
~t_reticas to which he referred, alluded to t el
I• Kneller-ball establishment, which it declared to be full
of to the teaching of the pupil, and was the
the ,dement of a system of latitudinarianism. When.
,q examined the schoolmasters of their unions
!'e, found that but little attention had been paid to re-
Vous instruction, that the highest knowledge in divi-
p, nay that t .
was therein required was a good Biblical
kl.ll7:el,e_de and the knowledge of the geography.
_it
hie re• VVhat did they find in a minute to whict
Le
Honourable Friend alluded relative to Kneller-hall?
see student was
Inuits tons was required to learn any religious fors
lien and , he had a conscientious objec-
iTistere were trained
was in a school where school-
trained entirely for the administration
eo t-atiper sdueation in workhouses and criminal edu-
cation if youth in prison. There was no examination in
the ea een•
theta' lams in the ordinances, or the prajer-book;
"4 in f • " el.
tinctive me' tit act, nothing whatever to show the is-
seh„ohza3t., of the Church of England. These
terra of ga Were bound upon the expiration of tie
for a peri::(l,r,taPprentici,ship to serve in these
tI school-
tat alle2ars !iieven Sears. lie could no: but third,
tistkeell Must'i. tl°• communicatcd under such ciscum
Produce the Worst results. Siuce the ques-

tion had been discussed in the other House of Inaelie-
ment it had taken a different tarn. Although a Com-
mittee had been denied to the Noble Lord who made the
rootion in the other House, yet the Noble Lord the Presi-
dent of the Council stet el that the time bed c erns when
he thought an inquiry was necessery, and he only ob-
jected to it then benuse it would be impossible to come
to a conclusion on the subject before the end of the
p-esent ses•non of Parliament. As he (Mr. Miles) un-
derstood there would be no objection to an inquiry in
the next year, as the petitioners stated the applicants
were unable, from conscientious scruples, to participate
in thoan a lvantages which it was evidently intended by
the Legislature they should enjoy—after the decision
that had been arrived et in another place, he did not
think it neeassary to submit a motion upon the subjeet.
Sir G. GREY said that the Hen. Member's impres-
sions as to what took place else wh re were quite correct.
The Hon. Member had confined his objections priacipaily
to two—namely, the manaerement clauses and the esta-
blishment of Keener Hone?. As to the first, it was the
duty of tee Government to have amine security ftr the
due management of all the schoela entrusted to their
charge. At the sem: time, they did not feel themselves
at hberty to interfere in any way with the religious in-
struction communicated, nor in any respect with the
p inciples which regulated the Church schools.
lion. Hon. Member was in error as t some on his statements.
Tee constitution of many of the Church schools was
considered to be most effective. was thought essential
by the Committee of Council in 1843 to take security
against the defective constitution of many of those
schools. They prepared a report which they submitted
to the National Society. A correspondence subiequeutly
took place on the subject between the National Com-
mittee, the National Society, and the Committee of
Council of Education. The Committee of Council had
shown every dispositton to melt all the objections that
had been urged to the details of those management
clauses. They, however, felt it essential that the two
elements should be combined, and that the laity
should act together with the clergy in the management
of these schools. At the same time they felt no appre-
hension whatever as to any infringement of the rights of
the clergy to the exclusive charge of the religious edu-
cation in these schools. He believed that the Committee
of Council were supported so far by a large body of the
clergy who did not approve of the views of the Com-
mittee of the National Society. He wished to ask the
Hon. Member whether he apprehended the mixture of
the laity with the clergy to be dangerous to religion.
He thought that the opinions entertained by a large
portion of the members connected with the National So-
ciety upon this su eject were somewhat extravagant. The
House should be aware that if the views of those oppo-
nents to the system were adeptnd they would be alto-
gether destructive to any wide-spread system of edaca-
tion, for the encouragement of which the Parliamentary
grant hal b'en obtained. The test required bee the
Committee of the National Society, and which was at
once assented to by the Committee of Council, was, that
this education should he placed under the management
of members of the Church of England. In regard to
Kneller-hall, he could not concur In the apprehensions
expressed by the petitioners. It must be remembered
that this establishment was, after all, but a normal school
for the education of two classes of schoolmasters—the
one class for prisons, the other for workhouses. These
schoolmasters had not been exclusively taken from mem-
bers of the Church of England. In regard to prisons,
for some years past they had experienced a difficulty in
finding schoolmasters; they, however, at length suc-
ceeded in getting them from Glasgow and other places
in Scotland, and these were now exercising their avoca-
tions in prisons in this country. These persons had
never been brought up in the principles of the Church
of England. The same might be said in regard to the
schoolmasters for the workhouses. It never was made a
general rule that these should be members of the
Church of England; he therefore thought that the ob-
jections urged by the petitioners against this system
were oat untenable.
Lord J. MANNERS hopel the House would allow
him to refer to one or two points of that question chro-
nologically. Ia 1839 there had been a discussion be-
tween the Church schools and the Committee of Privy
Council. In 1840 there had been a concordat. It was
not until 1847, when those clauses were rendered com-
pulsory on the schools in connexion with the Church,
that any dissatisfaction had prevailed. In the spring of
1847 the Ministers bad proposed a great extension of the
educational system of this country. That extension had
been strongly resisted; and if thee had not been staunchly
supported in that House by Churchmen they could not
have carried out their proposition. There had been no
intim:tem then that a compulsory enactment was to take
place. Yet rumours having gone": abroad that sums
such thing was iu contemplation, he had on; the 12th
of July in that year of 1817 put a question to the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government on the subject.
The answer he had received had been to the eff ct that
the assurance given to the late Primate of England
would not be departed from. Yet it had been afterwards
found that the minute of the Privy Council, by which
those rules were to be made compulsory, bore date the
28th of June, 1847. He would ask what good it could
be for the cause of civil and religious liberty that a lay-
man or a clergyman either should keep certain clauses
for the government of their respective schools.—(Hear.)
But the Right Honourable Gentleman s-aid a great
number of the clergy aeproved of those clauses. Now
he did not object to that; but what he did object to was
this, that the same liberty was not given to those who
did not approve of the clauses as to those who did.—
(Hear.) It was said they might or might not take the
money. Was the great question of education to be met
in that way?—(Hear.) The petitioners in the present
case did not pray far the abolition of the Committee of
Council, all they asked was that they should not inter-
fere with the religious education of the people of this
country. He would put it to the Liberal Members of
that House whether it was an unreasonable demand
which he made on behalf of those for whom he pleaded,
that they should have freedom of instruction. They
could not long successfully refuse such a requisition. He
only asked them on the other side for that which they
asked for themselves, and which they had always main-
tained as their just rights.—(Hear )
Mr. ADDERLEY said it would seem from what the
Right Hon. Baronet the S; cretary of State for the Home
Department had said, that the Church would wish to
arrogate to itself the right of educating the people. He
did not think that such was the feeling which prevailed.
He thought it was very unjust that, if they wished for
their own system of management, they should be de-
prived of any share in the public grant.
After a few words from Mr. PLUMPTRE,
Mr. P. WOOD said he did not think the Right Hon-
Baronet had tie steed the National Society fairly in refer-
ring to the memorial to which he had alluded. That me-
morial would give rise to the impression that the great
majority of the Churchmen were not in favour of granting
any money to the Dissenters. Such was not the case:
The public money was taken from all classes, and for
matters of education they were bound to distribute it
equally amongst all classes. It was not fair to
read to the House, as the general opinion of
the body, a memorial which had only emanated
from a few. Neither was that the opinion of the
National Society. There was no objection on the
part of that society to lay interference; but they were
of opinion that perfect freedom should be allowed to all
parties. They had no objection to the clauses, but they
asked that others should be permitted to adopt them or
not, just.as they pleased. But the great difficulty hal
arisen from the fact of the Committee of Privy Council
having come to the resolution to oblige every one to
adopt these resolutions; otherwise they were not to get
a grant for their schools. That was what the Natioeal
Society objected to; they could not agree to the clauses
having been made compulsory. A great constitutional
question was involved in that discussion. They were
paying large sums of money every year into the hands
of Government, and they would be larger still, and the
Council could come to a decision, from which there was no
appeal, as to the administration of those funds. It was not
wise in such a case to lay down pedantic clauses. The
Committee had now pupil-teachers and certified masters,
and he hoped to see such in most of their schools. Those
who contributed ome-third of the funds claimed to have
the entire management of everything. That was what
would not be submitted to.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had not fairly represented the Privy
Council when he said that they undertook to regulate
everything. They had come to an agreement in 1840
with the archbishops and bishops, by which their grants
were to be regulated. The inspectors were to be named
in conjunction with the archbishops, and they were not
to exercise their office without the consent of the bishops;
their reports were to be sent to the bishops. The objec-
tion made to the Privy Council was not such as the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had stated it; but it was to the
interference of the Privy Council in any way—it was
maintained that any person who applied for a grant was
not to be bound by any claims whatever. In schools that
belong d to the Church of England, the religious educe
tion was under the clerey and the bishop, and the bishop
might exclude any books on religion of which he did not
approve, or he might object to the master or mistress on
the ground of unsound religious teaching.—(Hear,
hear.) He then came to the question of secular teach-
ing.en The Committee consisted of laymen and clergy-
men, and a difference arose. If a difference arose as to
secular
teaching, then it was said the appeal should be
to the bishops alone.' Such a regulation the Committee
with clergymen thought did not tend to the efficient management of the
it was insisted to schools. Privy Council desired to sea laymen united
ton the question of education; but when
oc have purely religious teaching in a
ex-
clusively out of therilown
school, then
suchouiicil declared that the parties desi-
rous to establishnschfuoonldsm. must pwroasvidheisfoorpiitneinxn-
place into thistwould
ghmt aide no unreasonable o the Privy Cowl'
proposi-
tions; and so he thcu be shown when an
subject next year. He be.
iininciencidrygrtoetiokt good bad been done by the grants; and for
England itself itself, he thought it
should be continued.
the sake of the Church of E
well that this system of education
well question
He believed Mr. R. PALMER, thought it wa
were ehould now be distinctly understoosd.
ex-
cited by what was now going on.
man Catholics and Dissenters were as mucheidnttehreesilted
in this question as the members of the Church of Eng
land. It was a question of liberty—the power of pa.:
ties teaching the children under their care in that way
in which their religious convictions might be secure.
They should take care to do nothing which would pre-
vent or impede the voluntary efforts for education in this
country. They should do nothing to interfere with
schools especially intended for religious education.—
(Hear.) They ought not to exclude schools that were
under clerical management, To d.) this was, in his opi-
nion, iu the highest degt ee impolitic. They forced
the
National Society to open subscriptions for establishing
clerical schools. The true rule was not to be exclusive.
Mr. W. J. *FOX coincided in so much in what the
lion. Member who had kat spoken, that it would save
him from saying much on this question. He thought
that freedom of action should he given to all labouring
to promote education. 'lke best mode of administering

educated.
Mr. lIii:NLEY, who rose amid cries of " Divide,"
said, vault the public complained of, reel justly com-
plained oe, was the departure from the principle laid
down in 1839 and 1840. Tbe present mode pressed with
great hardship on the smaller agricultural parishes.—
(Divide.) He was glad that the Government had con-
sented to the question undergoing a searching investi-
gation, and was sorry that the Noble Lord at the head
of the G wernitleat should have expressed his regret
that the Church of England received three-fourths of
the grant.—(Divide.) At that late hour he should not
trouble the House with any further observations.
The vote was then agreed to.
The amendments to the Charitable Trusts Bill were
considered and agreed tn.
The second reading of the Oath of Abjuration (Jea-s)
Bill was fixed for Thursday, the 18th July.
On the motion of L ird J. RUSSELL, the Lord-Lieu-
tenancy Abolition (Ireland) Bill was ordered to be com-
mitted that day three months.
A similar motion was agreed to with respect to the
second reading of the Wools and Forests Bill.
Lord DUNCAN protected against the mode in which
the Bill lied been proceeded with. He had not moved
for the re-appointment of the Committee on the subject
on the understanding that the Government would pro-
ceed widi the Bill. He should take an early oppor-
tunity of calling the attention of the House to the
vesiion.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had till lately intended to
proceed with the Bill, but the length of the debates on
other questions, and the number of amendments on this,
gave no hope of the Bill being passed this session.
HOME-MADE srimrs IN BOND BILL.
Lord NAAS having moved the second reading of this

Bill,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he felt it to hi his duty to oppose this Bill on a former
occasion, and he would, therefore, on the present occasion,
take the sense of the House on the second reading, as he
considered that it was his duty to express his opinions at
present more fully than he had done on a former oc-
casion, as he considered that the claim of the Scotch
and Irish distillers was anything but just. He must
say that he did not think that the Scotch and Irish dis-
tillers hail any claim to pay a less duty than they were
now paying. They had, in fact, a great deal of indul-
gence extended to them in their spirits being allowed to
remain in bond, without any pressure on the part of
Government for the pat men: of the duty. He felt that
it was extremely disagreeable that one system should
prevail in Ireland and Scotland and another in England.
The duty was now uniform.—(Hear, bear.) it was ad-
mitted in evidence before a C untnittee that it was im-
possible to charge the duty on spirits in England in any
other manner, and that was the statement of the greatest
distillers of this country. It the present system of levy-
ing the duty was departed from to suit the Scotch and
Irish distillers, the greatest inconvenience would be the
result, and he therefore thought it would be unfair to
do that in regard to those two countries which would
he prejudicial to the interests of the distillers of England.
He was enabled to state that the English distillers
had made the strongest representations to him that
such a course, if acted upon, would be extremely unjust
to them. He had stated before that there was not
the slightest similiarity between the two cases. The
ground on which the Bill rested was, that the introduc-
tion of colonial spirits had injured the home producer,
and that it theref .re operated prejudicially to his inte
rests. If this were so, the proper course would have
been to have brought forward a motion either to re-
move the duty on home spirit, or to raise the differen-
tial duty on rum. But this was not done. In order to
show that the introduction of colonial spirits had not
had the effect suggested by the promoters of this Bill,
he would read the following statistics :—ln 1817, the
quantity of rum consumed in Ireland and Scotland was
558,000 gallons. In 1849, the quantity was 432,000
gall•ins; showing a reduction in the consumption of this
article, of 126,000 gallons--a fact which fully premised
that no injury was produced to the home producer by
the introduction of colonial spirits—and this fact was
fully established by the fact that while the quantity of
home-made spirits consumed in this country, in 1847,
was 12,230,000 gallons, it rose in 1849 to 13,908,000—
thus showing an increase in the consumption of
1,678,000.—(Hear, hear.) Upon these grounds, there-
fore, he moved that the Bill be read a second tune that
day six months.
Mr. WYLD moved that the debate be adjournel.
Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE opposed the adjourn-

ment.
After a few words from Mr. Roche. Mr. Bass, and
Mr. Reynolds, who complained of this effort on the part
of the Hon. Member for Bodmin to deprive the sup-
port rs of the measure of a discussion on it, the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment ... 95
Against it ... . . ... 135
Majority 40
This result was loudly cheered by the supportars of
the Bill.
On entering the gallery we found
Mr. F. MAULE contending that this Bill was a dis-
tiller's measure, and the feeling of the people of Scot-
land was against it. The tendency of the Bill was to
make whisky cheap, and the effect of this was to fill
their gaols and workhouses with thieves and paupers.
He hoped the returning good sense of the House would
induce them to reject the measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, it was quite evident that the
last diviiion proved that the feeling of the House was in
favour of that stage of the measure. He would not
further oppose it then. At the same time he begged to
soy that the Government had still the same ojection to
the measure, and that they would opposa it in a future
stage.—(Hear. hear.)
The Btll was then read a second time, and
Lard NAAS moved the committal of tee 8.11 for to-
morrow (this day.)
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 4.
Their Lordships' assembled at Five o'clock.
Toe Earl of LONSDALE presented a petition agains
the Metropolitan Interments Bill.
JUDGMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Biil was read a third time and passed.
POLICE IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
SIR ROBERT PEEL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, after laying on the
table certain papers relating to the subject of education,
said, I will now, with the permission of your Lordships.
take the liberty of asking the attention of your Lord-
ships for a few moments to a subject which I am sure is
present to the minds of all of us.—(Hear, hear.) I
have to request your Lordships' attention while ]
for a few moments diverge from the usual course of
your Lordships' proceedings.—(Hear, hear.) It is quite
true that if we look around this House we do not per-
ceive any loss that we have recently suffered, there is Do
important personage abeent from his place here, there i
no great blank iu this place. But we are all aware of, and
we all deeply deplore, a great and a lamentable loss which
has occurred in another Assembly with which we are
connected with many and most intimate tiei—(Flear.
hear)—ties and relations both political and per-
sonal so numerous that we may be said to breathe
the same atmosphere. To that Assembly there
has befallen a great calamity, a great personal loss
which has been deeply felt by that Assembly.—(Hear.)
And extraordinary, indeed, would it be if the deep voice of
sorrow which has been heard throughout that Assembly
did not find any echo here.—(Hear, hear.) This is not
the time to sit in judgment on the political conduct
or the public actions of any great statesman who
has at the present moment been suddenly withdraws;
from us.—(Bear, hear.) Posterity alone can judge of
these, and to that judgment they will be submitted, and
those who sit in judgment on them will be beta)
qualified, from their distance from the scene of action.
to contemplate them calmly and without prejudice. But.,
my Lords, we are called upon to pay our tribute of
respect to the memory of a great public man, who
has been suddenly called from us, and to whose
unwearied labours in the public service we have all of
us been witnesses. We are called upon to add our ex-
pression of sympathy to that public expression ot
sympathy which, unasked, unsolicited, unthought of
emanating from all classes of society, has been attending
—I wish I could add cheering—the dying moments
of the public statesman.—(Hear, hear.) That feeling.
unmixed by any thought of political opinion, is
I am sure entertained by your Lordships
no less deeply than by every other class
of the community.—(Hear, hear.) I can only say that
it has been my fortune, in consequence of my
prolonged life, to assist at the commencement
and at the development of the career of him whom I
must now unfortunately call the late Sir Robert Peel. I
witnessed his first exertions, I witnessed the whole of that
career that has prematurely ended for more than forty
years, and I can bear witness that that career has
been distinguished by an unmitigated zeal, exclusively
devoted to public objects, and by a life devoted to the
service of the state.—(Hear, hear.) And I am sure
that your Lordships will join with me in an
expression of sympathy and condolence which I believe
is felt by all the people of this country.—(Rear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY then rose and said—Great as un-
doubtedly is the public loss which has been sustained,
and deep and universal as is the sympathy which has
been manifested by the whole country at the calamity
which has just befallen us, I had not anticipated that in
this House, of which Sir R. Peel was not a member, the
Noble Marquis would have felt it necessary to have
called for any public expression of feeling, or even have
adverted, as he has done, to that lamentable occurrence.
But as the Noble Marquis has adverted to the case, I
must not deprive myse.f of the melancholy gratification
of stating how fully and entirely I participate and sym-
pathise in those sentiments which have been so feelingly
expressed by the Noble Marquis.—(liear, hear.) The
Noble Marquis has truly said that this is no time to cri-
ticise the public acts of a public man, snatched from his
country in the prime of life, and at a period when it might
reasonably have been expected that many years yet re-
mttosanihnard7to him for devoting to the public service those
great abilities, that uefleiching zeal, that unwearied
diligueenacre,
hear.)which werelt
haalswbaeyesna
my
tyh efosretruvni
fortune
eaotfshomisecopuenritordys.
been opposed to, and at others to have been
itt.ee colleague—the
last tour yitha
ra: hbouimehnbi !sem
lyci
deepllelaguree—g
regret
the
that latedu r
iSni
gr
fe
blicthat thaty. have been separated
sure,
difference of opinion—con-
fsre7ntliloimus,byl aapnlco‘l'iuere", both sides—on important 'net-
It with equally deep regret
mat-
ters of
knowpublic
the very last hour of his life; iotp.tisnaiosnaptirliefwvattedu to
ebuotf