The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-05 00:00:00

RAILWAY AUDIT BILL.

Earl GRANVILLE said, that as the railway com-
panies had not taken any steps to introduce a Bill
for the audit of railway accounts, he now would in-
troduce a Bill for that purpose, which he would move
should be read a first time. He proposed that the Board
of Audit should be formed in the following manner :
That each railway company should, at a special general
meeting, to be called immediately after the first general
meeting, in 1851, elect one delegate to choose the rail-
way audit board. He proposed that in the election
delegates of companies which had paid up 2,000,0001.
should have one vote, those of companies who had paid
up more than 2,000,0001. and less than 5,000,000/. should
have two votes, those who had paid up above 5,000,0001
and under 7,000,000/. three votes, and those who had
paid up morn than 10,000,0001. should have four votes.
The delegates on their first meeting should choose a
chairman and two members, who should constitute the
board. The members of the board to be irremovable
except by a vote of two-thirds of the delegates con-
firmed by a decision of the Railway Commissioners.
The board to have power to inspect and
audit the half-yearly report and accounts
of any railway company, and to decide if the financial
statement of each company had been properly made out,
if the accounts correctly set forth the financial state of
the company, if the entries under the set arate
heads of capital and revenue were sufficiently
distinguished, if the dividend proposed was in-
jurious to the permanent interests of the railway com-
pany, if the accounts had been properly passed, and if
the state of the company was properly set forth in those
accounts. The expense he proposed should be defrayed
by a sum of 10,000/., to be paid into the hands of the Com-
missioners of Railways, and by them to be deposited in the
Bank of England to the account of the railway auditors.
He proposed that the accounts of the railway auditors
should be audited by the Commissioners of Audit of
Public Accounts. Such were the principal provisions (1
the Bill, which he moved should be read a first time.
After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE, the
motion was agreed to.
NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Lord STANLEY presented a prtition from some
place in Monmouthshire complaining of the management
clauses e the minutes of the Committee of Privy Council
on national education. He bad no wish to raise a dis-
cussion on that very large subject on the introduction of
this petition.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was perfectly pre-
pared to enter upon the discussion, and to lay before
their Lordships a plain statement of facts, which would
have the effect of putting an end to the numerous mis-
representations which had been put forth on the subject
of the conduct of the Committee of Privy Council.
The Bishop r f LONDON wished to avoid any dis-
cussion at the present moment. He considered that he
stood in some degree in the capacity of a moderator, a-,d
he suggested that the whole subject should be referred
to a Select Committee.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY acknowledged
that the Church could not do her duty in providing
for the °location of the people without the assist-
ance of the State, and he acknowledged the libe-
rality of Parliament in affording that assistance, but
he contended that a satisfactory inspection of schools
could be made only by the clergyman of the parish, be-
cause he only was constantly resident.
Lord BROUGHAM :said he had been all his life en-
gaged in the attempt to promote popular education,
which, whether regarded in a moral, a religious, or a
political point of view, was a question of paramount
importance; but he had always found his efforts
thwarted by the conflicting views of the two great
parties interested in the question, namely, the Church of
England on the one hand, and the Dissenters on the
other. Nothing, undoubtedly, was more honest than
the good disposition of the Dissenters for the education
f the people ; and equally so, nothing could be more
honest than the good disposition of the Church of
England for the same object; but there was always a de-
gree cf perversity in human nature which made, them do
nothing good absolutely, but only relatively. All the
zeal of Dissenters on behalf of education was over-
gone by a little wish to blindf ,ld the Church. and, on
the other hand, all the conscientious zeal of the Church
for education was exceeded by a desire to obtain a
victory over the Dissenters, so that between the two
education fell to the ground and was fettered to the
earth, or nearly so, instead of winging its way through
mid air and mounting to its native skies. It might be
asked why it was not so in Scotland? Because there
the difference was not with regard to doctrine, but
discipline; although he regretted to see that a paltry
question of patronage was producing the same lament able
effects as the question of doctrine had produced in
England.
The Bishop of CHICHESTER presented a petition
from a large meeting held at Willis's Rooms, complaining
of the conduct of the Committee of Privy Council on
Education; also, upwards of seven hundred petitions
from various places to the same effect. Ile hoped the
Government would agree to the suggestion of the
Bishop cf London for a Committee of Inquiry f)r the
purpose of ascertaining some mode of reconciling the
differences between the National Society and the
Committee of Privy Council.

weree
iv e
red d.he
The Bishop of T. DAVID'S said he was always
Right Rev. Prelate (Chi-
attended with the result of
favourable to inquiry, but he could not agree in the ex-
opheceetatetiro)nthexatprietsswedoulbdy
be
ee
allaying the excitement which prevailed upon the sub-
ject. It might indeed be the means of dissipating some
of the misapprehensions which were ertertained on the
subject. The representation made upon this subject,
and the vague charges made against the management,
acted forcibly upon susceptible imaginations. The more
vague they were the more difficult to remove or to
allay the alarm which was caused by them. He did not
think any good result would follow from the inquiry,
prepared
hprinciplesa d
which
ethvoiecrha lco abandonu
d
and, after all, they would have to go to first principles
greatest taest • -
considertahnedm. He
e thought
owuhgehtth
these
sthey
notT aheedEoaurlgh oft notHA Rteßboewabßayndsoani
peti-
tions on the subject to present. The Government on
this matter had made experiments, but had not
y* and the consequence
pro-
duced any entire plan of management. New measures
uncertainty upon the
subject. He hoped the question would not be allowed
was
se t
hpartodtuhceerde fromwes
the
ey
to drop, and if no other person took it up, he would
take an opportunity of calling their Lordships' attention
to it.
Lord BROUGHAM said he did not know that this
subject would be brought forward, and he was in conse-
quence taken :by surprise. It was but justice to say
that this plan was based upon a report of a Committee of
the House of Commons which sat in the years 1816 and
1818, of which he was the chairman. He did not know
whether anything had been done upon it, but it met with
unanimous approval.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the Right Rev.
Prelate who presented the petition avoided going into
the arguments in support of it. Had he done so he
would have been prepared to go into the whole plan; and
with regard to the facts upon which it was founded,
he was prepared to bring forward evidence to set
them aside. The parties who signed the petition did
so upon statements which a clergyman of the Church
of England came forward at a meeting, to con-
tradict, but ho was not permitted to do so. The
Noble Lord opposite said there was much excitement,
but tbat was produced by statements which, where reli-
gion and charity were concerned, should be far from
misrepresentation of facts. He would, however, sub-
mit two or three facts. It bad been stated at the meet-
ing to which he alluded that the Church of England did
not receive its fair share of the fund granted for educa-
tion, under the direction of the Privy Council. The
fact, however, was that it received four.fifths of the en-
tire grant,—(Hear, hear.) If be bad expected any
complaints upon this point, it would not be from the
Church of England, but from the Dissenters, who did
not receive a share in proportion to their numbers. The
Church of England received an equal portion—four-
fifths—for building schools, and in the same proportion
for pupil teachers. It was further stated that not a
single shilling was granted, except upon subscription to
what was called the management clauses; whereas a
great many thousands were granted for books and pupil
masters. It was also stated that there was nothing to
be found throughout the minutes but which showed a
determination to disconnect education from religion;
whereas in the whole process of examination of the
teachers an acquaintance with the catechism of
the Church of England was required. If the
allegation was true he would have nothing to
do with it, and at once give up any share fh the
management, and, instead of supporting it, would vote
for putting a stop to it altogether. There were eight
hundred schools already established through its means.
The scholars were increasing, and received the most sa-
tisfactory accounta of the usefulness of these schools,
which were superintended by clergymen of the Estab-
lished Church. He considered that it was a most effi-
cient modo of education, and was a very great contrast
to what had previously existed. A desire had been ex-
pressed for a Committee. If a motion was made for
that object, ho would state his opinions; but he warned
them of the danger of granting it, as great difficulties
would be found in dealing with the claims of the various
sectarians who would prefer claims for participation in
a Government grant. Whenever tho motion wag brought
forward, he would state his views fully upon the subject.
There should be made in the Committee of Inquiry, a

full statement of the grounds upon which applications
for grants were entertained, and of the principles upon
which, when made, they were to ba distributed.
The conversation then dropped.
. .

The Bishop of LONDON presented two petitions from
places, the names of which were inaudible, praying for an
inquiry into the distribution of the funds dispensed by
the Committee of Privy Ciluncil on Education.
The Earl of lIARROWBY then presented several
petitions to the same effect.
Earl POWIS presented a petition from the clergy cf
Ripon praying for an alteration in the law with regard
to matters of appeal on points of doctrine in the Church
of England.
PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Their Lordships then went into Committee on this
Bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that he rose to
object to the principle of the Bill. He was so unfortu-
nate as to be in a different part of the country on the day
on which tie Noble Lord opposite moved the second
reading of the Bill, and, consequently, he had not then
an opportunity of stating his objections. His opinion
was that the Bill did not go far enough. As it stood at
present, it would not put an end to the state of diEturb-
ance in Ireland, which it was the intention of Govern-
ment to put an end to. Besides the disturbances like
those at Dolly's Brae, there were other disturbance s
which had taken place which would not be prevented
by the stale of the law as provided for by this Bill. It
was well known that Catholics were in the habit of
burying the dead with great formality, which it was the
common practice of other parties to interrupt, and this
practice cten led to disturbances really as fatal as
any of those disturbances caused by procession.—
(Hear, hear.) He did not see why the Legislature
should not at once prevent persons in Irelaed
from appearing abroad in arms.—(Cheers.) For what
reason should the peasantry of that country be allowed
the privilege of appearing abroad in arms when that pri-
vilege did not exist in any other part of the civilized
world?—(Hear.) Why should these parties be allowed
to appear in arms, except for .opportunities of amuse-
ment, and if carried for that purpose why should they
not be made to produce game certificates, and be called
upon to account for the possession of arms? He thought
that the local magistrates, by means of the constabulary
at their disposal, ought to protect these parties from
being attacked by others who came there in arms.—
,Hear, hear.) He hoped a clause would be inserted in
this Bill to enable the justices of the peace to disperse
any meetings where parties were carrying arms, and to
deprive those individuals of their arms who should ap-
pear on those occasions either in procession or attacking
funeral processions with arms in their hands. He gave
notice that on the third reading he would propose a
clause to prevent any person appearing in arms in Ire-
land out of his own house, unless for the purpose of
amusement or field sports, as in this country.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that as the title
of the Bill referred only to party processions, he did not
think it expedient to convert it into an arms Bill, which
he was not prepared to say might not be necessary on a
future occasion, when the suggestions of the Noble Duke
would meet with the consideration which so important a
subject deserved.
Lord MONTEAGLE said he thought the Govern-
meat would not be doing their duty if they were not
prepared to enter into the important subject of tf. e pos-
session of arms by the Irish peasantry. The possession
of arms by these parties was inconsistent with the best
interests of their country, and of the peasantry them-
selves. That had been asserted both by the leaders of
the Liberal party and Catholic clergymen. The propo-
sition he would make was very simple. The Act de-
clared that if the procession did not disperse when the
Riot Act was read, the arms should be f )rfeited. He
thought the forfeiture should apply whether the parties
dispersed or not. He would leave the suggestion in tee
hands of the Noble Marvis (the Marquis of Lens-
doerne), believing that were this suggestion embodied in
an amendment by the Government the Bill would be
much more perfect.

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the subject
was worthy cf consideration, but feared that there would
be considerable difficulty in carrying it out in practice,
as in many cases the rarties carrying the arms would
be much more numerous than the constabulary opposed
to them.

Lord STANLEY said he thought that if the object
could be attained of preventing the carrying arms in
public without any necessity, it would be a benefit of
great importance to the country. lie e -mid understand
the difficulty suggested by the Noble Marquis opposite
(Lansdowne) with respect to the title of the Bill, as it
regarded the amendment proposed by the Noble Duke
(Wellington), but he thought the same objection would
not hold against the suggested amendment by the Noble
Lord, for although there might be a difficulty in seizing
the arms at first, the parties might be subsequently
identified and deprived of their arms.
The Bill then passed through Committee, and the
House resumed, when the report was ordered to be
brought up on Thursday.

The Eeelesilst;eal Commission Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 4.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
ELECTION FOR THE CITY QF LONDON.

The SPEAKER said he had received a communica-
tion, stating that it was not the intention of the parties
to proceed with the petition which hal been presented
against the return of Baron Rothschild for the city of
London.

GREAT CENTRAL GAS BILL.

In reply to Mr. REYNOLDS,

Mr. WYLD said it was not the intention of the I ar-
tirs promoting the Great Central Gas Consumers' Com-
pany (No. 2) Bill to interfere with the existing supplies
c,f gas in the parish cf St: Pancras.

The Bill was then read a second time.
SECOND READINGS.

The fullowing Bills were read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed:—

Furmer's Estate Society (Ireland).

Ipswich General Cemetery.

lisilway Assurance Company.
PETITIONS.

Mr. REYNOLDS presented several petitions in favour
of the reduction of the duty on paper.
A considerable number of petitions were presented
against Sunday labour in the Post-office.
Mr. BROWN presented petitions from places in Lan-
cashire praying for a reduction of the duty on tes.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from
Preston, signed by 4,300 persons, to the same effect.
Sir J. W ALMSLEY presented three petitions from
places in Lancashire in favour of the establishment of
county financial_ boards.

Mr. THICKNESSE presented a petition praying for
a reduction of the duty on tea ; also a petition praying
for an extension of the county courts.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented several petitions against
the Marriage Bill.
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR presented a petition
numerously signed by the inhabitants of Westminster,
praying for better sanitary regulations in the metropolis.
Mr. KERSHAW presented a petition from Stockport
in favour of a reduction of the tea duties.

Mr. HODGES presented a petition from Kent for a
reduction of the hop duty.
Sir D. DUNDAS presented a petition from Suther-
landshire in favour of the Marriage Bill.
Sir B. HALL presented a petition in favour cf esta-
blishing superannuation funds for poor-law officers.
Mr. GOULBURN presented a petition from the
rural deanery of Hastings against the Marriage Bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition signed by 8,000
persons, praying for a reduction on the duty on tea; also
a petition in favour of the establishment of county finan-
cial boards ; and a petition praying for a system of se-
cular education, to be supported by local rates.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH presented a petition praying
for the abolition of the tax on newspapers.
Mr. FRE WEN presented a petition in favour of county
financial boards; also a petition praying for summary
jurisdiction in cases of petty larceny.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from ratepayers in
the county of Stafford, agreed to at a public meeting, in
favour of county financial boards.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. REYNOLDS-gave notice of his intention to
move amendments in Committee to certain clauses of the
Irish Registration Bill.
Mr. MACGREGOR gave notice of his intention, on
an early day, to move the abolition of the stamp duties
on bills of lading, charter parties, and other shipping
documents.
Sir E. BUXTON gave notice of his intention, on
an early duy, to move a resolution to the effect that
it was impolitic to expose the British producer of sugar
in the home market t) the competition of slave• growing
states.
EXPORTS.
In reply to a question from Mr. WODEHOUSE, re-
lative to the exports of gold from this country in the
year of scarcity 1800 and 1801, and also of the previous
year of scarcity, 1795, in connexion with the import of
corn and grain of all kinds in the same period.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said there were no official ac-
counts of the export of gold before the year 1800, while,
with regard to those of the year 1801, the accounts were
of a ♦ery meagre and incomplete character. It would,
therefore, not serve the purpose of the Hon. Gentleman
to lay them before the House.
DANISH AFFAIRS.

Mr. SANDARS observed that one day last week, he
gave notice of his intention to put a question to the Noble
Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, relative
to the Danish war, but the Noble Lord was not in his
place on Friday, and he was forced to renew his notice
for to-night. The Noble Lord, however, being still not
in his place, he begged leave to put his question to the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government. Some
arrangement had been come to between Prussia and
Austria for a continuance of the Danish armistice, and
he should be glad to know upon what conditions the
renewal had taken place.

---Eerd J. RUSSELL was not in s position to tar-
nish the Honourable Gentleman with the infor-
mation. The negotiations in the affair were still
ending, and he was not in a condition to answer the
question.
Mr. SAND ARS did not consider the answer at all
satisfactory, and gave notice of his intention to repeat
the question acme day this week, adding that if the
Noble Lord the Foreign Minister were not in his place
to answer it, he should move the adjournment of the
House for an hour, to enable the Noble Lord to be in at-
tendance.

SIR F. COLLIER'S DISPATCHES.
Sir EDWARD BUXTON asked Lord John Russell,
in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, when
Rear-Admiral Sir F. Collier's dispatches, dated Septet-
ber, 1849, inclosing Commander Farquhar's report of
his proceedings on the 31st July, 1849, would be laid
before the House. He (Sir E. Buxton) wished to know
whether those papers would be laid on the table before
the House went into Committee on the Naval Estimates?

MARCH 5, 1850.