The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-17 00:00:00

ifl:
01
"
, to,
Iti
00
i tV

State of the prison of the Court of Requests in the ho-
rl-41,h of Birmitighatn ?
Sir J.*GRAHAM said that the Hon. Gentleman
"ing been kind enough to give him notice of the ques-
t'9o he was prepared to give him a reply. He had re-
ceived from the Mayor and Recorder of Birmingham a
rePort -respecting the statement of the prison of the
uotirt of Requests in that borough, from which it ap-
bred that the prison was in a state which was deroga-
,,trto the authorities, and that it was unfit for the re-
.;Ptaiton of debtors. He had, in cons,quence, directed
'4,11 inspector of prisons to proceed to Birmingham.
inspector had made his report, which entirely con-
:l.:nod the complaints that had been made, and he (Sir
",..„ graham) then considered it his duty to inquire who
Were the parties who were responsible for the state of
I`,.e prison. He was referred to the Commissioners
.of
~'!e Court of Requests of Birmingham, and he imme-
lovely
,sent them the complaints he had received, re-
(Miring them forthwith to remedy the evils complained
.04 with an intimation that if they neg;ected to do so, he
tiold put the law in force with regard to the prism.
thin the last four days he had received a representa-
tion from the Commissioners, stating that they had
"roplied 'with his request, and informing him that the
PjsOn had been visited by the Mayor and Recorder,
10 bad expressed themselves satisfied with it. He had,
;wever, sent down the same inspector who had before
;11°Ited -on , it, to ascertain if he concurred with the
ayor and Recorder, and in the course of to-day or to-
morrow he should receive his report, when he should
°I able' to give the Hon. Gentleman every information.
Mr. STANLEY expressed himself satisfied with the
..Planation, and believed he should take the most judi-
G~ Course •
by leaving the matter in the hands of the
vernment

QUARTER SESSIONS.
utr• 41AWES said that a Bill respecting the quarter
, tils3'olls in cities and boroughs had been brought in by
wea Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester (Sir T.
114'40- As the Bill was first introduced, the Right Hon.
su'rullet the Secretary of state was not prepared to
13130 rt it. Since then some alterations had been made
Z,he Bill ; he now wished to know whether they were
"ca as the Ricrht Hon Baronet would have wished, and
whether e, •
thee in its present shape the Government was pre-
pared to support the Bill I'
61r. J GRAHAM 'aid the alterations that had been
, JTe in the Bill e...re certainly i-trodstc-d at his (Sir
Graham's) request ; but ire re-. iced some 'epee=
teatations from seve.-al Recorders on the subject, which
to thought were entitled to further coniideration ; he
le.7.Fht, also, that there was not much necessity for
e'Bl3ting' on the question at all, since the Secretary of
had powers. under the Municipal Act, to make re-
' :Cons according to varying circumstances.
It HAVES .said the Bill stood for to-morrow. He
shed to know if it Would come on so early.
Sir
tha GRAHAM said the Government had no wish
t the Bill should be proceeded with.

8114 POOR-LAWS.
„ • PEEL (1):,, command) laid papers relative to
tty?or-laws nn the table of the House.
i4,11-013TION OF CRIMINALS IN THE EAST.
-M: MILNES wished to ,know fr,in the Right
4'411. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether
gay objection to lay .on the table of the house
ti4Veolivenient, ihe pape,rs respecting theConsta negotiations
ell.her ,Majesty's Ambassador atConstantinople
eti,„!l"le Ottornan Porte, with regard to the execution of
th,'"thala on. religious grounds. He understood that
torse negotiations had terminated in a manner satisfac-
ii and-honourable to all parties.
to. 1r ROBERT PEEL said. :he was not prepared
pulp all the papers on the subject on the table, as the
Aot•ieltien of them at the present moment might be'ob-
‘

' PUBLIC OFFICE(R)fSth. e
byr.uersE moved for a returneo
a__ names, offices,
Tea of birth, salaries, and.
,ag
4-ees.in the Customs, Excise, as n
df
Post
Imt persons
office
p holdingepa r..
un theirne .
tileritS of the . United Kingdom, wnithltthewodualtdesbeof
:40intnient, and present loncattre .
House the importance
.ofsrY for him to impress on
employed in the public
and
~, Jle motion. The officers
sums of money,
tr.treents collected large
He
oeY were ' paid large
riortted that there waswi sums
improvement money. . r s
itit.e those, departments no smallef
Jhould like to see the servicethinth:f
thlaestputebnlie
o3ffieaeeds
.
of parties to
"'attain t• much
established to try .
the fitness
t•-•'41,. e as a profession as the Bar or the Church,. and
i, , a tons h
very good e ec
th' these offices. There were some. instances in
frwhti_ch
i,;4t,systern had been tried .
-, tile War-office, the
in different parts of
theith r
espect to the public servicewrt
Excise, and the Treasury.
h to be some recipreod-
tit ettlpire, he thought there.
i4ou the subject, that Enlieshmenasnhdoitildshiame
eenmpinh,lytree..
11,,,gland, Scotehmen in Scotland,
t in a particular
b.-", 4 Re thought it was unfair
Ito emxcenlude. altogether h
employment dr:elile of one country from
‘Partieehe
Sir u
of the Right
from the spirit
N... .. • PEEL decidedly objected to theyeturnsmoved
The
Ito *He could not discover
t. IL Gentleman's speech the objectlai nofedthetiraettutrhnesr.e
was
got Hon. Gentleman had cote
en
employed in the
e;"; a due proportion of Irish
111'11°48 departments uncrer the EnGtoolvd
the ~Itight Hon. Gentleman Government
enfit inou
House that
wthe
• 4,4 Secretary of the Post-office
R t then, the Secraary
let, an Irishman.
Hear,
:st-office in Scotland was in Irelandto
n Irishman.—( _ ,
Honourable
%ntl -ttr'and a laugh.) The a Right
eft} eman complained
not
an Irishman. But he
(Sir le polico in Ireland was
that the gent'i.man at the head
that lis Peel) would remind.
R. Peel's) duty to appoint
appoint
Gentleman
the police force, he
laugh.)
I)()?igentlemen to superintend the operation of the New
ee Act and to govern
a _
Point d ' ' ' two Iri -hmee___( EI
Ile
th . e
Englishmen, et .
Irishmen, or of
d find for the
ear, hear: and
Stetels?°•ght not .of
,__,e, c ui
dat, ",len, but of the two h. st tn,e" "
tle '''.'° be performed, and he !La
suppose
Now, suPp .
311.1.11 t no credit f such appointment.
motion with
settle t„,,,,. orappointed two Irishmen,
rtip,e,msashman were to make. a similar .
what would
th is." ttl re
Who
e sei,ht ~ cent appointments(:lies W 3 se) say to it?
Was the pitton. Gentleman
a_
Pottinger,
in China, _
? Sir Henry
er
argrieht
„en'oPentiary in Chi
--,(Reestrroops
an Irishman.
of th n.n?---(Hear, hear.) nWho was the command
in China?
ht of complaining of
these ' hear.) But who thought Sir Hugh Gough,
questions as to
th__ aPpointruents, or of asktpg anybirth?
whom
itZin,. or their country, or their
in Again,lndia ?
per illeY selected for the chief commandutwhat
was
the
Pe ~,ugh Gough.—(Hear, hear.) But
1 an had in view in
- ,site the Right Hon. Gent.em
d for the names and
i)l4e,g for these returns ? he aske
in the Excise,
'dust 0 birth of all the persons employed
Police of I,Vand—
it pos, Post-office, and Revenue
Sir Robert Peel) was
aka I,°r what earthly purpose he (
persons should
.sthhe.
litas''ss even to guess, How Tan)•
several establish-
fed eht„e,suPpose were employed in these
were 11,000 em-
Plev,,' In the Customs there .
in the Post-
ofrq ; in the Face e, 6,000 persons,
es
Police,
Revenue
,000' 3,000 persons ; in the
22,000 per-
*eh, :, total, 22,000 persons. And of these
age,
ap.
'Piiie',,,t4e Right Hon. Gentleman wanted the
besides.
A4,1-'°,llt, and he (Sir R. Peel) knew not what
the- P,:nen he had got them, who was there in
f them ?
It th 14.t.,Mise that would move the printing
e had
que
mend o ourable Gentleman thought that injustice
case let him specify that
e, andl in any Particular
'mustprotest against
41? eh call for inquiry ; but he
not satiation
tie 3. e. tnotion as the present. He_.e‘oeu.
1 that when any
Pers,„ueh Principle. He did not
.be le
individual to a
Pnbe; w4a,s called upon to appoint. anma
.e
as
to what
1%„a.3 th"lee any inquiry Nve. evr,r, made
i birth.—(ChecTs.)
41, e aid e •Place of trod inclivlclua h
e of an man's
nein, 15.,10t believe that the eircumstane
slightest preju-
. tliee'e.:l4 in Ireland would create the
upon 22,000
, peiss ,sainst hint. They were about to call
birch. He had
,- sllO4. -to state the localities of their
most erro-
too__ . that such a return would lead to the
upon that
I,oltes_ inferences being drawn ; but it was not
not right
et old that he opposed it. He thought it was notthis
teet-jhOuse to sanction the principle
upon
n subjects of
the 41'4 Wei founded.—(Cheers.) We were all
of
the sa4r,„4.oeereign were all united in the enjoyment
t to ad-
kit aa"'e rights eacl'privileges, and we oughht.noon
that
trauakdistitietions as to the locality of birt
NI,. pi,;.lopßosed the motion.
the etii,,f.' rEPHEN FRENCH contended that all
to Engfi iti,l3o.intinents in every department were given
sir us
~,olen and Scotehmen.
C, . • rEEL 1,,,,
appointment to the United
Lykes. (ch, ---. The last
kr, p---. pr,pe,rs,)
Irishmen
Were a "NCIT did not deny that some
he still
deoar_PPointed to situations of authority, bat
_ eet thatallth le
a Ireland
England an__
were filled e higher officersin
Of 80,000/.
It Year . by Englishmen and Scotchmen.
cl 60,000/.
ha ~,
..13_,ald to heads of departments in Irs,lan .
believed
that vt`i:t4 to Englishmen and Scotchtnen.
He
Wink ? Mine disproportion prevailed in the appointment
show
Whethri°r officer 4, and the report sought for would
the
te.,it_ er he was right or wrong. He did not wanl
man
totiildt 22,000 nanaes but the Right Him Gent e
Whichgive return of' the different clerks and officers,
Ike h
_vc-ould show whether he was right or wronogl
Ir. tq been. told th f th
ishale.
a ere were not three per cent
anf
said th among th m. The Right lion. Gentleman
The 8 ere
, was no opportunity of making these return=.
iirni,:h;o reply had I een made t,3. the S•crelary to the
ler '' to him ( ' .r. le. Pent.,), when he hail moved
kith similar rettn ii expecting the Navy. - He belitvel
aetd, 4 return cooed I e made, end that. ith
Ehed show that of the hundred appointments which
eeeh
ven made by the
Hadditigton, nut one had been
~ to an Irishinen —(Elear.) He thnught his Hon.
item _ . •
4 the
ief_ was eittitled to the return, and he regn-tre-,
ifat el the .t.,_ Government. nietir' AJM.E felt reluctantly obliged to oppose the
tie4l,ll. Everything that tended to keep up the na-
lata:l distinctions between England, Ireland, and Scot-
-lethe't; was wrong, and on that ground he opposed the
°,4. The return with respect to naval officers would
-had I,'? tnost
eerspositioun of njust and tuff dr inferences. It was not
tatti the Irish to go to itecl
e' tll6 proportion of Irish navalsea, officersconse-
was
eae th 84 compared with Englishmen and Scotehmen.
assnple '°oght the motion would be attended with un-
tea
,t and bad results, and he trusted, therefore, that
si Prig
Hon. Friend would withdraw it.
/iee r II-A-PIER said, that in that potion of the ser-
lieulvith which he was best acquainted, he did not be-
tteiti_4llY questions were asked about country. The
ke-Z4, in was who had got mast interest.—(Laughtrri.)
tlieved the reason why there were not 1 .
mire Iris l-
as eti,PPointed, was that they had not as much interest
there,
~.k.rnfrlrr a few words from Mr. WARBURTON,
at Y. STUART said that the motion of his Right
thatt IFriend at least showed there Vk as a strong feeling
wili, did not get that fair share of patronage
ttitle". they were entitled. He trusted that, in the
*0(oei„-listribution of patronage, a lhir proportion, not
44,1) the higher offices, but of the minor appointments,
rtt. fell to Irishmen.—(Hear, hear.)
WithteYYSE having replied, the motion was negatived
.‘ a division.
K 4r• WI, INCO.ME-TAX.
--.- - -
•
%ell ,_
CQ ',• SE then moved for a return of the amount of
"‘UIe iiiliCh ia assessed to the property-tax i

Great Britain, distinguishing the amount charged under
each schedu;o. lie stiou.it Lot go into any details, but
simply move for the return.
Sir R. PEEL said that the papers already printed
stated that there were no returns which would enable the
Commissioners to furnish the information required.

Mr. WYSE under those circumstances would with-
draw the motion.

ANATOMY ACT.

Mr. Alderman COPELANI) moved for an address
to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to lay before this House, a copy of all Commis-
sions, with the names of the ommissioners, appointed
to inquire into the, working of the. Anatomy Act, and
also into the official conduct of any inspector or in-
spectors of schools of anatomy for England, Scotland, and.
Wales ; with the dates of each Commission, and reports
(if any) of evidence taken by the said Commissioners.
Mr. P. BORTH WICK seconded the motion.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that this was a subject not only
of great delicacy, but, as it appeared to him, unsuited to
discussion in a popular assembly. With respect to the
Anatomy Act, his experience in the office of the Home
Department had confirmed him in his opinion of the
successful working of the measure. Indeed, its quiet
and silent op-ration was the best test of its
usefulness. He would remind the Honourable
Gentleman, that previous to the enactment of
that measure, there was hardly a churchyard within a
hundred miles of the tropulis, where the sanctity of
the grave was not violated, and the state of the church-
yard was such as to render human life in the neighbour-
hood quite insecure. He had had a quarterly return
made to him, which it was his duty to inspect, and, like
all his predecessors, he could answer for its accuracy.
Some irregularities had from time to time been brought
under the notice of the Secretary of State. Commis-
sions of inquiry had ben issued, evidence had been
taken ; reports had in some instances been made,
in others it had been thought better to confine the
information to the Secretary of State. If any
subject could with profit be left to the Government, this
could. He did not ask for a blind confidence ; but
it was notorious that the evils which this Act
of Parliament was passed to remedy had disap-
peared. The schools of anatomy were sufficiently and
regularly suppl ed ; all outreges on public decency were
avoid d ; and it was his opinion that the greate,t
leconvenienee would arise from the pro-
d a •ti of t h rerirts to which the Hon.
Gel,l e,oau s inudon was .irected ; and he hoped, there-
fore, that the House would support him in refusing the
Hon. Gen tleman's motion.

Mr.-FRENCH said, that when he brought forward
a motion on this subject some years ago, he
was met by a statement, that it was under the_considera-
don of the Commi,tionere. If they had maintained the
delicacy which the Right Hon. Gentleman wished them
to maintain, thpy would not have procured the retire-
ment of Dr. Sullvaan.—(Hear, bean).- The. Right
lion. Baronet had affixed the epithet " noxious agita-
tion" to a motion brought forward by a supporter of the
Government__

Sir JAMES GRAHAM—I did not use the words.

Mr. F. FRENCH said:there never was a more ill-used
man in the c .untry than Mr. Roberts. The most emi-
nent scientific men in the country had borne testimony
to the merits of that gentleman.
Mr.. WAItBURTON agreed with the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet that nothing could be more injurious
than this species 31. noxious agitation. Of the way
in vthich the Honourable Alderman (Copeland) had
brought the subject. before the House there was little to
complain. One expression, only, should he (Mr. War-
burton) comment upon. In speaking of the c,nduct of
the late inspector, Dr. Sullivan, the worthy Alderman
bad said he had been permitted to retire on receiving the
the sum of one hundred pounds. Having • investigated
every charge brought against htm, he (Mr. Warburton)
could declare, upon his honour—and he believed every
Commissioner concurred in the opinion— that Dr. Sul-
livan's conduct had been conducive to the public interest,
and that throughout every circumstance he had con
ducted himself well. He (Mr. Warburton) also knew
he had not been permitted to retire, but that he had been
dismissed from his office with a gift of one hundred
pounds. He believed that Dr. Sullivan had received a
complete and honourab:e acqeittal from every charge
brought against him.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the fact was there had been a
second Committee, and the report of that Committee
had been in favour of Dr. Sullivan.

Mr. P. .13,/IiTHWICK said this subject was certainly
not one peculiarly adapted for popular discussion ; but
he had felt it his duty to present to the House the peti-
tion which had been entrusted to him ; and every
petition, properly worded, sent to him, he should
consider it his duty to present in like manner.
The agitation that had been ailuded to had been shared
in by some of the first men in the medical profession—
Str Astley Cooper, Sir Benjamin Brodie, Dr. Birk-
beck, and others. Unless the evils which the petition
he had presented complained of were remedied, it would
be his duty, at a subsequent period, to call the attention
o: the House to the subject of those complaints. It was
in the power of the Home-office to rectify those com-
plaints, and he would rather it should be done there
than by public discussion in that House. If he were
compelled to bring it forward it would be contrary to
his own inclination.

Mr. WARBURTON asked the Hon. Gentleman if he
intended to raise a discussion on that petition or not.
He had repeatedly attended in expectation of a dis-
cussion, and it had repeatedly been postponed.
Mr. BORTHWICK—It bad only been postponed
once. He trusted it would be unnecessary to bring it on
at all, if the question were taken up by the Home
Secretary.
Mr. MACKINNON thought they were bound to take
the word of the Secretary of State. They must see the
impo-sibility in which the House was placed with res-
pect to form ng an opinion on the sub,ect.
Mr. Alderwan COPELAND, in reply, complained
that the returns which the
.House had ordered on this
subject some years since had not yet been made. He
&timed to know if the Commission of which the Hon.
Member for Kerdal was a member had yet made their
report to the Home Secretary ? If they had not, it was
the duty of the Government to insist on that report being
made. The Hon. Member for Kendal stood in a peculiar
position with regard to the Commission. He was one of
the principal persons connected with University College,
and it could be shown that the Act had been worked to
the advantage of that es:ablishment, therefore the Go-
vernment ought to call immediately for that report, He
thanked the House for the attention with which they had
heard him, and would beg to withdraw his motion.

Motion withdrawn.
OPENING OF CATHEDRALS TO THE PUi3LIC.

Mr. HUME then moved the following resolution:—,
" Thet this House, taking into consideration the exem
plary conduct of the people during the exhibition of the
Cartoons last year, and wherever they have been ad-
mitted to public edifices, and their general disposition to
improve by the contemplation of works of art, approve
of the following recooone.-dation of the Seleet Com-
mittee of this house on National Monuments, in 1841 :
That your Committee strongly deprecate any course
which could create an heal ression that churches were at
any time to be considered merely in the light of places
for the exhibition of works of art; but it is their opinion
that as, by increased facilities of admission to the inspec-
tion
of mere weeks of art, civilisation has been encou-
raged and public taste improved, so a more free admis-
sion to religious edifices, under proper regu'ation, may
be made conducive, not merely to the gratification of cu-
riosity and the acquirement of historical knowledge, but
to the growth and progress of religious impressions, by
leading the mind of the spectator from the contempla-
tion of the building to a consideration of the views.
with which, and the purposes for which, it
was originally erected, and is still maintained.
Yeur Committee entertain a hope that arrangements
may be made by the cathedral authorities, to allow the
larger portions of Westminster Abbey, and of St. Paul's
and other cathedrals'throughout the country, to be open
freely to the public daily, and especially, on Sundays,.
reconciling such free- admission with the due and undis-
turbed performance of religious services, though it may
be required to continue a small reduced fee,• or other
sufficient restriction, in regard to the chapels and smaller
or more intricate portions of those edifices. Your Com-..
mittee think it right to add, that if the greater freedom
of admission to those churches should lead, as it pro-
bably must, to an increase of the number of officers
employed in their superintendence, the additional expense
ought to be defrayed from other funds than those
belonging to the cathedrals.' " In bringing forward
this motion, he hoped • be • should be introducing a
mere - agreeable subject to the notice' of the House
than the working of. the Anatomy Act.—(Cheers.)
The improvement of the people . was the great object
which he had in view,. and the mode of effecting that
improvement was to make use of the means which the
country poso.ssed to cnabl6 them to prochice an inipres •
sion on the minds of the people which language could
not convey. Some years ago there was an opinion pre-
vailing that museums and collections of art could only
be studied by the rich—that the middle and lower classes
were too mischievous to be trusted to view them. A
great change had, however, taken place within the last
t n '.ears in the national character, and Englishmen of
ail cla,ses could now be trusted to view and to study
veluOsie works of art without any danger to the objects
of their study.—(Clieas.) The boon which had been
conceded to the middle and working classes by the
Dir. curs of the British Museum and the National Gal-
lery had been acknowledged with gratitude, and had
bee,' looked upon as an advantage. A marked benefit
had heen derived froin the manner in which these insti-
tutions had been thrown open. The Commissioners of
Police bore testimony to the marked improvement which
had taken place in the manners of the people, and they
attributed it to their increased sobriety, and to the
means which the lower orders now had, in their leisure
heirs, of improving their minds, by contemplating works
of a t. In answer to the questiu.n, as to how far, in their
ul inion, it would be safe to admit the public to • West-
minster Abbey, the Commissioners stated that they could
with confidence depend that good order would be pre-
serv, d by the masses, if they were admitted there, and
that they felt conviliced that the people would
do all in their power to pr ,test and preserve the
build ne and ever.) thing contained in it.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member then quoted the opinions of Mr.
Addison in the " Spectator,' in support of free admission
to public huilding,, es caculated to elevate the national
taste and the national morals. The Queen, soon after
her ascent to the throne, commanded the Secretary of
State for the Hume Department, the Noble Lord the
Member for the City of London, to endeavour, by every
means in his power, to open the cathedrals to the public.
The Noble Lord wrote, in conformity with her Majesty's
wishes, to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster and to
the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, but he was sorry to
say these dignitaries did not carry into practical effect
her Majesty's wishes. The .cathedrals were public
buildings. The Deans and Chapters had only a life in-
terest in them ; and they should not be suffered to dis-
figure the noble and_costly architecture of these edifices
by placing unsightly monuments in them. The monu-
meats of naval and tailitary heroes—men only famous

from deeds of warfare and blood—should not be suffered
to-pollute the temple of peace. The Government ought
to prevent these abominations, for such he would call
them.—(Hear, hear.) He would remove all such mo-
numents from these buildings. He entirely agreed in
the opinion of Mr. Addison, that free admission
to works of art would greatly tend to im-
prove the public taste. It had been urged that
indiscriminate admission might prove injurious to the
preservation of these edifices ; but if they consulted the
opinions of many eminent men who had beer. examined
before a Committee of that House, they would find that
such danger need not be apprehended. Sir John Brit-
ton said, the conduct of the public in public places had
vastly improved within the last few years, " so much so,"
said Sir John, " that had I been fifty years ago in a
foreign country, and on my return witnessed the conduct
of the lower classes in public buildings, I would not have
believed that they belonged to the same nation, or were
the same class of people at all. The only unseemly
conduct Sir John Britton said he had noticed was that
of the vergers, and such functionaries demanding
money. Mr. Cunningham, the author of " Lives of
British Artists," and other wo-ks of importance, was in
favour of free admission to public buildings. He further
said, that those men usually called " the mob "—the
operatives—as far as he knew, generally conducted
themselves in these places with great decorum.—
(Cheers.) Mr. Edward R. Bray, the historian of West-
minster Abbey, bore similar testimony. It should be re-
collected that 45,200/. of the public money had been
voted by Parliament in the years 1807, 1808, 1809,
1810, and 1811, towards the improvement of West-
minster Abbey, and those buildings abOut it. He (Mr.
Hume) had received communications from the Bishops
of Wells, Winchester, and Norwich, and all these pre-
lates were in favour of public admission to public build-
ings, subject of course to proper restrictions. Lord
Melbourne had told him (Mr. Hume) that, when a boy,
at Westminster, there was only a charge of twopence or
threepence to the chapel—all other parts of the edifice
were then open to the public. After some further ob-
servations the Hon. Member concluded by entreating
the House to pass the resolution.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WYSE seconded the motion, and, in doing so,
said he thought that his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Montrose, was deserving of the highest praise for the
perseverance and intelligence which he had shown in
bringing the subject before the House. He (Mr.Wyse)
thought it was a reproach to the country at large not to
allow the population to have free access to all our public
works of art, and public monuments. He thought the
time was, now come when that prohibition should be re-
moved. Let the House for one moment look at the con-
duct of the immense number of persons who witnessed
the exhibition of the cartoons last year. Thousands
upon thousands visited that exhibition without a single
scratch occurring to any picture. Cheap catalogues were
published, and fifty thousand were sold in a very short
time ; and it was interesting to know that many who
purchased these cheap catalogues were induced to pur
chase the higher priced catalogues, for the purpose of
obtaining more information with respect to the pictures
than was obtained in the cheap books. Tranquillity
and peace pervaded that exhibition, but, above all, there
was improvement for the people.. If such a feeling was
shown by the people last year on the occasion of the ex-
hibition of the cartoons, why should that feeling be dis-
trusted now with respect to the public exhibition of our
monuments and works of art ? Look at the example
of Bavaria and Poland, where the public monuments were
opened without the least restriction. It was useless
to think of encouraging an art, unless they at the same
time endeavoured to cultivate a taste for it in the minds
of the people. What was more likely to exalt the
English character still higher, than placing constantly
before the eyes of the people the history of their country?
What better means could be found of placing that history
constantly before their eyes than this, of freely opening
our public monuments and works of art? He sincerely
wished that the Government would follow the noble ex-
ample which had been set them in this respect by France,
and it was with this view that he cordially supported the
motion of his Hon. Friend.

Sir R. H. INGLIS said he should oppose the motion.
He thought there would be very little difference between
the debates of preceding years, upon this subject, and the
debate of that night. The only difference was, that this
year the motion was brought forward in April, whereas,
in former years it had generally been brought forward
in July or August. He feared that in opposing
the motion he would have to use the same argu-
ments which had been used from year to year
on this subject, and that nothing new would be dis-
covered in what he had to say. The Hon. Gentleman
who had brought forward this motion had done so on
the ground that cathedrals were national property, and
that by opening them freely to the public, means would
be afforded of promoting not merely the intellectual en-
joyments of the people, but also of strengthening their
religious principles. In the first place, how did the
Hon. Gentleman make out that cathedrals were national
property? They had not been endowed by the nation,
and with the single exception of St. Paul's, not one had
been built by the nation.

Mr. HUME—They were given by Parliament.
Sir R. INGLIS thought the utmost that the greatest
latitudinarian had ever contended for was, that they had
been transferred, but this he (Sir R. H. Inglis) was pre-
pared to deny. At the time of the reformation, these
cathedrals belonged to the clergy, and when that clergy
changed their. faith, the cathedrals went with them, and
were still retained by them as their property. If the
Hon. Gentleman could by any means show that the
opening of the cathedrals would be the means of en-
lightening the people, then he (Sir R. H. Inglis) would
be willing to admit that it would be competent for the
Government to consider, looking to vested interests and
the rights. of property, how far the proposition of the
Honourable . Gentleman could be carried out.
He (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not believe that
there was a necessary connection between in-
tellectual and moral excellence, and, therefore, he did
not feel called upon to support this motion. At the
brightest period of the intellectual world, they had
found that there existed the greatest masses of public
and private corruption. Many were the instances of
great taste being_ connected with great personal depra-
vity ; and for these reasons he was satisfied that, to
make the people skilful judges of statuary and painting,
was not the soundest mode of enlightening them in the
doctrines of Christianity. He was, however, still less
prepared to assent to the second Bert of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's proposition. The Hon. Gentleman reluctantly
admitted that it was necessary to have come admission-
fee, in order to maintain the necessary officers. He (Sir
R.ll. Inglis) would not enter into the question of whe-
the-r sixpence was a high charge or not t'or admission to
Westminster Abbey, but this he would say, that it was
a very small sum compared with what it was formerly.
It was evident that some funds would be required, and
there were but two modes of raising those funds, either
by means of a small fee for admission, or by paying the
necessary officers out of the taxes. He believed that it
was not suggested that the funds'should come out of the
ecclesiastical revenues; and of the two modes of raising
those funds which he had mentioned, the best, in his
belief, was by imposing a small admission-fee on those
who were the recipients of the advantages to be derived
from witnessing our works of art. The Hon. Gentle.
man attached great importance to those advantages, but
he (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not think they were so great
as they had been represented. The Hon. Gentleman,
(Mr. Hume) expressed a wish that what he called incon-
gruous monuments should be removed from St. Paul's and
Westminster Abbey. To a great extent he sympathised
with that feeling; he was one of those who could not
regard without horror the mixture of allegory with
truth, the introduction of heathen gods and goddesses
into places of religious worship ; and he would be glad
to see monuments which were open to this objection re-
moved. In the case of St. Paul's especially, where no
one of the monuments objected to on this ground, that
contained representations of Mars, Bellona, or Nep-
tune, covered the remains of the deceased person, he
could see no impropriety in the proposed removal. With
respect to the monument to James Watt by Sir Francis
Chantrey, he would venture to say that there was no
person having the smallest . pretension to re-
ligious feeling, who would not consider that
that monument was utterly misplaced. He was not pre •
_pared to deny that there was great value in the sugges-
tion that it might be very convenient to remove from
many of our public edifices. and especially from West-
minster Abbey and St. Paul's, those incongruous monu-
ments which had been placed in them within the last
century and a half.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentle-
man had made another suggestion, which he thought
was well worthyof his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel's)
consideration. It was that of forming in England, what
had long existed in France, a commission to take charge
or national monuments. In his opinion it would be de-
sirable, if possible, to include other objects. There
could be no doubt whatever that the owner of Stone-
henge might, if he chose, destroy the relics which stood
there.— (Hear, hear.) No law proceeding, which could
issue. from any Court would prevent their destruction.
He ventured to hope, from the character of his country-
men, that the chances of such an event were very re-
mote ; but it would- be recollected that within the last
twenty-five years, one of the Logan stones in Cornwall
had actually been removed, although the party who had
it removed had been subsequently induced to restore it
to its former place. Differing, as
-he had the misfortune
generally to do from the lion. Gentleman opposite on
this subject, he _had thought it right, when he could
agree with him, to state that agreement to the House.
He trusted that the suggestions which had been made
would not be neglected by his Right Hon. Friend, though
at the same time he felt bound to resist the motion be-
fore the House. _ _ _

Mr. M. MILNES would not follow the Honourable
Baronet through the various topics which he had intro-
duced into his speech. There was nothing in the motion
which required that he should do so. There was no one
phrase in this resolution which in any way raised the
question whether cathedrals were or were not subject to
the control of the State; still less was there anything
in it which favoured the opinion that moral and intel-
lectual motives and principles were in any degree more
important than religious.—(Hear, hear.) The proposal
before the House was simply that they should confirm
what hid already been confirmed by the report of the
Committee, by the implied consent of the Noble Lord at
the hind of her Majesty's late Government, and by the
unwearied support which had been given to the views,
stated in the resolution by the Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of the present Government.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, cat the subject of receiving fees at the duors
of cathedral churches, he was opposed to many
for whose opinions he had the greatest respect. He
declared, with unfeigned earnestness, that he regarded
the reception of any fee at the door of a church as a
gross desecration.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition
benches.) The Hon. Baronet (Sir H. Inglis) knew as
well as he did that these buildings were raised for far
higher purposes; and to exclude people from the possi-
ble participation in those purposes was, as far as possi-
ble, to nullify the objects of their founders, and to
render these edifices, which were .thepride of our. coun-
try, morally and religiously useless.—(Bear, hear.) Why
was service performed w they every day, unless that