The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 7, 1844.

r 29—P. J. Papillon, wine merchant, Leeds, Aug. 30—N.
Procter, tanner, Leeds, Aug. 29 —G. Parker, spade manufac-
turer, Sheffield, Aug. 29—J. Mayn, merchant, Mylor, Corn-
wall, Aug. 29—T. Westren, maltster, Brushford, Devonshire,
Aug. 15—T. Kearsley and T. Watt, bone merchants, Run-
corn, Cheshire, Aug. 29—J. Falkingham, bacon factor, Brad-
ford, Yorkshire, Aug. 27 —J. Taylor, miller, Carlisle,
Cumberland, Aug. 27—T. Newton, cattle dealer, Holbeach,
Lincolnshire, Aug. 27—W. Parson, grocer, Southampton,
Aug. 27—J. S. Tolson, fancy cloth manufacturer, Hudders-
field, Yorkshire, Aug. 27—W. Chamberlain, linen draper,
Peckham, Aug. 27—C. Nichols, bookseller, Wakefield, York-
shire, Aug. 27.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. A. Baucutt and H. W. Sanders, chemists, Stourport,
Worcestershire—B. and J. Berry, cotton dyers, Huddersfield,
Yerkshire—J. and R. Simpson, tobacco manufacturers, Leeds
—C. Ward and R. Fearnley, copper smiths, Houndsditch-
-13. Field, W. Field, and B. Field, jun., wine merehants, St.
Mary-axe—A. Wilkin and E. Preston, ship brokers, Liverpool
—E. P. White, S. Edkins, and J. C. Edkins, tea dealers,
Coventry-street, Westminster (so far as regards E. P. White)—
A. Waters and W. Kane, surgeons, Exmouth—M. Humble
and 'l'. Milcrest, ship builders, Liverpool—J. and L. Winder,
plumbers, Manchester—J. Burrows and J. Blakey, pawn-
brokers, Leeds—C. Albino, A. Mazzuki, and J. Mantora, pic-
ture-frame makers, Union-court, Holborn-hill (so far as re-
gards J. Mantora)—R. Edmonds and T. T. Fawcett, mer-
chants, Trump-street, City—W. and J. Williams, wine mer-
chants, Alcester, Warwickshire-4. and W. S. Shuttleworth,
tea dealers, Nottingham—H. Puplett and W. Jackson, woollen
drapers, Stockport, Cheshire—W. Miller and W. M'Kinley,
engravers, Manchester.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.
JOSEPH RANSON, glass merchant, Perth, Aug. 13 and
Sept. 3, at one, at the chambers of Gray and Jamieson, Perth.
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 6.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.;
At a Quarter before Four o'clock the SPEAKER re
sumed the Chair, when

Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that, early in the en-
suing session, he would move for leave.to bring in a Bill
for the prevention of the smoke nuisance. He begged
also to give notice that he would take an early oppor-
tunity, in the next session, of moving for leave to bring
in a Bill to prevent interments in churches, or chapels,
or grounds in large towns.
Sir Augustus Clifford, the Usher of the Black Rod,
then summoned the House to hear the Royal assent
given to various Bills (for which see Lords' report).
RAILWAY BILL—LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The SPEAKER having returned, and resumed the Chair,
the House went into Committee on the Lords' amend-
ments to the Railways Bill,
Mr. GLADSTONE said he had befOte stated to
the House the view which the Select Committee
on Railways had entertained on this subject. The
amendment of the Honourable Member for Wolver-
hampton went to impose on the Government the
duty of superintending and managing third-class trains;
and he had stated that in his opinion that was a duty
which it was impossible for the Government satisfac-
torily to discharge. The effect of the Lords' amend-
ments was to restrict the compulsory obligation to run
particular trains, subject to the control of the Board of
Trade, to every week-day in Scotland, and in England
to every week day except Christmas-day and Good Friday.
So far, therefore, the Board of Trade had nothing to do
with any Sunday train. But a clause had been intro-
duced into the Bill in the House of Lords, which laid
down the principle, that if railway companies should
run any trains at all on Sundays for passengers,
they should run at least one train for the
purpose of conveying third-class passengers. It
was objected, however, that the Legislature did not
provide for limiting the fare of third-class passengers on
Sundays ; and if any limitation should be proposed con-
sistent with the general principle of the Bill, he should
not oppose it. Another which he wished to mention
with regard to the amendments was, that the effect of
the Bill as it stood would be that, if the company ran
third-class carriages, they need only stop at the
stations for the other trains. A proposition had been
made that the third-class carriages should be coveted
and provided with seats. He hoped the House would
notinsist on the insertion of any provision of that kind.
He must confess that he did not think they could adopt
such a proposition with justice to the railway companies;
and he was convinced, that if such a stringent enactment
were carried some arrangement would be adopted by
the railway companies which would be most inconve-
nient to those whom it was intended to benefit. He,
therefore, proposed that the House should accede, to the
amendments introduced into the Bill by the Lords. If
any amendment with respect to the rate of fare or any
other matter were adopted, it would necessarily delay the
period of the Bill receiving the Royal assent ; and under
those circumstances, he trusted the House would be sa-
tisfied with the arrangement which he proposed.
Mr. THORNELY said he was very glad that the
principle upon which his amendment was founded, that
if trains were run at all on Sunday, there should be trains
for third-class passengers, had received the sanction of
both Houses of Parliament. He felt it his duty now to
propose that the charge for the conveyance of passengers
by the Sunday trains should not exceed the price charged
for conveyance by the week trains, viz., Id. per mile.
Mr. ENTWISLE said the reason why he had op-
posed the Hon. Member's amendment on a former
occasion was, that while conferring a boon on tho work-
ing classes, it would compel the servants of the
company to remain on duty during the whole day. He
objected also to the amendment now proposed.
Mr. Thornely's amendment was then agreed to ;
the other amendments of the Lords were agreed to ; the
Chairman reported progress, and the repOrt was receive&
CONGRATULATORY ADDRESS TO HER
MAJESTY.

Sir R. PEEL said—l am convinced I shall be acting
in accordance with the unanimous feeling of this House
if I avail myself of the earliest opportunity of proposing
that we should offer o her Majesty our cordial
congratulations on the happy event which has taken
place this day.—(Cheers.) I am sure that there
will be one feeling of universal satisfaction through-
out this country that an, addition, has taken place
to her Majesty's family, and that thus there is an in-
creased guarantee that the Throne of these realms will
long continue in the direct descendants of her Majesty.
Every increase of domestic happiness to her Majesty
will, I am sure, be a cause of grateful satisfaction to her
faithful Commons. And, I therefore beg to
move at once, that this House do present an address
to her Majesty, expressing the sentiments which I have
uttered.--(Cheers.)__

Lord MARCUS HILL seconded the motion.
An address, which was the echo of the Right Hon.
Baronet's speech, was then read by the Clerk, put by
the Speaker, and agreed to.
CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS
(IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. SHEIL presented a petition from the Roman
Catholic .clergy of the diocese of Cashel against the
Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Bill, on the
ground that such matters belonged exclusively to eccle-
siastics. He must say that he believed this petition was
drawn up under a misconception of the effect of the Bill—
a Bill which he, for one, must say he could not refrain
from expressing his approbation.
trading Mr. J. O'CONNELL presented a petition from
Dublin, signed by 196,000 persons, in favour of the re-
peal of the legislative union. Also 73 petitions from
Kerry and other places in Ireland, Salford, Newfound-
ionngt containing, i n
theg, ins all,Sabbath.
a3th0.0,000
ePfrplacerceet:nted a petition from St.
Ann's,
signatures, nn.Adni,,rs. Canada,mi3iAtestioiT f and other
againstmAheeNr
ir. CHRISM viSiUshper toRY know from the Hon.
Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government,
whether the statements contained in the Morning Herald
newspaper, which was now considered the organ of the
Government, were correct, that it was intended to give
the franchise from Sudbury to part of the county of
Middlesex ?
Sir R. PEEL had not heard the report alluded to by
the Hon. Member, that the county of
Middlesex was to
enjoy the spoils of Sudbury.—(Hear.) Supposing,
however, that the Government had come to any decision
upon the subject, he thought it would be most unwise to
state what that determination was.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to know upon what day
it was intended to adjourn the House and for what period.
He was also desirous of knowing when the decision was
likely to take place in the case of the Queen v. O'Connell.
Sir R. PEEL said that no decision would be given till
the judges came to town, and he understood that when
they did so they were anxious to have a conference. The
prorogation, however, would not take place until the de-
cision in that case was given. It was his intention either
to-morrow, or Thursday, to move the adjournment to a
certain period, with a view to have the opinions of their
Lordships on the case of Mr. O'Connell.
THE TIMBER TRADE.
Mr. HAWES then proceeded to call the attention of
the President of the Board of Trade to the petition of
the merchants and importers of deals and other woods.
In the next session it was his intention to call the atten-
tion of the Government more fully to the subject.
Mr. GLADSTONE regretted that such a subject
should be brought under the consideration of the House
at such a period. He thought it inexpedient to
meddle with the duties on timber at least for
the present session. lie was happy to be
able to inform the House, that after nine
months' experience of the working of the new law,
he did not hesitate to say that, as far as the revenue was
concerned, there would be no loss.
Mr. HAWES having replied, the subject dropped.
COMMON-LAW PROCESS—CONFE.RENCE.
Mr. PRINGLE here appeared at the bar and stated
that the House of Lords wished a conference upon the
Courts of Common Law Process Bill.
A conference was agreed to, which several Hon.
Members were appointed to conduct.
After an absence of some length the members of the
conference returned, and
Mr. PRINGLE stated that they had had a conference
with their Lordships, and had left the reasons, disagree-
ing from their Lordships' amentdhmernLo
t,lrvdshi
with the members
of the conference appointed their
Another conference with the Lords was then ap-
pointed on the Art-Unions Bill.
Mr. WYSE returned, and stated that their Lordships
the
that B
theseili. The
ciau clauses Hon. Gen-
tleman
ought to
refused to agree to the clauses which gave protection to
certain
stated, publishers i
n hisnamed
opinion,in
be retained. Protection bad been given to persons
against whom qui tam actions had been brought, and he
thought it was not too much to ask for protection for
these eminent publishers. lie therefore moved that the
House do insist on its amendments.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think it would be politic to put this question at issue.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, that if the Government
thought then amendments were just, they ought to do
all in their power to have them carried. Ho thought
the House ought to insist upon these amendments.

After a few observations from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER and Mr. BERNAL,
Sir R. PEEL hoped that the result of their differences
would not be the loss of the Bill, and the exposing of
parties to penalties which they had incurred from vio-
lating the law. He thought they ought to delay the
further consideration of the motion.

Mr. WYSE agreed to postpone
.his motion till to-
morrow at twelve o'clock.

COUNTY CORONERS BILL.

A message from the Lords informetrth-eHouse that
their Lordships had agreed to a conference on the County
Coroners Bill on Thursday next, at five o'clock.
CHURCH PATRONAGE (IRELAND).
Captain BERNAL then rose to move for copies of any
letters or instructions which might have been written to
Lord Heytesbury, relative to the future disposal of
Church patronage in Ireland, with reference to the
Education Board. He deprecated the course that
had been pursued by the government of Lord De
Grey, as to the appointments that had been made.
The late Lord-Lieutenant had appointed thirty-nine
chaplains—an unprecedented number ; and he (Captain
Bernal) understood that the present Lord-Lieutenant
had re-appointed the same persons, all of whom were
opposed to the national system of education. The Right
Honourable Baronet on a former occasion, stated
that the feeling against the national system of
education was fast subsiding. Now he (Captain Bernal)
would venture to say that nobody who was acquainted
with Ireland would-say that this was the case. Imme-
diately after the letter by the Right Hon. Gentleman,
which was written to the Lord-Lieutenant in 1841, one
of the Prelates recently appointed, in a sermon, gene;
rally stated that the national system of education of
Ireland inculcated Deism or Mahomedanism. Now this
man was a bishop, and he (Captain Bernal) would ask
what would be the effect of such opinions upon the cler-
gymen in that Bishop's diocese ? Another clergyman,
Dr. Daly, in speaking of national education, said that
the Right lion. Gentleman, in supporting such a system,
was only entering into a God-denying compact with the
Catholics. Now he (Captain Bernal) could not but
think that if the Right Hon. Baronet and the Govern-
ment were sincere in their intentions of carrying out na-
tional education, they would find no difficulty in modi-
fying the opinions of such vituperative clergymen
as these. He had heard of lawyers roaring
like lions in the Rotunda against national education, yet
voting like asses for an increase in the grant for carrying
it out. If it had not been for the system of national
education in Ireland there would have been a rebellion
in Ireland. He called on the Right Hon. Baronet to
give some specific pledge to that House of his sincerity,
and he called on him to produce the correspondence
which had taken place between himself and the Lord-
Lieutenant on the subject of the disposal of Church
patronage in Ireland.
_ _

Sir R. PEEL said it was perfectly true that he had
stated, in the course of a discussion on Irish affairs, that
he had written, in September, 1841, a letter to the Lord-
Lieutenant, to the effect quoted by the Hon. Gentleman.
Whether the words were exactly the same he could not
answer for, but the purport of the letter was that to
which the Hon. Gentleman had referred. He thought
that in the course of that debate it was stated that one
cause of the inefficiency of the Irish Church was, that
for a long series of years Church patronage had been
made subservient to political interest. He stated then
that at any rate that charge could not apply to the
present Government, for shortly after the appointment
of Lord De Grey he had intimated to the Lord-
Lieutenant that the opinion of her Majesty's Govern-
ment was, that the best mode of strengthening the Irish
Church was to appoint to offices in that Church men of
unblemished private character and of the highest pro-
fessional merit, and upon the understanding from Lord
De Grey that it was his intention to make that quali-
fication general, he (Sir R Peel) informed him that he
should never receive from him any solicitation on account
of Parliamentary interest. That engagement was lite-
rally and punctually fulfilled. He never did press on
the Lord-Lieutenant any merely political or Par-
liamentary claim, believing that Lord De Grey would
exercise the patronage in the Irish Church according to
the principles laid down in his (Sir R. Peel's) letter
with respect to it. His firm belief was, that Lord De
Grey acted in strict conformity with those recommenda-
tions. He did not believe that Parliamentary interest
bad influenced Lord De Grey in his appointments. The
Hon. Gentleman said that he (Sir R. Peel) had recently
exhibited zeal in behalf of the national system of educa-
tion. This was not the fact, for when. he was in office
in the year 1835 there was an increased grant proposed
for national education. During the whole time the late
Government was in office had he ever opposed this vote?
No; on the contrary, during that period, it received his
cordial support. It was true that he had stated that the
opinions against the national system of education were
roenp
otrhte
odfe c
theli ne .
otemsitsas eoH dn that
eohn the
ea
ruitnhtoe r in
dt ye
d of
that
ht he
at
system. He would, in support of this opinion, read to
the House a statement of the number of schools which
had been in existence under the present system since
the year 1839 :

Schools. Scholars.
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
This appeared to him to be a complete demonstration
that the system was increasing. He believed that much
misapprehension existed with respect to the national
system of education. An impression had gained ground
that the Divine Scriptures were excluded from the
schools. This was most erroneous. He had only to re-
peat that it was the intention of the Government to give
their warm and cordial support to this plan of national
education. His refusal to establish a separate grant for
the Established Church was as strong a proof as he
could give of his disposition cordially to support the
national system of education. If they were to establish
a separate grant, the Presbyterian would ask for a similar
grant, and then there would be three grants for the same
purpose. With respect to the particular document
which the Hon. Gentleman had called for, he had to in-
form him that no such correspondence was in existence.
Lord Heytesbury knew that it was the intention of the
Government to give their cordial support to the national
system of education ; but he had received no instruc-
tions to appoint persons in the Church who were favour-
able to that system, and them only ; as, in his (Sir R.
Peel's) opinion, such a course would have the effect of
retarding rather than advancing the progress of that
system.
Mr. WYSE did not think a separate grant would be
advantageous either to the Roman Catholics or the
Church. He did not think that the system of national
education could be worked out well, while the digni-
taries of the Church of Ireland were so hostile to it.

Lord EBRINGTON regretted that the tone which
had been adopted by the Right Hon. Baronet that night
had not always been the same. If the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had indulged in the same tone when he was in
opposition, many of the difficulties with which the na-
tional system of education in Ireland had to contend
would be removed. He did not know whether the Right
Hon. Baronet had or had not given the system a silent
vote, but he never expressed himself favourable to it.
With respect to the appointments made by the Lord
Lieutenant, with whom he was most nearly connected,
he would say that he looked more to the opinions held
by the clergymen he advanced on the subject of national
education than to their political opinions.
Mr. DARBY said that he knew Mr. Woodward to
be an excellent and able clergyman, and it would be very
hard indeed if such a clergyman was not to receive pre-
ferment in the Church, because he might have held cer-
tain opinions on the subject of national education. But
whether the clergy had or had not objections to the
system of national education, he thought now that the
system was adopted they would act more wisely in visit-
ing the schools and superintending them, than in keep-
ing aloof altogether.—(Hear, hear.) He thought they
ought to visit the schools and improve them as much as
possible. He thought it would not be wise to lay down
any rule on the subject of preferment in the Church.
Mr. SHEIL said that they did not call on the Right
Hon. Gentieman to lay down any rule, but they com-
plained that wherever the rule was, the practice of the
Government in Ireland was contrary to the policy which
the Right Hon. Gentleman had professed in that House.
He said that they had determined to give the system of
national education their cordial support ; but how had
the Ministry given it their cordial support ? He denied
that in the policy which they adopted in Ireland they
had given a cordial support to their own system. He
did not mean to say that they were not sincere in their
intention of supporting that system. It was to be re-
marked that they had excluded from preferment all those
who were favourable to the system of national education.
He did not mean to say that they should lay down any
rule, but he thought that some of those who supported
the system of national education should be promoted.
Who bad they promoted ? They had promoted Dr.
O'Brien Dr. Daly, Mr. Newman, and Mr. M‘Ginnis,
whose hostility to the system was openly avowed and
undisguised. By promoting such men they counteracted
their own objects.—(Hear.) They did no service to the
Church by such a policy ; for they placed it in opposi-
sition to the people.—(Hear, hear.) It became odious
to the people.—(Hear, hear.) They opposed a phalanx
of hostile persons to the best measure of education that
could be devised for Ireland. They arrayed an oppo-
sition to a useful measure. The Right Hon. Gentleman
said that he did not control Lord De Grey in his appoint-
ments. It was said that the Irish Church was a per-
quisite of the Lord Lieutenant's. It was most extraor-
dinary that the Irish Secretary had no control over the
appointments in the Irish Church, nor had the Home
Secretary. It was all in the hands of the Lord Lieu-
tenant. He (Mr. Shcil) denied that this was merely a
political question—it was a religious question, a moral
question. From the Education Board would flow great
public usefulness, morality, charity, and Christian love.
If so, the question was not a political question ; it was a
religious and moral question, and they were acting in an
imprudent and impolitic manner in not giving some pre-
ferment to clergymen who supported the system of na-
tional education, who had equal merits with those whom
they preferred, and who were opposed to the system.
The Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had declared
in that Hulse, and had surprised the Rouse, and raised
great indignation in Ireland, when he said that the con-
duct of Protestant clergymen had been most factious in
ther opposition to that system.
Lord ELIOT signified dissent.
Mr. SHEIL--The Noble Lord had used the word
factious, and he was for months afterwards made the
subject of attack in the Evening Mail He would show
that the Noble Lord had used the word, and he was sur-
prised that the Noble Lord's memory was so defective
on this point. Perhaps it was an unhappy expression,
but the Noble Lord had made use of it. It was not his
intention to reproach the Government, but surely they
ought to act in conformity with the opinions they had
avowed themselves. They had preferred thirty-nine
individuals, only two of whom were in favour of the na-
tional system of education. But it was a misfortune that
the intentions of Government were always counteracted
by the officials in Dublin. In the late publication of