The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-31 00:00:00

-
that the building was the parish church of the Parliament. '
The speaker of their House, and all Members who chose to ac-
company him, once a year attended public worship there, and
it was for that reason that peculiar privileges were attached to
it, which ought not lightly to be withheld.
Captain OSBORNE hoped the Hon. Member (Mr. Borth-
wick) would press his opposition to a division, and he for one
would vote with him, and that upon the statement of the
Chancellor of the Exchequet, for it was evident that that Hon.
Member's private opinion was against the church, though as
Chancellor of the Exchequer he naturally asked where was the
money to come from for its substitute.
Mr. HINDLEY suggested the postponement of the vote.
Lord SANDON defended the vote, considering the state of
religious education and instruction in the country. He could
not consent to any course that would interfere with the appli-
cation of funds for such purposes as those set forth. He would
set himself against the feeling so generally expressed by the
House. _ .

Mr. J. A. SMITH supported the postponement of the vote.
After a few words from Lord SANDON and Mr. OSBORNE,
Mr. SHELL wished to know if ever her Majesty's Ministers,
or the Members of the House, attended St. Margaret's
church ?--(Laughter.) It was his impression that it was very
rarely need by them. He considered St. Margaret's church
was an eye-sore to the neighbourhood, and materially inter-
fered with the view of the Abbey. It would also interfere
with the view of that magnificent building they were now
erecting. It would be highly improper that they should sacri-
fice 800,0001. for the conservation of that, the removal of
which would only cost -40,0001., and which affected so much
the beauty of the neighbourhood.
Mr. HAWES objected to the church of St. Margaret's
being considered an eye-sore. He generally agreed with the
Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool.
Mr. OSBORN F, explained. He thought that they should
remove any obstacle that would mar the general effect of the
great pubiic buildings in this locality.
Sir J. GRAHAM agreed with the Noble Lord the Member
for Liverpool, and with the remarks made by the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He considered
the repairs ought to be provided for, and he did not think a
more economic sum could be named than the amount stated in

the vote.
Mr. PROTHEROE considered St. Margaret's church a
fair specimen of undecorated Gothic architecture, and if it were
removed it would display the most defective part of the Abbey.
He was of opinion that the church in question was very well
adapted for the purposes of worship. He would support the

vote.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL considered that it would be a
great advantage if the church and churchyard were removed.
He thought there would be no difficulty in getting a new site
for the church.
Mr. E •,COTT thought the church was a nuisance, and
ought to be removed.
Mr. P. BORT EIWICK said he would press the motion to a
division, as he had not heard anything to alter his views on the
subject. The expense of pulling down the church and erect-
ing a stew one in its stead in a more convenient site, would be
20,0001. He did not see why the churchyard should be pro-
faned by a public footway, and the funeral service disturbed by
idle smoking fellows lounging about there.
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said the Committee ought to
pause before they decided upon the subject. He would recom-
mend a postponement of the vote.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declined to
accede to the suggestion of the Gallant Officer.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the vote 44
Against it l9
Majority
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote proposed was 2,0001. for the repair of the
public statues of the metropolis.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the statue of Cromwell should be
placed among the statues which were to adorn the new Houses
of Parliament. Few men placed in his position, and in his
time, were stained with fewer crimes. Surely the name of
Cromwell de3erved as much respect in this country as that of
Napoleon in France.
Mr. HUTT jocosely observed that the eulogium of the Hon.
Member for Coventry must be gratifying to the manes of Oliver
Cromwell. He had not, however, heard that the statue of
Cromwell had been excluded from the design of the new Houses
of Parliament ; in fact, he had been informed of the contrary.
The vote was agreed to.
A vote of 1,8151. was agreed to, to defray the expenses of
certain officers in Scotland.
A vote of 6,4641. was proposed for the payment of officers of
the household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE said that last year there had
been a great deal of discussion on this subject, and it was un-
derstood that the Government were not anxious to continue
this useless expenditure of public money. It had been even
rumoured that the present would be the last Lord Lieutenant.
He wished to know if such was the intention of Government?
Sir. R. PEEL said he could not then, the Hon. Gentleman
having given no notice of his question, reply to it.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he had been deterred from making
a motion on the subject, in consequence of the hopes which the
Government held out of proposing the abolition of the office.
The vote was agreed to.
A sum of 39,0001. was proposed to defray the expenses of
her Majesty's foreign and other secret service.
Mr. WILLIAMS said he opposed the vote last year, and
would do so in the present year, on the same ground ; that, in
a time of peace, and when all nations were at amity with one
another, so large a sum should be employed for purposes which
properly belonged to periods of trouble and warfare. He would
move, as an amendment, that the vote be reduced to 20,0001
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ...
Against it ...
Majority
EDUCATION IN ENGLAND.

56
-47

_
75,0001. was agreed to, without opposition, for promoting
education in Great Britain.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

75,0001. was next proposed to the National Board of Educa-
tion in Ireland,for the purpose of defraying the expenses of edu-
cation in connexion with it.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON protested against the principle
involved in the vote, as it excluded other societies, having
for their object the promotion of education, from it. He did
not, however, feel it his duty to raise a discussion on its merits,
on account of the absence of Irish Members.
Mr. B. OSBORNE referred to a statement made by the
Bi.hop of Cashel at a meeting, in which he set forth that 75
out of every Ii 0 of the people of Ireland could neither read
nor write. He could not charge that Right Rev. Prelate with
suggestio falsi, but with having been guilty of suppresio /seri,
as his observation,: could only apply to children under ten, and
not youneer than five, years.
Mr. WYSE wished to know whether it was the intention of
the Goer-rnment to establish any model schools in Ireland?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was the intention of the
Board of Education of Inland to establish model schools in
certain districts in Ireland.
Mr. Fl l'Z ROY hoped the grant would effect great good.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said the Board of Education in Ire-
land should be composed of persons of different sects, that they
might see that the money voted to them was properly expended.
He also hoped that they would meet in a friendly, instead of a
hostile spirit, for the purpose of promoting secular education,
and for emulating the youth of Ireland of different religious de-
nominations to a generous, not a jealous, spirit of rivalry. The
National Board of Education had done great good.
Lord C. HAMILTON had always opposed the National
Board, as he believed al, e ter system might be adopted. The
most liberal education VC.I3 imparted in the schools belonging to
the Church Education Society.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL referred to the report of a meet-
ing at which the National Board was denounced in a gross
manner by parties who were members of the Church Educa-
tion Society.
Mr. OSBORNE—When the Noble Lord asks why this was
not an united system he would tell him. The fact was because
the Protestant clergy had refused to give their attendance to
these schools, while the Roman Catholic clergy had done their
utmost to prove that they were interested in the improvement
of the people. If the Noble Lori had thrown overboard his
consistency with regard to Maynooth, why should he not give
his consistency to the winds on other points?
Lord C. HAMILTON was quite prepared to defend his con-
sistency on both points, but he did not think that this was the
time to enter on such a discussion.
A vote of 4,911/. was then agreed to, for defraying the ex-
penses of the School of Design, after a few words from Mr.
WILLIAMS.
It was then moved that 7,3801. be appropriated to the pay-
ment of the professors of the Scotch Universities.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved the sum be re-
duced to 7,226/.
The House then divided, when there appeared :-9
Far the amendment •. 9
Against it
Majority against the amendment —s7
A sum of 2,1001. was then voted for the Belfast Instituti
which was disputed on the ground of its being enormous.
Mr. HINDLEY said that he felt that though the opinions
which he represented were very unpopular in that House,
they had a large constituency out of doors, and he therefore
felt bound to omisse the motion ; but on a motion to divide
the House, Mr. Hindley said, that he saw his own movement
was fruitless, and he would accordingly withdraw it.
On the vote of 42,4001. being proposed for the British
Museum,
Mr. WYSE thought that a distinct building ought to be
appropriated to the reception of antique sculptures and other
treasures of antiquity. The expense would be but little in-
creased to the country, and the advantages to the fine arts
would be invaluable. He had no desire to take up the time of
the Hose, but he hoped the Right Hors. Baronet would give
this subject his lull consideration during the recess, as it was
his (Mr. Wyse's) intention to bring the subject before the
House during the next session.
Sir R. PEEL. said that he was fully aware of the importance
of the subject adverted to by the Hon. Member, to the arts
of the country, but it would be out of the power of the Govern-
ment to accede to his preposition, as there were already so
many claims of a similar character upon them, while they had
no fund to which they might refer for such a proposition. So
averse was he to any further vote on this subject, that he would
rather assist out of his own private means, to the erection of
such a separate building for the reception of these antiquities
(if such a building were really required) than further to tax
the people for the support of public institutions.
Mr. PROT HEROE did not consider with the Hon. Member
(Mr. Wyse) that the style of the newer portion of the British
Museum was so out of character, as regarded its architecture,
that these sculptures could not be received into it ; and before
voting an increase of money for a separate building, he should
wish to know where the antiquities to fill it were to come
from.—( Laughter.)
Mr. WARBURTON thought that such a space would be
required for the remnants of mediaeval architecture, that
the country should not be put to the expense of providing such
erections.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK did not consider that these rem-
nants; were so numerous as the Hon. Member opposite seemed
to imagine.
After a few words from Mr. W YSE, in explanation, the vote
was agreed to,
The sum of 50,0001. in addition to the former vote of
100,0001. was then proposed for civil contingencies.
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to that part of the vote which
roal s
re r cciamjepsrteyh,sen,stps lthenfcowstaorf. exciunresionßsismhaodpe
obfy bGisibhpt ai n hh ad
i‘
brought an expense upon the country of 3101. 10s. 3d., in-
brou
c
tol
u
Cd
ian
dg
izl, owol.ll.ofeortit:itinc: upgzatopeLrifsobromn,edantdhelB,la.mtheednices.
tance at a cost of 251.ThBsh
The Bishop
of Barbahopof Antigioui a allsBo9lrd3esntaialnedd
an expense of 147/., the
the Bishop of Nova Scotia 1891. 35., ai
125/., making altogether a sum of somewhat r eosf Newfoundland
about 900/. 9s. 1 Id.,
aswell a
which
ebne
edxepdeunedteedd from
p the
E
palian clergymen in Scotland. He did not see why the con-
gregations who attended upon the ministry of those ecclesias-
tics, should not support them in the same way that the Free
Church Ministers were supported by their congregations. He
I should, therefore, decidedly oppose the granting of both these
sums.
Sir C. NAPIER said that his Hon. Friend behind seemed
to be somewhat mistaken in his statement of the Manner in
which this money was expended. If it were proved that the
Bishops had gone on these excursions in the exercise of their
duties, he should not think of deducting the imm from their
pay any more than he would do so from the captain of a man-
of-war under similar cireumstannes ; but if they did so for
their own pleasure, then, by all means, he said, keep it (nit of
their accounts.--( Laughter. )
The CHANCELLOR of the AXCHEQVER explained