The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-07-20 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

Lord J. MANNERS asked Lord J. Russell whether a new
clause, introduced in the trust deeds of schools, built with
government assistance, had the sanction of the govern-
ment, and whether any application from clergymen for
aid in building schools would be invalidated, unless they
consented to the terms of such trust deeds ? The noble
lord also asked if there was any foundation for the report

he gover

the so-called national system of education established in

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that with regard to the first
question of the noble lord, before the present government
were in office certain propositions and conditions were
-placed before it by persons in connexion with the Na-
tional Society. In order to prevent those new conditions
from being carried into effect in a manner the Committee
of the Privy Council thought injurious, it suggested four

forms of Clauses that might be adopted in these trust
deeds. A proposition to that effect had been made to the
Archbishop of Canterbury in a letter from the Secretary
to the Committee of Privy Council, and (as the noble lord
-was understood to say) the suggestion was adopted ; the
only limitation being that, as his grace desired, the local
committees should be left at liberty to accept or reject.
The further proposition was made that normal, as well as
other schools, should be included. With regard to this
question, the Committee of Privy Council had taken the
suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury into conside-
ration, and had adopted it in nearly the same words ; but
the clauses respecting trust deeds had again been sul
ted to his grace, with a view to the admission of laymen.
These clauses seemed to the government to have been
essential, and, as the National Society had not expressed
any objection to them, he (Lord J. Russell) hoped they
would be agreed to. They had, in point of fact, already
been adopted in almost all the schools which had gincc.

received aid from the government. With respect to the
second question of the noble lord, whether preferment in
Ireland was only to be given to clergymen approving of

was no foundation for that rumour
government had its own reasons for preferring certain
persons, but undoubtedly there would be no exclusion

Of course, every

lon the ground of no:

-adherence to the national system

proposed

and Lord J. RUSSELL offered some explanation, froni
which it appeared that the noble duke approved of the
present pedestal. He (Lord J. Russell) was adverse to
its removal, and the matter having been communicated

to her Majesty, he had received the Queen's commands
to say that the government would not permit it to be

removed

The house then went into committee of supply, and
agreed to the following votes :—X3,515 towards the ex-
penses of temporary accommodation for the houses of
parliament; £lO,OOO on account of Portpatrick Harbour;
£12,000 for the support of convicts in Ireland ; £5,500,
being one moiety of a sum voted for improving navigation
in Ireland, connected with drainage ; £600,000 to defray

part of the expenses that would piob-ably be incurred in
relieving the distress in Ireland during the year ending
March, 1848.

The house then went into a committee of ways and
means; when £500,000, the surplus of ways and means
granted in 1846, was voted to be applied to the service of
the year 1847 ; and several votes which had been agreed
to on former occasions in committees of supply were
ordered to be paid out of the consolidated fund.
The New Zealand (No. 2.) Bill was read a second time.
The Post Office and Navigation Bills were severally read
a third time and passed. The report on the Recovery of

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in moving that the Bank-
ruptcy and Insolvency Bill be committed, made a short
statement of its contents. This bill, which had passed
the Lords, had two objects in view—the first was the
abolition of the Court of Review, and the second was the
transfer of the powers of the Commissioners of Bank-
ruptcy in insolvency to the Commissioners of the Insol-
vent Court and to the judges of the new County Courts.
It had been said that this bill gave additional patronage

to the Lord Chancellor. He denied that assertion, and
showed that, instead of increasing his patronage, it took
from him very lucrative patronage, which he might legiti-
mately exercise at present.

After some objections from Sir James Graham, and
two divisions, all the clauses were agreed to.
The House then adjourned.
Id.