immediately pay him the other half. Thus | and able execution, he (Mr. Labouchere) no demand could be made on the public purse, unless the same amount was paid by the congregation themselves. Sir R. Peel wished to know whether the prohibition was universal, that our consuls should not engage in commercial dealings? Viscount Palmerston reminded the right hon. Baronet, that before the year 1826 our consuls could levy, not only fees on all notarial acts, as they did at present, but also fees on the tonnage of the different British ships which came to the port, at which they were stationed. This produced a great inequality in the amount of the emoluments received by our consuls, especially on the south American stations, and also led to various descriptions of abuses. His right hon. Friend, Mr. Canning, had discontinued that system, and had given our consuls fixed salaries in lieu of fees. The notarial fees, however, still continued; they were small in amount, and did not vary much from year to year. With respect to the prohibition, preventing our consuls from engaging in trade, he had only to reply, that it was not universal. The prohibition was given or not, according to the nature of the appointment. Wherever the consul was more of a political, than of a commercial agent, and had diplomatic functions to perform-as in most of the states of South America- there he was prohibited from engaging in trade? but in other places, as in Europe, where we had distinct diplomatic agents, and where the consuls had only commercial functions to execute, there he had no objection to let the consuls engage in commercial pursuits; for, by so doing, it enabled the country, to obtain consuls on smaller salaries, than it would otherwise be able to obtain them. need only refer to the coronation medal of George 4th. And though he fully admitted, that the late coronation medal was not executed in the manner that might have been expected from Signor Pistrucci, yet he believed, that the imperfection was entirely owing to an unfortunate circumstance, by which he had been almost totally deprived of sight for two weeks previous to the completion of the work. Signor Pistrucci was as sensible as anybody of the imperfection of the medal, and wrote to him (Mr. Labouchere) to state his regret and explain the cause." Mr. Hume thought it a great pity that these coronation medals could not be put into the pot and remelted. He was sorry for the misfortune of Signor Pistrucci, but he thought that if ever there was a case in which the credit of the Master of the Mint was involved, that something worthy of the British Mint should be put forth it was that of the medal struck for the late coronation, and he thought that corresponding efforts ought to have been made. Why, some of the medals that were selling in the streets for 1d. a-piece were as well executed as the reverse of the gold medals in question, and for the honour of her Majesty's Mint, they ought to be called in and re-melted. He must say, that he could not excuse his right hon. Friend, the Master of the Mint; he, or his deputy, ought to have seen that something better than this was executed. Before he sat down, he wished to know, as they had silver fourpenny pieces in circulation, which had been found very convenient, why they should not have threepenny and twopenny pieces of silver in general circulation also. These pieces were authorized by law and ancient custom; they would prove exceedingly convenient, and he did think that the public ought to have them. Mr. Labouchere would be very sorry to see omitted the coinage of these small silver coins, which was usual at the beginning of each reign. The practice had never been omitted, he believed, since the Conquest. The series of silver pennies was the most perfect of any class of our coins; but, he could not think that any public benefit could arise from the circulation of silver coins lower than 4d. One word more with respect to the coronation medal. He thought it ought to be borne in mind, that on occasion of the coronation of George 4th., the whole expense of The Chancellor of the Exchequer was decidedly opposed to the voluntary principle, and therefore, could not entertain any objection to the vote on that ground. the execution of the medal was paid back | thought that it was money forced on their to the public from the proceeds of the acceptance. sale of that medal, which was executed by Signor Pistrucci; he mentioned this to show, that if the late coronation medal had not answered the expectations of artists and the public, its imperfection was not to be attributed to any want of zeal or ability, but entirely to the unfortunate accident which he had mentioned. Mr. Warburton said, the right hon. Gentleman had been understood to hold out hopes at the beginning of the Session, of the re-appointment of the committee, which sat last Session on the Mint, and especially the engraving department, and he thought it very possible, that if that re-appointment had taken place, this imperfect production would not have appeared. He believed, that if the matter had been fully gone into, it would have been found, that the nation paid most extravagantly for the works designed and executed in the engraving department. With respect to a coinage of silver threepennies, he thought such a coin would be xtremely convenient. Mr. Labouchere said, he had been most anxious for the re-appointment of the committee of last year on this subject, but, at the same time, he had felt it would bo useless to re-appoint unless they could be expected to come to a report in the present Session. This, however, he did not feel justified in expecting, because, the state of health of one of the principal officers of the department, whose evidence and suggestions as to improvements in the present system, it would have been most important for the Committee to hear, was such as not to permithis attendance. Mr. Warburton had no wish to derogate from the real merits of the managers of the Mint. He thought, the greatest possible improvement had taken place in the coinage of the country, as would be seen by comparison of the present with the coins some years back. Vote agreed to. Mr. Hindley proposed, as an amendment, hat the item of 1,0951. (the portion of the vote allowed to the Dissenters) be left out. Mr. Hume supported the amendment. Mr. Baines observed, that it had been originally the gift of King George 1st. to the Dissenters, to whom he was indebted for important services. It had been continued as a gift by George 2nd, but his successor had it transferred to the shoulders of the public. He was of opinion, that when George 3rd made this transfer, the Dissenters, in assertion of the voluntary principle, should have declared against taking this allowance from the state, although there would be nothing objectionable in their taking it as a gift from the sovereign personally. If the matter should come to a vote, he (Mr. Baines) would vote for the discontinuance of the grant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been applied to to withdraw this vote, but he could not do so; first, because he could not affirm the voluntary principle, to which he continued opposed; and, secondly, because, he could not withdraw that which had been conceded originally as a grant by King George 1st. Mr. O'Connell would decidedly vote against the continuance of this grant; and, in doing so, he would vindicate his uniform advocacy of the voluntary principle. He was favourable, however, to that portion of the grant which had reference to the French refugees, who were the descendants of the victims of an act of the basest treachery recorded in the pages of history-he alluded to the Revocation of the edict of Nantes. Mr. Gibson said, he should vote for the grant, were it only for the purpose of marking his opinion of the insufficiency of any voluntary system. The poorer ministers of religion could never be otherwise supported than out of the public purse. Mr. Kemble observed, that if the dissenting ministers felt, that this species of remuneration was inconsistent with their religious principles, nothing would be easier for them than to refuse it, Viscount Sandon should vote for con tinuing the grant, so long as it was received. Mr. Wallace on the part of the Dis- Committee divided on the amendment: Brotherton, J. Hobhouse, T. B. he show Lushington, Dr. e vols declare rom the be it al e (M: rhad iple, raw O'Connell, D. Turner, W. TELLERS. Hume, J. List of the NOES. , but Blake, W. J. Litton, E. e be Blandford, Marquess Blunt, Sir C. Marshall, W. Briscoe, J. I. Martin, T. B. Bruges, W. H. Maule, hon. F. Byng, G. ally Ord, W. Carnac, Sir J. R. ote Chapman, A. Parker, J. Clay, W. Patten, J. W. Clive, hon. R. Clive, E. B. Courtenay, P. Crawford, W. Power, J. Curry, W. Pusey, P. Dalmeny, Lord Rae, Sir W. Fitzroy, Lord Rice, E. R. Gibson, T. Greene, T. Greenaway, C. Grey, Sir G. Grimsditch, T. Sibthorp, Colonel Hawes, B. Hawkes, T. Sinclair, Sir G. Hayter, W. G. Strutt, E. Hector, C. J. Heneage, G. W. Hepburn, Sir T. Hilsborough, Earl of Hinde, J. H. Hobhouse, Sir J. Hodges, T. L. Howard, P. H, Plumptre, J. P. Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Rolfe, Sir R. M. Surrey, Earl of Walker, W. Williams, Wm. Williams, W. A. TELLERS. Steuart, R. Trowbridge, Sir T. SUPPLY-SECRET SERVICE MONEY.] On the question that a sum of 35,9001. be granted for the purpose of defraying the expenses of Secret Service, Mr. Williams objected to so large a sum being expended without proper responsibility. He would propose, that it be reduced to 25,9001. The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied, that there was a want of responsibility as regarded secret service money. It was mainly used for the purposes of the Foreign-office, and no portion of it was disbursed otherwise than by the authority of the Secretary of State, or the UnderSecretary, who declared upon oath the amount so expended, and that the same was for public uses. All sums privately expended in other offices were similarly He thought it would be hard if the circumstance of England being a free country should deprive us of those advantages in the way of secret information which our rivals and opponents were always enabled to enjoy. He further observed, that the amount had been gradually reduced, and was this year lower than ever. Hope, hon. C. Rice, E. R. Hope, G. W. Horsman, E. Howard, P. H. Hughes, W. B. Hutton, R. Inglis, Sir R. H. Lefroy. right hon. T. Litton, E. Lockhart, A. M. Lushington, Dr. O'Ferrall, R. M. Pakington, J. S. Pendarves, E. W. Rice, bon. T. S. Rose, Sir G. Sinclair, Sir G. TELLERS. Maule, hon. F, O'Brien, W. S. Ord, W. Parker, J. Patten, J. W. Perceval, Colonel Phillpotts, J. Plumptre, J. P. Pusey, P. Grey, Sir G. Walker, R. TELLERS. Hume, J. SUPPLY-EDUCATION.] On the vote being proposed, of 20,000l. for the Erection of School-houses, in aid of private subscriptions for that purpose, for the education of the children of the poorer classes in England, Mr. Slaney objected strongly to the present mode of distributing this vote; some efficient system of inspection was indispensable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped, that next Session, some legislative measure for establishing a system of inspection over these schools might be carried. Mr. Sergeant Jackson thought, that perhaps it would be felt desirable to appoint a minister of public instruction. Mr. Goulburn protested against the encouragement, on the part of the State, Mr. Wyse thought the locality ought to Mr. Acland wished to know what was Mr. Villiers said, that the whole of the he saw,that the Irish Education Commission proved system of superintendence; and when they voted the public money, it was surely their duty to see how that money was applied. That money at present was given to two societies, and it appeared to him, that the only rule for its distribution at present was, to give it almost exclusively to the most wealthy sect. Now, it was clear that it ought to be applied fairly to the general purposes of education, and he sincerely trusted, that a better system of inspection would be established so as to insure a fairer distribution of the grant. Sir R. Inglis could not consent to the doctrine, that because Parliament of late had interfered with the property of the Church, they had a right to interfere also with the religion and mode of instruction adopted and sanctioned by the Church. For himself, he should be sorry ever to see Government interfere in the instruction of the people to such an extent as some hon. Members seemed willing to sanction, as he believed, that such interference could only tend to retard rather than to promote the advance of instruction amongst the people. He objected to the mode in which the grant was disposed of at present, as he considered, that the education of the people ought to be in the hands of the national Church. He would never scruple to say so, because such was his conscientious opinion, and he believed, that there was in the country a growing feeling, that instruction ought to be under the superintendence of the Church. Mr. O'Connell said, that all they wanted was fair play, while the hon. Member for West Somerset seemed to wish for a dictatorship in favour of the Established Church. As the grant was the contribution of all sects in religion, they wanted that grant to be fairly divided amongst Protestants, Catholics, and Dissenters. They were all met there on equal terms, and all that those on his side of the House asked for was, equality and justice, and that the Government should superintend the distribution of the money, leaving the instruction to the care of the pastors. Colonel Sibthorp said, that he should afterwards, he trusted, have an opportunity of exposing the system of education commissions, when he brought the general subject of commissions under the consideration of the House. When, however, again. Committee to sit QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS BILL.] Mr. Warburton moved the third reading of this bill, Colonel Sibthorp opposed it, and moved as an amendment, that it be read a third time this day six months. The House divided on the original motion:-Ayes 63; Noes 14 :-Majority 49. List of the AVES. Alsager, Captain List of the NOES. Bagge, W. Cole, Lord Visc. Darby, G. |