The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-11 00:00:00

.....,

having been abolished in this country. It was unjust
that the Dissenters of.Englane should be taxed to sup-
Port the ministers of the Presbyterian; in Ireland, who
Were a far richer body.
Mr. HEY WORTH also opposed the vote, which he
rail was objectionable on policy and principle.
.Mr. V. SCULLY sai3, that until the weolo question
of the endowment of the three Churches had unetereone
C°
nsideration he was not prepared to withdraw, this par-
ticular grant.
Mr. S. CARTER opposed the grant.
Mr. KERSHAW trusted that the time would shortly
arrive whey this scramble fer public money for religious
Purposes would terminate. He could see no utility in
aating this sum of money to the Presbyterians of Ire-
land. The only elfect of the endowment was to check
Private contributions for the support of the Presbyterian
Ministry.
After a few words from Captain JONES, the Core-
Illittee divided, when there appeared—
For the vote ... ..• ••• "•
34
Against it ... •••
majority
f The vote of 6,5521, for the Concordatuna .fund
srrelend) for charitable parposee, and for the minister
°F St. Matthew's Chapel,, Kin send, his salary, and
siloe ;tee° to clerk and sexton, was agreed to after an
!,13nosition from Mr. ANSTEY, which was with-
arawn.
On the vote of 10 7451, to defray the charges of the
General Board of Health,
Mr. HUME complained that the power enabling one-
tenth of the inhabitants of towns to petition the board
e
aend down a surveyor to inquire into the sanitary con-
dition of towns was at present frequently abused. He
did not think the initiatory step of requesting inspection
should be taken until it had received the sanction of at
least two public meetings. He (atr. Hutne) was not pre-
Pared, however, further to oppose the grant.
Mr. ELLICE called upon the Government to look
closely ieto the working of the board, or it would do a
great deal of mischief in the country. , •
, Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said the present Act of Par-
liament would come under revision in two year?, and
could therefore be readily amended. He would not
enter into any details; but he would say that, as a
general rule, he could not admit the mismanagement of
the board.
Viscount EBRINGTONsaid some of the imputations
against the board were owing rather to the deliberate in-
terference of Parliament than to the board itself. The
average amount of these preliminary expenses was very
say about 1201, compared with those of a private
Atifi, which ,was usually not less than 2,0001. for large
Pieces, and which in some cases amounted to tens of
thousands' while the resulti obtained were of the most
irsPortantcharac ter.
;Mr. HUME complained only of giving the power of
L'doging down a surveyor to one or two of the rate-
Payers.. It led to jobbing and abuse in a variety of cases.
Re bad no confidence in the management of the Board
of liesulth as regarded discretion, after the disclosures
th4t
e:bate iaken place.. •
Sir B. HALL said the only proof of the Metropolitan
Interco sat Act having passed into a law since 1850 was
tha "
;app ointment of Dr. Southwood Smith as an addi..
t
"'mat c puniseioner. The Act was inoperative, and the
ee
. Pe use' of the Commission, 2,4001. a year, ought to be
dtspensEd with.
The vote was then agreed to.
„ lleeeeo• for the Encumbered Estates Commission
Uourt,
w Mr. FRENCH protested against the vote, but he
oe°e_'l, not divide on it as it involved the salaries of the
c 1 persons connected with the court.
~19.
at CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
ilertiont of the Hon. Gentleman, that the Government.
tZ! Suadenly resolved to continue the Act under which
417. court was constituted, surprised him. That
rentiort was announced three months ago, and it was
Toids.ble under the circumstances.
t;„"r•H.UME asked how long these courts would con.
"'co to supersede the courts of law?
sesal • IsTAbIER said the court was created for the pur-
r van of
it es lacilitatiug the sale of encumbered estates, and
Was at present impossible for the law courts to deal
Zestates
the subject.. There were twenty millions'-worth of
re'los at present undisposed of. In moving the second
"minx of the Continuanoe Bill, he (Mr. Napier) should
amts this course intended to be adopted.
shld EIUME wished to kn wh the courts of law
not be freed from theow sent
pr processes which
r• eveeteit their operation in the case of encumbered
est4t4B?
FL'tENCH maintained that the decision of the
;;eVerurnseit, as regarded the continuance of the Bill,
Was acellen and astonished the greater part of their
'
,• supporters from Ireland. One of the ablest pamphlets
icmlUst the measure, in fact, was, he understood,- written
3cp legal member of the Government.
'he vote was then agreed to. So also were
7'7601. for lighthouses abroad; and
40.2001. for the census.
4'332/. for building chapels for the embassies abroad.
ANSTEY objected to the vote.
HUME thought the. vote was an extraordinary
one.
aeon
G. THOMPSON said there were in all expended
17,t1 the erection of a residence for the British Amine-
4ktor Constantinople, from 1843 to 1850, 83,7651.
eIVEt39 therefore, not surprised that 3,0001. and up-
rus Lho, o,""
le b ended on a chapel for this costly
idene,
r• G. A. HAMILTON had nothing to say to the
eTa that had been passed. As respected the vote
rlier consideration, the chapel at Constantinople had
awe destroyed by fire some time ago, and the foam of
(:)°! of this vote was for the erection of that chapel
at: the accommodation of the English residents in Con-
stantinople.
ee'ne CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER mid the
,iaber of English residents at Vera was much more
44sider.tb!e than was supposed.—certainly more than
ee,,e°, and the chapel was built for their accommodation
et* than for the embassy.- He had no objection to
"tPone the vote.
KEOGH said this was a case of economical re-
-7,o,eia which he would take the sense of the House.
chalt"ight Hon. Gentleman said there were 300 mer-
th Bin Pera; why did they not build a chapel for
eeiselves?
Ole CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER in-
n:sled the lion. and Learned Gentleman that Pera was
,a.l Part of Constantinople which the British ambas
tnr dwelt; he had thought he only deferred to the de-
e ss
nn the Committee in proposing the postponement of
-- vote.
After fewa words from Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Hume, and
U.
1r ea Willoughby, '
Mr. WILLIAMS said ,no advantage could be gained
by,Rostponing the vote. It was a question of principle.
ho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
tr.'stPone the consideration of the vote, and commence
With it whoa next going into supply. He now moved
in 0 Chairman report progress.
Mr. ANSTEY objected to the motion for reporting
Progress. He wished to go to a division on the vote
how, for he believed the opponents of the vote had a
ejoriter—a position he doubted whether they would
hold when it was again brought on.
„ Mr. G. THOMPSON thought, instead of postponing
reconsideration of the vote, it would give more satis-
faction if the vote itsolf were postponed.
eseTbe 'question was then put, and the Committee di
w-
'ed, when there appeared—
For reporting progress ... ... 92
Against ••• ••• ••• see 12
Majority for reporting progress ... —BO
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the House
'ssuint sd,