The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-07 00:00:00

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

The house went into committee of supply— Mr. Bonverie
in the chair.

THE IRISH REGIUNI DONUH.

It was proposed that a sum not exceeding 38,7451. should
be voted to defray the expenses of Nonconformist and Pro-
testant Dissenters in Ireland.
Mr. BRIGHT strongly condemned the grant as being,
in the words of Dr. Candlish, " the hush-money of the
State," which ought to be rejected by the Presbyterians of
the north of Ireland, who could so well afford to support
their own clergymen without the aid of this Regium donum.
As, however, he had no hope of defeating the grant, on
which the subsistence of some hundred of clergymen de-
pended, he only sought to get an assurance from Lord John
Russell that the vote should not be expansive—that it
should not be increased, and that some definite period
might be named when it should cease for ever. He wi•-hed
to have a discussion upon the question, and a division upon
its principle, and he should therefore only move to nega-
tive the increase proposed on the vote of last year.
Mr. KIRK supported the grant in its full extent, de-
claring that the ministers among whom it was distributed
performed most beneficial services to the country.
Mr. HADFIELD hoped that the Presbyterian and all
other dissenting bodies would soon recognise the duty of
refusing all alms from the State.
Mr. CAIRNS urged that the vote was secured by con-
tract with the parties for whom it was intended, and
therefore could not be retrenched.
Mr. V. SCULLY agreed with the hon. and learned gen-
tleman that the grant rested in a great degree on a national
contract. He should vote in favour of it. He thought,
however, that the proper course for the hon. member for
Manchester to adopt was to bring iu a bill to upset all
Church establishments. If he did so he should vote with
him. (Loud cries of " divide.")
Lord NA AS thought that the course taken by the sup-
porters of the voluntary principle in that house was rather
unfair, and, if successful, would, he feared, prove very
unfortunate. The great question of whether or no there
should be grants of public money for religious purposes
was far too large a one to be decided in discussions like the
present. It was not fair to select a small vote here and
there for the purposes of opposition. Let the opponents of
State endowments bring in a bill or a resolution, and then
the question could be decided broadly on its merits. With
respect to the mode of distribution, he thought it admi-
rably adapted to prevent the abuses which had been charged
by the hon. member for Manchester. The Church autho-
rities and the executive government were both responsible
for its distribution, and if any specific complaint were ad-
vanced, would give it the most careful investigation.
Mr. PRICE was determined to divide against the grant.
As the Unitarians had been alluded to he had only to say
with regard to that body, that they never had, and he
hoped they never would ask any religious endowments from
the State. (Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER said that if any section of the Presby-
terian body in Ireland denied any of the great truths of
Christianity, he should oppose their getting any portion of
the public money, but as the vote was for the whole body
he was unable to make the distinction.
Mr. W. J. FOX said the hon member could have no
difficulty in distinguishing the amount paid to the Uni-
tarians from that which the Trinitarians received ; for he
might see from the estimates that while the former body
were paid only 1501., the sum set down to the credit of
the latter was 2501. (Hear, hear.) Now, some hon.
members had attempted to justify the grant under their
notice upon the ground of its being a subsidy to those by
whom the people of Ireland were prevented from the com-
mission of crime. The diminution of crime in Ireland

might, however, be attributed in no small degree, he
believed, to the extension of the system of national educa-
tion in that country—a system under whose operations
instruction was given to members of all religions, without
distinction of sect or denomination. Ho should oppose the
grant under consideration, because he held it to be one
which was evidently pernicious in its result, which could
not be identified with any great advantage conferred upon
the people of Ireland, and which violated the principle that
Government should deal with questions simply of a politi-
cal and temporal nature, leaving those of a religious cha.
ratter to the conscience of individuals themselves
Mr. NAPIER considered this vote as one of Parliamen-
tary contract. Persons were induced years ago to go over
to Ireland and colonise Ulster, and a Parliamentary con-
tract was then entered into to support their ministers,
who were of the Presbyterian faith. He should therefore
support the vote, on the ground that the credit of Parlia-
ment was pledged to it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, after what had fallen from the
hon. member for Manchester with regard to himself, he did
not like to let the committee come to a division on the vote
without saying a few words on the subject. He could have
wished that the example of the hon. member for Man-
chester had been followed, and that the subject of this vote
had been kept clear of all disputes about religious questions.
The hon member for Manchester, however, and others had
started questions with regard to the Unitarians, which he
confessed it would have been better to have kept clear of
this vote ; but though that hon. gentleman had sot,f given
the debate a religious turn, he, like Mr. Brfigh
willing to enter into the general questionto of
grants to
a matter of principle, the state ought whether, aw as u
an s-
At the same time
religious bodies at all. (Hear, y
he must observe that the hon. mhemeaobferwfheriellahnocil(lenset,evrllyeall
a great advantage in this respect,
how to make use. The noble lord themmemod'aeerofforpiCooeleeerdaiinnge
had truly observed that the proper
should be moved, upon
was, that some general resolution
which a discussion could be taken upon the whole qi:es-
tion, but the hon. gentleman the member for Manchester,
11 known
whose opinions were we upon the subject, was
fully alive to the advantage of incidentally bringing for-
ward the question, and making his views act upon the
public out of doors without the other side of the question
being heard at all. (Hear, hear.) Nobody knew better
than the hon. member for Manchester, how great an ad-
vantage he derived from that mode of arguing the question,
and he was afraid the hon. member would be slow to take
the advice of the noble lord the member for Coleraine, and
give the house a fair opportunity of discussing the whole
question. (Hear.) With regard to the vote itself there
appeared to him to be two grounds upon which it could be
supported. One was the ground which the hon. and learned
gentleman had just referred, namely, the ground of con-
tract, and the fair expectations of the Presbyterian body.
(Hear.) It could not be denied that when the Presbyte-
rians settled in Ulster, and when they wore afterwards en-
gaged in supporting the throne of William 111., and sub-
sequently at the time of the Union between this country
and Ireland, expectations were held to them that they
were entitled to support from Parliament for the ministers
of their religion. (Hear, hear.) He could not think that
when they claimed the fulfilment of the expectations held
out to them, when they asked for the fulfilment of what
might be called a contract, they were liable to the imputa-
tions which had been cast upon them to-night. (Hear,
hear.) But then it might be said, without entering into
auy of these questions of religious difference, that the
policy of the state was manifestly against supporting these
Presbyterian ministers, and in that case the honourable
member for Manchester suggested that, without negativ-
ing the vote, there might be an engagement entered into
by which the present ministers should be supported by
the vote, and by which the grant should gradually cease.
He, however, should be sorry to see that course taken, be-
cause he believed it was exceedingly useful to the state
that this grant should be continued, for, putting
aside the peculiar doctrines which they entertained,
he could not but say that the teaching of these ministers
had a great and beneficial effect upon the morality of the
people amongst whom they lived. (Hear, hear.) From
that morality the state derived benefit. When fewer
persons were sent to prison, when fewer criminal acts
were committed, the state was put to less expense,
and hence the state derived great benefit from this
absence of crime. (Hear, hear.) He said, then, that he
believed that no men had more contributed to the mora-
lity that prevails amongst the Presbyterian body in Ire-
land than their religious teachers, and therefore they were
justly entitled to this grant. (Hear, hear.) If it were now
proposed to make the grant for the first time, he did not
know that he should support it, but it came before him
now more in the shape of a contract than a grant, and see-
ing the beneficial effects with which this grant was attended,
he should certainly give his vote for it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT wished before the division was called to
explain the question he proposed they should divide upon.
It was not that the grant should be entirely rejected, but
that it should be reduced by 3461. 3s. 4d., which the esta-
blishment of new congregations had necessitated, and the
vote left at the same amount as last year. (Hear.) It was
unnecesary for him to reply to the noble lord, because tne
extreme difficulty which the noble lord had evidently felt
in making out any case for 'he grant showed the necessity
for repealing it. (Hear.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 62
Against it 149-87
The vote was then agreed to.
6,4261. for charitable and other allowances in Ireland.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS complained of the miscellaneous
character of the items in this vote--one of which was for
the supply of water to a portion of Dublin.
Mr. WILSON said that some of these grants bad existed
since the reign of Charles 11, (Laughter.) They were in

the nature of those small charities which were distributed
in this country by. the Queen—the Lord Lieutenant having
the distribution of them in Ireland.
Mr. MICHELL took objection to an item of 2001. in
the vote for the purpose of vaccination. He recommended
that a general vote of 5001. should be taken for vaccination
in Ireland, instead of so much for one institution and so
much for another.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY hoped the principle of supplying
fresh water would be carried out in the metropolis.
After a conversation, the vote was agreed to.
11,8551. for the expenses of the General Board of
Health.
Sir G. PECHELL said he had understood that the
board was to be abolished, with all its nuisances, on the
Ist of September next. The present vote would be most
unacceptable to the public t for everywhere there were
complaints and disapproval of the management of the
board. He would move a reduction of 5,0001. in the
amount of this vote. The board, in their report, repre-
sented that considerable sums were repayable from the
towns where the act had been introduced; but he should
like to know what was done in the case of a town that re-
jected the embraces of the board? (Laughter.) Brighton
was one out of about 50 that had done so; and he should
like to see them getting a farthing out of Brighton for the
expenses that had been incurred.
Lord PALMERSTON said that if this board were abo-
lished, much odium would be thrown on the Government.
If the population of this country had never been decimated
by the want of sanatory arrangements, persons might
stand up and object to an organisation for promoting those
arrangements; but when these visitations had occurred
twice, and we had a warning last year, he was surprised
at such a view being advocated. In all towns there were
two parties, something like whigs and tories ; one was the
clean party, and the other was the dirty party. (Cheers
and laughter.) His honourable friend had shown, in
the case of Brighton, that the clean party could not
make the dirty party submit to them, if they were not
in a majority, and he had also shown that provisional
orders were frequently rejected by that house. This was a
proof that the Board of Health had no absolute power.
He admitted that the constitution of the board
required alteration. (Hear, hear.) They were not
represented in that house by any officer having power over
them, as the first commissioner of works was merely a
member of the board. He (Lord Palmerston) had given
notice of a bill for to-morrow to re-constitute the board for
a limited time—two years. He thought that the care of
the public health fell naturally within the office of the
Home Secretary. He should therefore propose to continue
the board of three members as at present—two paid and
one unpaid ; but to subject them to receive instructions
from the Secretary of State, thus giving him a controlling
power to sanction or rescind their proceedings, and render-
ing him liable to answer to that house for what was done
by the board. He did not say that there was any neces-
sity for the permanent continuance of the board. When
local boards were established the direction of the general
board almost ceased. (Hear, hear.)
Lord SEYMOUR said the proceedings of the board had
made all sanitary proceedings unpopular. (Cheers.) Last
year the Government had promised an amendment of the
General Board of Health ; but the house had heard of no
such amendment. Surely it was inconsistent to call on the
house to vote the means for the continuance of the board,
when the Government themselves admitted that it ought
to be amended. Though the burial board had been abo-
lished, the commissioner had been retained. (Hear, hear )
The Government had no control over the board, and the
only way to bring them to reason was to stop their salaries.
(Hear.) He (Lord Seymour) was quite ready to admit
that a Board of Health, under proper management, would
be a valuable public institution. They knew the odour
in which the Poor Law Board stood before the
house when it was under the management of the same
person who was now at the head of the Board of Health ;
but who had ever heard a complaint against it since it had
been under the management of Mr. Baines? (Loud cheers.)
He thought that the Government would do well to with-
draw this vote for the present. (Cheers.)
Viscount PALMERSTON had answered the speech of
the noble lord by anticipation. The noble lord's whole
argument was founded on the assumption that the present
system was to be continued, but he had expressly stated
that it would be materially altered by the bill he intended
to intended to introduce to-morrow.
Lord SEYMOUR said that all he wished for was that
the noble lord's bill should be introduced before they were
asked to agree to this vote. The noble lord was great at
promising bills. (Laughter.)
Sir B. HALL thought the objections of the noble lord
perfectly just, for he understood the bill proposed to con-
stitute a board consisting of two paid and one unpaid mem-
ber, which was exactly its present composition. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. baronet proceeded to reiterate the charges
brought by Lord Seymour against Mr. Chadwick and Dr.
Southwood Smith. He had taken the trouble to trace the
history of the former gentleman, since 1831 down to the
present time, and he found nothing but a series of failures.
After Mr. Chadwick left the poor law board, he turned his
attention to sanitary matter, and he had on every occasion
quarrelled with his colleagues, and led to the dissolution of
every commission of sewers with which he had been con-
nected. It might perhaps be asked why he, a metropolitan
member, took so great an interest in the matter, inasmuch
as the Board of Health did not apply to the metropolis ; the
reason was this, the board had on several occasions at-
tempted to extend its power to the metropolis, and one day
it might be successful. (Hear.) A particular instance of
this occurred in the case of the Burial Act, where the Board
of Health issued regulations of so stringent a nature that
great concern was excited in the metropolis, and it was only
quieted by an announcement from the Home-office, which
implied that those regulations were of no force. With re-
gard to the other member of the board (Dr. S. Smith) that
gentleman was appointed to office under the Metropolian
Burial Act. That act, however, turned out a failure, and
was repealed. But Dr. S. Smith was not so easily got rid
of, and although the act was abolished that gentleman re-
mained. In 1852 Lord J. Manners requested the house to
pass a vote of 1,2001. a year for Dr. Smith, saying that that
would be the last occasion for so doing. But this was the
second session since that, and yet the house was still called
upon for this vote. If the noble lord really desired to do
any good by the measure, he ought totally to reconstruct
this board—unless that were done, but little good would
come of the proposed bill. He would only say this, that if
it were obligatory on the house to pay Mr. Chadwick and
Dr. S. Smith 1,5001, and 1,2001. respectively, he would ad-
vise that the money should be given to them in order that
they might be sent about their business at once.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that with reference to the
question put by the noble lord (Seymour) as to alterations
in the report, made in the course of printing, he had only
to state that, as it was the report of the Board of Health,
that Board had a perfect right to make such an alterations
in it as they might think desirable, in order to put Par-
liament in possession of all the facts. He had no control
whatever over them in that respect. The bill which he
proposed to introduce would give him a control over the
Board, and although it had been said that nobody could
keep those gentlemen in order, he ventured to think that
any one in his position, having the necessary legal powers,
would be able to accomplish even that feat. (" Hear,"
and laughter.)
Mr. HEADLAM protested against the imputations
which had been thrown out against the town of Newcastle
not wc
so
at
There were some parts of the town which
le he
itself.
clean as perhaps might be desired, but on
considered the town as clean as the
metropolis
tllewho
possess the confidence
did not
With regard to the Board of Health, he could only say
that, inasmuch as that body
constituted. id that although he could not
of the country, it could never be useful as at present
Lord PALMERSTON sa
assent to the motion
of the bon. baronet (Sir G. Pechell)
andpostpone his vote •
(Lord Seymour)
he had no objection to fall in with the proposal of his
noble friend
he had brought in his bill
Mr. A. PELLATT said that a new bill would be of no
use if it continued the present construction of the Board of
.
After a few words from Sir J. SHELLEY and Mr. BRIGHT,
recommending the withdrawal of the amendment,
Health.
Sir G. PECHELL withdrew it accordingly, and
The vote was postponed.
On the vote of 19,9301. for the Incumbered Estates
Court,
Sir J. YOUNG, in reply to a question from Mr. I. Butt,
said Government were sensible to the inconvenience of
having a court unattended by a sufficient bar, and attempts
had been made to bring the Encumbered Estates Court
nearer to the Four Courts of Dublin. A stone court had
been in contemplation, but as that would take some time
and occasion a considerable outlay, it was proposed to pro-
vide a temporary court in a convenient situation near the
other courts.
After a few observations from Mr. VANCE, the vote was
agreed to.
15,0001. for the charity commission was next proposed.
Mr E ELLICE complained that this commission was a
delusion, and utterly useless for the purposes for which it
was established. The public hoped when the commission
was established that they would have the requisite powers
to carry out their duties, but the only power they had was
the power to inquire,, and to enable the trustees to apply
to the Court of Chancery for amendment of the schemes
on which the charity was administered. He considered
that the commissioners ought to have the power to frame
schemes, and if not to carry them into effect, at least to
propose them for Parliamentary sanction, otherwise this
expenditure of 15,000/. a year might well be saved. He
hoped there would be an efficient head appointed to the
board, and that his right hon. friend was no longer con-
nected with it.
Sir G. GREY said by the act of Parliament his learned
friend, the chief paid commissioner, was at the head of the
board. His right hon. friend had underrated the powers
of the commission, for though in the majority of cases they
confined themselves to inquiry, and to submitting schemes
to Chancery, they had the power, and frequently exercised
it, of framing schemes themselves for the improved admi-
nistration of charities, which, on receiving the necessary,
sanction, were carried into effect. He believed an altera-
tion of the act, with a view to the extension of the power
of the commissioner, would be necessary next year ; and he
had no doubt such a measure would be proposed.
The vote was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the house re-
sumed.
TOWNS' IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass some amendments
on the various clauses were made.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved to strike out of clause 7,
the words "the net annual value of 81, and upwards."
Mr. J. YOUNG objected to the motion, and said the
matter had been fully discussed in committee.
The house divided—
For the motion 24
Against it B2-58
After some verbal amendments, the bill was passed.
SAVINGS' BANKS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill went through committee.
NEW BILLS.
Leave was given for the introduction of the following
bills :
Mr. DUNLOP—BiII to allow verdicts in trials by jury in
civil causes in Scotland to be returned, although the jury
may not be unanimous.
Mr. J. A. SMITH—BiII to make further provisions in re-
lation to certain friendly societies.
Mr. WILSON—BiII to amend the act for the regulation
of joint-stock banks (Scotland).
Mr. WILSON—BiII for guaranteeing a loan of 500,0001.
to the island of Jamaica.
Mr. WILSON—BiII for the better administration of
Cinque Ports.
The LORD ADVOCATE—BiII to extend the benefits of two
acts of her Majesty relating to the constitution, transmis-
sion, and extinction of heritable securities in Scotland.
Mr. S. WORTLEY—BiII to facilitate the administration
of criminal justice at the Central Criminal Court, and at
the various courts of sessions of the peace in and near the
metropolis.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the home adjourned at twenty minutes pad one.