The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-12 00:00:00

was incurred, while the least possible benefit was severed.—
The establishment now under consideration, had undergone
much alteration for the better, from what it was twenty years
ago, when the system acted upon was one of perfect intoler. ,
ance ; when children were sent away from their parents'under
different names, anti taught to hate those of another religion.
Though much good had already been effected, he thought an
important improvement might be made by acting on the sug-
gestion which he had thrown out.
Mr. GOULBURN stated it to be his intention to look into
the subject from time to time, with an earnest desire to ascer-
tain whether the present benefits could be obtained at a di-
minished expence. How far he might be able to succeed in
this, he could not now pretend to determine.
Mr. MONCK wished to know why this Charity was to be
supported by means of a public tax ? Why could not the Pro-
testants of Ireland educate the children of their peer by volun-
tary contributions or other means, as in this country, and every
other country in Europe. He should support the motion of his
lion. Friend the Member for Aberdeen.
Mr. HUME explained what he had previously stated. He
thought it unfair that 17,0001. should be thus expended for the
benefit of one-seventh of the people of Ireland, while less than
that sum was applied in a like manner for the benefit of the
other six-sevenths. He thought it would be desirable to dimi-
nish the expence of this establishment. He wished the number
of children limited to 1,700 instead of 2,000, and was disposed
to withdraw the Amendment lie had moved, for the purpose of
substituting for the original grant the sum of 13,0001. intending
in a future year to move a further reduction, till the vote should
be brought clown to what he thought it ought to be.
Mr. GOULBURN said, he could not acquiesce in the pro-
posed reduction.
Mr. GIIATFAN spoke in favour of educating the Catholics
of Ireland, as this, in his judgment, afforded the best chance of
improving their condition.
Mr. HUME repeated, he objected to this grant because it
went to give 17,000/. for the I*iiefit of one-seventh of the popu-
lation of Ireland, while a smaller sum was allowed for the re-
maining six-sevenths. With this feeling, under all the cir-
cumstances, he desired to withdraw his original Amendment to
substitute for the grant originally proposed, the sum of 13,000/.
The original Amendment was then withdrawn, to make way
for the one last proposed.
The Committee then divided on the Amendment—
For the Amendment - - •
Against it - - -
Majority .
The original Resolution was then agreed to.
The next Resolution moved after strangers were re-admitted
was—
£l4,ooo
to defray the expence of supporting the Society for
the promotion of Education in Ireland.
Mr. HUME xemarked, that some of the Societies in Ireland
were diverted from their objects which they had had originally
in view. The society for discountenancing vice in Ireland, like
another vice society, had thus changed its purpose, and applied
a portion of its funds to the education of children. He thought
this tended to prove the correctness of the views of the Right
Hon. Member for Waterford as to die propriety of consolidat-
ing the charities for education, so as to form one central school.
He did not oppose the present Resolution, he only wished the
money to be well applied.
After a few words from Mr. GRATTAN, the Resolution was
carried.
Mr. GOULBURN then moved a grant of
£27,672. to the Dublin Foundling hospital.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT made a few remarks on the rules
of the Hospital, with respect to the non-admission of infants at
certain periods of the year.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said. the Hospital had formerly been
very humanely kept open through the whole year. But it was
found that many infants were sent from remote parts of Ireland
in the most inclement season, so imperfectly defended against
the sold, that a great loss of' life was the consequence. It was
therefore thought necessary to decline receiving them at all in
the months of January and February.
Mr. HUME wished to take 7,0001. from the grant, which he
thought ought not to exceed, 20,000/.
Mr. GOULBURN reminded the Hon. Member that a re-
duction of 8,800/. had already been effected in the present
year. He thought it was ofmaterial importance that the num-
ber of children should be diminished before a further reduction
of the grant took place. If this were not done, a number of
unfortunate children would of necessity be exposed to starva-
tion, for whom, it had been understood, that a provision had
been made.
Mr. MIME had no wish to expose the children at present
on the establishment to starvation. What he desired was to
prevent more from coming in.
Mr. 11ONCK was glad that fume feeling bad been mani-
fested against establishments of this nature. Ile considered
them to be a sort of advertisement for the production of illegi-
timate children. The more numerous these establishments be-
came, the more numerous would' such unfortunate objects be
found. This was seen in France, where great provision had
been made for foundlings than in any other country, and
where, as lie was informed, scarcely a servant girl could be
met with who had not been the mother of two or,three children.
The resolution was agreed to.
The following grants were then moved
' £19,000 to defray the expence of the house of Industry, in
Dublin, the Asylum, and Hospital.
£4,9f10 for the Richmond Lunatic Asylum in Dublin.
£7,900 to the Hibernian Society for Soldiers' Children.
£1,600 for the Hibernian Marine Society in Dublin.
£1,930 to defray the expellee of the Female Orphan House
in Dublin.
Mr. HUME objected to the last resolution, (the preceding
ones having been carried) on account of the exclusive character
of the charity which it was intended to support. Ile thought
the public, as a public, since it could not make a provision for
all the poor, ought not to undertake to support any.
Mr. GOULBURN protested against the principle, that be-
cause they could not provide for all, they ought to relieve none.
Mr. HUME did not mean to propose that individuals should
not relieve distress ; but he considered partial relief, given at
the expence of the Public, an injury to die whole community.
Mr. DAWSON thought such charitable institutions were
necessary in Ireland, in consequence of the customary absence
of the great landed proprietors. In this respect he called upon
the House to mark the difference between the City of Dublin
and a metropolis which possessed the advantage of a resident
Gentry. He supported the motion.
Mr. GRATTAN was satisfied that no establishment could
be better conducted than the House of Industry in Ireland.—
lie could not consent to reduce the grants for any of the Irish
Charities.
Mr. MONCK said, the poor ought to be maintained in every
country, but they ought to he maintained by the rich. It was
mischievous to compel one part of the community to relieve
another. This was seen in our Poor Laws, than which nothing
could be more humane in design, and nothing more injurious
than their operation. The moment the public interfered, there
was an end of private charity, and selfish persons were fur-
nished with an excuse for refusing to assist the unhappy.
Sir J. NEWPORT defended the grants for Irish Charities,
as necessary, on account of the peculiar situation of Ireland,
where 3,000,0001. in rent was annually raised to be spent in
this country.
Mr. Secretary PEEL denied that the remark of the Hon.
Gentleman, that private charity ceased where the Govern-
ment of a country interfered, was at all applicable to the pre-
sent case. He believed there was no town in the world where
charity was more prevalent than it was in the City of Dublin.
—Besides the peculiar circumstance remarked by the Right
Honourable Baronet, there was one other circumstance which
made these grants necessary. The City of Dublin was the
place which annually witnessed a great confluence of poverty,
as the labouring poor had occasion to pass through that city
on their way from different parts of Ireland to this country.—.
He had frequently officiated where demands were made on pri-
vate charity, and on such occasions he had known 6or 8004
to be given after a sermon. It was thus that the place of the
poor laws was supplied.
Mr. HUME said only one charity in England, the Refuge
for the Destitnte„ was supported by a Parliamentary grant, and
lie did not see why the Irish charities should be supported by
the public. If' individuals came here to spend their rents, did
-they bring their Janda with them ? What was to prevent them
front sending their subscriptions for those establishments they
wished to support.
Mr. DAWSON restated what he had previously offered in
defence of such grants.
The Resolution was carried.
The following Resolutions were moved and agreed to.
X 2,600 to defray the expences of the Westmoreland Lock
Hospital in Dublin.
£2,800 to the Dublin Lying-in-Hospital.
£1,400 tceStevens',Hospital.
J:3,692, to Defray the expence of the Fever Hospital in
'Cork-street, Dublin.
4:300. to Cover the expence of Incurables in Dublin.
.t. 0,921. for the Roman Catholic Seminary in Ireland.
The following Grant being moved,
£2,000. to Defray the expences of the Royal Cork Insti-
tution,
Mr. HUME wished to know why an institution of this kind
should be kept up in Cork, more than any other place ? If it
were proper that lectures should be given at Cork, those by
whom they were attended ought to pay for them.
Sir J. NEWPORT said he was responsible for the original
establishment of this institution, which was not then intended
to be permanent. Such being the fact, he was not answerable
for its continuance.
Mr..GOULBURN stated the establishment in question to
have hien continued because it had been found highly benefi-
cial. The lectures of the Institution had proved extensively

-27