The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-24 00:00:00

should have been paid to him on the 29th September last, I
had not been paid, but had been stopped by the order of Go-
vernrrent. He had sent in the necessary certificate, pursuant
to the instructions issued for effecting that object; but still,
when an explanation was demanded, it was alleged that the
non-issue of the bounty to the minister of Clonmel was attri-
butable to the fact that the certificate did not specify the
number of families belonging to the congregation. Now, in
the instructions issued to the Presbyterian clergymen the
form of certificate was given; and on reference to this clergy-
man's certificate, it would be found that he had complied
with the instructions. It was manifest that if the con-
tinuance of the Regium Donum was made contingent upon
complying with the orders from the Castle, there was an end
to the independence of the Presbyterian ministers. In con-
clusion, be repeated that in this instance all the rules had
been observed, and, under these circumstances, he wished to
know upon what principle the bounty had been withheld ?
Mr. OSBORNE said he had the pleasure of knowing Mr.
Dill, to whose respectability and the respectability of the
congregation over which he presided, lie could testify. He
knew further, that the congregation felt the non-payment to
Mr. Dill as a slur upon themselves.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was sorry the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had thought it his duty to bring the case
under the notice of the House, because it had been fully dis-
cussed at the late meeting of the General Assembly at
Belfast, by whom a committee was appointed to communi-
cate with her Majesty's Government upon the subject. The
case might very well have been left there, because any
communication from the General Assembly would meet
with that respect and consideration which had always
characterised the intercourse between the Presbyterian body
and the Irish Government. He admitted that the return re-
ferred to by the Hen. and Learned Member had not been
called for by Parliament. The rule requiring the particulars
alluded to from the Clonmel congregation, was made in con-
sequence of a request by Dr. Morgan to his Right Hon.
Friend (Mr. Labouchere) that the usual amount necessary
to be subscribed by the congregations should not be insisted
upon. The call for the number of families was always re-
quired ; and Mr. Dill was only called upon to furnish the
same particulars that were required from every other con-
gregation. At the same time when the particulars for 1847
were furnished, as they had been for 1818, the bounty would
be paid.
Mr. HERBERT did not consider the answer of the Right
Hon. Baronet satisfactory, because the complaint was ,not
so much at the return being required as the mode of re-
quiring it.
After a few words in explanation from Sir W. SOMERVILLE
and Mr. KEOGH,
Sir R. FERGUSON regretted the case had been brought
forward. Unfortunately there had been some differences of
long standing between Mr. Dill and Mr. Matthews upon
other subjects. As to the vote in general, he denied that it
had any political character.
Mr. kERSHAW repeated his objections to State support
being extended to any particular religious denomination, and
urged that the voluntary principle ought to be adopted.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l3
Against it 45
Majority
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was 4,1771. for the Concordatum Fund, and
other charitable allowances in Ireland, which, after a short
conversation, was agreed to.
The next vote was 3,400/. for the expense of the Commis-
sion for digesting the criminal law.
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the enormous cost of this
Commission.
Sir G. GREY said that this was the last time that this
vote would appear in the estimate.
Colonel SIBTHORP hoped that it would be the case, but
did not believe it.—(A laugh.)
Sir G. GREY said that t heonly remaining portion of work
for the Commission was the inquiry into criminal judicial
procedure, which was rapidly advancing to a conclusion.
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was 2,5001. to defray the expense of the
metropolitan sanitary commission.
Mr. OSBORNE alluded to a petition presented the other
night, complaining of the state of the Serpentine river,
which was now nothing more than a stagnant pond. He
had recently walked beside that same river, some parts of
which, near the bridge, were in a most noisome and pesti-
ferous state. _ _

Lord MORPETH said that no one could go by or near
that river without perceiving the offensive state in which it
was. The matter had been referred to Sir John Rennie, and
he (Lord Morpeth) hoped soon to receive a report from that
eminent engineer. The vote was then agreed to.
The following votes were also agreed to :-
32,000 i for a moiety of the charge for public works con-
nected with navigation and drainage in Ireland.
1,184/. for the expense of works and repairs of the Ambas-
sador's house at Paris.
3,0001. for works and repairs at the Ambassador's house at
Madrid.
37,000/., the remaining portion of 50,000/., towards de-
fraying the charge of steam navigation to India by way of
the Red Sea. _ _

16,0001. for the militia and volunteers in Canada.
2,000/. to defray the expense of erecting a lighthouse at
Barbadoes.
On the motion that 22,500/. be granted to defray the ex-
pense of the medals to record the services of the British
army and navy from the commencement of the war in 1793
down to the peace of 1814,
Mr. OSBORNE expressed a wish to call attention to the
circumstances under which Lord Hardinge was sent to Ire-
land. He thought that it was but justice to the gallant
officer coramanuing the forces in Ireland (Sir E. Blakeney)
to express his strong conviction that all the steps taken by
the military authorities for the suppression of the outbreak
had been taken before Lord Hardinge went to Ireland. The
gallant officer he alluded to was the senior officer to Lord
Hardinge, for he was captain of the company of the Guards
of which the Noble Lord was a lieutenant. That gallant
officer also, during his long service, had succeeded in winning
the respect and affection of the men under his command, as
well as the Irish people.—(Hear.) He had stated thus much
as he had heard that it was the impression of some persons
that Lord Hardinge was there to carry out the necessary
military arrangements.
Sir G. GREY quite agreed in the observations of the lion.
Gentleman as to the high character of Sir E. Blakeney, and
no one could be more fitted for the command which he held
in Ireland than that gallant oEcer. It was quite incorrect
to suppose that Lord Hardinge was sent to Ireland to super-
sede him, but Sir E. Blakeney having said that in the then
state of Ireland it was desirable to have another general
officer in the south to command there, Lord Hardinge, in the
most handsome manner, and with the most patriotic notions,
offered to serve under Sir E. Blakeney.— (Hear, hear.)
Colonel DUNNE said that as he had had the honour of
serving under Sir E. Blakeney he wished to bear his testi-
mony to that officer's distinguished services.
The vote was then agreed to.
A sum of 10,0001. was voted for the further expenses that
would probably be incurred for the maintenance, in the year
ending April .5, 1849, of convicts in Ireland.
A sum ,f 1,500/. was voted for remuneration to Lieutenant
Waghorn, R.N., for his services in ascertaining the practica-
bility of the route via Alexandria for the conveyance of the
Indian Mail. •
To the vote of 12,000/. for the further expense incurred in
rebuilding the British Ambassador's house at Constantinople,
Mr. URQUHART moved that the sum be reduced one-
half. The original estimate was only 30,000/, which was
subsequently raised to 45,000/., and he should object to a
further addition of 12,000/.
A brief conversation, in which Lord Morpeth, Mr. Osborne,
Lord Palmerston, and Colonel Dunne took part, ensued.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place,
and the vote was agreed to.
The next vote asked was 20,0001. to complete the sum
necessary for civil contingencies.
Mr. OSBORNE objected to the item for gratuities for
extra services to the commissariat department, performed in
relieving distress in Ireland and Scotland. His motion
would, in fact, renew the Trevelyan debate, but he could
not avoid objecting to the giving rewards to the commis-
sariat whilst the services of the coast guard were not only
not requited with gratuity, but were not even acknowledged
with thanks. Yet Sir Randolph Routh had said that he
could not have done without the valuable assistance of the
coast guard ; and three or four of the men had lost their
lives by fever, contracted whilst doing their duty in carrying
food to the poor. The unequal distribution of rewards was
most pernicious. To one man, who had risked his life,
a gift of 751. was given,• whilst to another no less
than 2,500/. was handed over, and he was made besides
a K.C.B. It was so improper, unfair, and injudicious,
that he should take a division on it. The Government had
acted doubly wrong—first, in giving the money' to Sir
Charles Trevelyan without the consent of Parliament—and
Amsmci tst iLn
Oa aosfstahuel tEuxpocniithseciOurudeßr owtotuhled Bo
oatt hr
e.
ne
lx‘th'einCHco
new the debate upon the reward to Sir Charles Trevelyan. It
had been given in the usual way.
Dr. BOWRING admitted that it was not an unprece-
dented act; but it was one of those ancient customs that
would be more honoured in the breach than in the observ-
ance. He hoped that for the future, it would not be again
imitated.

Mr. J. ABEL SMITH thought the gratuity to Sir Charles
Trevelyan a bare act of justice. He did not know that gen-
tleman personally, but, judging from the reports he had
seen, he should be very sorry to see such services as Sir C.
Trevelyan had rendered to the country undervalued or un-
derrated.
Sir R. H. INGLIS also defended Sir C. Trevelyan ; but be
thought that other grants for extra services might be made to
those
who had deserved them.
Colonel DUNNE supported Mr. Osborne's view of the
question, and said that
f
o they were to try Sir C. Trevelyan's
merits by the testopinion in Ireland, where his much-
praised services had
been rendered, they would find that the
opinion there entertain
from that., put forth so ed of him was very different indeed
strongly in the House of Commons.
Sir C. Trevelyan hadpublishedrd avowed the authorship
of several productions, in which
e
of Ireland, especially the landlords, v
dlsi
ehandraed
3et libelled
many t the
men
people
e who
e
a t 0
cideusiteerdv.ed
wrewards
would e r
at
shka, for instance, had that eminent
member of the Reform Club, whom the n
hti;bit)—not
ler allowed to
sent go
overun r e-
Ireland—he meant M. Soyer, the cool):
tiu
been made a K.C.B. for his great services?—(Laughter.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND had read every single Nt;ortcr. )
of
reports upon the relief works in Ireland, and he thought,
judging from them, that it would be impossible to overrate
the services of Sir Charles Trevelyan, and the manner in
which he bore down the opposition he received, and con-
veyed relief to the poor, to whom it would otherwise never
have come.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. URQUHART supported Mr. Osborne.
Mr. MUNTZ knew nothing about Sir Charles Trevelyan,
except what he had heard in that House. But he held it to
fairly earn a sum of :',5001. in one year, in addition to his
be impossible that any man, by his extra services, could
salary of 2,0001. or 2,500/. a year. What he chiefly ob-
jected to, however, was the manner in which the gratuity
was wrapped up in another vote, so that it might never have
been found out but for the accidental discovery made by an
Hon. Member.
Mr. WOOD thought that as the Noble Lord had promised
the other night to avoid in future a similar mode of classing
the votes together, there ought to be no further debate upon
the merely personal matter.
Colonel DUNNE explained. He had no personal motive
whatever. He had never seen Sir Charles Trevelyan in his
life.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE said, that in agreeing to the
vote, the House was not to be considered as bound to any
approval of the system of relief given under the direction of
Sir C. Trevelyan.
Mr. GOULBURN said that the Honourable Gentleman
who had just sat down appeared to him to take an erroneous
view of the question in supposing that Sir Charles Trevelyan
was rewarded for laying down a principle. Whether the
principles on which that gentleman had acted were right or
wrong, it was not he but the Government that was account-
able for it.—( Hear.) He felt anxious to express his ap-
proval of Sir Charles Trevelyan's conduct, but at the same
time be could not but disapprove of the mode in which the
grant was made to him.--(Hear, hear.) There had been a
studied concealment about the matter that raised a doubt as
to its propriety, which, if the vote had been openly brought
before the House, would never have existed. Therefore,
while lie entertained a full sense of the value of Sir Charles
Trevelyan's labours, he felt obliged to mark by his vote
in favour of the Honourable Cieutletnau's araeuchnett his