The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-10 00:00:00

THE CASE OF MR. LOW.

Mr. DISRAELI was understood to ask a question
of the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) with respect to
the regulations under which chaplains were appointed
to foreign stations.
Lord PALMERSTON said the Hon. Gentleman had
stated his question in a very imperfect manner; he should
therefore have to answer that which he wished to ask.
The Consular Act stated that chaplains for foreign sta-
tions were partly to be paid by the residents and partly
by. the mother country, and that they were to be ap-
pointed and removed by the Secretary of State for the
Foreign Department. When he first came to exercise
the powers which this Act vested him with
he felt that it would be very undesirable that a Secretary
of State should himself select chaplains, as it was not
unlikely he might displease the flock for whose
spiritual teaching he was to be appointed. He,
therefore, thought it more convenient to adopt the
Scotch principle, and to leave it to the residents in those
parts to choose theirl own chaplain—( Hear, hear)—for
part of the stipends were paid by their voluntary con-
tributions, and the other out of the revenue. In the case
of Mr. Low and others, the chaplains appointed were
mentioned to him in order that he might confirm their
appointment. As he thought it necessary that these
appointments should have the sanction of ecclesiastical
authority, the Bishop of London was requested to
ordain the ministers. It appeared that Mr. Low
had rendered ihimself very obnoxious to his flock
by the adoption of what were called Puseyite prin-
ciples, and other conduct, which was not relished by them.
Afterwards an application was made to the Bishop of
London to admonish the Rev. Gentleman with the view
of inducing him to alter his course, but these efforts
failed to bring about a reconciliation between the Rev.
Gentleman and his flock, and he (Lord Palmer-
ston) at last felt it to be his duty to call upon the
residents to choose another chaplain. They did so, but
then the Bishop of London, acting no doubt with con-
scientious motives, refused to cancel Mr. Low's license,
or to grant a fresh license to the newly selected chaplain.
Under these circumstances he had felt called upon to dis-
pense with the license, and in future it was not his inten-
tion to raise these unpleasant questions by requiring a
foreign chaplain to be licensed. It would be his duty, of
course, to see that the party selected by the residents
was a fit and proper person to fill the office of chap-
lain, but it was not his intention to raise any question as
to licensing.—(Hear, hear, and Laughter.)
Mr. DISRAELI said, then the House and the country
were to understand that the Noble Lord had re-called
a chaplain who was licensed, and sent out one who was
not?

Lord PALMERSTON was understood to reply in the
affirmative.

DISMISSAL OF A JUDGE IN VAN DIEMEN'S

LND.the question of Mr. E.
Mr. ANSTEY, referringA to
Denison, wished to ask the Under-Secretary for the
Colonies whether the demand for debt was made upon
Mr. Justice Montagu before, or after, that Learned
Judge gave an adverse judgment to the Crown in refer-
ence to 15 per cent. duty which it was proposed to levy
upon the colony ?
Mr. HAWES said he had already stated all that he
knew in reference to this matter. The dispatch of the
Governor in no way alluded to the judgment mentioned
by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
Mr. HUME wished to know if any paper had been
received from the colony complaining of the removal of
the Judge.
Mr. HAWES said his Noble Friend the Secretary for
the Colonies was in possession of no other information
than that which he had already detailed to the House;
but he might state that Mr. Justice Montagu's dismissal
had no reference to any judgment he might previously
have given.

LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Mr. HEATHCOTE wished to know whether the Pre-
sident of the Poor-law Commissioners was prepared with
any remedy for the system which now prevailed amongst
Irish paupers of obtaining relief every night iu the va-
rious Metropolitan parishes. In some instances as many
es between 300 and 400 were in the habit of obtaining
relief at night and quitting the union in the morning.
Mr. C. BULLER said the subject had long occupied
his attention, and he hoped shortly to be in a position
to introduce a Bill to amend the existing vagrancy laws.
He would not promise to the House that he would be
able at once to remove an evil which had been of such
long growth, and was now so extensive, but be hoped
soon to adopt measures which would greatly mitigate, if
not wholly remove the evil. He had already brought
a Bill into the House on the subject and he
hoped, after the Whitsuntide recess, that he should have
an opportunity of stating the general course of action
which he would recommend the authorities throughout
the country to pursue, and which, aided by legislative
measures, he hoped would result in remedying the evil.