The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-22 00:00:00

THE

without doing a great deal of mischief, and would seem con-
formable to the system adopted in England. But the pre-
sent having been adopted as a national system, and having
appointed the Archbishop of Dublin and others to conduct
the same, I am afraid that we could not admit of any change
in favour of the Church schools, without seriously injuring
the national system.—(Cries of " Hear.") I think that the
Archbishop of Dublin would oppose any system favouring
sectarian distinctions, even if he found himself opposed
by a majority of the Church. I think, therefore,
there was a good deal of reason ;in what was said by
the Honourable Member for Rochdale, that the Protes-
tant Church of Ireland is an endowed church, and the
clergy of it have the means of subsisting, aiding, and sub-
scribing for schools of its own.--(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman who spoke last said that there were
large funds subscribed for such a purpose. I am sorry that
the clergy could not join in the national school system, but
if they could not conscientiously do so, I am glad that they
subscribed for schools of their own.—(Hear, hear.) But I find
a great deal of difficulty In granting aid to these schools in
Ireland whilst the present is the mode that Government
supports as the national system. I remember that
the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth
was asked some years ago to aid a system of separate reli-
gious education, and he could not agree to the proposition.
With regard to another subject connected with this, though
not belonging to it—l mean the charge which has been made
against the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, that all the Church
patronage is reserved for. and is only given to, those who
support the national system of education—l shall merely say
that I agree with the 'Hon. and Gallant Member for Middle-
sex, who said that by far the greater portion of the Church
patronage, the benefices in Ireland, belongs to the bishops,
and is in their gift—( Hear, hear)—and I really think that it
is not too much that the Government, believing this to be a
good system of education, and wishing that it should flourish,
and seeing that a great many enlightened and pious clergy-
men have, from their favourable opinion of the system, no
chance of patronage or promotion from their bishops, should I
recommend them, and think it is no wonder that the Crown,
in the distribution of its patronage, should favour their claims.
—(Hear, hear.) I therefore think that although it would
be wrong to make an absolute rule of exclusion of all those
who are conscientiously opposed to the national system of
education. yet it is a fair test of preference, and I am ready
to maintain that the conduct of the Irish Government is
right in appointing those who are friends to it to benefices in
their gift.—(Hear, hear.) The fact is not as the Hon.
Gentleman opposite stated, when he said that it is the clergy,
who are opponents of the system, who are made to support a
load of obloquy. On the contrary, all the obloquy is cast
upon those who support the system.—(Hear, bear.) They
are charged with not observing their vows, and with not
acting conscientiously with the body to which they belong,
aid it requires a good deal of courage and a strength of mind
to support all the obloquy that is cast upon them.—(Hear.
hear.) For my part, Sir, I think that a system which has
for sixteen years increased, and not diminished—(Hear,
hear)—which was set on foot by Lord Stanley, which was
carried on under the Administration of Lord Grey, Lord
Melbourne, and Sir Robert Peel, which does tend to unite
Catholics and Protestants, and which, were it not for those
unfortunate prejudices of the clergy, would more readily
promote that union—l think that this system is worthy of
the continued support of this House—(Hear, hear)—and I
should regret any vote which would injure its efficacy and
undermine its usefulness.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr. HUME thought that no answer had been given to the
speech of the Hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne) in
reference to the refusal to admit a Roman Catholic into an
hospital in Dublin. He had originally supported the system
as introduced by Lord Stanley, and he held it to be one of
the best measures ever applied by the British Parliament to
Ireland, and he could wish a similar system, which was so
well calculated to put down sectarian rancour, was adopted
for this coantry.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON begged to explain. The hospital
to which reference had been made had been established with
Protestant money, to afford medical aid and spiritual conso-
lation to members of the Established Church ; but he was
confident no Roman Catholic labouring under the effects of
accident would be refused admission.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that, remembering the charge
made against the hospital in question, he could not but
think the answer just given was equivalent to a plea of
guilty, for it was no justification in a Christian country to
say that the hospital had been founded with Protestant
money. He had never before heard of such a description
being given to the circulating medium.—{Hear, hear, and
laughter.) 'This was practical bigotry on the part of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who was the Parliamentary
guardian of the College of the holy and undivided Trinity
in the city of Dublin.—( Hear, bear.) From that lion. and
Learned Member he was astonished to hear that there was
an attempt to proselytise that university. Why, it was clear
that a Roman Catholic might enter as a sizar, and at the end
of four years become a candidate for a scholarship; but, how-
ever great his scholastic qualifications, he was inadmissible
to that office unless he produced a certificate that he had re-
ceived the sacrament according to the form of the Established
Church in the college chapel. Therefore, unless he became
an apostate, he was excluded from honours and emoluments.
In short, though Trinity College was called a national
university, no man. from the hall porter to the senior fellow,
could hold office unless he subscribed to the Thirty-nine Ar-
ticles.
Mr. NAPIER explained, and said that he had been mis-
represented in being charged with inconsistency.
Mr. NEWDEGATE deprecated the taunts which had been
thrown out by the Honourable Members for Montrose and
Middlesex. He had only heard from them words to the
effect that the system of national education which suited the
Catholics suited some of the Protestants, and therefore that
they should keep it. But they found that there were 1,600
out of 2,000 of the clergy who found it incompatible with
their duty to accept the terms offered, and who prayed that
they might have some assistance. He proceeded, amidst
several interruptions from Mr. Osborne, to combat the asser-
tions of the Hon. Member, which he said were based upon
the inexperience of his (Mr. Osborne's) own facts. The Hon.
Member seemed to be afraid that there should be a single
Protestant establishment in all Ireland. He talked of pro-
selytism ; but he (Mr. Newdegate) asked was there not such
a thing as proselytism among the Roman Catholics? Form-
ing as it did an essential portion of their religion, were they
in a position to taunt Protestants with the practice? • He
lamented the decision that her Majesty's Government had
come to, and his conviction was, that well intended and well
devised as the system bad been by Lord Stanley, it was un-
just to the Protestants of Ireland; and he hoped that a
system would be established in that country which would be
in accordance with the feelings of both religions.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion llB
Against it ••
Majority • —lo3
On our return to the gallery the House had gone into
Committee of Supply, when the following votes were agreed
to :

13,451/. for Emigration.
41,150/. for stipendiary magistrates in the West India Co-
lonies and the Mauritius.
On the question that 30,000/. be granted for the support of
captured negroes,
Lord G. BENTINCK inquired whether the system of im-
porting negroes into the colonies, which had been tried,
and so unsuccessfully, was to be persisted in ? One of the
ships (the Bangalore) that had been sent to the coast had
made rather a good trip, having received 7001. for the
passage of one negro boy only thirteen years of age. He
wished also to know whether any other and better facilities
would be given to our colonists towards obtaining a supply
of labour ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that with respect to what had
been done it had been done at the request of the colonists
themselves. As to the future, it was not intended to bring
in any measure for the purpose of legalizing the purchase of
negroes on the coast of Africa.
Mr. HUME said that Government had sent out two ships,
not in accordance with the wishes of the colonists, but to
gratify a whim of their own. Those ships had been indeed
mast successful, having brought home one negro between
' them.—(Laughter.) He wished to know who was to pay
the expenses?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was afraid
that he must pay, although the ships had been sent out at
the urgent request of the colonists.—Vote agreed to.
23,000/., expenses of mixed commissions.
Mr. URQUHART objected to the votes, on the ground
that these commissions were virtually sinecures. He should
move that the vote be reduced by 10,000/.
Lord PALMERSTON defended the vote, and stated that
the mixed commissions were appointed under treaty, by
which they were bound to be maintained. And it was
necessary they should be so, for if fumy one were abolished,
and a vessel was afterwards captured under the flag of the
other party to the commission, there would be no court to
adjudicate.
(sir. ANSTEY supported the amendment, and contended
that these Commissioners' Courts might be abolished without
any infraction of existing treaties for the suppression of the
slave-trade. He should prefer to meet the vote with a direct
negative, as he believed the object of it was to keep up sine-
cure offices.
Atter a short conversation,
Mr. KEOGH expressed his conviction that the Commission
was a gross job. The annual returns showed that no cases
came before the Court, while a large sum was annually paid
to the officers, who enjoyed a perfect sinecure. The judge at
Sierra Leone received 2,250/. a year, while the chief justice of
the colony, with no assistant, received but 1,5001. The Go-
vernment, feeling this to be a bad case, had offered to give up
the appointment of a judge at Sierra Leone, but maintained
those at Havannah, Surinam, and the Cape, none of whom
had decided a single case for the last three years. Surely the
judge at Sierra Leone might be charged with the whole duty.
Never was a more favourable opportunity presented for re-
trenchment.
Viscount PALMERSTON said that he had already in-
formed the House that the Judge at Sierra Leone would not
he continued, and one of the Judges at Havannah having died
the appointment would not be filled up.
Mr. HUME said these courts were a nest of sinecures.
Mr. BRIGIIT compared the operations of the African
squadron to the knight errantry of old, and contended that
with the prevailing distress in this country no unnecessary
expense ought to be incurred for the purposes for which
this vote was designed. He was opposed to all Government
interference on the question of slavery and the slave trade.
Mr. P. HOWARD said the mixed commission had been
established in compliance with the wish of the country.
After a few words from Mr. URQUHART,
The gallery was cleared for a division,but none took place,
and the vote was agreed to.
On tlie vote of 43,190!. for the Consular establishments,
Mr. URQUHART moved to reduce it by 1,0001., on ac-
count of the Consul for Warsaw, which he contended ought
to be under the head of Poland, and not Russia.
Lord PALMERSTON said he had no objection to the
alteration from Russia to Poland, which was accordingly
made.
Mr. URQUHART then moved that the vote be reduced
by the sum of 5,0001., as he objected to several of the details.
Lord PALMERSTON defended the vote as originally pro-
posed by her Majesty's Government.
Mr. URQUHART declined to divide the Committee on his
amendment, and the vote was put and agreed to.
The next vote proposed was that 49,0001. be granted to
defray the charges of the British settlement at Hong-Kong.
Dr. I3OWRING complained of the excessive local tau a.
lion of Hong-Kong. Though it had but little of our China
trade, it was subjected to a very large proportion of the
diplomatic expenses of that region. Indeed, out of the five
ports in China open to our trade, there was only two with
which we had any commerce of considerable amount.
Lord PALMERSTON admitted that the subject was one
that required some consideration; and that at present there
were only two ports, Canton and Shanghae, with which we
had considerable traffic, though there was a third port
where the trade was increasing. Ile would endeavour next
year to see whether there might not be some reduction
effected in this.
After a few words from Mr. A. SMITH,
Mr. HAWES mentioned, as a proof of the increasing im-
portance of Hong-Kong, that its revenue during the last three
years had progressively increased, being in 1846, 22,0001.; in
1847' 27,000/. ; and for
the present year, 31,0001.
The vote was then agreed to, as was also the following:-
10,0001, for extraordinary disbursements of Ministers at
foreign Courts.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the House
having resumed, the report was ordered to be brought up to-
morrow (this day) at
twelve o'clock.
The Nuisances and
Contagions Diseases Bill went through