The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-15 00:00:00

the Att orney-Gi-nPral cu the subject of th 11:,
p,rog .e,ph, two it e.Lr:ainly Et pp, coxed to him that it wouiu
oo very ucalvisah.n to rf...ise into iftip
Atauce a newspaper
which ,e,retsd to be one of the must worthless descor
tion, and which enntained setitimerus, which. ab-
minable
as they were, ho was persuaded we're totally
different
tromt he ,4.litiawnts of the Roman Catholic people ge-

nerell). —;Hear.)
ANNUAL GRANTS TO DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
On the question fir goieg into Committee of SuPPif
on the Mime,llene oas Eriimates,
Mr. REYNOLDS moved that, considering the Publii'
importance of maturaining as national institutions the
very valuable schools of medicine in Ireland, which 113 e
di riv- d th. it chief efficiency from the instruction afford."
by ihe Dublin hospitals, to the support of whict-' tor
long series of years Parliament ha. contributed, it wa
unjust, and impolitic to reduce the amount of the annul
grant which was allowed in 1848 and the preceding Years
to those bosp:tels. The Government had come to
the House year after year to move thil:
these grants should be diminished 10 per nen,"
annually, and all they rested their justification upon al
adopting this course was the evidence of a Scotobtosn re
joke eg in the name of Drummond Chisholm. This person
was attached to the office of the Chief Secretary for Ire-
land, but bad betrayed his trust, and robbed the chola°
under his charge. Be was now a fugitive in America
his name having appeared in the flue and Cry of both
countries, and the Government having offered a reward
for his appr. hension. Yet it was upon the unsupnotted
evidence of such a character that the charitable inetitu:
lions of Dublin were to he destroyed by the withdrawal
of these grants. Though he (Mr. Reynolds) wished to
save Dube from this infliction, he had nu hope
cess, stetie lig
the total disregard which was paid to Irish
Memoera in that House when they brought forward
sutj-ct relating to the welfare of Ireland.
W fiat ch slice had he under these circuar
stances of pleading ti e cause of the wretched Pa
uti; r itect,-(1 pan ho were sick within the walla of
these hospitals? If ever Irish M mbers were unanimeeS
neon an quievien at/ ctieg Ireland they were unanimous
upon this. This very day he had had the ter
nour or forming a portion of a deputation
that waited upon the Prime Minister against the with"
driven( or diminution of these gr into, the address
which was presented to his Lordship, was signed by 0°
less than ninety-four Irish Members of Parliswen6
and twelve English Members who were con'
nected by property with that country—in all 106
mbers; and all the Prime Minister did was to
drily rear them to the Chancellor of the Ezell: tinerl
who, he said, would State to the House what be intended
to do. Even that promise was rot kept, because the
Chancellor of the Exchequer peremptorily refused to
state what his real intentions were on the subject.
The R.chtnond and Hardwick Hospitals certainly bad
been spared from the consideration that they were
schools of medicine, but in truth that was the ease wit`
all the hospitals, and the same excuse might have been
urged for them. This was one of 'the evils which hit
been predueed by the unfortunate Act of Union, which
had peculiarly damaged the city of Dublin.
Sir L. O'dRIEN seconded :he motion. Ha ft It hie"
self imp retively called upon to seesk in support of rhe
inetion, becau.e he represented the feelings and the er:
nionr of the majority of the Irish represeutatives on
subject. The hospitals of Dublin were scheola
art' medicine, standing very high in the ell"
mot ion of the profession; they were fur shed
with lecturers and must Inns necessary for complete
,
es
tee the eoical educ itien o' a large number al
stueents, but if this grant were withdrawn the lectures
would h,ve to he curtailed, and the mu-sums altogether
abolished. Tne advantages which these echeols con'
erred upon srciety w: re incelcuiable and he did eat'
neatly appeal to both sides ef the Huse nut to sill
their effictcy to be aeetroyed in the manner propose'
oy the Gev. rnment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
this discussion ought t:: have been brrugnt on in Co®'
mittee, but as these who proposed it had not pursued
that course, he had no alternative but to state now 11613/
he should object to the proposal. Only five o' these in'
sututio received aid from the Irish earliament, subtle
at the pre,ent time no less than thirteen we.,,r°
4niataily in the receipt or Parliamentary grants. e.
was therefore at a 1,8 to understand how it could I,'
contended that the Dublin hospitals were worse off Vol!
then they were prior to the Union, unless it was that
I they received lees support from ihe publics of s voluntsll-
--
character. -

Mr. E. 13. ROCHE said the Right Hon. Gentlenl,lll
had urged a strange reason against this motion. P.
would riot tam the grant because it was not originallY
made by the Irish Parliament. He contended that Oil
of all others v,a4 not !he time to withdrelr
the grant. With Ireland almost in a state of
...hat power had tier people to support hospite'e
with voluntary contribution.? None whatever; and he
hoped the House woull pause before it perpetrated the
injustice of withdrawing this grant.
Mr. GROGAN admitted that bimilar grants well
not made to hospitals is this country, but they bit
received toundationa upon highly favourable terms 10)0
was t quivalent to a grant, and therefore, in order that th•
in.iitutions of the tw i countries should remain on the
same foiere. his grant ought not to be withheld.
Mr. V. BM CH, having presided over the Committee
which hair tiepin-1i into this quesuen, must say that hi°
Riot Hon. Friend the Chsecellor t f the Exchequer'
in the course which be had proposed, was osrreing 0°
the views of that Committee—views which bad beeo
founded upon the evidence that came before them.
could iee nothing in the. condition of Ireland, as regard%
those institution-,su dttferent from this country en°l
Scotland as to induce them to adept the course proposed
by the Irish Members.
Mr. S. HERBER I' admitted that the giving of an'
nual grants to such institutions wive generally speaking,
defenceless, but the question was, whether in the pre
sent case there ought not to be an excepuion to the
general rule ? They should recollect that the circuar,
stances of Ireland were very different from those °:
England, inasmuch as there was no law of settlement
or powtr of removal there as there was in England. Al
fever appeared to be the national disease of Ireland, be
hoped that the Chancellor or the Exchequer would take
the case of be fever hospitals into his consideration. its
place of making a foal withdrawal of the grants iroel
these establishments, he hoped that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would think it advisable to make one cool,
plete grant, amounting to about ten or twelve year,,
purchase, for the support of these institutions, and the'
t rid of the evil that neeesaarily arises from cereiri%
eeriest') to Perlterneut for these sums of money.
Colonel DUNNE characterised this as but a specs"
tnen of the justice that was generally meted out to Ire'
laud by the British Government. Nothing could be
more unfair or unjust than to withdraw these grenti
from the hospitals in Dublin, which they knevr tt
would be impossible to supply by voluntary marlins;
tions in the present misetable end overburdened state
that country.
Mr. REYNOLDS said, under the advice of his triad.
he would not trouble the House by dividing. He would'
however, reserve to himself the right of again brineAr
the question before the House on the next favoural2lo
opportunity.
The SPEAKER, therefore, having pat the question,
and a division being called for by some of the Irisb
Meads-tee
The gallery was cleared, when the numbers were
the amendment 43
Against it .. •.• 106
Majority against the amendment —63
The amendment was consequently negatived.
THE SEE (IF GLOUCESTER. •
Mr. EtUME was understood to ask the Hon. Member
for Bristol whether tie was prepared to make any answer
to the statements of the Ron. Member for Co fkermoet°
relative to the income of the Bei(,op of GI =ester, t.
which a reply had been attempted iu a place where the
evidence was not to he found on which his Hon. Friend
hid relied. The Hon. Member for Bristol had in a let'
ter in toe newspapers promised to give an Lamer to the
atatedwit,, tit his Hon. Prised.
Mr. P. MILES said that ho bad called upon the pub;
lie to suspend their judgment uutil information could
be r. ceived from the Bishop of Gloucester. He was now
prepared to answer any charges that might be mad•
against the Right Rev. Prelate. He was now prepare,'
to give any iniortnatton that might be called for.
Mr. HORSMAN explained Out he had made a SiatV
meet which was grounded upon evidence given be
Committee of that House. He had made the statemeo4
too, in presence of several Ecclestastwal Commissioner",
and there was no answer ur explanation to that state'
mesa. That douse knew nothing of what had beau
Bishop of Gloucester. He had commuei;
with the Hun. etetnber for Bristol, and peirlietl
cared
the
out to him who; were the specific parts of the evidence
on *etch he grounded his statement. He agreed will;
the Hen. Member that it they coold bring this matte'
before the House it would be very desirable to do o°'
but he found it was not possible to do so either on •
Government eight or upon a motion day, as each rev
Lion day was fully ocoupied up to July 29th. He norfo
then, reiterated the former statement he had wade'
He had, however, heard with great surprise that the
Right Rev. Prelate bad given an explanation elsewhere'
iu a place where the evid rice was not accessible to
those who listened to the Right Rev. Prelate. If the
Bishop of Gloucester did not think a statement made
that House worth sn answer, and it he were satisfied
with making a statement in a place where the evidence
was not in existence, and in an assembly that was he
oe:eerily ignorant of all the eircurne; ahces—if the &Owls
was contented so to act, the public would draw their
own conclusions. He (Mr. Huremae) stood there anxious
to sOstautiate his staletnents; and the orcurnstanefel
he said, tweed out atmr ger than he had first put thei°
forward. It was not his fault that the explanation are.
made elsewhere, and the discussion removed to another
assemble.. He remerked that the Hun. Member for
Brim,' was riot a part) to these proceedings.
Lord J. MANNERS remark, d that while the ROD
M. whet' wise su peroculer about this discussions that
occurred in this House, he should be so inconsistelo
as to refer to debates' in smith •r place. He considered
that the charge that had been made by the Hon. 141f03°
ber had been satisfactorily rupee,* d of by the bishop"
(Hi al)— and be v.. 8 serty to tied that the. Hon. Member
had taking ti is opportunity of indulging in another in'
vective against the Right Rev. Prelate.
CLADS I ONE ssel he could not quite under'
stand how they we re entering upon this subji et at tbe
present moment.—(Hear) He excused himself for ery
wine; upon it, as the discussion then seemed to him t 4
be both improper and irregular, but he must, in all
frankness, say, that they were bound to go further with
the peewee du gs.—(hear.) Iu his judgment the stare'
went of the Hon. G.-lineman hail been impugned 0/
every moat material petit ;—(Hear)—but still he taus
r
say that it was most d, sir able they should have a further
Oteieube4,.ii on this sulijec..—(Hear.) It was with great
pain he had heard the charges made by the Hon. Memo
tier against the Bishep of Gloucester, because there we_
no one on the episcopal bench more distinguished for!,
character of liberality and charity than the Bishop