The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-27 00:00:00

NEWSPAPER TAXES.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Jas. Chris-
tie and Benjamin Dignum, Proprietors of the Bath
aiardian newspaper, praying for the repeal of taxes on
newspapers. The petitioners stated, that the quan-
tity of unstamped weekly newspapers which were circu-
lated was incredible. One news agent in Bath received not
ler, s• than eighty dozen weekly, differing_ in nothing from the
re ular newspapers except that they paid no stamp-duty, and
that they contained matter which no newspaper respectably con-
ducted would admit into its columns. He mentioned this as a
re .aarkable confirmation of the fact which he had stated to
their Lordships on a previous occasion, that the stamp duties
operate against the diffusion of useful knowledge.
EDUCATION COMMISSION—(IRELAND.)

Lord DUNCANNON had a petition to present to their
Lordships from two Gentlemen Commissioners of Public
Irstruction, against whom certain charges had been brought
by a Right Rev. Prelate about six weeks since. A
n )tice had been given by the Right Rev. Prelate (the
Eishop of Exeter) in the month of April last,
which he had subsequently postponed till after the Easter
balidays. The notice was a petition from the Rev. W. Baker
.oney, incumbent of a parish in Mayo, complaining of the un-
f,ir and improper conduct of two Commissioners of Public In-
a ruction. The Commissioners in Dublin had sent circulars to the
Clergy of every persuasion, requesting answers to certain que-
ries. The Rev. Mr. Stoney, instead of sending written an-
s, ers, had thought fit to print and circulate them through the
e runty. The Noble Lord proceeded to read the questions of
tl 0 Commissioners and the answers of the Rev. Mr. Stoney, in
which he assailed the Roman Catholic religion, and the Clergy-
men of that persuasion officiating in his parish, in very strong
tc -ms. The Commissioners, having received those answers,
were obliged to attend in the parish ; knowing the temper of
the gentlemen from the nature of the answers, they had
been careful to take a minute of every thing that transpired
while in the parish. He was sorry to take up the time of the
I louse, but one or two of the circumstances were so particular
that he felt it was necessary that be should detail them. After
the Commission had been opened, the first discussion was as to
ta.a, attendance of worshippers at the Church. The answers
of Mr. Stoney were of so very violent a nature as to be in the
opinion cf the Commissioners very exciting and offensive to-the
Roman Catholics—the Commissioners were obliged to request
that he would be more temperate on several occasions. Mr.
Stoney gave in a census of those belonging to his con-
gregation, which be did not wish to have made public,
as that would not be received. He furnished another '
which contained the name of a woman named Gordon.
Mr. Hughes, the parish priest, stated upon oath that
he had received her into the Catholic Church, and had
*No administered the Sacrament to her. Mr. Stoney,
s Lid she was one of his congregatidn, but dared not
attend from the system of intimidation pursued in the
parish. The Curate of the parish and two Magis-
trates denied that statement, and said that though
they were Protestants they could safely proceed through
any part of the parish without any other weapon
than a stick. Some men in the Court were making a
noise, and one of them was put out, which induced Mr.
Stoney to protest against all the proceedings, in conse-
quence of his witness being excluded. Mr. O'Donnell, a
magistrate, at the close of the proceedings, said he regretted
that a respectable man had been turned out, but he
also said that the Commissioners could not do otherwise.
It appeared that Mr. Stoney could have had no difficulty
at all in making a proper return, for it appeared that- the
parish contained 497 Protestants, 1,213 Catholics, and two
Presbyterians—a fact which was well-known to himself.
Out of several thousand cases there were only five complaints
against the Commissioners sent in to the Irish Government.
lie had seen those complaints or charges : one of them was
from a Noble Lord, and the other four from Protestant
clergymen ; and in every instance the answers returned
were said to be satisfactory.—( Hear.) He would not
go into any explanation as to the character of this
Gentleman, or of the proceedings that had taken place be-
tween him and his parishioners ; he would only beg the House
to consider the situation in which the Commissioners were
placed. They had a most arduous duty to perform,
and charges, therefore, should not be lightly brought against
them. He did not know why the Rev. Mr. Stoney had not
thought proper to place his petition in the hands of his own
diocesan (the Archbishop of Tuam) who was a Member of
that House, who knew the character of Mr. Stoney, and
might inquire into the circumstances attending this charge.
lie, however, preferred sending it to the Right Rev. Prelate,
who could know nothing of the circumstances of the case, of
the character of Mr. Stoney, or of the litigation that occurred in
Lis parish. Therefore he called upon their Lordships in the
name of these petitioners to compel Mr. Stoney to make
rood the charges that had been brought against them, or
to relieve them from charges which every ono of their
Lordships must consider the severest and the heaviest that
could be put upon men in their situation. The Noble Lord
concluded by presenting the petition.
The Bishop of EXETER would not follow the Noble
Viscount in his details, nor would he comment on the conduct
either of Mr. Stoney, Mr. Hughes, or the Commissioners.
lie simply wished to state his reason for presenting this petition.
In the first place, he wished to set himself right respecting the
terms of the motion of which he had given notice. The notice
which he delivered was, not a charge against the Com-
missioners for persecuting Protestant Clergymen, but for their
partial and unfair conduct, and also praying protection
against the persecutions which Protestants were suffering
i Ireland—not from the Commissioners, but from the
Papists of that country. The Noble Viscount also
stated it as a most extraordinary circumstance in this case,
that the petitioner did not think fit to place his petition
i i the hands of his own diocesan. The fact was simply
this ; that Right Rev. Prelate, the Archbishop of Tuam,
Lad not been in England since the first day of the session ;
he (the Bishop of Exeter), however, communicated the
circumstances to him, and enquired as to the character of
Mr. Stoney, and it was only his duty to state that he
received an answer, thanking him in the most handsome way,
f )r undertaking the case of one of his clergy, of whom he spoke.
is the highest terms, as one whose every statement might be
received as true. The Right Rev. Prelate then explained
the reason why he did not bring the matter forward sooner,
by stating that he could not find Mr. Craig, the Commis..
loner's name, in the Commission upon their Lordship's table,
rid also from the circumstance of the Easter recess, and the
inquiries he had found it necessary to make, in order
to bring the subject satisfactorily before the House.
The return to that motion had not been made until that morn-
s ,g—it had been only just placed in their Lordships' hands.
Ile should be ashamed to take advantage of any want of form ;
ut there was one point to which he begged to direct their
Lordships' attention. It appeared that Mr. Craig had required
Mr. Stoney to attend him, but it turned out that he had no right
t ) issue such orders, for the Commission made it im-
} ,rative on the Commissioners, that two or more should)
Le connected in all their inquiries.—( Hear, bear, hear.)
That had increased his (the Bishop of Exeter's) anxiety to see
the Commission under which Mr. Craig had been appointed,
r id that Commission had been placed in his hands only that day.
1 it was not the paper which he had moved for—it was not the
document which the Noble Viscount had promised to lay upon
their Lordships' table—it was merely a warrant under which a
Commission was afterwards to be executed; and it was rather
strange, that in a case where the production of the paper was
t such importance, the proper one had not been produced.
lie appealed to the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham)
v hether that was a Commission, for he believed his name
vas appended to it.—( A laugh.)
Lord BROUGHAM did not see how his name being men-
thned in it could make him answerable for its contents.—
( Cries of Order. )
The Bishop of EXETER resumed. The petition re-
quired of their Lordships to compel Mr. Stoney to bring
fcrward his case while the gentlemen complained of
were present, but Mr. Stoney was at present in Ire-.
Irnd ;" and he (the Bishop of Exeter) was quite persuaded
ti at the Reverend Gentleman would bring it forward
whenever their Lordships wished it, and if Mr. Stoney did not
do so, he (the Bishop of Exeter) would not bring
the petition forward at all. In another week the Report of
the Commissioners of Public Instruction would be upon their
Lordships' table ; and under these circumstances he thought
h' would be doing very wrong if he thrust the case forward.
Lord BROUGHAM said that, being in a great degree an-
swerable for the validity of the Commission to which so much
allusion had been made, he was very properly and regularly
called upon by the Right Rev. Prelate to give some explana-
ti,r, as to its character. He did not blame Mr. Craig or the
other gentleman who was joined with him in the petition that
had just been presented to their Lordships for sending forward
that petition. It was very natural that they should have
smarted under the supposed charge, made against them by
the Rev. Mr. Stozieir- But it turned out that they had no
charge to meet. Them was only a notice of a charge. He
did not blame his Noble friend ( Viscount Duncannon) for
presenting the petition, but he not think that the grounds
of the petitior were a fair subject 1:7 complaint. The peti-
tioners complained that the petition of the Rev. Mr. Stoney
was not presented. Now, surely the Right Prelate to
whom Mr. Stoney's petition had been entrusted had a i7erfet
right to postpone the presentation of that petition accordin:
to his own discretion. It had been suggested that there was
some discrepancy between the paper which the Right Rev.
Erelte-_,Fead end the notice entered on the books : but on in-
spection the one turned out to be a literal transcript of the
. other, even to the very letter. It had been said that what
had. been printed and read was not a copy of what was
handed in by the Right Rev. Prelate. Now he held in his
hand the very original that had been delivered in at the table
by the Right Rev. Prelate, and as he knew from his habits as