The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-14 00:00:00

the observations he had made in good part, as his only object
was to place the defences of the country on a proper footing.
He believed the present Government was no more to blame
than previous Governments • it was the altered circumstances of
the country that required this matter being entered into.
Mr. DARBY hoped the Government would take active
steps and attend to this question. He considered that no
time should be lost in putting the harbours in a state of defence.
Mr. C. WOOD hoped the subject would be taken into their
earliest consideration. It was indispensably necessary to the
welfare and safety of the country that no time should be lost in
constructing harbours of refuge.
Colonel WOOD quite agreed with the Noble Lord opposite
respecting the general defences of the country. He had
every confidence fn the valour and bravery of the British sol-
diers and seamen, still he thought, in the present aspect of
affairs, the defences of the country ought to be placed in a
proper state of repair.
Mr. HINDL EY rose to movo for a return of the names of
the persons receiving the allowance granted to Protestant Dis-
senting ministers ;in England with the names of the trustees
administering the same. He was induced to bring forward this
motion, from what had arisen at recent meetings of Dissenters
in opposition to the Maynooth grant. '1 he Dissenters had op-
posed the Bill on the ground of opposition to all ecclesiastical
endowments, and had, in consequence, been accused of taking
money from the Government, at the very time they were pro-
testing against the grant to the Roman Catholics. It was in
order to set this matter at rest, and to see who really among
the Dissenters received Government money, that he had
brought forward this motion. Now, he did not make any
charge, and he should feel that he did injustice to the Cabinet
if he did not name the parties who made it. Now, as the
Dissenting body was divided into three bodies—the Pres-
byterians, the Baptists, and the Calvinists—he thought that it
would be better that this return should be made.
Sir R. PEEL—Name the party.
Mr. HINDLEY—The Lord Chancellor, as it was reported
to him, though he received a large sum of money, yet he
paid no income-tax whatever. There was a sum voted, he
believed, for the use of the Protestant Dissenters, but it was
not known to whom the money was paid, and it ought to be
known who received it.
Mr. CARDWELL felt it his duty to oppose the motion.
The fact was that this grant of less than 1,700/. had been dis-
tributed through a board, composed of three of each of the
several connexions and three of the Established Church, ever
since the time of Geo. I. He read a letter from Dr. Rees, who
was looked up t o with much deference by the Dissenting body, in
which the doctor stated that this was distributed among a great
number of men of education and position in society, and he
thought that if this motion were agreed to it would lead to the
repudiation of the grant as an eleemosynary aid to men who
I were unable from their devotion to their duties—were quite
unable to obtain those advantages in society which men in their
position ought to enjoy. In consequence of this statement,
the Hon. Member for Montrose and the Hon. Member for
Coventry, had felt it to be their duty to move for similar re-
turns, but on being convinced of the error of their conceptions,
had both withdrawn their motions.
On the question being put,
Mr. WILLIAMS thought that while it might appear invi-
dious to require the names of particular parties beneficiaries of
the State, no objection ought to bo raised to the publication of
the names of the various sects receiving the grant, the
amount accorded each, and a classification of the various grants.
Dr. BOWRING would like to know the exact amount of
information which the Government would he willing to afford.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
consent to furnish any further information than that hitherto
conceded, and hoped the good sense of the House would not
press for the return.
. _

- Lord WORSL EY thought that the public should be per-
fectly satisfied with the names of the trustees, without know-
ing who the actual recipients of the bounties were. A suffi-
cient guarantee already existed in the publication of those
trustees, and no advantage could possibly arise from any more
specific returns.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD could not help thinking
that while, during the late debate en the Maynooth Grant, the
Dissenters had affected to abhor the principle of State endow-
ment, they were very ready to receive any bounty which
the country would concede, and as he believed that an expo-
sure of those who thus were dependent on the State would be
useful, he should vote for the return demanded.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE remarked that repeated grants had
been voted at various times to different bodies of Dissenters,
which the Hon. Member who moved, and the Hon. Member
who supported the motion, never attempted to oppose, although
they had had every opportunity for doing so, and he should,
therefore, support the Government in refusing the required in-
formation.
After a few words from Mr. SHAM AN CRAWFORD
in explanation,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority ..
_ _

On our re .admission to the gallery, we found
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY addressing the House on the
subject of the expense to which the soldiers of the Guards might be
put by the compulsion to white-wash their clothes.— (Laughter. )
They, the Life Guards, were especially favoured by the saving
of the overalls—they absolutely saved 451. 16a. This was the
proposition of a Member of a Conservative Government on the
paltry advantages of the Household troops. But the gravest
charge was yet to come. In the report which had been made
on this subject, there was a statement that the regiments of the
Household troops could not possibly be deprived of their benefits.
This economy was most injurious. He had himself once
been quartered at a low public-house, where, in consequence
of a diseased animal, he lost half his horses by the glanders.
Now, the quarter-master of a regiment of cavalry had an un-
limited authority to purchase as many horses as he required
for the service of the Government. If the Queen of this
country were to have any body guards they could not de-
prive them of the little advantages which they possessed.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT was unwilling to follow the
Hon. Gentleman through the whole of his argument. But to
adduce an instance. Sir H. Hardinge had summoned a num-
ber of individuals to attend a Court, chiefly composed of ge-
neral officers. It was on the decisions of that Court that the
Governmentaeted. They all reported in favour of the alteration.
It was quite true that the band of the Life Guards was a
larger and more expensive one than any other in the service,
but then the officers of the regiment voluntarily offered to pay
many of the expenses attending it ; and it was upon that fact
that his Grace the Duke of Wellington recommended the al-
terations that had taken place in the regulations not only in
this respect, but in others of which the Honourable Member
had complained, and in which he (Mr. S. Herbert), though
not as competent to speak upon the subject as he could
wish, entirely concurred ; and he did think they were
such, as while they contributed to the efficiency of the corps,
did not give dissatisfaction to the men. Believing, then, that
the public took some pride in beholding this fine regiment well
equipped and appointed, and that the portion of the expendi-
diture which the public paid for upholding their state was
cheerfully and willingly contributed, he should say that he did
think it would not be well to interfere with the present regu-
lations, and, in this opinion, he believed he was borne out by
the Board of General Officers. The contemplated changes
spoken of by the Gallant Member were those sanctioned by
the highest military authorities, and such as, he (Mr. S. Her-
bert) felt assured, would not make the men of the respective
corps uncomfortable.
Here the subject dropped.
Sir C. NAPIER said he wished to correct a mistake
into which he understood some Hon. Members had fallen in
reference to the observations he made regarding the fortifica-
tions of Portsmouth. He by no means meant to say anything
in depreciation of those fortifications, and therefore he did not
wish that it should go forth to the public that he had meant to
convey such an impression. _

The House then went into Committee pro forma, upon the
Bill, when various sums of money having been voted,
Mr. WILLIAMS said he had several objections to make to
the money clauses of the Bill, but, at this hour of the morning,
he could not think of trespassing on the House, and, therefore
he hoped it would be adjourned.
The House resumed, and the Chairman reported progress,
and asked leave to sit again on Monday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter past One o'clock.