The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-01 00:00:00

tions for the eduaticn of all elasses of tl-.e people, and when they
considered the change which had taken place lately, by which
two-thirds of the people of Scotland had separated from the
Church, it became the more necessary that some change should
be made in these tests. Such a change would tend to do away
with religious animosity, by educating the children of parents
of different sects together. The subject was a most important
one, and he agreed with the Hon. Member for Renfrew, that
the Government ought to allow the Bill to be introduced, so
as to give the people of Scotland an opportunity of expressing
an opinion on the subject. He should support the motion.
Mr. FORBES could see no good reason for the introduc-
tion of this measure. Three or four years ago there were large
bodies of Dissenters in Scotland, but neither the Right Hon.
Gentleman, who was then in office, nor the Hon. and Learned
Member for Leith, who was then Lord Advocate, ever thought
it necessary to bring forward any measure of this nature. He
had been recently in Scotland, and certainly he- had. not heard
any desire expressed for such a measure as that proposed by
the Right Hon. Gentleman. lie trusted that the House
would reject this motion which had been submitted to them.
Mr. F. MAULE then rose to rerly. He must say that if
the question of tests could meet with no better defence than
that which it had received from Right Hon. Gentlemen and
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought he might anticipate the
time when tests—he metnt tests upon lay professors—would
be abolished. He confessed that he was somewhat surprised
at what had fallen from the lion. Baronet opposite (Sir G.
Clerk) with respect to these tests. The Hon. Baronet said
that these tests were so slight that any respectable man might
take them, even though he differed entirely from their plain
interpretation. Now, if these tests were so slight, he would
ask, what was the use of maintaining them, or what protection
did they give? But, however, he did not look upon them as
being so slight. A member of the Church of England, by ac-
cepting the professorships which Mr. Sandford and Dr.
Lushington held, were obliged to sign a confession of faith to
which they did not belong. He was surprised that such a man
as Dr. Lushington could do this, and .t was the fact of his
having done so which made him (Mr. F. Maule) believe
that by encouraging such tests they were encourag-
ing a system of immorality on the part of those
who ought to be an example to the country.—(Cheers.) He
believed that if this Bill which he proposed had gone down to
Scotland, that petitions innumerable would have been sent
up in its favour. In refusing to legislate upon this subject,
they might depend upon it that they would do more injury
than good to the Church. He felt that it would have the
effect of establishing rival Universities and seminaries to a
great extent, which would be attended by the youth of Scot-
land, although those seminaries might not have the privilege of
conferring degrees, while those seminaries which could confer
degrees would be conducted by pauper professors, and attended •
by very poor students.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—'
For the motion
Against it '
Majority against the motion —27
The announcement of the majority was received with loud
cheers by the Opposition.
A RCHDEACONRY OF ARMAGH.

Viscount EBRINGTON then rose to move for the produc-
tion of certain papers connected with the Archdeaconry of
Armagh. The Noble Lord observed that up to the present time
the Government bad taken no steps whatever to carry out
the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for
the dissoiution of unions, and the appointment of a clergyman
in every parish where:there was a benefice. The intention of the
late Government had been to do away with the monstrous
anomaly of one clergyman holding livings in several parishes
far distant from each other, and they hal acted up to their in-
tentions as the unions happened to become void. if the pre-
sent Government declined to interfere to abate such nuisances,
it would be his (Lord Ebrington's duty to take further steps
in the matter. The condition of the Archdeaconry of Armagh
was this. It contained two parishes covering a surface of
nine miles by four and three quarters. It contained 11,500
acres, and the total population of the union was 16,398. There
were churches and glebe houses, and the income of the two
parishes, enjoyed by one person, was stated in the report of the
Commissioners at 1,6421., though he admitted it was now re-
duced to about 9001. Why had there not been a severance of
the parishes, forming this union when an avoidance had taken
place? He admitted that in the case of the deanery of Meath,
the Government had acted on the principle laid down by the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and ordered the severance of the
parishes forming it. This, however, he must observe, had
been done since he (Lord Ebrington) put his notice of motion
on the books.. The importance of the case he wished to ob-
serve was in the principle, and since the present Ministers had
'been in power the dissolution of unions of parishes had been the
exception, and not, as with the late Ministers, the rule of
conduct.

Lord ELIOT said it was true that, in 1831, the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners had recommended that a divi.ion in unions
should take place, with a view to the better apportionment of
clerical duty and a juster distribution of patronage.
At that time the income of:this union was 1.6001. per annum,
but by the provisions of the Church Temporalities Act, this
was subject to a charge of 14 per cent., and its present amount
did not exceed 9001. Such an income his Noble Friend the
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had thought not too much for the
dignity of Archdeacon, and he had therefore not thought it his
duty to interfere in the matter. But when an avoidance took
place he had taken care to appoint a person most amply quali-
fied for the discharge of the important duties attached to the
living. This was the Rev. Mr. Stokes, who, he could assure
the Noble Lord had not been selected:for any political partizan-
ship, but for his acquirements, for his character, and for his
peculiar fitness for the duties of a Christian minister.
He thought it was only strict justice to adhere strictly to the
recommendation of the Commissioners; and he could assure
his Noble Friend opposite, that no man was so anxious as he
was to carry out all the previsions of the Church Temporalities
Act, but there was now under the consideration of her Ma-
jesty's Government a measure which would tend to cause a
better distribution amongst the clergy of the Church revenues,
and therefore he thought it would be mere wise of his Noble
Friend to defer his motion for a Committee on this subject.
He should not object to giving his Noble Friend opposite any
papers in connextion with this matter, excepting those of a
private and individual nature.
After a few observations from Mr. Ross, Mr. Shaw, and
Viscount Ebrington in reply, the motion was agreed to.
SINKING FUND.
On the motion of Mr. HUME, the following returns were or-
dered.—Return of the several amounts which were appropriated
in each year since the passing of the Act of 1780 (Mr. Pitt's
Act), to the creation or support of a Sinking Fund, with the
authority for creating and appropriating the same ; exhibiting
from year to year the capital and interest thereon; also, state-
ment of the amounts of capital and interest which from year
to year were applied out of the said Sinking Fund to the pub-
lic service ; stating for w hat particular service, with the autho-
rities for applying the same, up to the period of the final ex-
tinction of the Sinking Fund.
Mr. P. S. BUTLER moved for returns of the sums of
money demanded by the clerks of the peace in the different
counties and counties of cities in Ireland, to remunerate them
for their additional services under the new Arms Act. Of the
sums of money approved of by the different grand juries of
Ireland for that purpose. Of the number of arms registered
in each county. Of the sums of money demanded and allowed
as above to the different clerks of petty sessions under the
above Act.—Agreed to.
Mr. FRENCH moved for several returns relating to new
workhouses in Ireland and the Poor-law Commissioners. The
Hon. Gentleman spoke at acme length of the disproportion
between the appointment of Englishmen to various offices in
Englarrd and Ireland.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he had no objection to the motion
but he would suggest that it should not include the names of al
the Irish paupers who had been removed from England to Ire-
land. _ _ .

Sir R. PEEL was sorry that the Hon. Gentleman bad again
adverted to the injustice done to Irishmen with regard to va-
rious offices which he had mentioned. He thought there was
no „baround whatever for his observations. If preference were
likely to be be shown anywhere, it was, as he thought, in the
diplomatic appointments ; yet, what was the fact ? The repre-
sentatives in this country, in the United States, in China, at
Constantinople, at St. Petersburgh, and at Paris, were all
Irishmen.—( Hoer, hear.) Thus again. The Comman-
der of the Forces both in this country and in India,
was an Irishman. He thought there could not be
more conclusive proofs that there was no intention whatever to
do injustice to Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman, however, might
depend upon it that the Government would not be influenced
in their appointments by observations like those with which h
had accompanied his motion.—(Hear, bear.)
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. BROTHERTON must move the adjournment of the
House. He would not trust to the chance of another Irish
debate to,oight.—( A laugh.)
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
Sir tv. NORREYS assured the Hon. Member that his
motion'was not opposed by the Government. He moved for
a Select Committee on poor.laws in ; and an in,
struetion to the' Committee relative to valuations for local
taxation in Ireland.

Mr. F. SHAW was sorry that the Government had con
sented to the Committee. In two-third, of the unions in
Ireland, the law was working well—in the other third, iri
consequence of persons agitating again 4 the law, it was not, per-;
baps working so well, but the appointment of this Committee
would be comsidered in Irerand as a prelude to the repeal of
the law.
Mr. FRENCH denied that he had ever agitated against. 014
law. He had never opened hie mouth on the subject of thel
poor-law, except in that House.
Mr. BELLEW believed the law had, on the whole, worked
satisfactorily, and wished to know to what objects the Com-
mittee were to direct their attention.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the debate be adjourned.
Sir R. PEEL, before the question was put, thought that,
in order to do away with any misconception which might
arise in Ireland from the consent of the Government to the
appointment of this Committee, it was necessary that he
should distinctly state that it was the opinion of the
Government that the poor-law in Ireland ought to be strictly
maintained in its whole integrity.—(Cheers.) They bad done
all they could to maintain it by the civil power, and by having
recourse to military power where that was necessary. If they
acceded to the appointment of this Committee, it was not with
any intention of defeating the working of the law ; but seeing
that there were objections made to it, which they considered
unfounded, and seeing that the law had worked well in many
parts, he thought that either party might be reconciled to it
by inquiry. It was not always wise to compel obedience to
the law by force, if by granting inquiry it could be proved to
those who were opposed to the law that the working of it
was advantageous.—(Cheers.) The object of the Govern-
ment in acceding to the appointment of the Committee was not
to disparage, bat to fortify the poor-law.
Col. CONOLLY thought the alterations made in the law
last year would work well, and he was backed in that opinion
by the Luke of Leinster. Ile besought the Hon. Baronet to
postpone his motion for twelve months, in order to see how
those alterations would work.
Mr. V. STUART advised the postponement of the mlticn
until next session. _ .

Mr. FRENCH hoped the motion for adjourning the debate
would be withdrawn.

The motion for adjourning the debate was then with raven,
and the Committee was agreed to.
Mr. AGLION BY moved for the appointment of a Com-
mittee to inquire into the state of New Zealand, consisting of
the following Members :—Lord Francis Egerton, Viscount
Howick, Mr. Lascelles, Mr. George W. Hope, Mr. Robert
Clive, Mr. Hawes, Sir R. H. Inglis, Viscount Ebrington, Mr.
Charteris, Sir John Hanmer, Mr. Milnes, Viscount Jocelyn,
Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Wilson Patten.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL objected to the mode in which the
Committee had been appointed as improper and unusual.
After a few words from Lord STANLEY and Mr. Act.towstr
in explanation, the Members of the Committee were appointed,
the orders of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned
at Half•past One o'Clock.

FANNY KEMBLEI BUTLER: The following is in the
yew York Express of Wednesday last Weltauthenti-
cated rumour has it that a former ornament of the English
and American stage, whose superior histrionic abilities made
her in all our cities the cynosure of the fashionable as well
as the literary werld, for a time, has lately separated herself
from her husband, and awaits only the termination of a
pending arrangement as to the custody of their children, to
part from him and the country entirely."
An ewe sheep, in lamb, belonging to Mr. Mason,
was lately so much mangled by a dog that the lamb dropped
through the wound ; the ewe died, but the lamb was put to
another sheep, and is fiCirr &LIZ well.--Northampton Herald