The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-05 00:00:00

law had been justly administered, and that the lies
fortunate person had forfeited his life according
to that law, and he was also bound to suppose
that that j udge was by no means ignorant of the law, nor
was guilty of maladministration or perversion of it.
He believed that the judge had not maladministered
the law; it was the law, and he was condemned to
die for aiding the escape of a slave. That was the
law of Louisiana; it Itas not the law of England
—God forbid it should be. But he might
humbly, and with every respect towards the
Government and Legislature of Louisiana, express
his fervent hope that advantage would be taken of
the long interval between this and the 26th of April,
when he was condemned to die, for the sacred purpose
of extending mercy to this criminal. He treated him as
a criminal, because the laws of his country had so dealt
with him ; but he hoped and trusted that the humane
and merciful consideration of the Louisanian Govern-
ment would be extended to this unfortunate individual.

- ,
this very system of education which had been so de-
flounced, had been most strongly recommended by ,
the Education Commission itself. The report of that
Commission bore the signature of such names as the
Primate of Ireland, the Archbishop of Cashel ; and
the report itself was brought up by one of the most
distinguished advocates of Protestantism, Mr. Leslie
Foster.—(Hear, hear.) He feared the Irish Govern-
ment did not sufficiently discourage sectarian feuds
and religious rancour. The address of the Pro-
testant Operative Association to the Lord
Lieutenant contained sentiments of undis-
g uished hostility to the great bulk of the
Irish people, and should have been replied to in a
manner which would show them that the Executive
discouraged all such indications. The Noble Marquis
then read the answer of the Lord Chancellor of Ire-
land to the Rev. Mr. Birmingham's letter, in which
that Noble and Learned Lord stated that it was not
in the province of the Government to review the acts
of the Board of Charitable Bequests. He (the Lord
Chancellor) was a member of that Board, and if the
application was mide to the Board during its sitting
he would call their particular attention to it. He
could not, however, give any opinion concerning the
merits of the particular application. The Rev. Gen-
tleman had applied since then, but was told the Board
had not sat, and so the grievance was left unre-
dressed. He would earnestly call the attention of
their Lordships to the motion. He feared that how-
ever anxious the Noble Duke opposite (the Duke of
IVellington) might be to act in a straightforward and
impartial manner, that the Irish Government must
have a more determined will, and use a stronger
hand in order to restrain those sectarian manifesta-
tions and govern with impartiality. It was not his
intention to move for a Committee at present. He
would confide the matter to the management of the
Government ; but on a future occasion, if the evil was
not remedied, he would feel it his duty to move for
a Committee, before which he would be able to sub-
stantiate all the allegations he had made on that
evening.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he had taken
great pains to inform himself of the particulars re-
garding the present motion, but had been unable to
obtain much information on the subject. He believed
the statement made by the Noble Marquis was nearly
accurate. The Noble Duke then recapitulated the
facts of the case as stated by the Noble Marquis, and
stated that it appeared to him th.t the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Ireland had taken the only proper
course, in recommending the applicant to apply to a
court of equity, which was the proper method of ob-
taining redress, as that court alone could have juris-
diction over the Board of Bequests. The applicant
had certainly applied to the Lord Chancellor of Ire-
land, but as .he had not made the application to the
Noble and Learned Lord in his judicial capacity, the
Noble and Learned Lord gave him the only answer
he could give him, as merely a member of the Board.
As to the Bishop of Kildare, or the other matters
mentioned by the Noble Marquis, he had nothing
whatever to do with them ; but he thought it would
very badly become their Lordships to appoint a Com-
mittee, when the legitimate course of application
being to a court of equity had not been resorted to.
He would, however, call the attention of the Govern-
ment to the subject.
Lord COTTENHAM was of opinion that a
court of equity was not the proper place to apply to
in this case. In the first place, the whole amount, a
trifle of 71., would be consumed in a single motion in,
the Court of Chancery; in the second, the case in-
volved a point of much difficulty and disputation.
What really was the power given by the Act of Par-
liament to the Board of Charitable Bequests ? The
words of the Act did certainly appear to give great
discretion to that Board, a discretion which might
render nugatory all such bequests as the present, and
which might be sought to be applied to the general
purposes of education. He would earnestly call the
attention of the Government to the state of the law
on this matter, with a view to its alteration.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not think this
was a case for a court of equity. He thought his
Hon. and Learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland had given the only answer he could give by
telling the applicant to apply to the Board when he
was present, and he would call their attention to the
case. The matter never had been brought before the
Board since, else he felt quite sure the Hon. and
Learned Lord would have fully redeemed his promise.
After a few words from the Duke of WELLINGTON
and the Marquis of NORMA.NBY in explanation,
Lord CAMPBELL said he feared much time
would not be gained by bringing the matter before
the Board, considering the opinions that had been ex-
pressed by two Members of it, Judges Jackson and
Lefroy. The Noble and Learned Lord defended the
conduct of his countryman, the Bishop of Kildare,
who, he felt sure, did not do anything harsh in this
case, nay, very little responsibility was attached to him.
The Bishop of EXETER contended that the
rector of the parish was bound to apply the bequest
in the mariner most calculated to promote the prin-
ciples of the Established Church. He cared not
whether there were 70 or 700 Papists in the school,
the principle remained the same. The Right Rev.
Prelate defended the conduct of Judges Jackson and
Lefroy, and said he was glad to see that they had the
manliness to act upon their opinions. Did the na-
tional system of education, he would ask Noble Lords,
carry out the principles of the Established Church,
and did it not rather pander to the feelings and preju-
dices of Roman Catholics and Dissenters ?

CORN-LAWS.
The Earl of DEVON presented two petitions from
the county of Somerset in favour of the corn-laws.
LANDLORD AND TENANT COMMISSION.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that
he should put a question to the Noble Earl opposite
(the Earl of Devon), as to the Landlord and Tenant
Commission. Some contradictory reports had been
in circulation, and the object of his question would be
to elicit from the Noble Earl, the real scope, aim, and
object of the Commission.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
The Marquis of NORMANB Y rose for the pur-
pose of presenting the petition of which he had given
notice, from John and Elizabeth Ryan, the keepers of the
parochial school of BalLisack, in the diocese of Kildare,
complaining that the interest of 2001., the legacy of a
former rector of the parish, had been unjustly stopped
for the last seventeen months by the Board of Charitable
Bequests in Ireland, in consequence of the introduc-
tion of the national system of education into the
school: The petition prayed for a Committee of
Inquiry into the constitution of this Board.
In the year 1794 a Committee of the House of Lords
took upon themselves the examination and control of
charitable bequests and donations in Ireland, and
they instituted- prosecutions with a view to the resto-
ration of sums which had been misappropriated.
Just previous to the union it occurred to the Irish
Parliament that something should I e done with refe-
rence to these trusts, and one of the last Acts of
that Parliament was to establish a board of charitable
bequests and donations. That board was to be com-
posed of the Lord Chancellor, the judges of the Pre-
rogative Court, of all the common law judges in Ire-
land, of all bishops, and of the nineteen rectors of
the different parishes in Dublin. In the year
1829 a Committee was appointed to consi-
der this subject, and very important evidence
was given before that Committee by Mr. O'Connell.
Mr. O'Connell said, that many persons had consulted
him on the subject of this Board. They complained
of its composition. Mr. O'Connell stated that, owing
to the Protestant character of that Board,
large sums of money had been lost to the
charities of Ireland. He, therefore, recom-
mended an alteration and revision. From that
time to the year 1838 nothing farther was done in.
the matter. In that year, however, the Hon. Mem-
ber for Waterford introduced a Bill on the sub-
ject in the other House of Parliament, but that
Bill never reached their Lordships' House.
The Noble Marquis then read the will of Mr. Few,
the former rector of the parish, by which he left the
interest of 2001. towards the support of the school.
He would now say one word upon the state of the
parish of Ballysack, of which he knew something,
having had a residence there, to which he some-
times retired when his avocations would permit him
to do so. That parish was supposed to contain about
3,000 inhabitants, but it had since been ascertained that
the number of inhabitants was only 1,300, and of that
number only 40 were Protestants. The present
rector of the parish, Mr. Birmingham, had exerted
himself in a praiseworthy manner to make the school
what it was at present. The former state of
the parish was this ; there was a schoolmaster,
who received the interest of the gift, but there
was no school or scholars. At present there were
78 Roman Catholic scholars, boys and girls, who
were educated under the regulation of a National
Board ; there were, however, only four Protestant
children went there, their parents making no objection.
Such was the state of the parish of Bally-
sack. Now, with respect to the Reverend Mr.
Birmingham, he was originally curate of St. Bride's.
That gentleman had been appointed chaplain to the
Lord Lieutenant by the Marquis Wellesley, he had
been continued as chaplain by his Noble Friend op-
posite and by himself. Under the present Ministry
the appointment to the chaplaincy had been, he was
bound to say, of a more exclusively political cha-
racter, and Mr. Birmingham had been no longer con-
tinued chaplain. Mr. Brimingham had been appointed
to the rectory of Ballysack. The system which had
been pursued there had continued without interrup-
tion up to last year, when the Board of Charitable
Bequests had thought proper to interfere. This in-
terference had been coeval with the admission to that
Board of certain ex officio members—namely, judges
who had been appointed by the present Government
—gentlemen who had always exhibited themselves
as strong political partisans of the Protestant Ascen-
dancy, who had attended the meeting at the Man-
sion-house in 1837—he meant Mr Baron Lefroy and
Mr. Sergeant Jackson. Mr. Jackson had given utter-
ance to such strong opinions on this subject that he had
been excluded from serving as a judge of assize un-
der the government:of the Duke of Northumberland
and Lord Francis Egerton. Onithe 7th of April, 1843,
Mr. Birmingham received a letter from Mr. Mathews,
secretary to the Boardof Charitable Bequests, stating
that, in the opinion of the Commissioners the school
was not properly conducted as a Protestant parochial
school ; that in consequence the trust had not been
properly fulfilled, and that until the school should be
made a Protestant school, the trust;Money left by the
Rev. Mr. Pugh would not be paid. , The resolution
of the Board, in consequence of which the letter had
been written, had been proposed by .111 r. Baron Le-
froy and seconded by Mr. Sergeant Jackson. It had
been passed by a small majority, and among
the minority who voted against the' resolution were
the Archbishop of Dublin and Chief Baron Brady
The Noble Marquis then read an extract from the
will, to show that it was the intention of the testator
to leave the system of education entirely to the dis-
cretion of the clergyman. He did not think that the
Board had any power to withhold the grant. Their
powers were limited to the recovery of charitable be-
quests which had been secreted, neglected, or misap-
plied. The only expression in their constitution which
they could so construe was, that which authorised
them, in cases where the bequest could not be lawfully
applied according to the will of the testator, to apply
it so as to meet as nearly as possible the intention of
the will. The Noble Marquis then read a letter from
the Bishop of Kildare to the Rev. Mr. Birmingham.

Lord MONTEAGLE reminded the Right Rev:
Prelate that the system of national education had ob-
tained the sanction of the Protestant Primate, the
Archbishop of Cashel, the Bishop of Killaloe, the
Provost of Trinity College, and Mr. Leslie Foster.
The system was working well, and he trusted nothing
would occur to embitter those sectarian differences
which the national education system was doing so
much to remove. _ _

The Bishop of EXETER wished to hear from
the Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Campbell), he
being the gravest law-authority in the House, as
Lord Cottenham was not then in his place, whether it
would be according to law for a clergyman of a parish
interested, as in this case, in a bequest, to apply it
to the puposes of education according to the princi-
ples of the Established Church ?
Lord CAMPBELL jocosely observed, that as the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack was the

highest legal authority in the House, he must refer
the Right Reverend Prelate to him for an answer.
Lord LYNDHURST.—The Right Rev. Prelate
is himself, I should say, the gravest authority on such
a point.—(Much laughter.)
The matter then dropped, and the petition was laid
on the table.
Their Lordahips adjourned at a Quarter to Eight
o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 4.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'Clock.

DEVIZES ELECTION.

ign,
in which the Right Rev. Prelate informed that The SPF,AKER informed the House that he had
gentleman, that at a meeting of the Board of Chari- received a communication from the examiner of the
table Bequests, severe strictures had been passed upon recognisances in the case of the petition against the
his conduct, and the Bishop warned him that he return for Devizes, who reported that the sureties on
brought himself within the provisions of the penal that petition were unexceptionable.
Act of King Henry VIII., in his 28th year, "unleas
RAILWAY BILLS.
he (Mr. Birmingham) should restore his school
On the motion of Lord RENDLESHAM, the
to its proper uses." But the fact was,
the Act of Henry VIII. was the 15th and Beccles Navigation Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed.
not the 28th, and its object was not to make the
Mr. G. DUNCAN presented a petition from
schools Protestant, but to enforce the teaching of
Dundee, in favour of the Edinburgh and Glasgow
English. It was passed at a time when there had
Railway Bill.
been no change in the intent, and it contained a special
enactment that the pupils should "tell their beads in Sir F. TRENCH presented a petition from Scar-
English."—(Hear, hear.) That was a Protestant
borough, in favour of the Scarborough Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. WILSON PATTEN, the
enactment.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Act
Manchester and Birmingham (Macclesfield and Poyn-
contained other regulations relating to the dress and
ton branches) Railway Bill was read a second time,
manners of the clergy. They were not to wear " satin
shirts," nor to wear hair upon theirupper lips.—(A and ordered to be committed.
Mr. GREENALL presented a petition against
laugh.) He did not wish to read the whole of the
Rght Rev. Prelate's letter. His Grace was eighty- the Norwich and Grantham Railway Bill.
i
Mr. ESCOTT presented a petition from Exeter
six years of age, and it might be ' supposed that
the letter contained some expressions which his Grace against the South Devon Railway Bill.
Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from various
at another time might wish he had reconsidered.
not arts of London against the 41st clause in the Great
As he did not read the second letter, he would
Western Railway Extension Bill.
read the answer, but the Bishop, in the course of his
Mr. RUSSELL said the Company had decided
letter, states "he was anxious to rescue the property,
upon withdrawing this clause. They were also ready
and place from the hands of the National Board."—
to submit to any provisions which the Committee
(Hear, hear.) It was not with the Board of Cheri-
might recommend, or Parliament might think proper
table Bequests, but with the minister of the parish
to adopt.
that the control of the funds rested, till this most ex-
SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY BILL.
traordinary interference of the Board of National
Education. He would not read the Bishop's letter, Mr. C. RUSSELL moved the second reading of
this Bill.
because he was aware that a threat had been conveyed
to the Rev. Mr. Birmingham that if he brought the Mr. S. HERBERT rose for the purpose of stating
case before Parliament it was possible a temporary that very grave objections had been made to this Bill.
license of non-residence, which he had on account of The Board of Admiralty had received several-memo-
the illness of his wife, who was the Mother of seven rials from persons interested, in the neighbourhood of
children, would be withdrawn from him by his dio- Exeter. In consequence of their representations, the
cesan.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped there was no four- Board of Admiralty had sent down Mr. Walker to
dation for this. He knew enough of the Bishop of examine into the matter. He should, therefore, make
Kildare to make him believe that such a step would no objection to the second reading of this Bill, pro-
not be taken. Having stated thus much with regard vided a distinct assurance were given by the pro-
to this case, he would, in a few words, call the atten- moters of the Bill that the Committee would not ba
tion of the House to what the state of Ballysack appointed until after Mr. Walker's report should be
would be if it were not for their interference. received.
This case was an epitome of the state of Ireland. Mr. C. RUSSELL was ready to accede to so rea-
The same thing might be the case with five out of sonable a proposition.
six parishes in Ireland. It illustrated the struggle Lord SEYMOUR wished to know at what time
between the two principles of government for Ireland Mr. Walker's report might be expected.
—that which would govern the people with good will Mr. S. HERBERT said he expected it in about a
and with the concurrence of the great mass of the fortnight.
population, and that which would govern her by con- The Bill was then read a second time.
straint and force. The Roman Catholic pastor had On the motion of Mr. AINSWORTH, the Bolton
been acting in concert with the rector of the parish Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to
in promoting the education of their respective docks be committed.
—a happy state of things, which should meet with the RAILWAY BILLS.
encouragement of their Lordships.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE, in rising to propose the re-
He trusted the Gpvernment would at once interfere, solutions of which he had given notice, respecting
and apply such a remedy as was necessary, in order Railway Bills, said, he would take that opportunity
to prevent the malappropriation of these trusts. When of making a few observations upon the subject of
some Noble Lords spoke about Ireland,' they not only those resolutions. A question had been raised
seemed ignorant of that country, but actually to have before the Committee on Railways with re-
forgotten what they hadsped to
already learned of her. Why, competing lines. It was intended on Thurs-