The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-08 00:00:00

testant Church in Ireland •- he Was anxious on political
las well as religious grounds to see it extend and prosper.
He could nevertheless support that measure in each and
every part of it, in the firm conviction that so far from
weakening it tended to strengthen the Protestant
Church, not in that sense, in which he wished
never to hear its supremacy mentioned, but in the sense
in which the Protestant Church ought to be maintained.
He entirely agreed in those sentiments. Those argu-
ments which were good in 1834 against Church-rates,
and, in 1835, against tithes, ought to be equally good in
1842, against the imposition of ministers' money.—
(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of
the Government had said that he would reform all proved
and admitted abuses. There was a clear and admitted
abuse, and he called upon the Right Hon. Baronet to
redeem his pledge and redress it.—(Cheers.) It would
tend to do away with many bitter heart-burnings in Ire-
land, and to make religion what it ought ta union
of good-will among all sects.—(Cheers.)
Mr. T. SHAW—Does the Hon. and Learned Member
propose any substitute ?
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY asked if those who had pro-
posed to do away with Church-rates or tithes had pro-
posed any substitute ?—(Hear.) He was not called upon
to propose any substitute. It was the duty of the Go-
vernment to do so.—(Cheers.) They had said they
would reform every proved and admitted abuse.—
(Cheers.)' He presented them with an admitted abuse,
and called upon them to redeem their boast and apply
the remedy.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr, Sergeant JACKSON would give his decided op-
position to the motion brought forward by his Hon. and
Learned Friend. He gave him credit for the sincerity
of his intentions, but believing them to be erroneous, he
could not agree with him.
Mr. SHIEL supported the motion. In doing so it
was not his wish to deprive any of the present incum-
bents of the Irish Church of any portion of their
incomes. He admitted that if the effect of the motion
of his Hon. and Learned Friend would be to diminish

the revenues of the existing incumbents, it would be but
fair to make up the deficiency in some other way. He
hoped his Hon. Friend who had introduced the motion
would be supported in it by the feeling of the Irish people.
Mr. SHAW could not believe that any Hon. Gentle-
man could be serious in supporting the motion before
the House. . No substitute was proposed for the fund
which it was sought to abolish, and without this pro-
vision the abolition of the fund would be unjust.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said it was impossible for
any one to represent a constituency in the south of
Ireland without feeling deeply the injustice of ministers'
money. He contended it was not the business of Mem-
bers who complained of a grievance to find out u substi-
tute for what was proposed to be abolished ; it was the
office-of the Government. He heard with pleasure the
sentiments of his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member

for Dungarvon (Mr. Spiel) on the question ; and they
might depend on it if they suffered such grievances as
this question involved to rankle and fester in the breasts
of the Irish people, they would one day burst forth with
vengeance. He trusted that his Hon. and Learned
Friend would press his motion to a division.
Sir R. INGLIS opposed the motion. He trusted that
her Majesty's Government were prepared to take some
determined and decided step..
Sir W. SOMERVILLE supported the motion. He
believed that the motion of his lion. Friend was but the
precursor to others, unless the Government took up the
subject in a proper spirit.
Mr. LITTON admitted that it would be desirable that

the mode of paying this tax should be altered, but, under
existing circumstances, he felt bound to oppose the mo-
tion. He hoped, however, that the Government would
consider the question. The money, in fact, was paid by
the landlord, not by the occupier.
Mr. CALLAGHAN supported the motion, and was
glad to hear that men of all parties disapproved of this
mode of proviEng for the Protestant clergy of Ireland.
The feeling against this payment was every day becom-
ing stronger in Ireland, and the sooner it was repealed
the better.

Lord ELIOT thought it rather remarkable that this
grievance should now be brought forward for the first

time in the House of Commons ;" and that he, as Secre-
tary for Ireland, should not have received a single me-
morial on the subject. The Act imposing this tax had
passed in 1665, and no complaint had been made of it
from that time to 'this in Parliament. If, however, it
could be shown that a more adequate mode of providing
for the clergy of Ireland could be devised, he was

not prepared to say that it ought not to be adopted,
but he thought that the Learned Sergeant ought
to have proposed a Committee to investigate
the subject, rather than to have brought forward
the motion in the manner which he had done.

The Hon. Gentleman had made a proposition for which,
as it, appeared to him (Lord Eliot) he had shown no
reasonable grounds. He (Lord Eliot) was of opinion
that neither the country nor the House was in a state at
present.to proceed with the consideration of the ques-
tion. Under these circumstances, he should oppose the
motion.—(Cries of.“ Divide,, divide.").
Mr, MURPHY replied. The Noble Lord had said
that the grievance of which he(Mr. Murphy) complained
could not be one of very great magnitude, inasmuch as it
had existed since the year 1665, and up to the present
-time no representation of the great grievance had been
made to the Government, and no petitions on the subject
had been laid upon the table ; yet 'every Member on the
other side of the House who was at all connected with
Ireland had admitted that the grievance did exist, and
that it was desirable that some means should be taken to
remedy it.—(Hear, hear.). As the Government would
not pledge itself to proceed to the immediate considera-
tion of the question, and yet admitted that the grievance
did exist, he should most certainly divide the Ilouse.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion

Against it
Majority against the motion —29

ANATOMY ACT.
On our return to the gallery, we found

Mr. HARDY upon his legs; who was moving that the
House should take into consideration the petition of
William Roberts, on the Anatomy Act, and that a Com-
mittee should be appointed to inquire and report on the
working thereof, and to recommend, if necessary, amend-
ments of the same. He recited the, provisions of the
present Anatomy Act, by which it was provided that a
body kept for the purposes of dissection should be buried
within the period of six weeks. This was a great in-
ducement to keeping the bodies as long as possible, in
consequence of which a great number of the medical
students had met with severe injuries and dangerous
illnesses from puncturing themselves with instruments
employed in dissecting putrid bodies. In 1836 Mr.
Roberts discovered 'a fluid by which means it was pos-
sible to preserve a body in a fresh state for a great length
of time. Sir A. Cooper, Sir B. Brodie, gr. Green, and
a great number of medical gentlemen, had certified to
its merits. Under these circumstances, he did think that
he was justified in moving- that the petition of Mr.
Roberts be considered, and that a Committee be ap-
pointed. -
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the topic was little fitted
for discussion in the House, and still less for examination
before a Select Committee. It was indispensable that
morbid anatomy should be pursued, notwithstanding the
great veneration that had at all times been felt for the
remains of the dead. By the operation of Mr. Warbur-
ton's Act, the disgusting violence consequent on the dis-
interment of the dead, had almost entirely ceased, and the
necessary supply of subjects procured without any injury
to the public morals. Some of the provisions
of the Act had not been exactly fulfilled ; the
Bill permitted the appointment of three in-
spectors, but the head of the Government at that time
thought it better that only one should be appointed.
This was less expensive than three, and the Act was
more effectually carried out than it would be under
three inspectors. The returns were regularly made,
and he had ample evidence in his office that his prede-
cessors had paid every attention to the subject. The
Hon. Member had . mentioned that some, irregularities
had taken place in the burial of the remains of bodies
dissected; but those irregularities had been prospectively
-provided against ; and, under all the circumstances, he
trusted the Hon. Gentleman would not press for the oin-
' mittee. With respect to the discovery of Mr. Roberts, he
read a letter from a Mr. Stanley, including the opinion of
Sir B. Brodie, which was unfavourable to the success of the
experiment with the fluid, and.stating also that a dis-
covery similar to that of Mi. Roberts had been made in
France ; nor could it ever supersede the necessity of
dissection, as anatomy could not be taught by preserved
specimens. He thought that the most discreet course of
the kion. Gentleman would be to -Withdraw the motion.
Mr. HARDY replied. He was not aware that the
facts had ever before undergone an inquiry. Still it was
extraordinary that Sir B. Brodie should have signed the
certificate as to the merit of the discovery in the first
instance. But seeint that no gentleman was ready to
support his motion by any observations, and seeing what
was the feeling of the House, he should not press his
motion.

Mr. HUME corrected the inference the Hon. Member
had drawn, that the Professors of the London Univer
sity College were interested in the question. The College
Hospital was entirely supported by fees.
ELECTION COMMITTEES.

Sir R. INGLIS rose to move the following resolution :
" That in all the proceedings of the Committees spe-
cially appointed to investigate the charges of alleged
corrupt compromises and bribery in respect of the late
elections for the boroughs of Nottingham, Reading, Har-
wich, Lewes, Falmouth and Peuryn, Bridport, Belfast;
and Southampton respectively, the parties accused or
implicated in such charges shall at all times, save at
such times only as the said Committees shall delibe-
rate thereon, be entitled to be present at such Com-
mittees, irrespectively of the right which such of them as
may be Members of this House have to attend all Com-
mittees except Secret Committees of the same." He thought
no Member of of the House could vote against the propo-
sition. The Hon. 'Member for Bath made charges against
certain Members of the House, and such being the case,
he thought every person against whom any charge was
made, was entitled to be present to hear those charges
brought forward and substantiated. He had heaid, and
he believed it, that great courtesy had been shown to
all persons who had appeared before the Committee, but
he had no security that such courtesy would be con-
tinued. He • did not believe that there was a single
Member present that would oppose his proposition,
which was, that in the case of a party accused, he
should be allowed to be present. The Hon. Member
concluded by making the motion of which be had given
notice.
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. ROEBUCK stated •he was puzzled to know why
it had been brought forward. The Committee of which
he was a'Member had been given by the House a discre-
Wm as to the course they should pursue, and the motion
of the lion, Member, if carried, would be a direct censure
on their proceedings. The Committee had hitherto been
conducted in a friendly spirit, but the moment that spirit
was put an end to they must have the sanction of pub-
licity. He believed that the best means of obtaining