said, he had a notice on the Paper for an explanation of the circumstances connected with the recent appearance of the fleet under the command of Admiral Sir William Parker in the Bay of Naples; but perhaps the noble Lord could give some explanation which should obviate the necessity of his bringing forward that Motion.

said, that the reason Admiral Parker was sent with his squadron to Naples was, that it had been stated that the Neapolitan Government were about to raise a forced loan, contrary to existing treaties; but the intention of contracting that loan was afterwards abandoned. Another question had, however, arisen with respect to the use of the British flag by the Neapolitan navy in seizing certain Sicilian vessels; and upon that subject also a satisfactory explanation had been given. After that a question arose as to whether certain prisoners had not been taken on board ship, and there was a doubt whether they were taken in the waters of Corfu; and Admiral Sir William Parker, not being satisfied with the explanations given, inspected the log-books of the Neapolitan captains, and then wrote a letter to the Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian islands upon the subject. When Sir William Parker last wrote to this country, he had not received any answer from the Lord High Commissioner. He begged to observe that Sir William Parker was an officer of the greatest prudence and discretion; and he thought both the Government and Parliament might fairly trust him to take any future proceedings he might think right.

said, the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory; but he wished to put a further question to the noble Lord, relative to the existing state of things. He wished to know whether, up to this time. Her Majesty's Government had maintained a strict neutrality between the two contending parties; or whether Sir William Parker had committed any act, either towards the King of Naples or the Sicilians, which could in any respect make England a party to the contest?

said, that Sir William Parker had not received, nor had there gone out to him, any instructions for him to take any hostile measure with regard to either party. Sir William Parker had been sent out mainly for the purpose of protecting British interests.

opposed the vote. While thousands of our own people were starving we were voting this money for the Poles. The whole of this sum of 10,000l. was placed at the disposal of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. The hon. Gentleman read a list of Polish pensioners, upwards of twenty in number, who kept large and flourishing shops. One kept a tobacconist's shop, and another a bookseller's shop, and many of the wives and children of these men had pensions. It was quite time such a vote was stopped. A large expense was incurred in dispensing these pensions. The clerk in the War Office had 273l. for superintending the payments. He should, if he had any support, move that the vote be disallowed.

said, that nothing was more popular than to call for these reductions; but when the grant under discussion was minutely investigated, it would be found to be just and proper. The hon. Member for Middlesex had complained that the distribution of the grant was subject to his (Lord Dudley Stuart's) control. His answer to that complaint was simply that the grant was not under his control at all. All he had to do with it amounted to this: that whereas by the rules of the Treasury, when three Poles were removed by death from the list of recipients, one was allowed to be substituted in the room of the three who had dropped off, the Treasury had until lately permitted him to recommend the individual who was to be so substituted. But that system of substitution had, in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee, been wholly abolished. It was true that for a period of four years the distribution of the grant had been confided to the Literary Association of the Friends of Poland, in which he (Lord D. Stuart) occupied a prominent place. But it was more than ten years since the association had ceased to distribute the grant. His hon. Friend had complained of the expense incurred by the country in paying persons to distribute this money. During the time the distribution was confided to the association to which he (Lord Dudley Stuart) belonged, it did not cost the country a farthing. When he recollected the enthusiasm with which the vote had originally been made, and the unanimity with which it had passed ever since, he would not believe that the House of Commons would do anything so harsh, so ungracious, and so ungenerous, as now to refuse to renew it. The recipients of it were men who had sacrificed everything in the defence of those things on their attachment to which Englishmen prided themselves so highly, viz., the liberty and independence of their country. Their cause was a just and righteous one, and had been felt and acknowledged to be so on all hands; and was as much so now as when the grant was first made. Some hon. Gentlemen might disapprove of the conduct of some of the Poles in recent transactions on the Continent. He (Lord Dudley Stuart) should be ready to defend, at least, most parts of that conduct on any fitting occasion; but he did not suppose that even those who might be most disposed to censure that conduct, would allow it to influence them in dividing on a vote, intended for the relief of persons in distress who had no hand in that conduct which might be disapproved of. His hon. Friend had talked of economy, and the distress of our own people. He was an advocate for economy. He had proved it by his votes. It was by such proposals as those of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, to cut down the Army and Navy, for which he (Lord Dudley Stuart) had voted, and not by withholding a pittance from brave patriots in distress, that economy was really to be promoted. Deprive these unfortunate refugees of their allowance. Would that really relieve the distress of our own people! Would it give half a glass of beer to any working man; a teaspoonful of tea, or a pinch of snuff, to any poor woman? It would not; but what it would do, would be to increase the burdens of the ratepayers in those localities which the refugees inhabited; for if they were deprived of their allowances, they would not be suffered to starve. They would not be sent out of the country under the Alien Act, which was not intended for any such purpose, and could not be so applied, even if Government were inhuman enough, which he was sure no Government would be, to wish so to use it, and the parishes would by law be forced to support these persons in the shape of casual poor. But was this grant resisted on the ground of principle, and were they determined not to spend one farthing more than was absolutely necessary for the expenses of the State? Then let them carry out their principle, and do away with the paraphernalia of a Court, with its heralds and trumpeters, a master of buckhounds, and array of tinselled courtiers. He thought it tended much more to the dignity of the Sovereign and people of this country to maintain a grant for the relief of brave patriots in distress, than to keep the splendour and empty pageant of a Court such as he had referred to. He was not one of those who cavilled at those things, or who desired to introduce into this country republican simplicity (although he thought there were some expenses which might very well be curtailed)—but he said, lot those who did desire it, not to begin by withholding the pittance of the distressed. Were those who complained of this grant aware of the sums spent yearly on foreigners in no distress, on sovereigns and princes who chose to pay a visit to this country? In the course of the last few years England had been visited by almost every crowned head and royal prince in Europe. The Emperor of Russia, King of Prussia, King of the French, King of Belgium, King of Holland, and many other personages, had all honoured us with their visits. But the people who were fond of staring and gaping at these crowned heads, would perhaps not be so well pleased if they knew that they had to pay for their keep and entertainment whilst here; yet such was the fact. And not only that, but we had also to pay for their expenses in coming and going from this country. More than that—considerable expenses were incurred in moving about royal personages on board our ships from one part of the world to another. If hon. Gentlemen would examine the civil contingencies, they would find large sums expended for conveying the King of Bavaria when on a visit to the King of Greece, and the King of Greece on a visit to the King of Bavaria, and other potentates in the same way. Yet those who were so loud for economy, had agreed to these things without complaint. Many persons who did not take the trouble to inquire into facts, imagined that England was the most generous, as well as the richest country in the world. She had not shown it with regard to the Poles; there was not a country on the Continent enjoying a constitutional government at the time of the Polish revolution that had not granted large sums for the relief of the Poles. France, Belgium, Switzerland, had all done so. At the time when England originally granted 10,000l. to the Poles in England, the French Chambers voted no less a sum than 2,500,000 francs (or 100,000l) for the Poles; and though the numbers of the Poles had since, from natural causes, decreased there as well as here, it appeared from a return he had procured from Paris, that a large sum had been annually voted by the French, and that they had voted this year about 1,200,000 francs. He did not say that we were bound to follow the example of France, nor did he deny that the Poles had stronger claims upon the French than upon this country; but he mentioned these things in order to show that in making this grant of some 8,000l., we were not committing an act of lavish and unheard-of generosity. What, too, had been the practice of this country? We had assisted the refugees of almost every country when they fled in distress to our shores. French, Corsican, Dutch, Spaniards, had all received our bounty; and if we turned to the report of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, to which Gentlemen were fond of referring, we should find that in the beginning of this century, intead of 8,000l. or 10,000l., the sum voted for the relief of refugees amounted to the almost incredible sum of 260,000l.; and in subsequent years 154,000l., 160,000l., &c., were the sums voted for a similar purpose. The grant for the Poles was originally, in 1834, 10,000l.; it had been increased, in 1838, to 15,000l; since which it had been reduced, through the deaths and departures of the refugees, to 8,700l., and it was in rapid progress, according to the report of the Committee, towards final extinction, the number on the list having, in 1838, been 680, and being now reduced to 365. It must also he allowed, and that too appeared from the evidence taken before the Committee, that the conduct of the Poles in this country was, with some few exceptions, exemplary. They had been brought into their present unhappy condition by their patriotism and their virtue. He protested against being supposed indifferent to the distress of his own countrymen; but this grant did not aggravate that distress; the refusal of it would in no degree alleviate it. He therefore hoped his hon. Friend would not press his opposition to it.

said, that until he had heard the speech of the noble Lord, he had some doubt on the subject of this vote; but he was now convinced that there was no substantial ground for the vote, for if there had been any, the noble Lord would have stated it. When these people first come to this country, there was a very universal feeling that some relief of a temporary nature should be given them; but that was a very different matter from the present proposition. The noble Lord had failed to show, first, that these parties were unable by ordinary skill and industry to support themselves; and, secondly, that they had not had opportunities during a long period of years to return to their own country. If they could have gone home, they had no business to remain here at the charge of the industrious people of this country. There were many Englishmen in trade almost unable to get a living, who would be very glad to receive, like some of these parties, a pension to assist them. Unless he heard from the Government that it was their determination to put an end to this system, he should lend his aid for the purpose of getting rid of the grant.

said, it appeared from the debates of the time when this vote was first granted, that it was only brought forward as a temporary one; and there was no doubt that if there were no vote these persons would seek a living by employment. He found that one Pole on the list had actually resigned. He thought that if this Pole were to present himself before the House of Commons the House would really reward him for his magnanimity. The fact was, that John Bull was considered a great milch cow, for everybody to draw from. Those sums were extracted from the taxes of the country at a time when so many of the Queen's subjects, much more deserving of the consideration of that House, were suffering privation. Without striking off the vote on this occasion, he hoped that a pledge would be given that this should be the last, or the last but one, offered to the House for this purpose.

gave credit to the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) for humane feelings; but he thought it time that some stop should be put to this system, especially as former debates showed that the vote was only proposed as a temporary one. If, however, his hon. Friend (Mr. Osborne) received a pledge from the Government that they would revise these pensions, he would advise him not to press his Amendment.

said, that though this vote was proposed as a temporary one, it had nevertheless been continued from time to time, not only with the full consent and concurrence of the House of Commons, but the House had in one year actually pressed on the Government the increase of the vote from 10,000l. to 15,000l. Under these circumstances, they ought not to deal very lightly or summarily with the vote. The recommendation of the Select Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates, not to add further persons to the list of pensioners, would be carried out by the Treasury. In some cases, where parties had received this allowance for many years, they might, in consequence of old age and infirmity, he unable to earn their own livelihood; and he thought it would be an act of inhumanity to deprive such persons of this charitable assistance. He was ready to allow that young persons, who were quite capable of earning their own subsistence, and who had recently been placed upon the list, were not fit objects for relief from this fund. He was prepared to assure the House that the list should undergo a strict revision, and that no persons who were not really objects of charity should be continued upon it. He hoped, however, that the Committee would enable the Government to continue these donations to such persons as had received them for many years, and who were in a state of health which precluded them from gaining their own subsistence.

rose to object to the first item in the vote—1,695l. for Protestant Dissenting Ministers in England. He said: I should not have troubled the Committee with the Motion of which I have given notice, had I not been impelled to adopt that course by the urgent representations of several numerous and influential bodies of Dissenters, who feel themselves deeply aggrieved and humiliated by the annual imposition of this grant. Before, however, proceeding further, I will take the liberty of reminding the Committee of the nature and object of this grant. This grant, usually called the Regium Donum, was originally bestowed by George I. on certain poor Dissenting ministers, or their widows, as a matter of charity, out of the revenues of the Grown; and when those resources were transferred to the State, under the existing arrangement of the Civil List, the Regium Donum became a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and has, from that time, been provided for by an annual vote in the miscellaneous estimates. The amount of the grant is 1,695l., payable through the hands of nine trustees, of whom the treasurer is one, in equal proportions, to poor ministers of the three denominations of Dissenters—Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist. By the latest accounts, the recipients were about 300 in number, the sum awarded to each averaging 5l. Now, the great bulk of these Dissenters, especially the Independents and Baptists, object to this grant, as subversive of the voluntary principle, which they reverence, as degrading to their character for consistency, and offensive to their views of moral and religious obligation. These objections have frequently been embodied in petitions to this House, renouncing the grant as uncalled-for, impolitic, and unjust; and petitions to the above effect have been presented this Session from the Committee of Deputies of the several congregations of Protestant Dissenters of the three denominations—Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist, in and within twelve miles of London, appointed to protect their civil rights; the Board of Congregational Ministers, residing in and about the cities of London and Westminster; the general body of Protestant Dissenting ministers of the three denominations, residing in the same locality; from the Baptist Board, representing above a thousand churches; and other numerous and influential bodies. These petitions convey the remonstrances of between 4,000 and 5,000 ministers and their congregations, far exceeding 1,000,000 of persons. So great, indeed, is their repugnance to this oppressive act of State benevolence, that many of these Dissenters have expressed their willingness, if the Government will abandon the grant, to make up the amount by voluntary contribution. All that the immense majority of the Dissenters ask, is to be relieved from the burden and disgrace of receiving the eleemosynary benefactions of the State, either for charitable or religious purposes, in the person of some of their ministers, simply because they are needy. No doubt, at first sight, these assertions appear utterly at variance with the evidence produced before the Committee on these estimates. But who was the witness on whose sole testimony the Committee and the Government have formed their resolution to recommend the continuance of this grant to its present number of recipients? Why, Dr. Rees, the treasurer of the fund, who has the principal patronage of its distribution! He has affirmed that the acceptance of the grant is agreeable to the generality of the "denominations." Now, though I believe Dr. Rees to be a most respectable gentleman, yet I deny his affirmations on the part of the vast majority of the Dissenters; and pronounce his evidence to be rash, fallacious, and unfounded in fact. The Committee may judge from the following passages. Dr. Rees is asked:—

"7538. Chairman: Generally speaking, I understand from your evidence you consider that this distribution gives satisfaction?—I am sure the withholding of it would be considered a very great calamity. I have reason to know that from very painful representations which are continually coming into my hands.

"7539. From your experience, you conceive the applications are so numerous as to show there is no indisposition on the part of the Dissenting clergy to receive it?—Quite so; I have received repeated applications on the subject, expressive of the fears of the parties that it might be withdrawn.

"7540. Is that lately?—It has been of late years; there has been no discussion very lately to occasion such communications."

The petitions to which I have referred contradict these preposterous assertions point blank; and in a paper widely circulated by the Dissenters, which I hold in my hand, it is notorious that the great bodies of Dissenters of the three denominations protested eleven times between the years 1837 and 1847 in public and solemn assemblage, against this degrading benevolence. Yet Dr. Rees, according to his evidence, unscrupulously declares there has been no discussion very lately regarding the indisposition on the part of the Dissenting clergy to receive the grant. But it remains to be explained why the Committee took only one witness notoriously and personally interested in the continuance of the grant, and did not summon a single witness likely to belie his testimony, and prove that to the bulk of the Congregational Dissenters this grant is hateful and obnoxious. And yet it is unscrupulously averred that it gives great satisfaction, not to the recipients alone, nor to their congregations only, but to the denominations to which they belong. Now, who are the men on whom this contumely is affixed, whose honour and respectability are tainted by this annual infliction? Why, men who have built 4,681 places of worship in England and Wales, the ministers of which they maintain by voluntary stipends—who possess and support fifteen theological colleges—who contribute most generously to the encouragement of missions and to the diffusion of education—who are among the foremost in every good work—who are most rarely, even the humblest among them, presented before the judgment seat as criminals—who have the privilege of approaching Royalty with their addresses—and to whose ancestors we are mainly indebted for that full measure of liberty which it is our happiness to enjoy. It is on behalf of these most meritorious members of the community that I implore Her Majesty's Government and the Committee to relinquish this oppressive practice of annually tempting certain needy though respectable persons to accept a paltry donative, to the debasement of their social condition, by the virtual infraction of their implied engagements, by the compromise of their principles, and at the sacrifice of their conscientious convictions. So much in humble and imperfect advocacy of the wishes of the Dissenters. But I very much question the right of Her Majesty's Ministers to throw away even this small sum of the public money on these hesitating recipients, whose poverty, not their will, incites them to accept it, especially too, when the grant can, in all probability, as intimated in the paper which I have quoted, be provided for by annual association. For all these reasons I now move that this vote for the payment of the Regium Donum be disallowed. Sir, this is not a party question. It is not a dispute between Whig and Tory. It is not a controversy between Churchmen and Nonconformists. The simple case is, whether Parliament will continue to brand the universal body of Dissenters of the three denominations with the mark and stigma of mendicancy, by inducing a small number of their ministers to palter with their consciences by annually accepting this miserable dole? The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that the charge of 1,695l. for Protestant Dissenting ministers in England be struck out, and the vote reduced to 4,974l.

said, this question stood in an unparalleled position. Here was a gift of money protested against as "an oppressive act of benevolence." There were some men, and some women, who would take any thing they could get; but the majority protested against taking their practice for the rule. And the same persons who protested against the oppressive act of benevolence in the shape of Regium Donum, were found protesting against an oppressive act of benevolence in the shape of church-rates. What then so simple, as to truck one act against the other, and let the Dissenters alone altogether? He knew there were those who denied that church-rates were any loss to Dissenters, on the ground that their estates were bought and sold for a lower price in consequence. He thought this was the very reason why they were damaged; and he only wished all the landed estates in the country, collegiate and ecclesiastical included, were subjected to a tax of 5 or of 1 per cent, for long enough, to try what the owners would say to this argument.

would remind the Committee that this was a grant to a number of Protestant Dissenting ministers, and that though hon. Members came down and said that they thought it degrading, and were very reluctant to receive it, and had rather not receive it, those hon. Members were not themselves the persons who received it; they gave it up on behalf of others, and apparently without authority. This was a sum which had been granted since the reign of George I., as a matter of charity to poor Dissenting ministers; and, until a few years ago, he believed this assistance was gratefully received by the whole body. Dr. Rees was examined before the Committee which had been sitting, and was asked—

"Are these sums much sought for?"

He answered—

"Very much; we have a great many more applications than we are able to meet."

That did not look like that extreme reluctance, or even hesitation, with which this grant had been said to be taken. If the parties receiving this sum did not wish to receive it—if their congregations made it up by their contributions, the Treasury would find that it was not required; but instead of that, here were applicants urgently asking for it. It was divided among various ministers of the three denominations, and Dr. Rees stated that there had been in the course of three years 166 grants to Presbyterian ministers, 443 to Independent, and 461 to Baptist; so that all the three denominations had taken the grant, the shares varying because their numbers varied. The reason why this opposition was made, was explained in a subsequent part of Dr. Rees's evidence. Very respectable, and indeed eminent men among the Dissenters undertook the distribution of the grant—Dr. Rees, Dr. Pye Smith, Mr. Clayton; three men could not be named more entitled to respect for their learning and acquirements, and for their character for piety and intelligence; and they entertained no such objection to this grant. But other gentlemen, for whom he (Lord J. Russell) had a very great respect likewise, had set up what they called an Anti-State Church Association, their object being that the State should not make or authorise any grants or endowments by which religion might be at all supported; and a gentleman whom he very much respected. Dr. Cox, seceded from the body who distributed this grant, on this ground, thinking it inconsistent with the assertion of the general principle, that all church establishments should be destroyed, and no public money granted for the support of religion. That seemed to him a very insufficient ground for refusing what, as a matter of charity, appeared to be very acceptable to those who received it; and, indeed, he thought it was not the proper way of raising so great a question. If church establishments were objected to, or even church rates, the question could be brought forward by itself; but a paltry grant of this kind was not the proper occasion for raising it.

apprehended that the only reason why the grant had not ceased in consequence of no application being made to the Treasury for it, was that the distribution of it was not in the least under the control of the body, some of whose ministers received it. One gentleman. Dr. Rees, was selected by the Treasury, and he nominated others, who formed with him a board utterly irresponsible to any body, clerical or lay, connected with the Dissenting interest; they had no auditors but themselves; they were men of unquestionable character, but they were in a minority in their communities. Each of the three denominations concerned had offered to contribute the money its ministers received from the grant; but the answer of the trustees had been, "If you will raise a sum, the interest of which will pay this grant permanently, we will then consent to cease to apply to the Treasury for it." That had been thought unfair and unreasonable. The Dissenters had offered again and again to raise the amount. [Lord J. RUSSELL: For one year you mean.] It would be raised annually; they were never backward in their benevolent subscriptions.

said, that the noble Lord was quite wrong in supposing that the opposition to this grant originated with the Anti-State Church Association; for, on the contrary the Regium Donum had been repeatedly protested against long before that body was in existence. He held in his hand a copy of a resolution, adopted in January, 1834, by the united Committee of the three denominations, in which the reception of this grant was declared to be inconsistent with the principles of Protestant Dissent. It was also stated, in a paper which had been widely circulated by Dissenters, that—

"On this subject, Dissenters of every name have expressed their unanimous opinion. The Ministers of the three denominations, conjointly and separately; the Congregational and Baptist Unions, the Dissenting deputies of the three denominations, the recent Conferences—to say nothing of county associations, and various local gatherings of Dissenting piety and intelligence—have, without one exception, joined to denounce all grants of public money in support of religion, and this grant in particular. On these occasions, no hand has ever yet been stretched out to arrest the broad seal of infamy which all have agreed that it deserves."

They objected to the grant on principle, as derogatory to their character; more especially as there were other funds belonging to each denomination appropriated to the relief of poor ministers. Why, he believed that the Independents of Lancashire alone raised more than the whole amount of the grant for that very purpose, while the Baptists in this country also raised about 1,300l.; both denominations doing this, in addition to the building of their chapels and schools and the support of their ministers, as well as their various institutions. Even the Welsh Dissenters, who were said to receive the largest portion of this grant, generously contributed a larger sum than its entire amount to the London Missionary Society alone. He was not authorised by the Dissenting body to make such an offer, yet such was his confidence in them in this respect, that if the Government would consent to wipe out this sum from the estimates, he would, in conjunction with another hon. Member, guarantee that the entire amount should be raised by voluntary subscriptions. In the name of the Baptists, of the Independents, and of the Unitarians of this country, he protested against the grant; and he entreated the noble Lord to accept of the offer he had made, and to relieve the Dissenting body from that which they regarded as a degradation and an insult.

said: Sir, the noble Lord has informed the House that this grant has a claim upon our consideration, in consequence of its being 120 years old. Well, Sir, if I am not mistaken, its origin was somewhat as follows:—That celebrated Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1723, was extremely desirous, in a certain state of public affairs, to conciliate the support, to some extent, of the Dissenters of this kingdom; and we find him, upon a certain day, closeted with some of the leading Dissenting ministers of this country, and promising, if they would support him and his Administration, he would at some future time—not that year, but perhaps the next—propose some measure for their exemption from the operation of certain penal statutes against them. The next thing we find with regard to the origin of this grant is, that a surgeon receives 500l. sterling money. It is paid to him as a surgeon, and without any knowledge on the part of those who cashed the Treasury warrant, of the purpose to which it was to be applied. We next find another of the Minister's agents closeted with nine Dissenting Minis- ters, representing the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Independent bodies. They receive amongst them the 500l. which has been paid from the Treasury, and are told it proceeds from the Royal bounty, and they become the distributors of that 500l. among their brethren. This, if I am not mistaken, is the origin of the Regium Donum, which I am extremely happy is now under the cognisance and control of the House of Commons, enabling us to discuss the question, whether this Committee will vindicate certain religious bodies from a reproach, cast not only on their principles as Dissenters, but upon their benevolence and liberality as men and as Christians. This Committee will, I trust, vindicate the Nonconformists of Great Britain from the unjust imputation which is thus cast upon them. Sir, I differ from my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment, in the view which he has taken of this grant in connexion with the great question of the union of Church and State. I regard the grant itself, abstractedly considered, in the same light as the noble Lord, who has called it "a paltry grant;" but, although the sum he small, the principle involved in our vote respecting it is very important. It is upon that principle, chiefly, that I individually oppose this grant; namely, that it is a recognition of the right of this House to vote from the public Treasury certain sums for ecclesiastical purposes. Sir, I have been confirmed by what I have witnessed in this House, since I have been a Member of it, in the impression which I had received before I had the honour of a scat in it, that the introduction into it, whether by the proposal of grants of money or otherwise, of religious questions, is the great impediment to legislation, and the principal cause of the protracted and acrimonious debates that arise upon the floor of this Assembly. But, Sir, waiving the principle altogether, the grant itself is such as the noble Lord at the head of the Government cannot, candidly speaking, defend. Does he vindicate it because it is a grant to those ministers whose congregations are unable, out of their own independent resources, to support them? Well, then, I say that, viewed in that light the grant is most insignificant, and unworthy of this House. It merely gives about 5l. a year to some 350 men, and places at the disposal of nine gentlemen about 180l. each, to be distributed by them in their uncontrolled discretion to whomsoever they may please, to anybody whom they may think stands in need of this "paltry sum," to make up the deficiency in their incomes. Sir, I do not impugn either the judgment, the impartiality, or the piety of the distributors of this grant. The names which the noble Lord has mentioned as being among the distributors are the names of men worthy of the highest respect; they are men in whom I would place as much confidence as in any men whatever; but, if upon no other ground, I should object to this grant as being a grant of money voted by this House to be distributed secretly. All other recipients of the public or Royal bounty are known. The pauper tradesman must expose himself before poor-law guardians; men who rank highest in the walks of literature, art, and science, reduced in their old age to circumstances of indigence, are not permitted to receive the Queen's bounty without having their names recorded from year to year, and the amount which they receive being placed upon the table of this House. But here we have men secretly receiving money from the public, to whom it would be no reproach to enjoy the Royal bounty if their own religious body could conscientiously sanction the grant. I must say that it is putting a petty patronage into the hands of nine gentlemen, which, I am surprised, they do not throw up at once. But look at this 1,695l. If you give this money upon the principle, that where a Dissenting congregation is not able to raise an income adequate to the wants and necessities of the minister, this grant is to be brought in aid of his necessities, then, I say, it is a most partial and niggardly grant. If there are ministers in Wales, for example, who have an income which does not average 50l. a year, why should some few of those ministers, who have friends at Court, or who happen to be personally known to some of these distributors, or who is fortunate enough to draw a prize in the lottery, why should they receive this money, and their brethren, not less worthy, and it may be more necessitous, be left without it? If you can justly grant a sum of money for a purpose like this, thou let us know who they are that obtain it, in order that we may be satisfied that the state of their circumstances requires such assistance; and let us know the names of all who require such aid. Let us know the congregations which will not or cannot support their ministers. Let these ministers not be afraid—performing, as they do, sacred duties—to have it published to the world, that, notwithstanding all their labours and self-denial, they are still in circumstances of indigence. They will then have a fair claim to the impartial distribution of the Royal bounty which is annually voted in this House; but, as it is, the thing is done secretly; and while I admit that private charity cannot be too unostentatiously dispensed, I, at the same time, contend, that all public charities—all money voted out of the taxes levied from the people—should be given to individuals whose names we know, whose residences we know, whose characters we can scrutinise, and whose necessities we can inquire into. If they are not ashamed to receive this bounty, they ought not to be ashamed to have it known that it is participated in by them. Sir, I do not wonder that the Dissenters of this country should, from year to year, meet for the purpose of entering their protest against this grant. Take these various bodies as they stand, and which of them requires this boon from Government? The Presbyterians do not want it, for they are amongst the wealthiest of the Dissenting bodies of this country. To them the grant is a greater insult, compared with their circumstances, than it is to the other bodies. So independent are they of the grant, that the larger portion of the money which is assigned to the Presbyterian distributors, is given by them to ministers of the other two denominations. The Baptists do not want it, neither do the Independents require it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport has just stated. Sir, I call upon the House to attend to the suggestion of my Friend. Give fairly into the hands of my hon. Friend, or a Committee that shall be appointed for the purpose, the names of the present recipients, and they will institute, in the several counties of England and Wales, a fair and Christian-like inquiry into the wants and necessities of these ministers. These ministers have their appeal, first to the sympathies of their own congregations, and the churches formed in those congregations, next to the sympathy of their own denomination, and they will have, besides, the sympathy of the Christian world at large; and I feel confident a sum will be raised for their necessities larger than that which they secretly receive from this grant. I have been looking into a volume, which will be found in the library—the life of the late Dr. Calamy, by himself. There is in it an account of a wealthy knight, canvassing in Wales for a seat in Parliament, In the course of his canvass, he called upon a distinguished Dissenting minister, Dr. Price, to solicit his vote. He said to him, "If you will favour me with your vote at the approaching contest, I will use my interest to procure for you the disposal of the Regium Donum amongst your brethren." The Welsh minister immediately repudiated the offer, and said, that he deplored the day when this Regium Donum was first granted; that he would not be amongst those who became the slaves of the Government of the day by the distribution or receipt of any such eleemosynary assistance. Then, what is the effect of this grant upon Dissenters generally? Why, they know not who are the recipients of it, but they are aware that there are some 350 ministers who annually receive donations out of this grant. They cannot account for the silence and apathy of certain ministers upon great and important religious principles. Why, not one of the ministers who receive this money can come forward, in an open and manly manner, to advocate the great and sacred cause of Nonconformity. At all events, if he did, he would be acting inconsistently, and condemning by what he said the system from which he derived advantage. I do trust the House will look on this matter in its proper light, and refuse this grant from this time forth. I do hope that they will pay respect to the representations of the 5,000 ministers who have spoken to-day through my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, and at once put an end to this compulsory disgrace upon the Dissenting churches, who are ready to give every farthing of this amount, or, if requisite, more, to meet the necessities of these poor ministers. Pay to their liberality, if not to their principles, the compliment of blotting this vote out of these estimates, and I will venture to say, that not only the wants of the present recipients of the Regium Donum, but many others, will be well cared for when the Dissenters are thus fairly dealt with. No man who now receives money secretly from this fund, would, by casting himself upon the care of his brethren, find himself destitute of sympathy and assistance if really worthy of them. I must, therefore, protest against this grant: first, on account of its being connected with a system which I hold to be as adverse to true religion, as it is injurious to the legislation of this House, namely, the support of religion by the State; next, because it is not, in my judgment, proper that monies voted out of the public funds should be secretly bestowed by irresponsible parties; next, because, if it be right to relieve from such a source ministers who are in necessitous circumstances, we ought to do far more than it is proposed to do; and, finally, because I believe that, so far from depriving any deserving individual of the assistance he requires, you would, by withdrawing this vote, stimulate the Dissenting bodies to do far more than can be done for them by this small but degrading grant of the public money.

Sir, I will trouble the House with one or two remarks with reference to an observation made by the noble Lord, from which it would appear that he is disposed to take the evidence of Dr. Rees as of more value than all the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster. Now, there never was an instance in which a Motion was brought forward in this House more entirely in accordance with the feelings of the great body of the Dissenters and Dissenting ministers out of doors. I do not know this Dr. Rees at all, nor do I know to what Dissenting denomination he belongs; but from his evidence I gather, that he is a very illogical person, and one whose opinions cannot be said in any degree to represent the Dissenters. In his evidence before the Select Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates, he says, that the Dissenting congregations have the means of knowing which of their ministers receive this money; and yet, in another answer, he says, that when a Motion was made for a return of the names of the recipients, he objected to their being given; and the reason he assigned for so doing was, that they would be thereby subjected to the complaints of other parties, who thought they were not acting as consistent Dissenters in receiving these sums from such a source. Well, but if it is known at present—if the congregations are aware of the parties by whom it is received—the evil which he apprehended from the publication of the names was already committed, and the pretext for opposing the publication was destroyed. He states, that these congregations do not object to their ministers receiving the money, although their denominations are strongly opposed to the grant. That is the answer to 7,522. As to Dr. Rees being a Dissenter, I do not know what pretensions he can make to anything of the kind. I will read a portion of his examination, in order that the Committee may see how much his evidence is worth as a Dissenter. He is asked—

"You do not consider yourself bound in the distribution to attend to something approaching to an equal distribution among the localities of Great Britain? "

His answer is—

"No; it would hardly be just to do so. Wales is peculiarly a Dissenting country, accidentally from the course taken in the reign of Elizabeth to force a service-book in the English language upon a nation who did not understand a word of it."

Now, mark what he says in the last words of the answer:—

"Dissent was created to a very large extent before the evil was perceived."

A pretty Dissenter to be talking about the "evil" of Dissent! Whoever thought before of taking the opinion of a man who calls Dissent an "evil," as to what Dissenters should do in a matter of principle like this? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL was understood to express his disapproval of this construction of Dr. Rees's words.] The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General, is raising a legal distinction in the case; but I say the meaning of what he says is clear from the words of the answer, that "Dissent was created before the evil was discovered;" that is, before the evil of dissent was discovered to be the result of the proceedings to which he refers." My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport has placed this question upon a somewhat new footing in this House. I think I need not inform the House that that hon. Gentleman occupies a high position among the Congregational body in this country. That from his station, character, and pecuniary means—with the power which he possesses to influence those with whom he is associated in religious connexion—I can state that there is nothing which he has engaged to do in the event of this grant being rejected by this House, which he cannot successfully perform. I have not the slightest doubt whatever that he will do everything he has promised. I have so much confidence in him, that if he drew a bill for the amount, I should be exceedingly willing to place my name at the back of it. I am quite certain that all he has promised in this respect he can perform. But the noble Lord has rather let the cat out of the bag. He says, that the Anti-State-Church Association had something to do with this amendment. Bui this grant was objected to long before the Anti-State Church Association was in existence; and there are some Dissenters now objecting to it who have nothing to do with the Anti-State Church Association; for they think—in my opinion very erroneously—that it is wrong for them, as religious persons, to mix themselves up with political matters. Now, I will tell the noble Lord what the object of maintaining this grant is; it is thought very desirable that the great citadel, the Established Church, should have for its support certain buttresses or outworks. One of these buttresses is the 36,000l. a year paid to the Presbyterians in the north of Ireland; another is the 1,700l. a year paid to poor Protestant ministers in England; and another proposition has recently been talked of for the formation of another buttress, in the endowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland. It is thought very desirable that there should be a good number of these outworks to defend the great citadel when assailed. Now, if an Established Church is a good thing—and it is possible a majority of persons in this country are of opinion that some Established Church should exist—why, then, let it stand upon its own merits. That is a question which must be discussed on its own grounds, and I do not want to discuss it in connexion with this question. But this is clear, that the numerous Dissenting bodies hold a different opinion; the very fact of their being Dissenters is in itself, to a largo extent, a proof of it. Five thousand Dissenting ministers most decidedly object to this grant. It is a secret grant. I believe there are a great number of persons who receive this money who do not know that it comes from Parliament at all. If I am to judge from Dr. Rees' testimony, I am inclined to believe that a large number of poor ministers, recipients of this bounty, are actually unconscious of the source from whence it comes. If the practice of printing the names of the poor ministers participating in this grant were at once adopted, before another year was over nearly every one at present receiving it would abandon it. Before I sit down, I will just ask the noble Lord, if he will not allow the vote now to be withdrawn, whether he will consent to a return of all the names of the parties receiving this grant? Because it is not fair that this Regium Donum should annually be continued by the Government, in defiance of the opinion of the large body for whose benefit it professes to be dispensed; and that it should be given in a manner which must cause very great harm to the consciences of those persons, and great hurt to an important public principle advocated by them; and that it should be given in such a manner that the influence of public opinion cannot be brought to bear upon the recipients for the purpose of removing what the Dissenting body consider a stain and a blot upon their conduct. I ask the noble Lord whether he will consent to this proposition, because, if so, I personally will not object to the vote on this occasion, and will also ask my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster not to divide the House upon his Amendment. I ask him if he will give an accurate list of all those who have received this money during the last, or who are intended to receive it during the coming year? Because, as I said before, if we had that list printed, before the expiration of another year, we should have repudiations of the grant from almost every party who now receives it.

The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and the hon. Member who addressed the House before him, object to this vote upon the ground of its being a secret grant; that is to say, that the names of the necessitous and honourable persons who receive this money in sums of about 4l. and 5l. each, are not published, in order that they may be held up to obloquy.

No, no; not if they are deserving objects. We propose to relieve them ourselves.

I beg leave to say that I do not think that a valid objection. It is objected that these alms are given in secret; now I certainly thought that alms given in secret were far better than if given openly. I should have no objection to the proposition made by the hon. Member for Stockport, if assured that the various bodies themselves would guarantee the amount now given in this manner. If I saw that it was secure as a charity, I should have no objection to withdraw this grant; but if I have reason to believe that the publication of their names is only intended for the purpose of holding them up to ridicule—if their names are to be given up here in order that they may be held up to derision by other parties elsewhere—I certainly cannot consent to any such publicity being given to the names of the persons receiving this money.

I beg leave to make one remark with reference to an observation which the noble Lord has ad- dressed to the House, and that is, that the Anti-State Church Association was instituted in the year 1844, while the first objection to the grant, which I quoted in the paper I have referred to, is dated 1834; therefore those objections could not have emanated from that Association. I must say, that his Lordship has rather shaken my resolution to press this Amendment to a division. If he would engage on the part of the Government not to propose this Regium Donum in future years, on condition of his being furnished with a proper and satisfactory engagement on the part of the Dissenting bodies that they would subscribe a sum sufficient for the necessities of these deserving ministers, then I think that that would content the Dissenting bodies, and put an end to all the feuds and exceedingly disagreeable discussions upon this subject.

I beg to state that the facts of the matter concerning the publication of those names are these: I moved for a list of these persons, which was objected to; their return was ordered by this House, but I was applied to not to publish their names, in consequence of the exposure which would ensue. I think it was in 1834 that I brought this matter on. I said "the Dissenters ought to be fairly dealt with in this case." They had not till 1832 been brought before the House; we objected to allow anything that was not sanctioned by the House. These matters were then put on the estimates here, in order that they might be fairly dealt with by the House. As soon as it was known that this money was paid by Dr. Rees, a meeting of Dissenters was called upon the subject, and Mr. Weymouth, whom the noble Lord no doubt well recollects, wrote to me requesting me to vote against the grant, and stating that a resolution had been come to by the Dissenters to oppose it. That was in 1833; in 1834 I brought the matter specially before the House; upon which occasion I read the resolution I had previously received. Therefore, the opposition which is made to this grant has nothing to do in its origin with the Anti-State Church Association, but is a matter which was agitated before that body was established. As I believe that the noble Lord wishes to have no persons upon the list but such as are deserving, let me suggest to him to submit it to competent persons for examination, by doing which he will not be removing the grant from any single deserving person.

The noble Lord has stated that there is greater merit in giving charity in secret than openly. I am quite ready to admit the truth of his proposition as applied to individual charity; but when the charity comes from the nation, if it is money voted by the House of Commons, the circumstances are greatly altered. The nation has a right to know to whom its charity is given, and whether it is properly bestowed. As to the plea of its being a grant which has been long established, that certainly is no reasonable ground whatever upon which it can be maintained. We have had too many grants of that sort—too many irregular practices; and whether they have existed for a day, or a month, or a year, is perfectly immaterial; the lapse of time cannot in any way sanction that which is wrong. If it has been a charity which ought not to have been given, the sooner it is stopped the better; the greater the saving of the nation's money, which is not even thankfully received by the body to whom it is pretended to be given, but is repudiated by them. I hope that the House will be decided against this and all religious grants for any particular sects. This has nothing to do with the question of tithe; the question of tithe is a question of rent. I know that it is so from my own experience. I know that where there is no tithe to pay, there is more rent laid on the land. But when you are granting men public money, the public ought to know all the parties, and be satisfied that their circumstances require the grant. Look at the condition in which we as a nation are now placed! I say that the public and the country ought to know who the parties are who are receiving this money.

Sir, I am quite sure that the expression which has just fallen from the noble Lord, that the Dissenting ministers who partake of this grant are in the receipt of "alms," will in future make them desirous to disconnect themselves from it. The Dissenters of England of the present day still uphold those great principles for which their fathers were expatriated, and for which they suffered the loss of the whole of their property. Of this I am sure, that nearly every Dissenter throughout the empire will repudiate the grant. It is very unfair towards the large body of Dissenters in this country, that it should be stated in these estimates that this Regium Donum is for the benefit of the Dissenters of England. Why, Sir, that large body of Dissenters, the Wesleyans, are not in any way recipients of this bounty. I might say that they are the largest body of Dissenters in the British empire; yet they do not come down to these distributors and receive this bounty. Therefore, as the Wesleyans do not receive it, there is no reason why any ministers of the Independent and Baptist congregations should be allowed it. It has been stated, in the course of this debate, that this grant arose out of some transaction connected with the celebrated Minister, Walpole; but the fact of the matter is this—this grant was given by George I. to the Dissenters, in consequence of their adherence to the House of Hanover. At that time it might have been of some use to the Dissenting bodies, because they were small in number in proportion to what they are now; but since that time they have increased both in numbers and wealth, and any one who knows the Dissenting bodies at this moment knows very well that they have now no occasion for this grant. The small amount they receive, so far from doing any service to the Dissenting ministers who are supposed to receive it, renders them objects of suspicion and distrust with their congregations and denominations. I assure the noble Lord, that so far from being a benefit to the body of Dissenting ministers generally, it is a great disadvantage, because many of them are suspected of taking this money who are not actually in the receipt of it at all. The Dissenters generally object most strongly to the secret manner in which this grant is received. Dr. Pye Smith, one of the distributors, has acknowledged that there has been one gross case of malversation in its bestowal; and where one has been proved, there is reason to suspect the existence of more. The men who receive this grant cannot be considered free agents. We have seen what the effect of these State grants has been in Ireland. There the Crown will not permit any portion of the grant to be given unless the congregation give no greater stipend than 35l.; the consequence of which regulation is, that a large portion of the incomes of Presbyterian ministers in Ireland are reduced to that sum in order to bring them within the required conditions of Government. The effect of this grant is most injurious and distasteful to the entire body of Dissenting ministers on whose behalf you profess to make it. What has been the case upon the present occa- sion? There are 300 or 400 Dissenting ministers receiving this money, not one of whom has come forward and acknowledged himself publicly in favour of the money he annually receives from the Government. Why do they not openly come forward and ask for a continuance of the grant, when they perceive efforts made both within and without Parliament for its abolition? They are afraid of doing so, because they well know that by so doing they would lose the confidence of their congregations, of the denominations to which they belong, and of the entire body of Dissenters. I trust the House will refuse no longer to sanction the continuance of this grant.

I ask the noble Lord whether he will consent, so long as this grant was continued, to permit the publication of the names of those who receive it? I ask for nothing more than that; if the noble Lord feels that he cannot grant that request, then we must divide upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster. With regard to the plea that this grant is in the nature of alms, and must therefore be given in secret, I know well that a very high authority has said that when we give our alms we must give them in secret; but that precept applies only to cases in which we are giving our own money; but this grant being from a public fund, contributed from the taxes of the country, I think it would be much more desirable that it should be given openly, and in such a manner as that the public should have the means of satisfying themselves that the bounty is worthily bestowed.

I have already said that I am afraid the object of obtaining these names is, that the poor recipients of the grant might be held up to obloquy. That being the case, I most decidedly object to the proposition of the hon. Member.

, as a friend to religious liberty, did not think he was justified in assenting to any grant of this nature. There was, however, an item of 366l. for the widows and orphans of ministers of the Synod of Ulster, to which he did not object; and he should therefore move to reduce the vote by the sum of 27,471l.

objected to the item which was included in this vote of 4,045l. for gratuities for extra services in the Treasury and Commissariat Departments: 2,500l. of that sum had been given to Sir C. Trevelyan. Now, this was a very gross case. Sir C. Trevelyan might have laboured hard in the discharge of his duties; but so had the coast-guard of Ireland, whose services could not possibly have been dispensed with, and many of whom had contracted a violent fever in consequence of their labours, and yet no gratuity had been given to them. He would move to reduce the sum of 4,045l., and would divide the Committee upon this vote.

would simply say, that so far from this being an unprecedented matter, the Government had only followed the usual mode of remunerating persons who had performed extraordinary services.

thought it only a fair act of justice to Sir C. Trevelyan to say, that though he had not the honour of his personal intimacy, he had had an opportunity of seeing the extraordinary devotion which he had shown in the discharge of his arduous and responsible duties in superintending the application of the money for the relief of the Irish. He was not saying more than the truth, when he said that thousands and thousands of the people in Ireland owed their preservation to the industry, intelligence and zeal. Sir C. Trevelyan had displayed. It would be a great misfortune to the country, if such services as those which had been rendered by Sir C. Trevelyan should appear to be underrated by that House.

hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would divide upon the question. The Committee had been informed that Sir C. Trevelyan had none of the responsibility of this particular office, and, therefore, bore none of its demerit. If so, then he presumed that that gentleman was not in a position to claim any merit that might attach to the office. If it really had been a question of merit, he should have been prepared to challenge Sir C. Trevelyan's claim, for he (Lord G. Bentinck) had read all the evidence, and he was not inclined to think that there had been such a display of ability in the discharge of his duties as some hon. Members seemed disposed to attribute to him. He would refer to one instance only as an illustration of the system which was sanctioned by that gentleman—when oatmeal was being bought for 14l. a ton at Cork, Sir C. Trevelyan was having it sent out to Ireland from Deptford, where it was purchased at eighteen guineas a ton.

said, he had now to move two very-heavy votes by way of supplementary estimates, which were necessary to wind up the relief of the distress in Ireland up to the present half year. The first item of the vote was for 132,000l. To show that the poor-rate had been levied to a considerable amount for the same purpose, he might observe that the whole sum collected in Ireland in January, 1846, was 36,000l.; in January, 1847, 52,000l.; while in January, 1848, it reached 194,000l. The entire sum levied in the first six months of 1846 was 217,000l.; in the first six months of 1847, 339,000l.; and in the corresponding period of 1848, 867,000l. There were, however, many parts of Ireland in which the poor-rate, however well collected, had been found quite inadequate to relieve the prevailing distress. Twenty-two unions were in that position. The object of the Government was, that relief should only be given in districts respecting which it had been shown that no possible exertion in collecting the poor-rate would make it adequate for the object. Relief had been given of late almost entirely in food. As regarded the British Association, he would state, that the whole amount expended by it was 236,000l., of which sum 143,000l. went for rations for grown-up persons, 80,000l, in the same way for children, and about 120,000l. for clothes. The vote which he proposed was for relief given in continuation of the proceedings of the British Association in the three months immediately preceding the harvest, when the distress was the greatest. There were many unions in Ireland in which it was impossible they could defray the cost of their poor. The union in Ireland in which the greatest dis- tress prevalied was that of Clifden, in which the rate was 19s. 2d. in the pound. The valuation of the union was 22,400l. The expense of maintaining the poor in that district, from September, 1847, to September, 1848, was 18,310l. They had a small debt of 900l. The advances made by the British Association were 9,000l. for general relief, 3,000l. for the relief of destitute children, and the whole amount duo from the union would be upon a rated value of 22,400l., amounting to a rating in the pound of 19s. 9½d. In another union in the county of Clare, the amount of rating was 16s. 10d. in the pound; in another, 15s. 11d.; in another, 14s. 9d.; in Ballyra, 12s. 4½d.; in Castlebar, 11s. 9d. The rate in Ireland would be 2s. 9¾d. In Down it was lighter than in most counties in England; it would there amount to 1s. 2d. Taking the electoral divisions in Donegal, there were electoral divisions in which the charge for the maintenance of the poor this year would be 44s. 2d. in the pound. In Castle bar there was an electoral division in which the charge was 29s. in the pound. In Galway it would amount to 23s. 8d. This was the charge in the pound upon the valuation; but as it was notorious that in many of the most distressed districts, a largo proportion of the ratepayers could pay nothing at all, it was hopeless to expect that any amount of rate could defray the sum which was advanced. This statement applied to the western coast; on the eastern and north-eastern part the burden was lighter, which showed that the distress was local. It was, therefore, to sanction the expenditure of 132,000l., which was required from July to the end of the harvest, to continue the relief which, up to that time, had been afforded in voluntary contributions, through the means of the British Association, that he asked the House to agree to the vote. There could not be any necessity for further assistance in the way of depôts. He believed that the events of the last two years had introduced into Ireland dealers in meal and corn, so that the guardians would be able to procure an adequate supply of food. These were the circumstances which induced the Government to take on themselves the responsibility of demanding this sum of money. Without the assistance thus rendered, it would have been utterly impossible for the people to have been preserved from utter starvation, except by the means which had been so beneficially applied by the British Association. He trusted that the House would ratify the responsibility which Government had taken upon themselves. Question put—

"That 262,545l. be granted to make good the advances of the sum provided for the Relief of Distress ill Ireland and Scotland, through the Commissariat Department."

said, that he had given notice of resolutions on this vote; but as he could not move those resolutions, he wished to state the absolute necessity of refusing to make grants of public money, in addition to the poor-rates, and should take the opinion of the Committee in opposition to this grant of 132,000l. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had appealed to the generosity of the House, by stating the extraordinary distress of some of the Irish unions. His opinion was, that Ireland was perfectly capable of maintaining her poor, as well as the whole of her population. But he had another and a stronger objection to this vote—that it was given for the relief of such landlords as had not paid their rates. All the landlords had to do was to make out a case of inability to support the poor, and they would then receive assistance. He moved that the vote be disallowed.

considered that strong measures with regard to Ireland should now be adopted by Government. He did not mean to be offensive to any Gentleman differing from his opinion or persuasion, but it was quite clear to him that there was a great distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants. In the Protestant districts of Ireland the poor-rate only averaged Is. in the pound; while in the Roman Catholic districts it varied from 19s. to 11s. in the pound. He solemnly believed that the Roman Catholic religion, carried out in all its parts, was incompatible with the true cultivation of the soil. In Switzerland, the common remark of every traveller was the great difference between the agricultural prospects of the Roman Catholic cantons and those of the Protestants. The latter were far superior to the former. He believed unless the Government took some strong measures in reference to Ireland, in which they would be followed by the universal feeling of the country, there would be repeated calls upon the coffers of this country to subscribe to Ireland.

observed, that the hon. Member for Stroud, in objecting to the vote, did not seem to consider that an immense change was going on in Ireland, nor to make due allowance for the necessity under which both landlord and tenant were compelled to act. The burden upon landed property in Ireland had been changed from 400,000l to 1,800,000l., in itself a great and important change. Another change which had taken place in Ireland was this—that whereas, in 1836, there were no corn or provision dealers in Ireland, there were now dealers in those articles in every part of that country. Seeing the change which had taken place of late years in Ireland, and the burdens imposed, which, in particular districts pressed so heavily, he thought it was their duty to aid in the transition, and that it could not be said they in any way wasted the money of the country by assisting certain unions to bear the very great burdens which had been placed upon them, borne as these had been on the whole with a degree of readiness which was highly creditable. With respect to the future, that, no doubt, would be the subject of discussion, and he did not wish to enter upon it at that late hour. All he had to say was, that in our present circumstances he did not think it would be wise to lay down a system, or propose a plan. We did not know what was the extent of the present failure of the potato cultivation—what was the exact amount of the very great increase of potato cultivation which took place in the present year, as compared with the amount of last year; we did not know what amount would be saved, or to what period the stock would last; and under these circumstances he thought it would be very imprudent to lay down a plan. Government must, to a certain degree, rely upon the confidence of the Parliament; they would not ask it unnecessarily, or without a due regard to economy. If they saw cause to call for extraordinary measures, they would then assemble Parliament immediately, and propose to it such measures as they thought fit. In the present state of affairs, seeing the number of Members who were absent, they did not propose, at the end of the Session, to lay down any general system or plan by which they should invariably abide.