HC Deb 10 June 1852 vol 122 cc418-33

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.

(4.) 600l., Female Orphan House, Dublin. Vote agreed to.

(5.) 1,500l., Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin,


wished to call the attention of the Committee to the state of this hospital; in his opinion it was a charity having very strong claims upon the Government. He objected to any diminution of the annual grant by Parliament.


said, he objected to voting any public money to the charities of Dublin. Parliament was called upon annually to vote sums of money for the maintenance of eight hospitals in Dublin, while no institutions of a similar kind in England or Scotland were thus assisted;


said, that the English hospitals were largely endowed by Royal grants made many years ago, and that but for this circumstance they also would be dependent upon the liberality of Parliament.


said, he wished to know if the question of the grants to the Irish hospitals had been formally considered and agreed to by the present Government? The late Government had considered the question, and he wished now to ascertain if the reduction in the grants was to be progressive or suspended?


said, that the grants to all the Irish hospitals were under the considera- tion of Government, but that he could not say anything further at present.


thought it extremely satisfactory that Her Majesty's present Government had undertaken to consider the decision of their predecessors on this subject; and in common with the other Irish Members who had opposed the course taken by the late Government, he felt thankful to their successors, and if they were prepared not only to suspend that decision, but to alter it, he would support them.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—

(6.) 600l., Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.

(7.) 1,050l., Doctor Stevens's Hospital, Dublin.

(8.) 2,660l., House of Recovery and Fever Hospital, Dublin.

(9.) 350l., Hospital for Incurables, Dublin.

(10.) Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 38,560l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1853.


said, that he had an Amendment to propose on this Vote. He objected to this celebrated or rather infamous Regium Donum on the ground that it was a Vote to bribe the loyalty of the people of Ireland. The objection to the Vote was universal; an argument in its favour was nowhere to be met with. No petitions were presented in favour of it; hundreds of petitions were annually presented against it; and the very congregations whose ministers this money was intended for, were conscientiously hostile to the continuance of such a grant. The late Government, through the noble Lord the Member for the city of London (Lord John Russell), had given in the last Session a species of pledge that this Vote would be withdrawn; and as the present Government had asked for consideration, inasmuch as they were not responsible for these Estimates, he (Mr. C. Anstey) called upon them to fulfil that pledge. At least let some justification be offered for the proposition of this Vote. A late Secretary to the Treasury had distinguished himself by defending the Vote on the ground that it was the cheapest method by which the House of Commons could secure the loyalty of the north of Ireland. Let it then be fairly stated that the object was to secure the allegiance of the lower classes through the corruption of their ministers. The Committee had no right, though they might have the power, to misappropriate the public funds for the support of those who desiderated the discontinuance of this grant. It was believed that this money, which was voted for Calvinistic purposes, was given to those who were not really Calvinistic ministers. That had been reported, but he would not enter into that question. His objection was more deeply rooted, for he was opposed to any permanent grants for religious purposes, and he was determined to divide the Committee on the present occasion.


said, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had spoken of the Government bribing the Presbyterians of Ireland by this grant; but he must know very little indeed of that body, if he supposed that they would suffer themselves to be bribed by any Government. The ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland could not be bribed by any thing which that House could offer to them.


I never said that they could be. What I said was, that the Secretary of the Treasury, in support of this Vote last year, made such a defence of it that I was justified in putting upon it the interpretation that the Government wished to bribe the Presbyterian ministers by offering to them this grant. But, I added, that I did not think they could be bribed.


said, he had only to remark that, if this Vote could not be sustained upon grounds of policy and justice, he felt sure that the independent character of the Presbyterians of Ireland was such that they would reject the grant. No doubt there was no explanation of this Vote upon the Estimates; but there lay upon the table a lengthy statement, which would give the hon. and learned Gentleman all the particulars that he might desire respecting it. That document would inform him that, in the time of James I., several Presbyterians left Scotland for Ireland with the view of planting Ulster, on condition that Parliament should give stipends to their ministers. That express stipulation had been since solemnly ratified by Acts of Parliament. The Dissenters of England, therefore, in this respect, stood upon a ground totally different from that occupied by the Presbyterians of Ireland; and he felt confident that the Committee would not refuse to agree to this Vote.


said, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey) was not justified in representing the late Secretary of the Treasury to have said that this Vote was granted as a bribe to the Presbyterian ministers in Ireland. Had the Secretary of the Treasury made use of such language in that House, he (Captain Jones) should at once have protested against it. No man in that House, at all acquainted with the Presbyterians of Ireland, could assert that their loyalty and good conduct were dependent upon Parliamentary grants. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal had asked what good resulted from this Parliamentary support to the Irish Presbyterian ministers? The favourable contrast which the Presbyterian presented to the Roman Catholic counties of Ireland, ought to be a sufficient answer. Let the hon. and learned Member compare the constabulary expenditure in the latter with that in the former counties, and he would see what good had resulted from this grant.


said, he was sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, with the view of inducing the Committee to discontinue this grant, had criticised rather severely the character of some of the recipients of it. Why, would not anybody take money if it was offered to him? It was quite true that the money was first granted in the time of James I.; but since that time what important changes in our policy had there been. The time had come in which the Presbyterians of Ireland were as capable as any other religious body of supporting their own ministers. Why should not the Dissenters of Ireland, as well as those of England and Scotland, support their own pastors? What justice or consistency could there be in endowing the ministers of the minority in Ireland, and giving nothing whatever towards the support of the Roman Catholic priests, who were the clergymen of the great majority of the people of that country? Every man should in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion par for his own clergyman, just as he did for his own doctor. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal had referred to the endowment of Maynooth as a thing to be done away with as well as this grant; but he (Mr. Hume) did not think that a Vote for education, and the Vote now under the consideration of the Committee should be placed in the same category. The north of Ireland contained a rich population, and he did not think it was seemly to give Parliamentary support to them whilst the poor of the rest of Ireland were made to support their clergymen without any aid from Parliament. This was a Vote which would tend to keep up disquiet and discontent in Ireland, and it was wrong, both in point of policy and of justice.


said, that as an independent though humble Member of that House, he was constantly placed in a most embarrassing position, in consequence of the extraordinary anomaly which existed in the British Constitution with regard to our ecclesiastical system. He had but one clear and intelligible course to pursue. It was, that being a member of the Established Church, and of opinion that the connexion of the Church with the State most conduced to the peace and hapiness of the community, he must throughout maintain that principle. When, therefore, he was called upon to vote money for Nonconformist or for Roman Catholic ministers, he asked himself, as he now asked hon. Members, how are we to maintain our established system, and yet, at the same time, grant money for the maintenance of doctrines entirely opposed to it? They must, in consistency, either declare themselves ready to maintain the principle of an Established Church, or to resort to the voluntary system. Being opposed to the voluntary system, he felt himself entitled to vote with the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, should he press for a division.


said, that two aguments had been urged in favour of the Vote—-one being the antiquity of the grant, and the other that there was no feeling in Ireland against it. Now, with regard to the first of these, it was a fact that before the Union the grant had amounted not to 38,000l., but only to the odd 8,000l.; and, as to there being no feeling against it, he knew an instance in which one rev. gentleman had resigned his charge in consequence of receiving a share of the grant. The money was given to support ministers some of whom were orthodox (in a Calvinistic sense) and others heretical—some Trinitarians, and others Unitarians. They maintained hot controversies with each other. They fired away against each other their theological anathemas, while we paid for the powder and shot on both sides. One great objection to the grant was, that it went, not to certain members of the Presbyterian body, nor to certain ministers, but that it was measured by congregations, the consequence of which was a continual temptation to multiply the number of congregations. If we looked back to the amount of population connected with Presbyterian churches in Ireland, and to the number of congregations, we should find that the population was often stationary, but that the number of congregations meanwhile continually increased; and thus a larger amount of public money was secured. Another mischievous result of the grant was, that it really tended to repress the proper zeal of the Presbyterian body (who were a wealthy class of people) in support of their ministers. Although there would perhaps be some hardship in an immediate revocation of the grant, he should certainly be in favour of reducing it by 25 per cent until it was totally abolished.


said, he thought that these endowments were in the end prejudicial. To be giving them first to one religion, and then to another, was certainly prejudicial to the character of the State which imposed upon itself a semi-infidel character when it began to support simultaneously half-a-dozen religions. It would be worth while for the Committee to consider whether they proceeded on any established system with respect to the Established Church. In England the Established Church was the Church of the majority of the nation, and might, he presumed, be considered by the State and the Parliament as teaching religious truth. There was here then no anomaly, speaking legislatively even. The moment, however, they passed the Tweed, they found a Church teaching totally different and partly antagonistic doctrines— [An Hon. MEMBER: And in a minority]—and, as the hon. Member said, though of that he was not himself aware, not in a majority. Here was an anomaly. In Ireland they had the same Church as in England, but, as every body knew, it was there in a minority. They had then no clear principle, for neither truth nor majority could, in these cases, be assigned. He spoke legislatively, not theologically, and he was not speaking of any particular mode of dealing with the Established Church in Ireland. But he said this: Until you are prepared to deal with it on a large and grand scale, it is absurd to withdraw particular grants from either this sect or that. He thought the times were now so much altered from what they were a few centuries ago, that, supposing a fresh state of things starting up, no states- man would think of supporting the Church in it at all. But the case was different where the Churches were already in existence. He only said, then, that finding themselves in the position they were in at present, they must not hastily revolutionise our ecclesiastical system before they were prepared to act in the matter on some clear, large, and statesmanlike principle. He could not support the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey), though he (Mr. W. Prosser) was generally opposed to endowments of this nature.


said, that last year the Vote of 1,696l. was withdrawn from the poor dissenting clergy of England and Wales; and if the Committee was justified in doing that, they were not justified in voting the large sum of 38,000l. for the Presbyterian body in Ireland, which was but a branch of a Church, established too in the richest part of Ireland. The greatest part of the dissenting clergy of England and Wales did not, on the average, get 92l. a year; yet they were called on to support the Presbyterian clergy in Ireland, a great many of whom received a large amount from this grant.


said, he should oppose the grant as a foolish and mischievous mode of keeping the people quiet, if that was the object with which the grant was made. If the object was the support of truth, all experience told them that truth was not to be supported by a grant of public money. He objected, then, on every ground, to the grant, and would support the Amendment. He considered any attempt as to keeping the people of the north of Ireland quiet by bribing their ministers, was perfectly ridiculous; and a Government could not fail to be despised which attempted to do so.


observed, that he should not have risen upon that occasion, but for the insinuations thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for Derry (Capt. Jones), to the effect that the Presbyterians of Ulster were more loyal subjects than the Catholic inhabitants of other parts of Ireland. He, for one, would never sit silent under that or any similar imputations which some hon. Gentlemen were so much in the habit of casting upon the Roman Catholic people. The hon. Member had intimated that he could scarce restrain himself from expressing more plainly his real sentiments; but he (Mr. Scully) thought it was always better to be outspoken in such matters, for the mischief done was equally great, whether the false imputation was made in a direct and frank form, or by way of intelligible insinuations. He did not mean any personal discourtesy when he asserted that any statement was wholly unfounded, and utterly false, which should represent the Catholic counties as at all inferior, in genuine loyalty, to the Presbyterian counties of Ireland. It was altogether untrue as to the great Catholic county which he had the honour to represent. He did not wish to offend any hon. Members by arrogating for the Roman Catholics of Ireland any superior loyalty over the Protestant or Presbyterian bodies; but those who so flippantly imputed a want of loyalty to the Catholics of Ireland, appeared not to know the meaning of the term, which, according to Dr. Johnson, signified "a firm and faithful adherence to the Prince;" and they seemed also to forget the former history of Ireland, or they would know that the Catholics there had been to the very last the most firm and faithful adherents of Kings Charles I, and James II. No—the Catholics of Ireland were never liable to the imputation of being more disloyal, though they might, perhaps, be more discontented, on account of being always worse treated and more oppressed, than their more favoured Protestant and Presbyterian countrymen. But let not disloyalty be confounded with discontent, as was constantly done by those who desired to divert attention from the real grievances of the suffering party. Did they not all know very well that the just discontent of the whole people of Ireland was mainly attributable to the unsatisfactory state of the land question? So long as that question should remain in an unsettled state, they might expect to find discontent among the Roman Catholic as well as the Protestant and Presbyterian populations. It was idle to attribute the present condition of Ireland to its prevailing religion or race. That was not the proper occasion to discuss the land question, or the other causes of the unhappy state of Ireland; and he should abstain from now making any statements of his own, but would take the liberty of referring to two English writers, who had recently expressed their views upon the subject. The greatest of Protectionist writers (Mr. Serjeant Byles), speaking in the year 1850, states— What is the condition of Ireland? No description can describe it. No parallel exists or has ever existed to illustrate it. No province of the Roman Empire ever presented half the wretch- edness of Ireland. At this day the mutilated Fellah of Egypt, the savage Hottentot; the New Hollander, the Negro Slave, the live chattel of Carolina or Cuba, enjoy a paradise in comparison with the condition of the Irish peasant—that is to say, with the bulk of the Irish nation. Who is responsible? Common sense says, and all Europe and America repeat it — Those who have governed Ireland are responsible. The misery of Ireland is not from the human nature that grows there. It is from England's perverse legislation, past and present. The truth is, that except in the imperfect way that the peace has been kept, Ireland has not been governed at all. Those were the matured opinions of a distinguished Englishman in regard to the true causes of discontent in Ireland. To the same effect are the views lately expressed by Mr. Joseph Kay, another English author of great research, and who, as a Travelling Bachelor of Cambridge University, had occupied a period of eight years in examining the comparative conditions of the United Kingdom, and of the several countries in Europe. That eminent writer states— The Irish people, physically and intellectually considered, are one of the most active and restless people in the world. In every colony in our empire, and among the motley multitudes of the United States, the Irish are distinguished by their energy, their industry, and their success. They are industrious and successful everywhere but in Ireland. Hut at this moment there is a state of war in Ireland. Do not let us disguise it from ourselves. There is a war between landlord and tenant—a war as fierce, as relentless as though it were carried on by force of arms. Such is the frightful, the appalling result of our long government of Ireland. We have made it—I speak it deliberately—we have made it the most degraded and the most miserable country in the world, and we wonder that the Irish should rebel against such a system of misgovernment! All the world cries shame upon us; but we are equally callous to our ignominy, and to the results of our misgovernment. He could accumulate testimonies to the same effect made by enlightened English authors, from the earliest times up to the present day, truly ascribing the present discontent and misery of Ireland to the past misgovernment of that country, especially in connexion with its land system. But he would pass to matter more germane to the proposed vote for maintaining the Presbyterian clergy of Ireland. Now, he would object to discuss separately, and in an isolated form, either the withdrawal of this grant for maintaining the Presbyterian clergy of Ireland, or the withdrawal of the small grant for educating the Roman Catholic clergy at Maynooth. If the withdrawal of either of those Government grants were to be discussed at all, they should be con- sidered together, and also in connexion with the State endowments—for they were State endowments—of the Irish Established Church. He had mentioned, in a recent debate, that spiritual food for the poor Catholics of Ireland was provided by Government at. the annual rate of one penny per head, whilst each rich Protestant cost about two hundred shillings, and a Presbyterian two shillings a year. He believed that if these three endowments were to be, as the lawyers say, all brought into "hotch-potch," it would turn out that the Presbyterian body were entitled to more than two shillings per head out of the common fund, and therefore he would not be a party to depriving them of the present grant, unless all the other State endowments were, at the same time, withdrawn. He thought it, however, rather strange that some Protestants of the Established Church—such as the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton)—should argue so strenuously in support of this Presbyterian endowment, and at the same time oppose most vigorously the grant to Maynooth. Upon referring to the speech made by the hon. Member in 1845, when he had denounced the Maynooth grant, he had added that "his observations applied only to the encouragement of religions by the State which differed from each other in essential truths." Was the hon. Member aware that a portion of this very grant to the Presbyterian clergy of Ireland was given to those Unitarians who repudiated the Atonement, denied the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, disbelieved in the Trinity, and rejected altogether the Athanasian Creed? That creed was common both to Catholics and to Protestants of the Established Church. The hon. Member would find it in his standard religious work, the Book of Common Prayer, and he would also learn from it that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential truth of his Protestant creed, "which, except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved." Now, he would recommend the hon. Member to consider whether these Unitarians, who denied the Trinity, did not differ more materially in essential truths than a Roman Catholic from the Protestant of the Established Church. For his own part, he conceived that the temporal endowments of every church were totally distinct from its spiritual character; and, for the reasons he had already stated, he should not at present oppose the continuance of this grant to the Presbyterian clergy of Ireland.


said, that the English Dissenters were opposed to the grant, and he contended that, as it came annually under discussion, there would be no hardship in withdrawing it. He would vote for its withdrawal, and in doing so he would express a hope that the Government would withdraw other objectionable grants to ecclesiastical establishments.


wished the country could get rid of this scrambling for public money by different religious bodies. The English Dissenters had protested against the annual grant of 1,695l. to a portion of their body until the late Government agreed to withdraw it. It appeared to him there was no utility in continuing the grant, inasmuch as it only increased the indifference of the Irish Presbyterians to support their own ministers.


said, he should have thought after what he had said, no hon. Gentleman could have stated that he (Mr. C. Anstey) charged the Presbyterians of Ireland with disloyalty. He said the grant was given to them as a bribe, but he had never said they received it as such.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 57; Noes 34: Majority 23.

Vote agreed to; as was also—

(11.) 6,5522., Concordatum Fund (Ireland).

(12.) 10,745l., General Board of Health.


said, he must complain that places were put under the supervision of the Board without sufficient grounds. He contended that no application should be made to the Board by any district, before the sense of the ratepayers had been taken on the question. If he had known this Vote had been coming on, he should have made quotations from a collection of cases which had been sent to him, which would have astonished the Committee, and he hoped an early opportunity would be taken to amend the present Act by requiring a greater number of inhabitants than one-tenth to concur before a town was subjected to the expense of a preliminary investigation under the direction of the Board of Health. It frequently happened that the inhabitants of a town were surprised by the appearance of a surveyor among them, and, in a few weeks after, they found themselves placed under the supervision of the Board, contrary to their wishes, and without being able to see the names of the tenth of their number, on whose requisition it was assumed the proceedings wore founded. This had been the source of many jobs.


hoped that the Government would look very closely into the working of the Board of Health, as much dissatisfaction had been occasioned by their proceedings.


begged to remind the hon. Member for Montrose, that the Act by which the Board of Health had been established would come under the revision of Parliament in the course of the next two years, and if there was any necessity for making a change in the number of inhabitants permitted to memorialise the Board of Health, then would be the proper time to discuss the question. In the absence of the noble Lord who was at the head of the Woods and Works, he was, of course, not prepared to enter into any details with respect to the charge of mismanagement. He could state, however, that the Act had been applied to no less than 130 towns, and that there had been 231 petitions received from towns to be included under it.


said, that some of the complaints which had been made were owing to a decision of the House, that in these cases the majority only was not to be represented, but that a very small minority of the inhabitants should be entitled, on application, to command an investigation by the Board of Health. As the inhabitants, however, were only exposed to the expense of a preliminary inquiry, the expense could not be very great. The average cost of these inquiries was 120l. a piece, and 330l. was the utmost cost of a contested inquiry. He could only contrast that with the expense of a contested improvement Bill, which, in some cases, had cost tens of thousands of pounds. With regard to all other towns but Yarmouth, everything was going on very smoothly and harmoniously.


said, he did not want to abolish the Board of Health, which he thought was capable of doing a great deal of good, but he wished to put the Board in such a position that they should not be enabled to act upon the representations of one-tenth of the inhabitants of a town.


wished to call the attention of the Government to the Metropolitan Interments Act, which had become a nullity, and which was to be superseded by a Bill now before the House. The only thing done under the Act was the appointment of a Commission, of which Br. Southwood Smith was the head. He thought that as the Act was inoperative, the salaries paid to these gentlemen, amounting to 2,400l., might be saved to the country till some opportunity arose for making their services available.

Vote agreed to.

(13.) 11,730l. Incumbered Estates Commission (Ireland).


said, he did not wish to oppose the payment of the salaries of the Commissioners, but he must say that as the Government when in Opposition had opposed the Commission, their decision, as regarded the continuance of the Bill, was sudden, and astonished the greater part of their own supporters from Ireland. One of the ablest pamphlets against the measure, in fact, was, he understood, written by a legal Member of the Government.


said, that this resolution was not a sudden one, as stated by the hon. Gentleman. It was announced by the Government three months ago, and under existing circumstances they felt that it was impossible for them to adopt any other course. The proposition was only to continue the Commission for one year.


said, he must ask what became of the Courts of Law in Ireland, now that there was this Commission, which had in a great measure superseded the jurisdiction exercised by them? The experiment of the Incumbered Estates Court had been tried, and he was told that it had been very successful. Were the Courts of Law in Ireland incompetent to deal with this description of business— and was it proposed to make any reduction with respect to them?


said, that this Court had been established to enable incumbrancers to obtain their money in an expeditious way. This mass of business the Court of Chancery could not get through, although there could not be a more enlightened and able Judge than the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. In the Incumbered Estates Court, incumbrances to the amount of 28,000,000l. had been brought forward, only 8,000,000l. of which had been disposed of. He would merely add that, in moving the second reading of the Continuance Bill, he intended to make a statement, and to go into ail the facts he was in possession of on this subject.

Vote agreed to; as were also—

(14.) 7,760l., Lighthouses abroad.

(15.) 40,200l., Census of the Population.

(16.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum not exceeding 4,332l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March 1853, the Expense of re-building the Chapel, &c. to the British Embassy at Constantinople.


said, he objected to the Vote. It contained a sum of 3,500l. for the building of a chapel at Constantinople, and he thought that the Ambassador should provide a room in his own house for his private devotions, as there were very few British subjects resident at Constantinople.


thought a detailed estimate of the expense should be laid before the House.


said, he had looked into the amounts expended for erecting a residence for our Ambassadors at Constantinople, and he found that, since 1843. it had amounted to no less than 83,765?. It was too bad, therefore, to come forward now and ask that House to erect a room for the Ambassador's private devotions; and he would divide the Committee against it.


would say nothing on the subject of past Votes, but he had to remind the Committee that the chapel at Constantinople was destroyed by fire two years ago, and it could hardly be denied that it was their duty to rebuild it. The chapel was for the Ambassador, the Consul General, and other British inhabitants of Constantinople.


said, that as the name of the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works was at the foot of the Estimate, perhaps more information could be obtained from him on the subject. The Committee ought also to be informed how many English residents there were in Constantinople.


said, he must object to the Government being made responsible for the expenditure of past years. When he was in Constantinople some years ago nearly 300 persons attended divine worship in the English chapel. The chapel was built for the use of the English residents and visitors in that city; but as the Committee wished for information on the subject, he would willingly consent to the postponement of the Vote.


said, that he had been induced the other night to allow some Votes to be taken without a division in consequence of the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), that where-ever the English population abroad was able to do so, they would be required to furnish a certain amount before the Government would assent to the appropriation of the public money for building places of worship. If the English population at Pera were so numerous and respectable, they ought to put their hands into their own pockets, and not come to the English public for money. He objected to the postponement of the Vote.


agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, that the Vote ought not to be postponed. Besides the large sum which had been voted for the residence, the Ambassador at Constantinople received more than 12,000?. a year, besides other allowances. If the merchants at Pera, which was on the other side of the Straits, were so numerous, they ought to provide a place of public worship for themselves.


regretted exceedingly that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not happier in his geography. Pera was that quarter of Constantinople in which the British Ambassador resided. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not stated that 300 merchants but that 300 persons attended divine worship when he was there, which was now a good many years ago. Perhaps there were not more than thirty English merchants in Pera. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had proposed that the Vote should be postponed, in order that his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners), who was unavoidably absent, might give to the Committee the information for which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had expressed a desire.


objected to the postponement of the Vote.


said, that as the hour (nine o'clock) had arrived at which the Committee of Supply was to cease, he thought better to keep to the proposed plan, and begin with this Vote on the next Supply day. He should therefore move that the Chairman report progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: —Ayes 92; Noes 12: Majority 80.

The House resumed. Committee report progress.