English and Foreign.

Lyttelton Times, Volume X, Issue 608, 4 September 1858, Page 5

English and Foreign.

INDIAN BELIEF EUND.

The correspondent of the ' Argus' writing from Bareilly on the 7th August, gives the fol» lowing particulars in regard to the mal-appli-cation of the Indian Relief Fund by the Committee. With regard to the Relief Fund, and the distribution of it here, I am grieved to say that a case has occurred which I shall briefly and succinctly relate, placing it in juxtaposition with another, and then leave the public of Australia to judge whether they have acted judiciously in placing their munificent Government grant of £25,000 and their private subscriptions in the hands of an unknown committee (to them) to deal with. In the month of February last a river steamer, the Dinapore, was taken up by the Government for the conveyance of stores of various descriptions for the army. A Mr. Henry Hanlon was the chief engineer, and was married only some few months previously to the date I have mentioned. On the 26th of February the captain of the steamer (a Government officer placed in charge) gave orders to Mr. Hanlon to get up the steam at day-break, which he did, but when the pressure reached 43 lbs.—some 20 lbs under that authorised by the owners—the boiler burst, and precipitated Mr. Hanlon and seven firemen overboard, they received such severe scalds and injuries as to cause death, after suffering excrutiating agonies. The widow was left destitute and near her confinement; but the owners; when applied to, said, " Recover if you can; the Government said lie was not our servant, you must look elsewhere." The Relief Fuud naturally suggested itself to the relatives, and at their request I applied to the Committee on her behalf, but only elicited the following reply:—" The Committee consider that the case of'Mrs. Hanlon does not come within the scope of the Relief Fund." This result was communicated to me by Mr. M'Leod Wylie, the secretary, a very estimable man, who would, I feel sure, if he had erred in the matter, have done so on the side of mercy and charity, but he told me the day before the case was considered that he should not be present, Now for the other side of the affair. In March last a refugee came down to Calcutta from Luknow. He had a wife and child with him. He was a daily frequenter of the principal and very expensive hotel, and spent rupees as if he had shaken them off the far-famed Pagoda Tree, and know exclusively where it grew. A 100 rupee note (.£10) went in champagne and iced clavet, with other luxuries, as if it was a spill to light his pipe with. It was quite like Victoria in the first blush of the gold-fields to witness his profusion. Feasting was the order of the day, and he dazzled the eyes of all with whom he became acquainted by the display he made of diamonds, pearls, rubies, emeralds, &c, to a very oonsiuer-

able value. These were the proceeds of his loot or plunder before evacuating Lucknow, after its relief by Sir Colin Campboll. That man had only to apply to the Committee of the Relief Fund to receive assistance, which was not needed, and money was advanced to pay his passage, and that of his wife and child, to England, besides free quarters being found them during their stay in Calcutta. Ik- sported a very valuable gold repeater watch, with curious but very indecent mechanism at the back, which was shown indiscriminately, even "to the native waiters at the hotel, as having once belonged to the ex-King of Oude. lie got relief; but the destitute widow, near her confinement, whose husband was blown up and killed whilst conveying stores to the army to enable it to carry on its operations against the rebels, and so relieve our distressed and dishonoured women and fellow-countrymen, "was not considered by the Committee to come within the scope of the Relief Fund." Comment is needless, and 1 shall make none. You are aware that I have always in my correspondence advocated the cause of the fund, and I do still; but I do quarrel with the distribution by the Committee, more particularly as they have proposed to appropriate any surplus to the Lawrence Asylum, and a similar one to be established at Darjeeling, when such cases as the one I have mentioned are ignored as not coming within the scope of the fund.

Both these cases came within my own observation. I submit this to Mr. Wylie for perusal, in order that if he thinks proper to make any remarks, they may be enclosed for publication in your columns Avith this.

The following is Mr. Wylie's note on the subject submitted to him by our correspondent:—

CALCUTTA RELIEF FUXD,

Calcutta, June 3, 1858. My dear Sir, —I am sorry I cannot now enter at length into your letter.

As to our surplus, we have at present no prospect of anv. We have spent £110,000 out of £120,000. "

I should like to know the name of the person you allude to from Lucknow. Yours, truly,

M. Wtlie. We have received nothing from Australia. It has gone to London.

We cannot ascertain from the English papers who is to succeed Lord Canning as GovernorGeneral of India, for the news of his recall was not known generally in England at our latest dates; our intelligence of the fact is from Point de Galle. In anticipation, however, of such an event, the ' Times ' thunders forth against even the suggestion of appointing any other than Sir John Lawrence, and proceeds to demonstrate the inefficiency of Lord Stanley and others whose names had been mentioned for that position. It is most likely, therefore, that Sir J. Lawrence is bv this time the Governor-General.

Gold is said to have been found in Vancouver's Island, in extraordinary abundance; also in various other places in the extreme north of America, and the rush from California and elsewhere to the new El Dorados is so intense that it is termed a ' stampede.' There is likely to be some difficulty with the Hudson's Bay Company, but in case of any material interruption they are threatened by the English papers with a treatment similar to that of the East India Company. Mayuooth—ln introducing this annnal eSotion for leave to introduce a bill to repeal the Maynooth grant on Thursday, Mr. Spooner said he "would not inflict upon the house any lengthened speech, but content himself with saying that he had never made it a. party question, but had brought it forward solely on religious grounds, believing the doctrines which were taught at Maynooth to be contrary to the Word of God, to be fraught with social evil, and the countenance given by Parliament to their dissemination a national sin. The sovereign ought also to be relieved from the responsibility of her Coronation Oath, promising to maintain inviolate the Protestant religion. He would not reiterate former statements, but confine himself strictly to one new point. He had in his possession a document such as few Protestant members had ever seen— Tka Acts and Creeds of the Provincial Council, passed in Dublin in June, 1553. The resolutions then passed agreed exactly with those printed at Home by the authority of the Pope. Similar declarations had been made by the council at Armagh, and, like the Dublin resolutions, were signed by Paul Cullen. the so-called Archbishop of Dublin. The document to which he referred contained the following statement —

" But while we ordain these things, we think that the good of religion and the liberty of the Church demand that in every case of the election, quotiesamque agatur de eligendis, of Poor-law guardians and members of Parliament, by whose actions a quorum agendi rutione, or by whose instrumentality (which is a better translation), the faith and safety of the Catholic poor and the rights and liberty*of the Church might suffer los?, they (the priests) ought to be anxious that these offices should be conferred on honest men, ami by no means on enemies of the Catholic religion. But we think that all these things should be carried on outside of the churches, without tumult, without a violation oi" charity. and with due subjection to their own Bishop— lest dissentions might arise among the clergy— leaving to every one in doubtful matters liberty of judging freely for himself." That injunction came direct from Rome for the guidance of priests in Ireland. The evidence of Professor OTlanlon showed that, altnohgh the sacrament might not be refused to a person, simply because he voted against the wishes of the priest, yet the sacrament would be withheld in the case of a mortal sin, and it was possible to commit'a mortal sin by voting for a person who was likely to injure the Catholic Church."

Thus, then, they had a foreign Power interfering with their elections, lie insisted that the priests educated at Maynooth were inert tools of the Pope, and that as the measure of Sir R. Poel had failed to produce its promised effects, it ought to be repealed. The motion was seconded hy"Mr. Bcntick. It was opposed by Mr. Walpolc, who resisted the introduction of sm:h a measure upon two grounds —first, that who;1, a groat <[iu;stion had been settled by Parliament, it, was not wise to disturb such settlement unless it was

clearly proved that there were grave objections to it ; and, secondly, that when Sir Robert Peel proposed the perpetuation of this grant, he called it a message of peace to Ireland, and if the act were repealed it would be considered by the people of Ireland as a reversal of the policy of Sir Robert Peel, and as tantamont to a declaration of war. Mr. Newdeyate having made a few observations in support of the motion, the house divided, when the motion was negatived by 210 to 255.