In 1854 a Dublin barrister by the name of John Vereker wrote a letter to Edward Grogan, a member of parliament, passionately defending the continuing practice in Ireland of providing public grants to hospitals and charities in the city of Dublin. Vereker's letter came at a time of controversy over this custom. After the Act of Union in 1801 the Irish parliament ceased to exist entirely, and by the mid-nineteenth century the parliament of the United Kingdom sought to curtail the awarding of government grants to charities in Dublin. Public grants for private charity was not the practice anywhere else in the empire. Furthermore, many argued that government support for hospitals and charities discouraged private donations. An 1842 report on the charitable institutions of Dublin concluded that ‘public grants injudiciously bestowed, have a tendency to check private benevolence’. Vereker contested this conclusion and the decision to halt public grants. He argued that Dublin's charities served the entire nation, since it was common for people from the provinces to come to Dublin for medical care, but they were only able to raise funds in the Dublin area. He contended that government grants did nothing to hinder private charity. Dublin and its citizens ‘extends more upon these charitable objects in proportion to the wealth of her inhabitants, than any other city in the empire’; yet, despite the generosity of its citizens, Dublin's hospitals relied on government grants to remain in operation. Vereker felt that most people preferred donating to educational charities, which were religiously affiliated, than to voluntary hospitals, which were non-sectarian. Aside from these arguments, Vereker defended the basic principle of government assistance for charity. He argued that ‘a government grant increases public confidence in an institution, and makes people more willing to subscribe, as they know the hospital may be compelled at any time to present parliament with a proper return. A government grant is a public sanction of an institution, and a guarantee for its proper supervision.’ The case made by Vereker and others like him was successful; the Westminster parliament eventually chose to continue providing public grants to charity hospitals.