The Sun. — London, England, 1845-04-19 00:00:00

... ..,215.01• 11 . 5, Pa . . ~.. ....... - -. • " uld real an .-... .“ . extract from a n a dd ress pu bli s h e d i n a news - P e rs--(iiere the lion. and Learned Gentleman was inter " Wed by shouts of `° Read, read," ee l grea t con f us i o n which continued for some time, indeed, throughout the whole of , tthe H on. and Learned Gentlemen's si.eeeli.) He then came on rt tee e speech of th e Right lion. Secretary for the Horne De_ - p nt(Laught er , an d confus i on.) He had attentively listened to all that had fallen from that Right Hon. Gentle man, and he derived as all who heard him must have derived the highest satisfaction in the exercise of those talents with which the Right lion. Gentleman was blessed.—(Laugh ter, cheers, and much confusion.) He (Mr. Law) had been about to read an extract from an address of the Right lion. Gentleman, but it seemed that the House would not allow him. --(Cheers and laughter.) His Right Hon. Friend near him (N r. Law) fi lled an important position in the Conservative Pasty wh en that party was in Oppo s ition ; and he did not lio tt* that the Right - - Hon. Baronet had treated that Right „n. and Le arne d Gentleman in a very graceful manuer. He Ir ' Law) had b een una b le to make clear the various points of his address, in consequence of the continued interruptions with which he had been met.—( Cheers, laughter, and much confusion) He would, therefore, most cordially support the Proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member from Newcastle, tthat that Bill be read that (lay six months—that it be laid on a the ta b le, and merged under the petitions of h e t h P e cPle that it b e entw i ned and folded i n e embrace of its twin-brother, the Jewish Disabilities Bill . ; t t t e . d then that it may, if they desire it, be revived and !•esustri,ie ae!l by the fostering care of its teal parents and guardians . et Whigs, the Gentlemen opposite. They alone could, wit anyteteceonsci.entious scruples, engraft this measure on a Protea nstitution. Theirs the merit, if merit there were ; theirs the peril of discomfiture, and the ignominy of defeat.— Crhe Hen. and Learned Member sat down, amid great confu re% in all parts of the Hou se s eghe speaker having l e ft the ) Howe for a few minutes, Lord ur Lennox, w h o had gone out a short time previously to procure so me oranges f or t h e L earne d R ecor d er, a d vance d up 1 ,'!: House, and not recognising Mr. Law, who had res t u a rr i i i ed . lhis seat, he handed them to Mr. T. Duncombe, who was s b el e at the table prepared to address the House. Mr. Duncom . e st i r ," ono of the oranges across the table to Sir J. Graham, by T h mn, ie was dexterously caught, and handed up to Mr. Law. throe2nteident occasioned a roar of laughter and much cheering itilinollt the House.] tls ''' T• D UNCOIIIsIe was aware that it was the wish of t'ssie liouse that this ' d d ebite should ld be brought as speedily as ble to a close assure them that he would L e eectiPe their " ti a m n e to e the same extent that the Hon. and In armed Member the Recorder of London had done.. Lor,k tdrat the tone and temper of this debate, c msidering thatman, thehad been no offence to the religious y inete ee pte at Tan who he might, he could not help nowris , opinions of an . te at e s e his regret at the speech which the House had „ h r e v a o r n d ('tilneglit from the Hon. and Learned Member for Dun e a n t. Shell). He could not help thinking that that . Hon. a d 'learned Member had done a reat act of injustice to the te ° k'etent Lii • g t If any one h a d aopused that ssen ti t i e e r s R o o f mtahnis Catholicseounry. of Ireland should tesvteatilt•-",n handed over to the free denominations . of Pro adee it, instead of to the aristocracy of England—if any one free ros eeeed to hand the government of Ireland over to t e. eentienominations, then indeed the Right Hon. and Learned sed agein: t re e art might have cause for the expressions he had u . be e ttseern. But he had done a great injustice, and he . is a eir:t k ' e ) Only wished that he could have procured for him a lee - a Petition which had been presented by himself (Mr Isati:atda etiitemr ilbeatel) r ' ec eeded early part' of that evening. It had deputation of free Protestants from frl;naltawnaelve miles around London. An ..3 cage in that petition ? Their language . was thi o. , misted to objected to the revenues of the State being b ayp ct r e b o n the 0 any eccleciastical party whatever. The o e +he ro ad Pound that the could sanction no endowment. hid Prayer of the Y petitioners stated that they th ee eacted con scientiously, and from a conviction of what toe4entaldered right. They stated that they felt no animosity BDruptth•ne'r Roman Catholic fellow subjects with whom they lehi e h t eed in the oppression, the miseries and wrongs to were subjected; and, therefore, he said Hon. and Learned Gentleman had done il t h e 5 great ligtln7 (Cl ip : a id they itliustice towards the Dissenters when Mevere" a set of l ients.— % this s) The DissentTers of England had anatica acted a eon sistenty /44 14 P e easion, fer in 1834, when Lord Althorp—no, he Nue, O ut G r—tried to bring in a Bill to pay church ware and oft he consolidated Fund, the same party came . for to th at st ated, on exactly the same grounds, their opposition h re .ent raonnesais,ure. and with such success that the Whig Govern oisseet.. tiered it prudent to withdraw the Bill, because the Chee eh `r 3 would not tolerate the principle of paying the duet 0 _ e nt of th e f i xed revenue of the country. Their con ,e:l4l4that occasion was in perfect consistency with their liar a „„?° this. It was the payment of a parti `eetefoeee °la of the revenues of the country, and r t e e eis te . - "Ie were perfectly consistent when they opposed that the e ' Lle hoped that wile they lived they would continue t o ° PPositi o Put n, and be ultimately successful, but now he wished M . one or teisiatetwo questions to the House and to her Majesty's leesti oes • He was not going to put inquisitive or impertinent ' l melas e -' su ch as had been put by the lion. Member for to ~,,, iin.l!tonShire (Mr. Stafford O'Brien). Ile was not going ' 4 414 5 41 e Noble Lord had brought in a Bill whether they take n 1 ./e oeliosed it. lie would not ask whether, if lie had that day Bill to the hustings he would have been there rcas o ue l r to tell the tale, bi ' and for the bestof all l iseo ll s, as his Hohou to oteeer would tell the LearnedraHoeusea,ntdhatn the a man Friend was the 'lnmate himself b •v 1.1,,!5e numberless petiti n on would ask this question—bloVuenr_eds shweh had been presented to this y ou) they to be treated as so much waste paper e L e eld they name one instance where so much interest bad su bject evincd, or so many memorials prese t d on any one r_t u i is ners when they toldsatrah ` 4° . J 7 0 t ? Did they s uppose that to Aec . same small sum—the' ee e were inconsistent m that certain persons that be an n e an ' swer to those in for because atenual vote tts,Tlooth—and that that would btelieYan haandsw for the tb su e p m p 1 when e,;,,, eomplained that th • vote orto , that ~ ,,,t lse e for ever ? H their present vote was to endow ele Baronet chtt . be w hey that ,ow mistaken the Right Hon. a e l r re to ady on this ,t et, The., were should be expressed as a n a nswer Lord the th eth er tole .. e told the other evening by the Noble Lord wtel t e elea sore a t e b e : Cit , y of London, that he only c onsidered to other se( tree for the .ptah e, beeause it was the . prc° of Ireland. 1 , 04 ear, h ear) ben , i:fit of thelloinan Catholic clergy stated by the aall . Member i he same thins had been by he / 4 the e eh • o r Newer k, it could not be contradicted To ilie stir e the it:net Ministers that had at present spoken. t. aunt had ght Hon the Secretaryfor the Home De hot a tole theo • par te e ceept a ny et that the Roman Catholic clergy wouldnot hat Pt it, h e e Y Pension from the State, and if they would a e if the ji v e uli: net offer to propose it, but he did nr . it e s .t y , t eve woule net e n a 4 Catholic clergy were inclined to rece"_ n L . Klee th at h ue prepared to offer it.—(Cheers.) He " e i 'Miser e was su • ea e "Ores surprised at the gratitude that some t Irish e ei ti es u n d er _ sed for this miserable and paltry gran • werelt e t :lin e d to " t t l eod that the Roman Catholics of Ireland a thes but tie cc etne the lackeys, the slavish sycephants o f f re tip i t tolden t e ' 414 3 1 were ready to prostrate themselves before wi efo re thmage which the Right Hon. Baronet was 5e , t ,1 1 ,, , Ir a ' ley eerne-•(Clieers, and cries of •• No, no.") ill say no. tlwi r t eet w " , and the Irish people may if t i,, esr were .... eu gratified for this boon, . h ie ilip, '4 not e were overflewing with gratitude—wbY Nir t h' not eo 144 ey wer rne there and tell them ? Why did they o Piss. tee ~ ~e so grateful only from those Gentlemen wi b i e .see!ng ire, Teel' the Whigs, and who seemed only to hands of the Tories ?—(Loud cheers from the e Led t: i t a, new s Ch s.) He wished to hear from the Irish pieo a p n y ti l d e news Paper reports ; but, let them come to with gra b i te e) d. Re`rietand , vas to be grateful, and repeal was to . e se ere," nail another d to the peti- P e l l e Did te . er question with regard to the Priy et , ° ( Fse e i s "'Y suppose that they could answer f t _ me r s eld ' e ef thZin d I •I telling them that they would re use ß l .ll elir• eave t e Petiticns, because the revocation of this 1 te e ' po t sterse i ) e efFect of discontinuing them as her Majesty's Oit a 'Pie et t 'd th ey , suppose that that answer would satisfy !ltt t e ePosit e ,„ng'and? Whatever the Right Hon. Gentle henalee vi n „ . " l. ,lY flatter themselves he could assure them in te he - w e"' be deceived.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. e ) petted trt .ease ant!d to know what was to be to doli e W.',lt the petitions ? Were they If . e b , they e Would t ernPt and as so much waste paper. in e t t • wer e _ tell the House to lookabout it •he thought that p4ttleed,,T authorised to l,fea s , kwith the people of Of t i l ! of E t ;7 were n0,.:2e) theseiiant. respected r enough by the Itiea - t " the ft tt . i t dto do (Chee Y rs) He weuld state th . at lined, so ioter"ansents that ever sat, there never was a Parlia- Weeke • "ely hated and ' A (Cheers.) He be is the despise d . —(Cheers.) of the i th e tattoerY Persevered in insulting the feelings _ tha t , 1 : li en %.end they would rue the day. He knew that the th eir they be•teeritlemen opposite did not believe it any more I f tl heatts7ed that the people of England would not break ° Pot; e Y Pers e 1 ' t hee were to go out of office. (Cheers. ) e al. it th at v,tetred, however, in their insults they may depend . p a() t But he ose rotten walls would come rattling about their te P t e of i s was told that this measure would conciliste the , l etiee e ° ll cie te ela nd—he did not think that it would tend et th e at ti t h - the (the Irish) would only de i t , - ;C end of e i cm, and despise them, and that would eiot 'a hionth they,they would be exactly as they were that R t , c omp % reunles y came forward and had some great be: l: ted ow eas tee elan, l)whereby Ireland was no long to be ~, th et in ciples of Protestantism lie was er glad to II 'loree 4 ll4ht Hon Baronet the Secretary for the Home t, i eht th at , • . . . . th ee et th ewi e tnere was to be a religious Ireland. equality in the' "et th e :tear what that equality was to be. Why had to - witelePlan He would ask sonde . la y u of the Government? . thee, Neat e ,, Pon the table of the House their plan for their in Ireland. They ought, also, to see le - -el esowiaetien bills, in order that those Gentlemen from tile %bet t h e be judges whether the Government would act up ho t F irst eel' Promised. The Right Honourable Baronet lie eorts_,sysinister of the Crown told them that they , w tilted authorities in Ireland, the panted the ecclesiastical er celes• •" 3 know whether he had consulted , ehted 441(11 k, to 46.. authorities in Eng an the hritieslin the e el , of Lore Whether he had consulted . aut 111,.; lAivi, ", and what were their opinions, whether the m ita . WOgiven ' 1830 when they were de th, wi L , to them as in •-, . for h e Rood "urtaw themselves for the passing of certain laws 0t,,,,P.9 of he People. If Charles James, of London, and oesi ' eexeter ero tt i e ete-e t se _ . were to absent themselves on this puree g, e te lnee wer . e, he would be very . g . a , e 1 d b cause it d ap reuern additional reasons for relieving t . hem on a ts%et e ae , ° ,an their Parliamentary duties. The Right Hon. •tefel. but he hoped the reminiscences of Maynooth would be hitt er et ett 4 " be much feared that the only reminiscences to the etter rep:_ett.aznet would be found in the recollection of the ;Zed to ta of certain friends, whose confidence he ep • a ge esseit'eett lost, and in the remembrance of that degrading p p % eth i e rs g entsport afforded to him by those political oppo °seised "se offices he had usurped.—Cheers. ) He had Nee that h the House I ir e , ke, e . e Would not occupy ong, and he tho se ets Word; but independently of those charges of 4: 4 1 wh o h and bigotry that had been unjustly levelled against ee2hetee a d oPposed this Bill—in the face of all those threats Zo ne d be e fe as be began, and oppose this Bill as long as it op t t it y ee the House.—(Cheers.) 'ti t et re . Ss ELL—Sir, lam ready to address the House, i t ! c lo-o tit e ?ct, as soy Hon. Friend who has just sat 'Len has , e 'd o h th°' 'respectr to the numerous petitions which have been 0 v ett too of this House on• this subject, as well as out of v ie the numerous letters which I have received from my tat celestite ZtessSettr e. ents and others, in relation to this important eloha lee-Meer, hear.) Had it not been for these conside 67,,, EA vote have been been well contented to have given a tZ.'ee the n favour of the second reading of this Bill ; but 4(7 . the table petitions which have been laid Whi ci : l l of this House —after the various let hivce ilers oh. ha.ve received from my constituents, and h otel,. i t , , Secting to this measure, 1 cannot entirely satisfy rise this me not on this occasion express my reasons for sup ii 4 With ulnaerneoUre.—(Hear, hear.) I concur so far in opi t,ll (1414 in who are opposed to me, as to consider that this Sipqtjilt .. la thv _ the very highest importance—( Hear, hear)— eter e ae l r espect I do not , entirely agree with such of the dec eits "eye spoken in favour of the second reading of this 41 reettee%irs it appears to me, the Right Hon. Gentleman It tie se aw of the Exchequer appeared to consider it I t Hen. addition of 17,000/. to the previous grant, and the 4,4lttetreen, ki_eentlernan the Secretary of State for the Home e st ,rtet ofee emed to consider that the question of the en to,.q '‘92, Maynooth had been II by the Act ttt tl I cann t with • sett er to,. ere ent....... , s _ o agree either of those Right Hon. l e hi ttion t tlear, hear.) If it were merely a quest ion s ett ' well Paveof 17,000/. to the original grant, that question ar , es_or,se been raised upon the miscellaneous esti mreitteree! late hear)—a d have been • 'nh ' 'antler n proposed in the %i n , ere , , •as the repairs of barracks at Portsmouth or Pit lekve‘sTld have been proposed.—(Hear, hear.) It " Wen Stated, that the ' the prepent extent of buildings was not sufficient—that there were not a sufficient number of students in the establishment, and that an addi• tional grant was necessary to maintain a greater number— that there was not sufficient accommodation for the scholars, and thus a case might have been made out for increasing the vote by 17,000/.—(Hear, hear.) Those who have always opposed the grant would no doubt have opposed this proposed addition to it; but when we con sider the smallness of the numbers of those who have hitherto opposed the grant to Alaynooth, we cannot but come to the con clusion that if the only question before the House had been is !tether or not we should have increased the grant by the amount of 17,0001., it would not have met with any great oppo sition.—(Hear.) Neither can I agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the' Home Department, when he says that the whole principle of the question was de cided by the Act of 1793. If I agreed with that prinei, le, I should admit that the principle of the whole question of endow. ment was settled at the same period.—( Hear, hear.) The Act cf 179 e merely allowed the Roman Catholics to foutel their own College for the education of their own clergy by funds raised among themselves, and the sum which was proposed and voted from year to year by Parliament, was merely a contri bution in aid of three funds. —( Hear, hear.) It was totally and entirely different from the measure new proposed—( Hear, hear)—it differed in d, gree—it differed in extent—from the measure now before the House; and thou .11 I am far from saying that if we agree to this measure we must be forced to go still further, and to endow the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland ; yet it is impossible to controvert the position of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Memb it for Newark, that, se ;as as the religious question is concerned, it will be decided by this resolution.—( Loud cheers.) There then remains the other question ; if the taxation of this country is to be burdened with the maintenance of the Roman Catholic clergy, or if we are to take anything for their maintenance from the revenues of the Protestant Church.—(Hear, hear.) If we are to devote any surplus which may remain, after providing for the wants of the Protestant Church, to the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church.—( Hear, hear.) That, I admit, is a question of great difficulty, and that is a question which is yet lett to be decided. But before we decide that we must consider the previous question, whether the Roman Catholic clergy themselves would be inclined to accept such a ineaeure. —( Hear, hear.) But with regard to the mere Sitate question which may arise as to the propriety of the endowment of the R man Cath lie clergy of the State, I must own that in some respects such a measure is open to less objection than the measure which is now submitted to our consideration. Sir, the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland have many duties to perform, which are performed by them in common with the Established Church of this country, and with the Presbyterian clergy of Scotland—such as reading to their flock, informing and instructing their parishioners in the word of God, adminis tering to their spiritual consolation, bestowing on them acts of mercy, charity, and kindness.—( Hear, hear.) All this 1 be lieve that the clergy in all three of the countries perform. I believe that as a body they are all useful and charitable men. —(Loud cheers. ) But wher the question to be discussed relates to the endowment of the College and to the theology which is taught —then, I say, that, as a question of principle, it is a question of even greater importance than the question of the endowment of the clergy.—( Hear, hear.) I come to the consideration of this question , Sir , as dioroughly impressed with its importance as those Members who are opposed to the measure can possibly be—as thoroughly impressed with its im portance as those representatives of Ireland can be who have accepted it as a measure of conciliation and kindness towards their country.—( Loud cheers.) But, Sir, I cannot but con sider that the acceptance of this measure by the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, and I believe that its ac ceptance by them, as a measuie of conciliation, is an undoubted fact.—( Hear) I cannot but consider that that acceptance of the people of Ireland constitutes a most impor tant element in the consideration of this question, as regards the state of Ireland. You have statistics dreadful to read, showing the condition of the Irish people—statistics showing their wants and their state of destitution—statistics, showing how many of them live in cabins without rooms—how many live in cabins without windows—how many in cabins with only two rooms, and so going on to show how large a proportion of these people are in a state of poverty.-- - You have likewise a people who live in a state of poverty who belong to the Roman Catholic religion, whose clergy have to depend not only on the contributions of the farmers and persons somewhat in a comfortable state of subsistence, but likewise on the pence and miserable earnings of the poorest class of the people. You have at the same time in that country an Established Church very richly en dowed—so richly endowed that the whole sum now proposed for Maynooth and the late grant would hardly exceed the revenues of three of the prelates of that Established Church. Well, Sir, is not that a case in which any measure that can be proposed that will conciliate the affec tions of that people—any measure that you can adopt without any violence to your constitution, is it not at least worthy of your consideration ; and is it not one which you should hesitate much before you reject? The opinions of the people of Ireland, as far as I can collect them o nthissu g bj r e a e n t t , a ppear to me to be that they a re read y to receive your _ a w ff i t th et g iG r n a s ti o tu f d t e h . at p l e t op w le e . uld I b t e do t e h s meanse o co n nc t r h l e la r n e nf en th ue e of the Protestant Churc h, as no doubt the majority of this nottrenc o h l Home would pronounce against breakin g in on those reve nues, for the purpose of a Ca tholic establi s hment. It does not offend any religious fee lin g s of the Roman Catholic clergy , It is not like an endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy, in which there would be great difficulty in the first instance. Then my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, who is, strange to say, an ally of my lion. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford on this subject.—my lion. Friend the Member for Finsbury says, that the Protestant Dissenters are ready to agree that there should be no endowment—that there should he no State Church—that the voluntary principle should prevail, as well with regard to episcopal establishments as with regard to the Roma n Catholic Church. Now, Sir, this appears highly liberal—it appears to be doing justice to the people of Ireland, according to what many of their organs con sider to be justice, but in point of fact it is no concession whatever, if no practical use can be made of it.—(Hear, hear.) Let us look to what must be the feelings of the people of Ireland—if you go bandying from one side to the other this question, without ever coming to a practical measure of this sort. Supposing we were to say—suppose my lion. Friend were to say—let us abolish entirely the Established Church of Ireland ; let everything be voluntary—let us adopt the same great high-sounding principles—let every man pay for the religion which he professes, and let no man have a con scientious burden, by plying the minister of the religion from which he dissents. Why, everybody knows that the great ma jority of this House would place a negative on such a proposi tion ; and I might say, supposing there was a dissolution of this House to-morrow, or at any other time, that those who oppose Maynooth would not come here fer the purpose of en forcing the voluntary principle—you would still find a great majority against any demand you might make for the abolition of the State Church. Even though the Ministry came forward and said, " Let us make some endowment for a small portion of the clergy." Then, supposing my lien. Friend and those who think with him were to succeed, let the voluntary principle prevail—let there be no State endowment of religion—let every man provide a religion for himself—this State endowment would be rejected with scorn and contempt by the House. But in the meantime whet would be the con ditioe of the people of Ireland? Why if they found one party refusing to break in on the Established Church, and another party absolutely refusing any sort of endowment, what is their condition ? They would find that only a small minority of the people of Ireland are cared for by ihe Legislature of this coun try; they would find that England and Scotland were opposed to their wishes—that whether it be in the shape of an endowment, or whether in the shape of a voluntary principle, that which is beneficial to Ireland is rejected—they would not consider the different parties, but they would say every proposition for our benefit is rejected by the house of Commons, representing Great Britain. Sir, if that is the case, I say this proposed remedy of the abolition of all State churches, and the adoption of the voluntary principle is totally illusory. It is deluding and defrauding the people of Ireland. It is to aav, we cannot give you that endowment, but we will abolish all State churches. Sir, Ido not agree with what was said by my Right Hon. Friend the Member far Dungarvon, with respect to the Protestant Dissenters of this country. I think they are men to whom, with regard to all questions of civil liberty, this country is deeply indebted. Ido believe, when questions of equality in p ent of civil privileges were under consideration that they wero more forward than any men in their wishes that their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects should be placed in that equality. They have taken this question of State endowments strongly in their minds, and they have likewise the strong est religious feelings in favour of the Protestant faith, and against the Roman Catholic religion. But, at the same time, I do believe that when this question is further considered by them, when they see the result of the rejection of Bills like this, which would beconsidered as an injustice towards Ireland, they will feel that it is necessary in some shape or other to endeavour to remedy the grievances of that country. For my part, I cannot see without alarm and without pain the declarations which are made in the petitions that have been laid on the table of this House, with respect to the religious part of this question. I can not read the petitions pre sented by the ministers of the Established Church, and by the Protestant Dissenters, without deeply regretting there should be so strong a feeling, and I should say, such un just prejudices respecting the Roman Catholic religion.— (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") I say so because at the time when that measure, called Roman Catholic Emanci pation, was brought under the consideration of Par liament, the same statements were made, the same charges against the Roman Catholic religion. Roman Catho lics were designated idolators, followers of Anti-Christ, and other such degrading appellations, which I shall not fatigue the House by repeating. The question of tire Roman Catho lic Relief Bill came before the House of Lords. I.have looked through the speeches spoken by our prelates on that occasion, both for and against the measure, and I cannot see in the speeches any encouragement of the phrases so used. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and the Archbishop of York, although placed in Opposition, or, political grounds, in discussing the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, had distinctly adinitted that the Roman Catholic Church was a part of the Christian Church, and the other bishops used similar language.--(Hear, hear.) I find that the Bishop of Llandaff especially observed of the Roman Catholic Church—that if it did not contain the spirit of Chris tianity, where was the authority of the ministers of the Church of England? Were I of opinion that it was other wise, it would give me the greatest pain to think myself com pelled, as a Protestant, to hold such language and entertain such a belief of so large a portion of my fellow-subjects. But, Sir, 1 regret to say that the intolerance on this subject, the feelings which have come down to us from the Re formation do, I fear, still exist both on the one side and the other.—(llear, hear.) When I read among the charges against Maynooth certain doctrines and dogmas cherished and retained by that Church seemingly so repulsive ; and when I see on the other side the bitter feelings of hostility manifested against the Roman Catholic Church by those of another persuasion, I cannot but feel that the spirit which ex isted in so fierce a shape at the time of the Reformation, should not at this time be softened and abated.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") I perceive that the feelings engendered by tire reli gious war which then took place remain more durable than those originated by any civil war that I have ever read or heard of. We all remember that beautiful passage of Virgil, where he describes that, in some future time, the husbandman, in turning up the fields upon which the civil wars took place, would there find spears and helmets covered with rust, the almost only remnants of forgotten battles. But I think the weapons with which rival parties contended at the time of the reforma tion will never be allowed to rust, but they will be brought forward by those debating these questions bright and burnished, and whenever questions that excited religious differences in which that cord is at all touched, these old spears, worn hel mets, flags, and banners, will be brought forward, and all the animosity of the 16th century revived. A wish has been ex pressed that all parties would yet unite in the same creed, and that the country would no longer be distracted with reli gious dissensions. Suppose that could he the case---one in which all contending parties could unite. An attempt of this sort has been made in Spain, in which country I have resided for some time, and witnessed the dreadful evils by which such a state of things was accomplished. It was impossible in a country like this that anything like a unity of doctrine, and a oneness of Church could be established. But those who hold different opinions from us, who conscientiously differ from us in religious matters can hold their own op i ni ons —we can give credit to them for good Christians, whether Catholic Pro- Protestants. Whether of the Church of England or ther►laurch of Scotland, we may at least discuss subjects with a view to the general benefit and welfare of the country without exciting those animosities, which still, unfortunately, prevail among the people. In saying this I mast remark that I cannot con- )0 6 : ce p' `pie THE SIT N, LONDO N I sent to accede to the prayers of the petitions of the people on the subject. I thick that if we were to say that we would not support a Church which we considered anti-acriptural, the effects would be pernicious in the extreme. In the first place, the effects would be enormous. We must go beyond this question. —( Cries of Hear, hear.") We must go farther. We must extend it to the colonies. We must make a firm, rigid, and unbending rule, which in a few years would shake your empire to pieces.—( Hear, hear, and great cheering.) But admit, for the sake of the maintenance of the Protestant religion, that such a step should be necessary, admit for a moment that we are ready to take all the conse quencee—admit that you are ready to do this—have you any right, in such a case, to legislate for the people of Ireland ? Are you not bound to say this :—" We engaged at the time of the Union to govern Ireland on principles of equality, to consider Irishmen as we consider Englishmen, to allow them to have the same rights and privileges as ourselves, to consider every question regardine them as a question regarding ourselves." list then, 'Sir, if that be the case, it is totally inconsistent with the case of your saying that your religion is so exclusively true, that it cannot bear any thing like equality, nor even anything like favour to the great majority 'of the people of Ireland. And if that be so, if such is the strictness of your religious principles, I de'y you to stop short until you come to the repeal of the union, ns which we are all opposed. Sir, I say, if you do not meet the Irish people in this way—if you are nut ready to fulfil the compact of the union not only to the let' er, but with all the affection for your countrymen in Ireland which you feel for your country. men in England—then you should be prepared to say to the people of Ireland, "We will not grant this boon ; no Will not make you this grant, therefore we will give you back your own legislature, and deal in future with your own affairs." — (Hear, hear.) I own it does appear to me that you have but one of these two courses to adopt—if you do not agree to this proposition for the support of the religion of the Irish people, you must dissolve the ITnion ; but if you wish to main tain the Union, you must treat the Roman Catholic people of Ireland in the same spirit as von have considered the Protes tant people of England. —( Loud cheers.) Well, then, I say that this is not a question of the mere consideration of a fee thousands a year ; it is the carrying out of an Act of Parlia ment fifty years old, and therefore you arc bound to carry it out if you are desirous of maintaining the union of the two countries inviolate.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Remember that we, at this side of the House, have had no thing to do with the making of this proposlion—we merely say we concur in the proposition. and are prepared to vtee in favour of the second reading of the Bill, and nut because it is a proposition of an exclusively religious character.—( Hear.) I cannot conclude without expressing my belief that the re jection of this measure will be productive of the same bitter ness of feeling that would be certain to follow the rejection of a like proposition if made in favour of the Protestant Church in England.—(Cheers.) If such a proposition were made ha this House, and that I saw a majority against it, yet so con vinced am I of its justice that even a majority of my con stituents should riot deter me from voting in its favour.— (Cheers.) If we are to go out for the benefit of the country, we are not to yield to every impulse we may receive ; but we should act, upon a great measure of this sort, only as men s4esirous of keeping in view the cause of truth, of freedom, and of justice.—(Loud cheers ) The Pro testant Dissenters are arrayed here against this Bill ; but I cannot forget that there was a time when those Dissenters were petitionef s before the House for the purpose of being relieved from as hat they cone ived to be burdens ..on conscienc-, anal complaining of the privation of civil liberty, which worked a great injustice towards them. We then in opposition urged that injustice upon the House, and we obtained the coneoesion of the repeal a the Act which afflicted them. Again, the Roman Catholics of Ireland were afflicted with civil disabili ties ; and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite acknowledged, when he passed the Emancipation Act, that it was owing to our continued support that those claims were carried. Such was the avowal which the Right Hon. Gentleman made at the end of the discussion on the Bill he introduced for the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities. Now, it was not that we wished to favour the Protestant Dissenters, that we sought to deliver them from their disabilities. It was not to favour the Roman Catholics that we relieved them from their grievances. No, I trust, that we so acted upon that occasion, as we have upon all occasions acted, because the cause with which the Protestant Dissenters and the Roman Catholics were bound up, was the cause of justice ; and that we carried that cause, not however, without many refusals.—( Cheers.) If we had not acted then without reference to the particular expression of opinion at the time, the Protestant Dissenters would not have been thus relieved. If the Roman Catholics now find that we have not the power to help them the whole of their grati tude will be turned towards the Government which has pro posed this measure.—(" No," from Mr. Redington.) My Hon. Friend says " No," but, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Dundalk, I believe, the general feeling will be as I state, and I am not surprised at it, for it is the common course in political events. If the course I am to pursue were solely founded on the support of this particular measure I should not repine ; and Ido not repine; it is the only course I could adopt ; it is the one, that in public life can be tolerated to act as we think in each situation we shall best advance the great interests of our country—( Cheers)—and to take our chance whether we obtain faveur or disfavour. " Nor love thy life, nor hate ; but what thou liv'st Live well, how long or short permit to Heaven." —(Loud cheers) This sentimel tis as applicable to political as to natural life, and for myself I would rather retire into private life, I would rather leave the business of this House to others, who may possess the people's confidence, than attempt to injure this country by giving a vote against a measure which I think the welfare of my country demands.—( Hear. ) Sir, then my belief is, that this measure, as proposed, is likely to be received gratefully in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) You may say that their gratitude will be misplaced—that it is a paltry favour. I am not to judge of that. But lam to judge of the effect—the real effect—which this measure will produce. I will not take it as if it were the last of a series, and were the crowning act of a long course of justice to the people of Ireland. No, Sir; I shall maintain, as I have hi therto maintained, that with regard to the civil and political privileges of the people of that country you have yet much to do—( Hear, hear)—that those measures to which the Right lion. Baronet the Home Secretary alluded last night, fall con siderably short of that which the people of Ireland have a right to require of you, to put them on au equality with the people of England.— ( Hear, hear. ) I think with respect to their ecclesiastical state, that that great anomaly of a large en dowed Church for a small minority of the people is an evil which, without entering into the ways in which it might be remedied, Parliament must consider.—( Ilear, hear.) I will not concede that opinion. I will not deny that after this mea sure is passed I shall either in support of some proposition from others, or in my own proposition, endeavour to obtain for the people of Ireland that justice which I think was long and cruelly denied to them —(Loud cheering.) If you will permit me for a few moments longer, I would beg of this House to consider how much this country has been in jured, how many administrations have been disturbed and rent asunder, by these Irish questions.—( Hear, hear.) I will not go back to any very remote period, but going back to the time of the union, I find that Mr. Pitt, then in the height of his power, had decided upon an Irish question, and that an Irish question broke up the Government of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt intended a union between the two countries. He in tended, as far as can be discovered from his subsequent speeches, in addition to that union, a complete relief from civil and political disabilities for the Roman Catholics, and a provision for the Roman Catlaic Church.—( Hear, hear.) The Ministry of Mr. Pitt fell, and his firm Administration was followed by the weak Administration of Mr. Addington. Mr. Pitt afterwards returned to power, but he did not return with his former partners, with Lord Grenville, and others, who agreed w ith him upon the Catholic question, and who did not agree with him in coming back without the question of Catholic Emancipation being proposed to Parliament. His administration was strong for a time, fur there were men of the highest abil ty in it. In 1897 it was broken, it fell upon an Irish question—a Catholic ques tion, especially affecting Ireland. You had then an adminis tration formed on the ground of refusing all concessions; that did not last many years, and Lord Castlereagh declared it was necessary that some concession should be made to the Roman Catholics. In the time of war, when this country was threat ened with peril, or when it was not in danger from foreign wars, the Catholic question was opposed or supported. This state of things was continued from 1812 to 1829, and the Catholic question weakened every Administration that was carried on in the meantime. We have had the spectacle of Secretaries of State opposing each other on questions the most important and vital to our domestic policy.—( Hear, hear.) In 1828 you had an Administration which contained many Mem bers opposed to the Catholic claims, but in 1829 those claims were conceded. In 1830, in consequence, as I think, very much of the decision upon that question, the Ministry was broken up. Earl Grey came into power the Reform Bill was carried. The Ministry who car ried it had at first an immense majority in the House of Commons. Everything was easy because it was a strong Government, In 1834 that Ministry was weakened and divided upon the question relating to the state of Ireland. Four members of the Cabinet seceded, and not long after Earl Grey himself retired from office. That Ministry before long ceased to exist. Another Ministry was formed, and dissolved by a vote of this House on a question affecting Ireland. A new Ministry came in in 1835, during the whole course of their existence having a small majority. In consequence of what had taken place in 1834, the whole course of their existence of power was weakened and crippled; but it was owing to a decision with regard to the state of Ireland, a difference of opi nion with regard to the measures they had brought in respect ing that country, that they were weakened—( Hear, hear) — I have taken other occasions, and I will still take other occa sions to refer to the particular questions involved in those de bates from 1835 to 1841. But what I want to show now is, that since the time of the Union till 1845, there has been scarcely a year in which Governments have not been weakened, and Adrainistrations formed and destroyed upon questions in some degree relating to the Roman Catholic religion and to the state of the people of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) Why, without any reference to war, or any other contingency, if you can see that you can proceed by any measure to tranquillise that country—that if you can hit on any course of policy in which parties generally may agsee—upon which you may at length come to some concord on questions relating to Ireland, you will add immeasurably to the strength of this country.— ( Loud cheers ) Is this question—is this short review here given—a view of the question that has been taken by the pe titioners who have carried their petitions to the table of this House—have they considered this question in reference to the power and strength of this country ? If not, let me beg of them to e e nsider—differing from them, with respect for their virtue and their strong sense of religion which makes them ap proach this House—let me, at the same time, if, in considering this iodgi qoi e e n s t t_ion le , t ! o h o a a v t e t e e p n t t u tor r e v d o t t o o i n u semy w favour own aindependentßill lwhioh may tend, in some degree, to heal those still bleeding wounds, and to place Ireland in that position which she ought to be— the most improving, if not the most happy part of her Ma jesty's dominions. The Nobl© Lord concluded amidst loud and prolonged cheering. Sir R. INGLIS said that of all the important speeches which he had ever heard he considered that of the Noble Lord the Member for London the most important.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord avowed to the House that there were other measures which would be more acceptable to the people of Ire land. It had been objected to the petitions presented to the House against this measure that the persons from whom they came did not understand the doctrines of their own Church. But he would defy any Gentleman to show any statement in the numerous petitions which had been presented to the House on this question, which was not supported by the doctrines of the liturgy and the homilies of the Church. He and the Hon. Members who question,s uppo r t supported him ein samet that ttnt q oi m u it e shee s eh t t i ih o e n aft. , repudiated in the most earnest manner the supposition that taonaydpmairtttohfattahne increase of funds might make an He was not h ie n'ci;neaYiees a w t f r o h i : l a im t i nnegdi hear.)ig t Still otherwise that be w as o powerless , ot th their objection powerful i n Their objection was to the principle of the measure. in crease. .But thenHthooeysemiioghtthbeecoauskrseed ofth etqlivatesdtieobnatsoo,zpvehaatteddlyo ye thatn this y c o osi subject ? steot grossly, scandalously, and They money to a prin cipleeofHo. use to make . the founded mean by your religious sc l r o u di p . inconsistent, for the did net in truth. They were not incons y pro. that principle in which they did not mole the support of dideot support a grant permitted b s y um t.ht which they could not recognise as conscience, bee doing g uld make again, t h at he acted s of his that wh i ch his conscience I con- , upon the principle his votes were given accordingly. H ' e sidered right, and abselejilrvtieo.n often, 0,. had o, ine b d e o e fh n e dared not compromise . been led n t 9 diffurept conclasion. caus e his neighbour bad the teachig 11 V"ENI N G, Ari 10 5 IA4 S, ~~~ !.J ~~ ~~~ They were toll, however, that it eeas too late to act upon that principle. `the Hon. Member for Afentrose lied ap pealed to him as having, in his early life, been connected with India, and ne asked him how he could consistently advocate eny excliesive mode of religious instruction ? He thanked that lion. Member for the delicate manner in which he had referred to one of his relatives most dear to him —he meant his late (ether. First of all, then, he did not be lieve that the British Parliament, for good or evil—in r.-spect of the matter to which the Hon. Member lied referred, and to which the lion. Member fir Canterbury had afterwards adverted, namely, that the Presidency of Bombay had made a t d a is " t i in i c u t h t , l ( i t at a t t h iy e Church of Rome should re authority there was another quest i on was still more im por t ant f or t h e p ur poses of that ti,r on t ( s i id !n r t t e ti r e fe i r , e. wh ß i c u l t . House, and to which he would advert for a few minutes. The same lion. Member who had addressed the question to him relative to India sail that they had no right to consider any thing but those mere eoetents which the Bill embodied ; that they were not at 1 i hert y to consider the necessery touse quences of their measure, namely, the endowment of the Horn in Catholic Chu, eh —to consider nothing more than that contained it, the Bill, 'lamely, the eniboyment of the Roman Catholic ele-gy attenti in of the of ..; , .. i f o a u t e loot t i o ,— i t ! i h a e t , s h t e a wo b u y la ti b m e a very nerraw vi ew o f th e qu ,, it i n . li e woul I cal the Secretary of State for the Home Department. lie ad mitted that this asure could not be longer delayed, an expression which he ( Sir It. Inglis) considered net likely to , eeiar b t en u vr t sto be directed. ills Hon. Friend the secure a very favour a bl e acceptance among those fur whose pa! Member for Newa r k represented himself—( Laughter)—and he said that heeyfi t mit , l i rnprn, o go Honourable Member for - Cork said that thi s greater " further. . asa 'r great earnest e of things ; but, wi'h re f erence to t h e Bill i tse lf, he called it a h paltry eadcatior al grant. lie ( Sir R. Inglis) felt that it was so; it was a renewal of Peter's pence—it was a new tribute to the Church of Rome. The Hoe. the Sec:etary of War had said that this was but the precursor of more. Of mot e, aye, the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church. He just touched that question, and then at once turned from it.— ( Great laughter.) Anether Member of the Cabinet, the First Comin;ssiouer of the Weeds and Forests, had used the Caine familiar phrase, and said that this was but one step. Now, one step must certainly 11121111 a second.— ( Laughter.) Then another Right lion. Gentleman the Chan e rtim ent () was, f. t, e that Catholic there would clergy, cellor of the Excheq u e r h a d specifically said—no..hing.—(Great laughter. ) Now a il th a t h e could draw f rom t h ese conclu sions, conclusion s h a lf a d m i tted by the Mem b ers o f th e Ge v and thatanbeat in en dowmentaftteBr4dp,ereirodatanseme future time, the Govern ment would sooner or l a t er proceed to lay some such measure before the House. The Hon. Member the late Secretary of War (Mr. Ellice) had also stated that they were now embarking on a new had. What (lid that mean ? What, but the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church; and yet they were told that they were to eon eder nothing but what was embodied in that Bill. A new course of policy ea! to be adopted--yes, a new course, when they exchanged a small turn for a permanent endowment of three times the amount, fixed on a similar scale of security —namely, the vested civil establishment of the country. In a speech made by the Hon. Member for Cork, on the 14th April, 1845, he found an allusion made to the anticipated restitution of property once held by the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Now, he wished to know if the House was prepared to admit the principle involved in this phrase " restitution." If it began in Ireland, would it end there ? No, there were many in that and the other House of Parliament to whom that phrase restitution of abbey and Church lands-- ( Hear, hear) — would not awaken most gratefnl recollections, or, at any rate, which would not excite pleasing anticipations. But, if it be just that the Church property in Ireland, which had been held by the Protestants and their successors since the Reformation, :should be restored to the Roman Catholics, why should not the same priciple be elaimed and acted upon in England? If they were to endow the Church of Rome in Ireland, why should it not be endowed in England ? There was nothing to prevent it, and the House might depend upon it one would follow the other. They could, perhaps, form a better opinion of this measure from the opinions of foreigners, and what was the impression of their continental neighbours? Whatever might be said of the leading articles which appeared in the English newspapers, there was no doubt those that ap peared in the papers of the Continent, particularly those of France, were far more important and influential, because they were generally written by influential statesmen. And what said the Journal des Debuts on this measure ? Why, it was this, " The measure of the Prime Minister of England is neither more nor less than a revolution of the policy pursued by England since the Reformation. It is the greatest conces sion yet made by the Protestants, without excepting the Emancipation Act of 1829." And such was the feeling of the great body who had forwarded remonstrances against the mea sure. They did not object to their Roman Catholic fellow subjects enjoying equal civil rights with them, but they still thought the measure they were discussing would lead to another of 'a more important character, and even tually result in the downfai of Protestantism.—( Hear. ) Yet if by this series of measures they were led to embark in one which would occasion the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church, then he thought that the House ought to be very careful to what they assented. He wished to ask his Right Hon. Friend whether this was the erd or the beginning, whether this was simply to authorise the education of 500 young men, or was it to go on to the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church ? He would ask whether there was any ul terior measure in contemplation, for he thought that if a great statesman had been four years in the uncontrolled possession of power to go on with such a question as this he would have chalked out for himself some particular course. He had been surprised to hear the other night the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, when this measure was under consideration—he was surprised to hear that Right Hon. Baronet say that he could not see the propriety of taking the funds from the existing establishment in Ireland. This was a curious phrase to come from the lips of the most determined opponent of the Appropriation Hear, hear.) Was the most powerful excitement which had prevailed since the Re form Bill to be disregarded ? He could not look at this as a hasty question. It was of little matter to him who sat on the benches on one side of the House, and who on the other. But if they considered the petitions, almost without number, and then looked at the general expression of the feeling of the country universally, firmly, spontaneously expressed on this question—he could not but perceive that if this measure were catried it would be tarried aoinst the desire of the whale of the Christian people of the country. He would tell the Right Hon. Baronet that he had lost the good will of the people of England. This was not like a mere political affection, which you might gain to-morrow as you lost it yesterday. They had given him their confidence because they believed that he had a regard for the great institutions of the country. — (Hear, hear.) But he could assure him that in dis appointing these _expectations he had forfeited the confidence of the people—( Herr, hear) —and in losing that confidence, he had lost the power of governing them, and in losing that, he had lost the source of his political power. He would refer to the Hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone), to the determined and energetic Member fur Stockport (Mr. Cobden), and he would ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether on any of the great questions to which they were committed, they had either of them yielded their principles? In the course which he (Sir R. Inglis) had taken, he had compromised nothing, and he hoped that he should be able to maintain that course to the end. The lion. and Gallant Commodore the Member for Marylebone had appealed to his justice and his fears. In his own profession it was well known that the Gal lant Officer had never known fear, and he would tell bias in return, that on this occasion he was ready to do him justice, and he felt that he need not entertain fear. He begged to assure the House that he now regarded this as a great .question of Protestant principle, whatever other Hon. Members might think to the contrary, and while he felt sa tisfied on that point, and that he saw his way clearly is the course he was about to take, he would act and vete, in the way lie had already announced, perfectly regar dless of consequences. For he looked upon the di sc h arge of his duty in that House upon that question as of paramount importance, and he would leave consequences to Providence. He now begged to conclude ey saying that he most heartily concurred with the motion of his lion. Friend the Member for Newcastle.—(Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL—Sir, I trust we have now arrived at the close of this discussion—a discussion which has been protracted to a period unusually, and unprecedentedly long, but it has not occupied near the time that it was necessary to devote to it, considering the vast magnitude and importance of the subject under discussion, and the sentiments elicited in the debate. In the course of the debate it has been my good fortune to listen to sentiments and feelings which the nature of the subject naturally called for.—(Cheers.) I have listened to e some Honourable Members, de c l ar i ng the course they irited ed to pursue, even at the hazard of the loss of their e House heard expressing their approval of the measure, while I hav e seats. I have heard many Me m bers on this side of the many more, actuated no doubt by feelings e qually conscientious, declaring that they differed from the former, and announcing the course they intended to pursue, without permitting i t i ti a e rt s y e or political considerations to interfere. I beg to assure Honourable Members that, however deeply I may regret the opposition I have encountered, I honour thos e at hand—l . now those hands w I have met it.—(Loud cheers.) On the other speak of both sides of the House—l must say that the example course because them, because no doubt they have pursued that of those Hon. Members is such as is and I have no they believed it to be politic and just duct is highly hesitation in saying that such con orted and those who have supp honourable both to for, in adopting that highly honourable to those who have opposed the measure, (Hear, hear.) the risk of relinquishing their political station. —( Hear , any observation 1 have, up to this time, abstained from m have been ex citedupon this discussion, and whatever feelings may course, they have the anger of their constituents, and have run debate, they hare been overpowered by, and merged into, one feeling of deep interest and 'hope that this House would not be within me, by the observations I have heard during the a party to the rejection of this measure.—( Hear, hear.) You will not, perhaps, be surprised that this measure should not have emanated from those in this House who have hitherto been known as the firm friends of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, or that those who have brought it forward should have forfeited y o ur confidence.—( Hear, hear.) Be that as it may, all I will say is, if we,..''''have us of office,. withdraw you e r confi dencel beg you, disregard th forfeited the confidence of. his side of the House, punish us as tell us—the Hon. Baronet the r rni e y. voe e t to follow the rejection of this melt sAuireem.—be(rLfoeur dtchheeuerns;Lesti h ty is o u conse quences m fatyo thati I s tl think but fit, l d e seu p of Oxford tells debate has taken, I think he will confidence of a still more powerful this House, but also the to of it. If any one looks the condition of Ireland, forfeited the confidence, not only of the great . party we had in party out public duty could induce her admit that nothing but a sense of P k hich Ministers to incur the ris w we have incurred, Majesty's (Cries of " Hear, hear ") It cannot and are incurring•—. who looks f•I . I will riot ' and to the course wide: be doubted by any one have beers au. )7 — There were immense meetings— ' interests and to conciliate the feelings of heers.) In 1843 there was a swaiyshwtieseplryeettoeoteurthceonideuct, that we governed by a the Irish people ?—( formi dable excitement in Ireland. u g s i t v i e ee e e x f tr t a h o ie rdin ea ar se y , powers. We —or even of the empire. e determined to resist that move determined to check it—(Cheers) — threatening to the tranquillity and , peaceofthe whole . country move ment—(Cheers) —we Legislature e essity 7 and there . was none—for Leincitements to hasty and precipitate action, bWeet callingwe resisted but when a case was established that the public peace was d u i p d o nnaultlthtehs sec of the Constitution. There was at the enforced the powers we did not the ° j time a universal feeling that if vindicate the law in danger, we relied upon we should be accused of imbecility. We did so. And the measures which we have since taken, with those which we now propose, have been calculated to promote the h a p p i ness, and to conciliate the affection s, of the people of Ireland. There fore,not come from the English the objections do ministers, t I e or those interested in the main enance of t I rotestant cause. that time, whether it —(Hear, hear. ) At , was that you had a more li ve ly recollection of th e state of Ireland in 1843, I know not,you did almost of a measure brought in by the G unanimously approve tted, ment, which expressly permsanctioned, and encouraged the endowment of Roman Catholic Bishops and Ministers, and the advance of mone for the building of R oman C athol i c places of worship.—("leers.) Well, but if you did that, why are religious objections to be revived now ?—( Cheers.) You appointed five Roman Catholic Commissioners (there were ten Commissioners appointed, five necessarily Roman Catholic and a Roman Catholic Secretary, and the expenses of that Com mission were defrayed out of the public funds ; we did that in order that we should institute and encourage a voluntary en dowment of the Warren Catholic clergy. We were authorised to use the discretion of the Crown ' with respect to the appointment of . some of tliat.e Commissioners—we proposed that three of those should be prelates of the Roman Catholic Church —they felt. it their duty to accept the appointment, and they acted from publi.: and most disitits railed inotiv:sr. 'llsey believed that you were honest in your intentions in doing an act. of justice in a kind manner; and I trust that the result of that Act was to break up that, in same degree, formidable combination of the laity, clergy, and physical strength which then existed. These prelates had great difficulty to encounter in undertaking to co-operate with us in the execution of that measure. There was a formidable agitation directed against them, but confiding in the purity of their motives, and be lieving in the honourable intentions of the Government, they resisted the force of that agitation, and we had the satis faction of seeing the prelates of the Established Church and the prelates of the Roman Catholic religion acting in friendly concert for the promotion of a common object. Let me say, that that vial no small object to obtain. By the execution of the first Act —that Act which received almost the unanimous approbation of this 1I n r, and there was no violation of public principle—no sacrifice of the interests of that Protestant re ligion to which I trust I limit) , adhere, and the doctrines of which I hold in as high estimation as any (dray lion. Friends around me. But the result of the measure of justice offered in the spirit of kindness was that which I have described. It was an encouragement to proceed in the same spit it. Ido not say it xas an encouragement to make any concession inconsistent with religious principles and constitu tional principles; and I say no more than that it was a marked encouragement to proceed in the course of conciliation and justice. We had then to consider what eourse we should take with respect to Maynooth. It was forced upon us. Neither we, nor you, can escape the consideration. What will you do with the College of Maynooth ? You supported it for fifty years. My Honourable Friend ( Sir Robert 11. Inglis) to prove the great difficulty of argument, makes the avowal that he is prepared to withdraw the grant. Sir, lam n n.—( Cheers. ) When oprsed to her Majesty's Government, I came down here expressly to support them in the maintenance of that grant. I do not really believe that there can be ten men in this House who, after having voted for the endowment Act of last year— having acted in cordial concert with the Roman Catholic Pre• lates who constituted the Commission (for the execu tion of that Act—l do not believe there are ten men who think it would be possible for us to come down this year, and state that we have conscientious scruples to prevent our conti nuing the grant to the C,llege of Maynooth. What would be the feeling of the whole Roman Catholic community on such an avowal ? We contend it is not merely a vote. You passed three Acts of Parliament for cementing the connexion with that institution. You appointed a visitor, and you appointed trustees, and you subject their bye-laws to the revision of the LOT (1- Lieu tenant ; and the nomination of the President depends upon his approbation. The relations in which you stand to May nooth have existed for 59 years, and can any one conceive it possible that I, for instance, who in 1840 thought it impossible to withhold the grant to that institution, should advise the House of Commons to separate itself from all connexion with it ? Surely there can be few who think that course desirable. Shall we continue the grant? Sir, I say that is a course worse even than the discontinuance of the vote. Sonic Honourable Gentlemen have doubted the ac curacy of the statement which I made with regard to Maynooth. The Right Hon. Gentleman read some account which he had received of the comfortable situation of the students, and appearance of the building. Sir, I believe that I shall be confirmed by those who have been there in all I said—namely, that it is an institution professedly supported by the Government and Parliament, and is in a condition utterly unworthy of the patronage of this House. I find what I believe to be a much more correct account than that to which the Right Hon. Gentleman has referred. It was quoted by a Noble Lord, who is better acquainted with the state of Ireland than almost any other Peer in the House of Lords—l mean Lord Monteagle—who quoted from a book which was written in the year 1834. It contained an accu rate description et the disagreeable necessities to which the students in Maynooth were exposed. This writer said that no Englishman could conceive who did not witness the state of things a hich prevailed at Maynooth. ( Hear, hear.) The dining-room, the kitchen, and students'-room, were all the same, and the same writer asked why should the condition of the place be so shamefully re duced ? And yet (said the Right Hon. Baronet), this is the place in which those Roman Catholic students are to be edu cated, and to whom you assign some 9,0001. a year ? Some of the objections which have been urged against Maynooth only confirm my opinion of the policy of altering thissystem. My Hon. Friend the Member for Dublin said that the Alayeooth priests took a part in the late agitation. Can you be sur prised at it? The manner in which the grant was given— the amount of that grant—so far from affording the means of a liberal and enlightened education, compelled them to make their education exclusively theologian, and compelled them to make that theology exclusively polemical. What has been the consequence of the vote that you gave to Maynooth ? Three professors of theology had been appointed—three professors living on some 100/.for 1201. a year, endowed by you for teaching the doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith. Is it, I ask, any practical compensation to them ; or is it from dread of a violation of principle to you, in that niggardly and parsimonious way. I read an account in the evidence given in 1826, of the condition of the Professors of Greek and Latin at Maynooth. A gentleman, highly dis tinguished for his acquirements, and who had gained every prize, was asked what be was, before this Commission. He re plied, "the professor of Greek and Latin." He was then asked if he received anything from the annual vote. He said that he received 801. a year Irish, thirty guineas of which were de ducted on account of groceries and other necessaries. Can we continue that state of things ? Do we violate any principle by improving it?—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") If so, Sir, I cannot be any party to the continuance of snch a state of things. They could not send out theologists to be parish priests of Ireland, clergymen capable of instructing their flocks. who had received an education of this sort. We pro pose to increase the comforts of life, and better the condition of the professors. We propose to hold out to them induce ments, in order that they may remain longer there. We wish to have men of high acquirements and good character. At present they devote themselves to this toil, at this miserable salary, for the pure ze:l which they feel for the interests of religion, and for the cause of education. But do you act inconsistently with the prin ciples of the Christian religions if you raise their character, at least their position, and give them the means of suppoiting their religion with decency ? Now, mark what results from this principle and endowment Act. You have given permission to landed proprietors to make voluntary endowments. Sir, Ido hope that the landed proprietors will avail themselves of the facilities which are legitimately afforded them under the Act; we cannot conceive any mode of endowment pregnant with more advantages to the public interest, and tending more to assuag,e the bitterness to which religious differences give rise than is, such a connexion.: If you will make the Roman Catho lic priests net merely skilful polemics, but useful in every respect, give them the means of acquiring scientific acquire ments, of making them good chemists, good proficients in modern science, then probably the landed proprietors will feel an inducement to avail themselves of this power, and by voluntary contributions make endowments. The increase of this vote has a material influence upon the Charitable Bequests Act, and will greatly facilitate its execution. We are told 1 that the establishment is of a monastic and ascetic character. Whose fault is that? Not the fault of the Roman Catholic priests. In 1795, at the institution of Maynooth College, Mr. Grattan presented a petition from the Roman Catholic body, objecting to that clause in the Act which prevented the educa tion of Protestants there, and the trustees of Maynooth Col lege established a lay college there, and did riot wish that the institution should be of an exclusive character. We interfered to prevent this, and Mr. Abbott informed the secretary to Maynooth College that the British Government would not allow the lay college to continue, and it was accordingly suppressed .—( Hear, hear.) Therefore the Roman Catholic authorities were not responsible for the peculiar character of the education pursued there. At the same time my belief is, that any attempt to make, as a condition of the education given them, that it should be of a mixed and secular character—any attempt of this sort would virtually alter the character of liberality, arid probably prevent the acceptance of this grant. Mr. Burke inculcated on the British Government the policy of giving separate education to those who were destined to discharge the functions of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Why, Sir, you determined then that it was desirable to increase this grant, and you deter mined to increase it, and to make the offer in a manner which should be thoroughly acceptable to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. We considered well that question. We did not act precipitately: We asked ourselves the question, shall we, before proposing this increase, institute an inquiry into the course of instruction pursued there. We referred to the inquiry instituted in 1826, and came to the conclusion that no beneficial result would arise from a Commission of Inquiry. Was that inquiry conducted in a friendly or a hostile spirit? We thought that that would give rise to hostile theological controversy, because the Commission would contain necessarily many persons hostile to Maynooth ; and I admit we thought it better to adopt Maynooth as it was. We determined to trust for the beneficial effects of our interference to the liberality and confidence w ith which we acted.—( Hear.) Sir, we proposed that the vote should be permanent instead of annual. We did not think that by making it a permanent in stead of an annual vote we interfered with any existing prin. ciple ; and we do think that by making it permanent we shall remove annual controversy and discussion from the House of Commons—(Cheers)—that we shall produce peace and relieve ourselves from painful contention.—(Cheers.) We incorpo rated the trust because we thought that actual incorporation was in conformity with the spirit which the original Act possessed. You appointed trustees, and you enabled them to purchase land, but you did not enable them to possess the land so acquired; you engender great expense upon them— you admitted the principle that trustees should be appointed—that they sheuld have the power of acquiring land, we propose that they should have the power of holding the necessity of constant supervision. 'that is the nature of the grant we propose—l say that in mak • ing this grant, though we incorporate the trustees—though the vote is permanent— I say that in this there is no violation of principle, which does not apply to the continuation of the vote for another fifty years, that vote being applied distinctly under the authority of Par liament to the inculcation of the tenets of the Roman Ca tholic religion.—( Hear, hear.) It is said that the Roman Catholic people of Ireland are indifferent to this—that this grant will be without any effect on the people of Ireland— that they will reject it as an unnecessary boon, and will not be thankful for it. I think you do injustice to their feel ings. —(Loud cries of " Hear, bear.") I believe the gene rosity with which you shall have acted, will produce gratitude in them.—( Hear, hear.) When they heard of the proposition, they wrote immediately a letter of which this is a part. I think there are 17 professors at Maynooth ; and this letter, addressed tome, is signed by 16 out of 17, the other being incapacitated from signing it by illness; and they thus expressed themselves:—cc Sir, The undersigned beg leave respeettully to :express their deep sense of gratitude for the very liberal provision which you, as the head of the Government, have proposed for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy, and still more for the kind and gracious manner in which you have recommended the mea sure to the favourable consideration of Parliament." Now if you ask me whether I believe it more for the interest of this country that the educators of youth should be influenced by the grateful feeling here expressed, rather than that they should be men whom you have starved on the pittance you have hitherto given them—(Leud cheers)—l do not hesitate to say that I believe it to be for the interests of peace and good order—( Hear, hear)—nay, that I believe it rather for the interests of the Protestant religion that I should commit the instruction of young men who are to be the spiritual guardians of the people of another faith, to in structors who will be grateful for liberality • rather than to men who view with discontent and inclgnation the paltry pittance which you assign to them, under the pretence of supporting them. —(Loud cheers.) I do not carry this too far —I do not mean to say that they are satisfied with the law, or that the institution will be perfectly satis factory. Ido not mean to say that they have made any com promise or sacrifice of principle—l cannot guarantee to you that they will receive any vote for Maynooth, as, in their opinion, a complete and final measure.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) No, I cannot say that ; but they are not indifferent to your liberality, and in the first impulse of a generous feeling they say this is an honourable and liberal provision for us. That is the only inference I wish to draw, and that is the motive upon which we actin punit at k w i nog(ptlhesi.s grant. My Hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) has Lions to me. He has said, " I call on you to state whether or not this is part for a preconcerted system, the whole of which we have not developed, and whether this proposition, • re ference to Maynooth, is brought f orwar d designedly f : purpose, and for a further endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy. will answer him that this measure is brought foroaril singly and individually on its own abstract merits—that this proposition is not part of a preconcei ted sys tein—and that it is not brought forward with the design of bringing, forward any fro thee measure. We have had no cum unicatione telist ever or) the subject, with any aatiroritie3 in Irelarld or el s e w h ere . W e h ave not hi ng upon that sub ject in oar contemplation. You may say I saw ru mours to the effect, that though there was no coin muuication with Roman Catholic authorPiee iu Ireland, set that we have had . secret negotiitious with higher autho rities at Rome. Now I state explicitly that those reports ige altogether without foundation, and I have a strong impression that you will do no good in Ireland by secret and unavowed negotiations with Rome to which the Roman Catholics of Ireland are not made a party.—( Hear, hear. ) Ido nut believe that any attempt at negotiation for the pur psse of fettering the independence of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, or of establishing a connexion between the Homan Catholic Church in Ireland and the State, could lead to any satisfactory result unless the. Roman Catholic clergy and the Ruiners Catholic laity Ireland were parties to that ne eirtia' ion. —(Cheers.) I have said that this measure which we now propose is not a part of any general system. I have said that it is not brought forward for the purpose of facilitating any future proposal for the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland.—(Hear, Lear. ) But I say, also, with re spect to that question of endowment that it is a question sur rounded with g; eat difficulties.—( Hear, hear.) I see no reason to believe that there exists on the part of the Roman Catholic laity—l see no reason to believe that there exists on the part of the Roman C ,tholic any intention to depart from the declaration which was made oil a :scent occasion by the Hon. Gentleman the Hon. Member for Kildare with respect. to the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church. It was dist incly stated by that lion. Gentleman, that both the Catholic laity and the Catholic clergy were opposed to any State endowment of the Roman Catholic church. It is also impossible not to sac, after the demonstrations of feeling which have been made in this country with regard to the measure under discussion, that the subject is one of immense difficulty ; and in stating simply and merely the truth with respect to this, then, I say that we entertain on intention of proposing any measure for the endowment of the Roman Catholic church ; but when my Honourable Friend says, will you go on to say that it is not consisrent with your principles to propose any endow ment for the Roman Catholic Church—will you say that you have decided that at any future time you will not propose any such endowment. I say that my Ilieht Hon. Friend has no right to ask such a question.—( Cheers and counter-cheering.) Now, I beg the House to draw no unfavourable inference from what I have said.—(lronical cheers.) We have no ssch in tention ; but I will not consent to hamper and embarrass any future Government by any declaration like that sought to be wruag from me—that the difficulties in the way of the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church are insuperable. —(Cheers.) We have not any such measure in contemplation. at present. I see very great difficulties in the way of such a proposition, but no one has any right to call upon me to say that those difficulties are insuperable, and I will not purchase any relaxation of the opposition by which this measure has been me t by placing upon record any declaration fettering the ac tions of those who may hereafter be responsible for the Govern ment. My Hon. Friend asks if I do not consider that on principle there is a religious objection to this measure. Now I cannot say that there is any decided religious objection to it. I do not think that my Honsurable Friends can fairly take a religious objection to this proposal. ( Hear, hear.) Now a religious objection might have been much more fairly taken to the Endowment Act of last session. —(Cheers.) By that Act you created a board for facilitating the endowment of the Roman Catholic:clergy, and for the building of Roman Catholic chapels. Now, that measure was much more open to religious objection than the proposition for an increased grant to Maynooth. I cannot concur in the dictum of the Hon. Gentleman, that it is an offence in the eyes of God and a dereliction of religious principle in all circumstances, and at all times to grant money for re ligious purposes to those who differ from the religious tenets of the Church to which we belong. Now let us see how:iny lion. Friend gets over the difficulty of Malta. True, he says, we took Malta under a capitulation, which we are bound to observe; but why should we take Malta at all ?—(Lond cheers.) Why, because it was a convenient possession in the Mediterranean, and we are ready to go to war rather than abandon it.—( Hear, hear.) But if a religious principle was involved in the matter —if it were contrary to religious principle to undertake the maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church, why did we accept Malta at all? My Hon. Friend cannot get rid of the difficulty by referring to the capitulation. The religious difficulty was involved in the acceptance of it.—( Loud cheers.) But, Sir, this is a most dangerous doctrine to advocate as respects the interests of the Established Church itself.—( Hear, and cheers.) The principle is this, that it is a violation of con science to call upon any one to support a religious faith from the tenets of which he dissents.—( Hear, hear.) Now, in arguing the question of establishments for the Dissenter, I may say to him that the Established Church is a great national institution, that as such, all have an interest in its welfare, and all are equally called on to contribute towards its support, and may say, too, in doing so, you violate no conscientious scruple. You arc aiding the general cause of religion by supporting the Established Church. But I say to the Dissenter no tax can be im posed for the maintenance of the Established Church, and if, after that, I make him, whether he be willing or not, contribute to wards its support, if 1 subject him, not only to a pecuniary im post, in support of the Church, but accompanying that impost by an avowed insult to his religious feelings, in what a position am I not placing the interests of the Established Church?—( Loud cheers.) I know that the Hon. Gentleman says that tithes are an impost upon property, and that Dissenters take property subject to that encumbrance, and that therefore it is no violation of their conscientious scruples to take from them tithes. I know that he says that church-rates are likewise an impost upon property, but what does he say to Church extensionl?—( Loud cheers. ) Is that a legal incumbrance on property ?—( Loud cheers.) Now, suppose that the Government should think it advisable to do as Government had done in some former years, to propose a grant for the construction of religious edifices, in connexion with the Church Establish • ment, should we be able, in accordance with the principles of the Hon. Gentleman to call upon the Dissenters to contri bute without any violation of their religious scruples?—(Loud cheers.) I must confess that I see no difference in the cases, and I believe that w c violate religious scruplea just as much in calling upon members of the Established Church to contribute to the support of the Protestant Dissenters of Ulster, as to call upon those Dissenters to contribute to the support of the Esta blished Church. This is a most dangerous doctrine to propa• gate with regard to the Established Church. Do you violate any religious principle by calling upon the Quaker, who ob jects to all war, to contribute towards the support of the standing army ? Sir, I do not believe that there is any religious principle involved in this measure.—(Cheers.) I believe that the measure which is now proposed by the tiovernment for the permanent endowment of Maynaoth is just towards the Roman Catholics, and that it is contrary to no principle of religion. As to the effect which the vote of this House may produce, I believe that the willing adoption of this measure will produce a kindly feeling in Ireland. It has already produced a great effect there. It has already produced a great effect here. It has been received in a grateful and a friendly spirit, corresponding with the spirit in which it has been proposed.—(Cheers.) I hardly expected that it would have produced this effect.—( Cheers. ) Ido not believe that the gratitude which has been expressed by the Roman Catholics in Ireland has been expressed in the expectation of future gain, but I believe that the effect produced has been a natural effect, which a kind and generous policy invariably produces as its re sult.—.-(Loud cheers.) Sir, I will not be tempted to refer to the speech of the Right lion. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, and to the taunts and imputations which he thought proper to indulge in ; but I will rather fol low the example of the Noble Lord, and abstain from everything that can create a feeling of irritation. I think I could prove from the admissions in the speeches of the Right Hon. Gentleman to this House—though I do not mean to say that he has in those speeches committed the slightest violation of principle—though Ido not mean to say he spoke of the measure because of the difference between 9,000/. a-year and 26,000/. ; but I could prove from th e speeches of the Right lion. Gentleman, that he is the last man in the House who should throw an imputation upon the present Government.—(hear, hear.) Every feeling with regard to what has been said about the in consistency or the security of the Government, I totally dis regard, for I say they should be, and they are subservient to the one feeling which prompts me to utter this expression, do not reject this Bill.—( Cheers. ) I do not know what the consequences may be with regard to the kindly relations between England and Ireland, but this I know that the proposition has been the means of calling forth the most kindly feelings in the minds of a grateful people. Therefore, I say, let all parties combine and aid the Government, in carrying out this measure.—( Loud cheers.) Take what course you please in regard to the Government but I say let not your indignation fall upon the measure, but on those who have brought it forward.--( Hear, hear.) I shall say no more about it slow on that point; but I mud, remind the House that it is such a measure, and is now in such a state as will render it impossible to withdraw it without creating suspicion, and ,inflicting a deep wound on the feelings of the Irish people.—( Hear, hear.) I do not press the measure because it is competent for me to do so, but because I believe it to be a wise, and a just, and an equitable measure.—( Cheers.) I say also, recollect that we are respon s ibl e f or t h e peace o f Irelantl.We must break up the formidable confederacy that exists there against the Go vernment ; but I do not believe that we can break it by force. I believe that with respect to the maintenance of the Union and the Established Church, you can do much to break up that confederacy by acting towards the Irish people in a spirit of kindness, and of forbearance aud of generosity, and I believe it is essential that we should do so, in order to carry on the Go vernment, and to preserve the peace and union of the two countries —(Hear, hear, and cheers.) I gave notice of the in tention of the Government to bring on this measure last session of Parliament, without the slightest reference to circumstances that have since taken place. But upon the day upon which I gave notice of our intention to bring it on, our attention was called by the Noble Lord opposite to another matter of great importance.--( Hear.) The Noble Lord called our attention to a rather ominous circumstance; and there certainly did appear some reason for it, fcr a cloud appeared in the western horizon, small indeed at first, but threatening in its position and aspect.—(Year. ) It became my duty, on the part of the Government, on that day, in temperate but significant language, to depart so far from the caution which is usually observed by a Minister as to declare publicly, that while we were most anxious for the amicable adjustment of the differences—while we would leave nothing undone to effect that amicable adjustroent, yet, if our rights were invaded, we were prepared and determined to maintain them.—(Loud cheers.) I own to you, that when I s w a - a t i s c s fa al et ld iennandupon e t n o m n sn l a a k t e i nthatthat, at tine before,did r e c I o I i l i e a c , i t with i t sent n h t e e e r r b i n u g r y . ) r r . , e — m ( b l e t r e n e t o w l Ca • elc of G peacent Gentleman a t i t to there l a n t a he me H u o ag n e ., Smythe) thought it not improbable that the time might come when this country might be compelled to summon all her energies in her defence. I heard the speech of that. Hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction, from the ability anti eloquence which it displayed.—( Cheers.) I heard the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) on the same evening, differing, as I did, from the Noble Lord in many of the posi tions which he took—differing altogether from him in his views with regard to the Revolution and to that Prince whom he called the Dutch Stadtholder ; but it was impossible for me, enile e t s this i to a differing from him as I did, not to h ear hi s speech and the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, w ith out very great satisfaction, t a n t e th ll e n s n w . o u sp e e n c t t le o m f kfuntnuw notreeminbeentche;r hie foretolde r an earlier period, when others thought from a first ment that. he had fail e d-1 tr i e d to console him, m andembarrass- I told him my conviction w as , th at h e was destined to v future distinction.— (Cheers.) My anticip a ti ons have bee of the other ni g ht. — . ( Renewed cheers.) Si r , i n t h e course of l n rea Bed by th e di splay that spee c h the lion. Gentl eman said he thought it probable, that in case it should be necessary this count r y i n t h e defence of ry to summ on t i t© energies of her honour and her interests, that high trust would be committed to my h an d s. M ay God forbid th a t so great an evil May God f or bid may fall upon us .—(L oud cheers.) so great an evil may fall or u p r the world as my lion. Friend has shadowed forth, in his — (Cheers.) But wh a t ever may be' the result powerful speech. ofthis debate —to whatever hands thin destinies of this country may be committed, I shall take my place by the side of sn successors, and shall give them every support in my power to this just and honourable cause. —(Cheers) If the calamity of war should heft' us, it is my earnest hope that when it occurs it will find the people of this empire united in loyalty to the throne, in mutual confi dence, and in a love of those institutions from which they derive the highett beuefits.—(Tremendous cheering.) It is my earnest prayer that the result of our measure* Rai itek SO to unite the people of this realm, as to ensure the triumph of a just cause.—( The Right lion: Baronet sat down amictSfr loud and continued cheering. ) The House then divided, when. there appeared— For the amendment Against it i‘lajority On cur return to the gallery, we fund the House in Com. initt..e considering the bill merely pro, orn a, with a view to its being recommitted on Friday next. Sir R. INGLIS objected to i roceedinu with even a Single stage of the Bill at that hour. The Bill was then ordered to be considered in Committee on Friday next, and the House resumed. Mr. PLUMPTRE wished to know when it was understc od that any further pro.eedinos would be taken on the Bill? Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Member had not heard the discussion which took place at an early period in the evee ing on this subject. The Committee on the Bill was postponed, as he (Lord J. Rusiell) understood, till Friday next ; but the question of its being a charge on the consolidated fund must be moved in a previous Committee, and that previous Committee was arranged for Monday next, when the Hon. Member for Sheffield would propose his motion. Mr. DUNCO.IIIII-2 sail he should certainly bring on his resolutions respecting the railway d-p..rtment of the Board of Trade, of whieh he had given notice, before this, on Mon day night. The SPEAKER—WiII you divide on it? Mr. DUNCOSIBE—Yes. The gallery was then cleared fcr a division. The number* were-- For going into the previous Committee on 'AJonday Against it Majority for the Committee ••• —36 The other or d ers o f t h e d ay were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past Three o'clock. ALLE GE D INDISPOSITION OF THE DUKE OP WELLINGTON. The following paragraphs appeared in the Morning Past of yesterday, relative to the supposed illness of the Duke of Wel lington, in the House of Lords, on Wednesday night:— " The Duke of Wellington, whose sudden indisposition in the House of Lords, last evening, will be found noticed in the summary of our Parliamentary report, was, we are re joiced to state, on inquiry at Apsley house, shortly before midnight, pronounced ' perfectly convalescent.' " Considerable excitement was caused during the discus sion on this question by the sudden departure from the House of the Duke of Wellington, leaning on the arm of another Peer, in a state of great apparent feebleness." It will be wen, however, by the following letter, which we publish at the request of the Noble Duke, that the matter originated in mistake : London, April 18, 1845. F. M. the Duke of Wellington presents his compliments to the Editor of the Morning Post. His attention has just now been drawn to two paragraphs in the Morning Post of this morning respecting himself, which, considering the followin g c i rcumstances, the Duke must con sider as neither more nor less than wilfully false. It is true that the Duke of Wellington, during the debate, got up from his place, and gave the assistance of his arm to a Noble Lord standing on the floor of the House, who it is well known has tke misfortune to be blind, and conducted him towards the door of the House, when he placed him under the care of another person. The Duke then returned to his place, in which he remained till the House adjourned, and even took part in the discus sion of the business transacted. A person called at the Duke's house last night at eleven o'clock, not twelve, to inquire how the Duke was. The answer was, " perfectly well," and not that " he was con valescent." lle has stated these facts as the foundation for his request that the Editor of the Morning Post will be pleased to give a positive contradiction to the paragraphs above referred to; and that the Editor will be pleased to give directions that when his name is inserted in his paper for the future, care should be taken that it is not made the matter of a falsehood. The Duke makes this request, in order, first, to relieve the anxiety of many, and next, to save himself some trouble. To the Editor of the Morning Post. Apslephouse was yesterday morning besieged by in quirers after his Grace's health. The answer was, ‘• The l)ukc is very well." "Oh no," was the reply, "it is stated in the paper that he was taken ill in the House of Lords last night." " I can only say," rejoined the servant, " that he came home from the House last night in his usual health, and ate as good a dinner as ever he did in his life: he says he is very well himself, and I suppose he ought to know as well as the ' paper.'" 'e believe it will be conceded that we seldom fall into even any of those accidental errors that must be unavoidable in the management of a newspaper establishment; and we feel assured of this admission even from our most ardent po litical opponents, that we are incapable of deviating into in tentional misrepresentation upon any subject. That we have erred, therefore, in putting forth a groundless alarm as to the state of the Duke of Wellington's health in our journal of yesterday, will, we feel convinced, be attributed solely to an " untoward " accident, arising from circumstances, which, although in fact unsubstantial, were not altogether without an appearance of reality. It is as generally known as it was regretted at the time that, on a former occasion, his Grace was suddenly seized with illness in the House, happily of a temporary nature, and was conveyed to Apsley house in a condition that gave pain to the whole nation ; and on that occasion his Grace quitted his seat and left the House of Lords leaning on the arm of a Noble Peer (we believe Lord Ellen borough) almost precisely under similar circumstances to those which attended his apparent departure from the House on Thursday evening. It appears by his Grace's letter, how ever, that on Thursday it was his Grace who gave support to a nobleman, whose infirmity required safe conduct, by taking his arm, and it is impossible that any can rejoice more than we do at his Grace's ability to afford that aid, or can more sincerely desire its duration. We think, therefore, his Grace has been rather too hard upon us in attributing wilful misrepresentation. Who would wilfully misrepresent the Duke of Wellington's state of health? No; our error arose from an impression that prevailed in the galleries of the House at the time, that the Noble Duke was really obliged to quit the House through illness, and had been assisted, as on a former occasion, to his carriage, which led sur reporter to notice the circumstance of the Duke's departure in his report. We, however, not resting on this authority alone, sent to make inquiry at his Grace's residence, when the an swer given, we regret to say, must have been misunderstood by the person who was instructed on the occasion. The Duke's most zealous menus tanu Wileit ttiv thy, uvt found?) cannot feel more gratified than we do at his excel lent state of health, and if we ever allude to any deteriora tion of it, it is only because we know that he is not, what we should wish him to be in life, as he is in fame—immortal. Post. COURT CIRCULAR. The Queen, accompanied by the Princess Royal, and at tended by the Lady in Waiting, took an airing yesterday afternoon in an open carriage and four. Colonel Xrbuthnot, Equerry in Waiting, was in attendance on horseback. His Royal Highness Prince Albert rode out on horseback yesterday morning, attended by Colonel Bouverie. In the afternoon his Royal highness presided at a meeting of the Commissioners for promoting and encouraging the Fine Arts in the rebuilding the I'alace of Westminster. The meeting was held in one of the Committee-rooms of the House of Commons. Prince Albert arrived at a quarter before three o'clock, attended by Colonel Bouverie. The Commissioners present were Lord Ashburton, Lord Colborne, the Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Com mons, Viscount Mahon, Mr. Gaily Knight, Mr. Benjamin llawee, Mr. Wyse, Mr. Samuel Rogers, and Mr. Henry Hallam. After the meeting Prince Albert, attended by Mr. Last lake, the Secretary to the Commission, and Mr. Barry, the architect, inspected different parts of the new Palace. His Royal Highness took his departure at six o'clock, attended by Colonel Bouverie. Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales, Prince Alfred, and the Princess Alice were taken airings yesterday iu the royal gardens. Lord George Lennox and Captain Francis Seymour had the honour of joining the royal circle at Buckingham Palace, at dinner yesterday. Iler Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent had a dinner party yesterday, at her residence, Clarence House, St. James's. The company included her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess Stephanie of Baden, Count and Countess St. Aulaire, Count and Countess Dietrichstern, M. and Mad. Van de Weyer, Baron and Baroness Moncorvo, the Che valier and Madame Bunsen, Baron and Bareness Gersdoff, the Duke of Wellington, the Marquis of Douglas, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Liverpool, Sir Robert and Lady Peel, Baroness Strumfeder, Count Schreckenstein, Hon. William Ashley, Baron Koller, Lady Anna Maria Dawson, the Countess Wratislaw, and Colonel Sir George Cooper. The Duchess of Kent had afterwards an evening party. The Queen and l'rince Albert (attended by the royal suite) and the Royal Family were present. Madame bulcken, Madame d'Eiethal, and Mr. Wilson, at tended at Clarence House, and had the honour of performing before the royal and august circle during the eve n i ng . Iler Roya Highness the Duchess of Kent will have an evening party on Wednesday, the 23d inst. We are autho rised to state that the company will assemble at Clarence House, St. James's, at half-past nine instead . of ten o'clock. His Royal Highness the D u k e of C am b r idge visited her Majesty the Queen Dowager yesterday, at Marlborough House. Cam bridge, and the Hereditary Grand - esebeck and ' ' attended by Baron kn Mecklenburgh Strelitz, Russian Minister with d Mildniav, honoured the R Their Royal Highnesses theDuk e Dukeand D a u n c d h e p ss o o c f b ess cam a - Mr. Edmond A Cabinet Council was o'clock. yesterday afternoon, at the past four o'clock. The meeting broke up ,at h a th d e an on l e n e te o r f vi t e b w e Metropolitan Association for improving A deputation of the industrious with the Earl , , h deputation consisted of Lord Ebrin Board ot Trade. 1 e ie y syesterday, rd classes , g ton, Sir Ralph Howard, Bart.., M.P., Mr. Joseph Toynbee, Mr. W. A. Wilkinson, Mr. Gibson, Mr. J. W. Tottie, and the dwellingsl ofof D t h al ti ou 8 Mr. Charles Gatlift. Count de Pollon, Sardinian Minister, transacted business yesterday, at the Foreign-office. Mr. Francis It. Rives left town yesterday morning to take passage in the Hibernia, on his return to America, having resigned the office of Secretary of the United States Legation at this Court. Colonel Barlow, Mr. Mildmay, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Lefevre, Captain Ward, and Mr. Saintsbury, a deputation o n th e subject of th e S outhampton Docks, ' had an interview with Sir George Clerk yesterday, at the Board of Trade. The Commission on the Slave Trade Treaties sat yester day at the official residence of Sir Robert Peel, in Downing street. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England sat yester day, at the Office in Whitehall-place. There were present the Bishops of Bangor, Ely, Hereford, and Lichfield, aud the Earl of Besborough. 1 Dispatches for the Governors of the North American colo nies, and also for the Governor of South Australia, were sent off yesterday evening from the Colonial -office. IV .ILITARY FOOT-RACES AT WINDSOR. On Thurs• day afternoon an immense number of persons, including several of the nobility an d gentry, and. the officers of the two regiments in garrison at Windsor, were assembled in the Long-walk, to witness several foot-races between the privates of the Coldstream Guards, got up by the officers of the regi ment, by whom the prizes were subscribed for, and distri buted. Twenty-three started for the first race, the distance being two hundred yards, which was accomplished by the winner (Pearson) in less than twenty seconds. A match was then run by Lord F. Paulet's horse, rode by its owner. against Lieutenant Somerset, on foot ; the distance being one hundred yards, fifty out and in, which was won by Lieutenant Somerset. Colonel H. Bentmck then rode his horse over the same ground, against the same officer, the horse winning easily. Lieutenant Somerset . then mounted Lord F. Paulet's horse, and ran against his Lords hi were afterwards run .by the privates,. _ gn to live shillings. l receiving prizes varying . from a _e was on foot and beat him by ten yards. S . e t v h e e ra m l . ) , : n ot n h e e z s r a ju ilke re l p i a la e c a e ch bet o wie t e h n e a r c tgi er: aunts stationed at Windsor. of f t s h k e ill cr ' a v c il k i s p h e o l r e tl i ) t -s° r t i t A ai gr n annudmtbricarl