The Sun. — London, England, 1857-02-20 00:00:00

which had been made by his hon. friend ; and lee should therefore support his motion. Mr. DRUMMOND said that he wa3 always an advo cate for the extension of the franchise. In the first place, always disliking the Reform Bill from top to toe, there was ono thing he never could understand, and that was the reason why there should be such a high qualification for -voters, when you would have done away with the qualification for seats in that house, He never could understand for what reason you fixed the value of aright to vote at 10/.—why not at 9/., or Si., or any other sum? The same objections were always made to this bill. He wished to see the franchise extended to;the lowest classes, in order that they might be able to protect themselves against the tyranny of those above them, exercised as we saw it was every day. But let the house be content ; they would never have a reform bill until the gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the house got on the other side and wanted to get back again. (Laughter.) Lord J. RUSSELL said that the proposal of the hon. gentleman the member for East Surrey had been met by his noble friend at the head of the Government with two objections. First, on the ground of the business of the session, which did not admit of the discussion of such a bill this year; and, secondly, he founded his objection on the constitutional principle involved. As regarded the first objection, he did not think that the Government ought to allege that there would not be time for the busi ness of this bill. Looking to the various subjects of business before the house, he could see that there must be considerable discussion on the budget ; but the pro posals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in them selves simple, and did not involve a complicated series of measures ; and therefore when the house had decided one or two questions it might be said that they had de cided the whole principle of the budget. With regard to the measures of the Government, he must say that the Government seemed to him carefully to avoid undertak ing any measures of importance. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department was asked a short time since whether it was the intention of the Government to intro duce any measure on the subject of Church rates, and he replied that it was not their intention to do in. The right hon. gentleman the member for Droit wich had brought forward a proposition of great import ance., and which had created considerable interest throughout the country, namely, the subject of educa tion ; but there had been no hint given by the Govern met t that they had any measure in preparation on that subject, or that they proposed to interfere in the course taken by the right hon. gentleman. Only to-night aques tion had been put to the Government on a subject which had excited some agitation, somewhat unnecessarily, as he thought, namely, that of agricultural statistics ; and it appeared that even on that subject the Government was not prepared with a measure, and they still refrained front disturbing the placid course they seemed to have laid down for themselves. If this was the case, so far as the state of public business was concerned, there was ample time for consideration of a measure so simple as that proposed by the hon. gentleman the member fur East Surrey. He (Lord J. Russell) now came to the question itself, and he would say that the hon. gentle man had truly alleged that he (Lord J. Russell) had for merly entertained objections to measures of this kind, but the hon. gentleman did not mention that in the last Reform Bill Ise (Lord J. Russell) had brought forward, he had introduced the very county franchise which the hon. gentleman had proposed. (Hear.) The objection he heard made to this measure would be a sound one if it could be now maintained that, constitutionally speaking, the right to the franchise in counties was by tenure, and that in boroughs by occupation. But that ground had beet taken away by an amendment on the Reform Bill, which had been carried by the present Duke of Buck - ire! ham, which gave the franchise by occupation t co inty voters. He (Lord J. Russell) was afraid of the effect of that amendment, which was likely to add to the number of dependent voters, and he was opposed to it, and yii Idea it only to the wishes of Lord Alan - rp and his col leagues, who were joined with him in bringing on that 111 , asure. He found that so far from adding to that class of voters, the 20/. and 101. occupiers were the most inde pendent voters, and that the extension of that class of voters would be animprevenuent to the franchise instead of its adding to the number of dependent voters. Having to ice, oace in 1852 and again in 1851, introduced mea sures which he conceived grew naturally out of the Re form Act, and were in conformity with its spirit, and which contemplated changes in the franchise, he would say that it must bo admitted that there was ro great pressure on the public mind, nor any national urgency for a great and comprehensive measure of reform. He thought it would be imprudent in his hon. friend if he was to say that lie would rely on any intention of the Government to disturb our existing legislation by any large and comprehensive measure of reform ; but he would admit that in such cases he (Lord J. Russell) w mid resume the argument he had used towards his hon. friend on former occasions,that it would be better to enter tlae consideration of the whole question. Now,however, on the contrary, as one desirous of refotm, be thought it best to adopt measures of improvement in our repre sentative system when they were safely attainable. He thought that the measure of his hon. friend was a safe measure. He thought that no one who would allow the franchise to 101. occupiers in boroughs could object to allowing it to 101. occupiers in counties ; for that class of persons occupied houses of a better description, and many of them were persons of greater intelligence and of larger property than the 101. occupiers in bo r.ughs. There were often persons in large towns who bad no votes, and who occupied 10/. houses, who, if they came toLondnn or any of our large provincial cities, would find that 151. or 201. a year would not obtain for them houses like those they bad previously occupied. As it was not likely that any large and comprehensive mea sure of reform would be introduced, he thought the mea sure now proposed would tend to satisfy a large body of persons who now had cause to complain of being de prived of the franchise, although they were occupiers of 10/. or 201. houses, like their neighbours in boroughs. A gain, it was often the case that a town which had grown up into importance, and which contained a pope lotion of 10,000 or 14,000 persons, did not send mem bers to Parliament, while another town, five miles off, ith 5,000 or 6,100 inhabitants, did send representatives to Parliament. That was an unfair state of things, if y in were not going to alter and reconstruct the system ct obtaining votes in that house ; but if you gave those persons the right to vote in counties the grievance would be diminished, and a greater approach made to equality in the rights of voting, and be thought that such a coarse ould tend to it and consolidate oar representa t,ve institution s . T a ki ng t hi s v i ew o f t h e su bj ect, be suould vote for the introduction of the bill—(hear)—and if the hon. gentleman succeeded in obtaining leave to bring it in he should support the second reading. He thought the time a favourable one for removing any ini perstectione which existed in our representative system. We might have this year or next a general election, ai d it would tend greatly to improve our representative sys tem if we could have three or four thousand men of pro j erty and intelligence added to those who enjoy the • franchise. He did not know whether there was any in tention of dealing with the franchise in Sc Aland and Ire lend, but as the bill stood it should receive his cordial support. (Hear.) Mr. BENTINCK congratulated the lion, member for West Surrey (Hr. Drummond) on the speedy fulfilment of his prophecy. The noble lord the member for London 'ens certainly not sitting on that (the opposition) side of the house, but he was evidently uncomfortable in the place ho now occupied. (Rear, and laughter.) When he heard the noble lord taunt the Government with nut I ringing forward useful measures, be could not help ask ing the noble lord to favour him with a list of useful wee a ires which he brought forward when he was at the head of the Government. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) He believed te i n) cou n t ry was t h oroughly sick of the word reform. ( Jeer and laughter.) It was quite true, as the hon. member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had said, that it was only a clap-trap used for stirring up the bad pas t ions of the So far a heigrnorantwhe, certainthe e persons were out of r face. (i general el question was con e Tned, after w h a t h a d passed in the v rnpre last few years, aryl sa lien the noble l or d had been always measure of re form, urging the ne e sssity of a large a n d co and never availing himself 04,b, .b anyo ) p p: t rtunity for ',ringing in any such measure—(ub, would be d fficult to persuade the country th a t there was anything but a party object in these attempts at reform. Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot at this moment answer the challenge of the right hon. gentleman, as he well knows ; but I shall be happy on a future occasion to State to him the measures which I have brought in. (Hear, hear.) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the hon. gentleman was most unjust to the noble lord ; and he ( \lr. Duncombe) ahould have been much surprised to find the noble lord • take any other course than that he hld pursued now. In 1854 the noble lord laid on the table a Reform Bill which he parted with on account of the war with great regret, which contained the very proposition now made ly the hon. member for East Surrey. What would they have the noble lord to do ? His (Hr. Duncorebe'e) 5-tonishinent was that any member el Lord t,,,t0 Aberdeen's . G overnmen t s h ou ld vo t e agahast the n of the honourable gentleman. There was eo doubt so - ne apathy in the co un t r y on this sub ject, b u t ' that was because the house was not equal to t he emer gency. If L i,to power, let them D,rby's party should again come v ithin the pule of tiern attempt to bring the operatives agitation the constitution, and they would have and Support,,.t to their h eart ' s con t ent. B ut there would be n , , a ae agitation, n or wou ld the people ask re fer ected reform, H e w measure like th e p resent s h ou ld b e j. ould, s u pport the measure a s h e h a d d one d o on former occasio ns nly regrett e d th at i t did not g I further. There we re at present fou r vacant seats, and a. hen Lord A ,I•by's g over nment vit tva s in existence the befilled, to the importanc e heuae was told that it w as of al c , nsfitution that these seat s s h ould to as introduced, the object of w hi ch was to and a bill le give t wo o f them to Lanea,sh o ire are( the oth er two Yorkshi re . Pet nothing was heard of that proposition last anted to know why ` ugh p laces a s cheisaa,T e r i . eg e smith, Kensington, an d Brom , pton were not to )tii7o.- presented ? There were hundreds of occupiers of 401; or 501. houses in these places who could not vote for either a borough or a county. A . man ing on one side of a street in Chelsea, occupying a 401. b " 6O , had no vote, whilst another occupying al5l. house was entitled to a vote for Westminster. He con snlered the present syste'n most unjust, and should be surprised if the house refused to assent to a proposition so rational an that which had been submitted to it by the ea. member for East Surrey. (Cheers.) Sir J. GRAHAM expressed his regret that the hon. member for West S urrey (Mr. Drummond) and the hon. n.ember for East Norfolk (Mr. Bentieek) should have thought it expedient thus early in the discussion to ins pert into it imputations of personal motives. (Rear ) The place which be (Sir J. Graham) occupied was one of his own choice, and he was perfectly c v on:tent to remain i in that position. The hon. member fo r l t i a 3 t e Na ) rf h o a l ( k i had important s ated that his ueble friend (Lord J. *ithin his memory introduced any advantageous to the country. The hon. memberhad measure s n o rHE SUN, LONDON, FIVIDIAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 2O, sat long in the house. He (Sir J. Graham) had sat in the house along with his noble friend for more than 30 years, and he had net forgotten that to him was due the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts—(hear)—to him the country was mainly indebted for the Reform Bill of 1832. To him the country was indebted for the introduction of the poor-law into Ireland ; to him was due the commu tation of tithes. But he would not weary the house by an enumeration of all the measures which had been car ried in consequence of the zeal and ability of his noble friend. (Hear, hear.) If he (Sir J. Graham) could have reconciled it to his sense of duty to give a silent vote on the present occasion, he might well have rested that vote on the speech of his noble friend. But having en all former occasions abstained from discussing the precise proposition now before the house, he would state very shortly why he now intended to give it his support. (Cheers.) If the house would bear with him for a few minutes he would state what hadin fluenced his conduct up to the present moment in dealing with measures of reform. Having announced in 1832, when the Reform Bill was introduced, his opinion that it was to be regarded as a final settle ment of the question, he had felt bound to resist a further change on the ground of finality. But it had been his fortune to live long enough to ascertain that that ground was not tenable. Finality, applied to the work of man, was a solecism iu terms, and that doctrine must in the long run be found very absurd. Then again he was of opinion that if other changes were to be intro duced, that which had become a bye-word—" a large and comprehensive measure"—was expedient. Partly from the apathy of the country, and still more from the difficulty of introducing another large measure, no mea sure of a comprehensive character had been successful, and it was not likely that such a measure would very soon be successful. He therefore thought that such a ground was no longer tenable. But he could not forget that one of the measures which formed the basis of Lord ' Aberdeen's administration was a measure of reform en larging the franchise. (Cheers.) That declaration was ma le on the formation of Lord Aberdeen's government. In the year 1854, in the speech from the Throne, a mea'ure of reform was recommended, the Abject of which was to enlarge the franchise, and give additional stability to the institutions of the country, and such a measure was prepared with very great care. It was in troduced by his noble friend (Lord John Russell) on behalf of the Cabinet, and was withdrawn on account of the peculiar circumstance of the pressure of the war, and of the measures consequent upon that war. That measure, amongst many other provisions, included the precise proposition of the hon. member for East Surrey. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that the measure introduced by the noble lord contained many other provisions, which might be held to counterbalance the particular effect of the proposition then under the consideration of the house ; but if there were countervailing pro visions as bearing on the county franchise, it ought not to be forgotten that that measure lowered in towns the franchise of the citizen. (Hear, hear.) It proposed to reduce the franchise from a 101. rating to a 6/. qualifica tion with a residence of two years and a half. There were other provisions to which he might briefly refer. There was a provision giving effect to a limited extent, to the votes of the minority, and several new franchises were created. It bad been truly stated, that while the county franchise rested upon tenure there would have been a grave objection to the introduction of such a measure as the. present. But the Chandos clause introduced into the Reform Act for the first time, as bearing on the county franchise, tho addition of occupation of the amount of 501. a year. Although the circumstances of Ireland bad been very peculiar, the necessity of assimi lating in all its great principles the law of the United Kingdom became every day more apparent, and in the year 1850 the house fixed the representation of counties in Ireland not on tenure in the main, but on occupation, and the right of voting was pieced on an occupation tenure of 121. He should feel the gravest objection tai this measure if he believed it would introduce into the counties of England any right of voting which would subject to undue influence any greater proportion of voters than now existed. (Hear.) He quite agreed with the principle laid down by Mr. Fox, and which had been quoted more than once by his noble friend, that that is the best system of electing members of a representative Government which includes the largest number of independent voters, and excludes those who from their circumstances and position are incapable of independent deliberation. The test to apply to such a proposition was this—would it introduce into the coun ties men of independent station who were now excluded, or would it extend it to those who were incapable of in dependent deliberation ? Now his firm belief was that this proposition would extend the franchise in a manner that was perfectly safe. (Cheers.) He did not feel the objection entertained by the noble lord at the head of the Government, that the adoption of such a measure would lead to the danger of electoral districts and only one right of voting in the country. If he entertained that opinion he should arrive at the same conclusion as the noble lord. But there would always remain a broad distinction between counties and cities in England. The right of voting in cities was confined to occupation to the limited extent of 101., whereas even if the present measure should pass, there would be other tenures, including the leasehold tenure, which were unknown in cities and boroughs. (Hear, hear.) Now, if large and comprehensive measures were no longer possible, consi dering the growing population, the growing wealth, and the growing intelligence of the people of this country, there was every reason to extend the franchise in some other manner. If every extension of the franchise was to he resisted—if the people were to be driven to what was called " bit-hy-hit" reform—if they were driven to the necessity of taking fragments of reform—the best course was to take the safest, and that which in its ope rating would have the greatest effect. Looking at the qnestion in that light he was decidedly of opinion that this was the portion •f the measure of 1854 which night be most safely introduce 6, and fur which he was ready to give his vote. The effect of this measure in the English counties would be to give the right of voting to many persons who did not now possess it, but who were entitled to it. It would include many of the working clergy, as they were called—the curates—who were now excluded. The dissenting ministers would to a great extent be ad mitted to the franchise. It would also include the half pay officers of both services, many retired tradesmen, and clerks either in public offices origreat mercantile firms who might have retired on peasions or superannuation. Under such a franchise these classes would generally be admitted. Then there would be the shopkeepers in towns which had not the right to return members, suck as Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, and other places similarly situated. (Hear, hear.) He might go further, and say that the farmers of England were rising rapidly to increased intelligence and great trustworthiness ; and he knew not why some of the smaller farmers should not in England, as in Ireland, have a share in the represen tation. • (Hear, hear.) He thought lie had said enough to justify himself for the vote which for the first time he was about to give in favour of this measure. (Cheers.) He had the greatest regard for the hon. members for West Surrey and East Norfolk. He might be exposed to taunts for the vote he was about to give. But feeling that his motives were pure, and that his conscience was not touched by the slightest remorse, be should not hesitate to give his support to the measure. (Cheers.) In its progress through the house it would be necessary to guard it against the abuse of making faggot votes, and he would recommend the hon. member for East Surrey to look at the precautions in that respect con tained in the bill of 1834. That bill contained pros i slow] with regard to joint tenancies, and to land con nected with houses and hovels of no worth, which would give facilities to faggot voting which would not confer the franchise unless coupled with the occupation of a house of the value of 51. Feeling satisfied that the mea sure was a salutary and good one, he had no hesitation in giving it his support. (Cheers.) Mr. BENTINCK explained. He never said that the noble lord had brought for ward no good measures while in office, but that during the number of years the noble lor.l was at the head et the Government, when he had ample means of bringing forward a great measure of re form with the certainty of carrying it, he had never in troduced such a measure. Mr. L. KING said that if the noble lord at the head of the Government would consent to the introduction of the bill, he (Ur. King) would make the best use of the time allowed him for the purpose of passing it. If the house should prefer a 24. qualification to that now pro • posed, the proposition might be considered in committee. (Rear.) If the noble lord the leader of the liberal party should press the house to a division, ho would find the liberal members voting against him, and mu,t rely on the support of the other side of the house. (Hear.) Mr. S. HERBERT, having given the subject the deepest consideraticn, felt perfectly satisfied as to the propriety of the course which he was about to take. He hadtwo distinct grounds for not giving his support to the motion—ono which he derived from the state of par , ties in the house,'and the position of the Government ; the other, in the nature of the question itself, and the peculiar form in which ithad been submitted to the house. It was quite true that theidentical proposal was contained in the bill introduced by his noble friend (L ,rd J. Rus sell) as leader of the House of Commons, and that be (Mr. S. Herbert), being the colleague of the noble lord, gave his concurrence in that measure. But it should be retnerub , red that the measure was brought forward n only by the leader of the then Government, but by th e mail who, of all others, was best entitled to introduce such a measure. (Hear.) Apin, it was brought forward with all the weight and authority of the Government. And it should be recollected that the proposition now before the house was coupled with many other provisions which tended in a great degree to neutralise its effects— not in the way of diminishing its value and efficiency, but with a view of extending its value as a portion of a great measure of reform. He believed it was admitted by the promoters of the original Reform Bill that its great err e- was the anifarrnity of the franchise. No doubt it was difficult to avoid uniformity. But it was an error, because society was not uniform, and could not be fairly represented by uniformity. The object of the proposition before the bouse was to give an uniform franchise to counties and boroughs. Was that done in the bill of 1554? On the contrary, the proposition then was to bring the county franchise down to 101,, and the bo rough,, franchise to (31. If th e f ranc hi se was t o b e made run, what would be the logical deduction ? If the let franchise was to be the only one, how could the pre sent syst em b e defended in allowing two members to a town with 5 0,000 inhabitants, whil s t no l arger num b er ware vento a dist r i c t conta i ning half a mil of memb ers was gr ' other fran c hi ses i ntroduced into the bill of 1854. A ll the graduates of th e un i vers i t i es, a ll persons derivi ng an incomera e t h a i x , taxe s , ; under th e bill, H e of 10/, f rom t h e f un d s, a ll persons having 50/. in the sa o t i 4 w o e l. r e i n a t d h m e shape to assessed the f of bank, all persons pay licences, or income had mentioned these facts for the what a different position a question ( 1 )1 .1 1 r h p is o s k e in o a f showing when introduced as a solitary measure from that which it occupied when it was a portion of a larger scheme.lfh With regard to the position of parties and the Gove moot, he epoke plainly of what was to all, when he said that, in his opinion, the Government were exer cising a wise discretion in not brineing forward measures which it would be difficult for them to carry to a success ful issue. (Laughter.) The Government were in a state I of great difficulty with regard to the finances of the coun try. (Hear, hoar.) The position of the Government ' weighed very considerably with him. Lie did not wish to place them in greater difficulties. (Laughter.) He bad no wish, by an accumulation of difficulties, to see their hands weakened when they were about to grapple with questions of great difficulty, to the termination of which eco man could clearly see his way. (Hear, hear.) Guard ing himself as to the opinion which he entertained—hav ing abated not a jot the confidence which he had in the people of this country, in their growing intelligence and independence, which must entitle them to an extension of the franchise from some Government or other--but objecting to the measure in the shape in which it had been produced, and on the grounds which be had stated, he felt it his duty to oppose the motion. (Hear ) Mr. ROEBUCK said be was sorry to trespass on the attention of the house, but he must express his per fect "astonishment" at the speech of the right hon. gen tleman (Mr. S. Herbert). The right hon. gentleman said he opposed the motion on two grounds. The first was, that it tended to uniformity. The right hon. gentleman supported the bill of the noble lord in 1854, but he said, although that bill contained this precise measure, it con tained something else which took away uniformity. What did it contain 1 It lowered the borough franchise. Therefore, if the proposition of the hon. member for East Surrey had also been to lower the borough franchise, the uniformity would have been done away, and the right hon. gentleman would have supported it. Tho anomalies of our representation were so numerous that anybody who chose to dwell upon them might make a case against any system of franchise, but the fact remained that there were a body of men of intelligence, probity, and wealth in this country who were not represented. The hon. member for East Surrey proposed to give them the franchise. They were an instructed race ; they were a race endued with probity • and they possessed wealth. He wanted to know whether those three qualifications in constituents would endanger the character of the house. But the right hon. gentleman had another reason. He objected to weaken the Administration. The house might anticipate that the right hon. gentleman would to-morrow vote with the Government and against the motion of his right hon. colleague the member for the University of Oxford. If the Government were wrong, *en he said to the right hon. gentleman " Vote against them." If they were right, " Tote with them." Were they right on the present proposition (An Hon. Mem ber, "No !") An hon. member answered "No," and he said the argument of the right hon. gentleman did not prove the Government to be right, because he said distinctly he had such faith in the intelligence and probity of his fellow•countrymen that some Govern ment or other, some day or other, must bring in a Re form Bill. They might suppose that it the right hon. gentleman were a member of that Government he would support another Reform Bid, as he supported the Re form Bill of 1854. The right hon. gentleman seemed determined to falsify the statement of the hon. member for West Norfolk, that gentlemen out of office voted sometimes for clap-trap motions. The right hon. gen tleman would show that he did not vote for clap-trap motions—that he was determined to vote for the non enfranchisement of the people of England, because it would really render the franchise equal to all, and be cause it would weaken the Government. (Cheers.) The house divided, when the numbers were— For the motion Against it Majority —l3 • Leave to introduce the bill was therefore refused. The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheering. MINISTERS' MONEY, (IRELAND). Mr. FAGAN moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the ministers' money now imposed on eight corporate towns in Ireland. Mr. HORSMAN said when his hon. friend list year asked leave to bring in his bill, he, on tit) part of the Government, assented to the motion, but he did not, as the hon. member said, express an opinion that the tax ought to be abolished, or intimate such an opinion on the part of the Government, but he stated distinctly that the present act was acknowledged to be defective. After a short discussion, leave was then given to bring in the bill. MAYNOOTH. Mr. SPOONER rose, amidst some derisive cheers, to move, " That this house do resolve itself into a commit tee for the purpose of considering the acts for the en dowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withrawal of any endowment out of the Consoli dated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights or interests." The hon. gentleman said that nothing but an imperative sense of duty would have induced him to bring forward this subject again ; but he held it to be the duty of every Protestant, and of every one who had taken the oath of allegiance to his Sovereign, to discountenance the payment of public money to Maynooth. He could assure the house that he had no personal end to serve in the matter. He had no ambitioas views—he had no animosities against Roman Catholics. On the contrary, he had many valued friends belonging to that persuasion, and he be lieved them to be honourable, upright, and conscientious men. It was therefore on none but public grounds that he brought forward the motion, to which he hoped the house would agree. Indeed it would not be very conso nant with courtesy, or even with Parliamentary practice, &ter a bill had been ir mght in and virtually read a se cond time foie session to attempt to prevent its re-intro duction. No doubt the tactics of last session would again be resorted to to prevent the house from coming to a fair decision. He had even been told by those wi son he respected that his motion had become an absolute nuisance. (Hear and laughter.) If so, who created the nuisance ? Those who uphold the grant. Remembering Coat he had been deserted on the former occasion by his old leaders, he was led again to apprehend a factious op position. He would state one great reason f.,r opposing the Maynooth grant. He objected, on the part of Pro• testants, to pay for the support of a religion to which they did not belong, and whose tenets they did not be lieve, but held them to be contrary to the word of God, and a national sin, which, if not removed, would, sooner or later, bring down the judgments of God on this coun try. (A. laugh) Hon, members might laugh, but he would not be deterred by ridicule from discharging a duty which ho owed to his God and his Church. Besides, this grant was contrary to our Protestant constitution. The Sove reign had taken an oath to do nothing to injure the Pro testant Church. (No, no.) He had not a copy of the coronation oath, but he would not be stopped by a mere unsupported negative.' What were the creede, art'cles, and doctrines of the Protestant Church which the Sove reign had sworn to maintain I One article was that the doctrines of the Romish Church were blasphemous, and contrary to Scripture. (A. laugh). The Sovereign had sworn this ; and yet they asked her to support a grant in aid of a college where those blasphemous doctrines were taught. What was the present state of that coll ege ? Most hon. members had rea d th e report of the commis sioners, which was as contrary to the evidence as any thing could possibly be. (No, no.) He would be glad to refer that question to any jury of 12 sensible men. The commissioners had first of all examined those gentle men who were interested in the support of the college ; but even their evidence disclosed the fact of the secular working of the institution. With regard to loyalty, they avowed that their church had the first and paramount claim on their devotion. On the other side, persons were examined who bad seen the evils of the college, and they denied all that had been stated by its suppor ters. One gentleman admitted that he had been taught such principles there that he was actually a rebel when he left it. (Oh, oh.) The testimony so given must con vince every one that the commissioners had come to a wrung conclusion. Their chairman, Lord Harrowby, a most honourable man in every relation of life, had riot been able to compete with the Jesuits. He (Mr. Spooner) had told that noble lord so to his face. The committee of 1827 had acted in a very different manner ; they had sifted the evidence, and conducted their exa minations in a far superior manner to the commission. ers ; but the numbers being pretty equally balanced they had made no report. What had been the progress 'of this college ? In the first instance, permission was given to certain individuals to found an educational in stitution, it being believed that priests would be better educated at home than abroad. Then they came to the Government for money, still in the character of suppli ants. Every concession created a fresh demand ; and now they came not as suppliants, but as parties claiming a right. (Cheers and counter cheers.) It was for the house to teach them that they had no such right. Some feeble-minded friends of his—(a laugh) —told him that if he me Idled with Maynooth he would destroy the Protestant Establishment. There was no analogy what ever between the two cases ; and he knew that the noble lord at the head of the Government was of that opinion. He was convinced that so long as he was Prime Minis ter he would not allow a single sixpence of the revenues of the Protestant Church to be touched. But it was said that the Church property in reality belonged to Roman C i.th.l:cs. This he denied. There was a church in Ireland endowed long before Popery was heard of. Afterwards the Church was purified, and it retained its property. No man who had read history could doubt that the title of the Irish Church to its property was as good as any title that existed. It was said that property had been bequeathed to the Church by Romanists ; but he denied that this affected the title to the Church property. How many noblemen and others in this country held property by the same title as that of the Church to its property ? This being so, there was no fear of a sp ilia tion of Church property. Another important point was the great change now going on at Maynooth— the struggle between Catholic and ultramontane principles. (Hear, hear.) The college had been established pur posely to keep out ultramontane principles, and to pre vent priests from imbibing the contagion of the cont . - nent. Since that time the trustees had been changed ; the recent act constituted theinvisitors,and all the power they had was to walk over the college once a year. It was impossible for the commissioners to deny that certain books were used in the college,butit was said they were not read or enforced. Amongst those authors was Bailey, whose works were as full of nitramontanism as possible. This book had been approved and sanctioned by Pius IX. as proper for the instruction of youth. One of its dogmas was that the Pope had power to make laws for the whole Catholic world, as the successor of the divine Peter, the chief of the apostles, and the head of the whole Church. This did not refer to spiritual Goverment merely ; there was no such word. The expression treed was simply "go verning." This principle was extending, and would pro duce serious results if its operation were not checked. In the same work it was laid down that human laws wero not to be obeyed if opposed to the laws of God and the Church. Such was the book from which morality was taught to the pupils at Mayntoth. Was the house pre pared to re soguise such a principle, and to coo priests educated in that belief ? It was laid down that the Pope was not to be considered a foreign prince, and that Rome was the centre of Christianity. It might be right for the Pope to propagate such a doctrine, but why should Pro testants be asked to support it, and to teach priests that I they were not to obey human laws when contrary to the interest of the Church ? Scavini taught that a witness who was sworn to tell the whole truth did not sin against justice if he remained silent, and that if the in tention did not accompany the words of the oath, the oath was not registered before God. He knew many no• man Catholics, but he did not believe they neould obey such doctrines. Let it be recollected that these doctrines were taught by the priests, who inculcated them on the ignorant people of Ireland, and that the people of Eng• land were paying for such teaching. With regard to lies, they were taught that ten thousand jocose lies were a venial but did not constitute a mortal sin. He called on the house not treat this subject in a careless manner, cr call upon the Protestant people of this country to be the distributors of such books and the teachers of such blasphemous doctrines. (Oh.) Nothing but the feeling that he would be guility of a great sin if he neglected the opportunity to bring the question before the house induced him to undergo the pain he felt in ad• dressing them on such topics. He was sure the noble lord had never read one of these books to which he re ferred. (Laughter.) If he could get the noble lord seri ously to consider the subject—(laughter)--if he could stir up in his mind a sense of the responsibility which devolved on him in this matter—(laughter)—he was con vinced, from the upright character of the noble lord, that he would recoil from sanctioning in any way the teach ing of such doctrines. He begged of the noble lord not to throw away the opportunity of making himself ac quainted with these books — (laughter) —because when he became acquainted with them he would find that the matter was too serious to be trifled with. If carried out these doctrines would cut up their Protestant con stitution by the roots, withdraw the people from their allegiance, and render the people unworthy of being be lieved on their oath. (No, no.) He did not think those gentlemen who cried " No" read the books. He believed he had himself read more of them than any man in the house. (Ironies! cheers and laughter.) He hoped the house would allow him to bring in the bill, and if they did so he promised that he would give them an early op ' portunity of discussing it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. KENDALL seconded the motion, and said that he grounded his objection to the grant on the conduct of Roman Catholics to Protestants. (Hear.) He held that they were bound in self•defence not to give power to Roman Catholics. (Hear.) He believed the Roman Catholic body acted from conscientious motives, and with a unity of purpose that might put Protestants to shame. Both in Ireland and on the Continent Roman Catholics behaved with the greatest kindness and hospitality, but on the subject of religion they were banded together to keep out Protestantism, and their priests oppressed it where they had the power. When in Florence, it was impossible to be treated with greater kindness and gene rosity than he bad been by the Grand Duke of Tuscany; but that prince, who was naturally of a kind disposition, had been obliged to follow the dictates of the clergy. It was on these grounds that he supported the motion of his hon. friend. He considered the present was a most opportune time for movieg the question ; because he be lieved there were many persons in that house, as well as outside of it, who were untrue to the Protestant prin ciples which they nominally professed ; and he was glad that this motion had been brought forward, as it would test these men in some way or other. He agreed with his hon. friend that they were guilty of a national sin in giving their support to the College of Maynooth. (Hear.) Mr. ROEBUCK said he was sure the house must have witnessed with pleasure the great difference of manner between the mover and the seconder of the motion. The hon. gentleman who had just sat down put forward his opinions in a firm but dispassionate manner. He wished he could say the same of the mover. (Hear.) Notwith standing all the reading which that hon. gentleman put up for, it appeared to him (Mr. Roebuck) that he read history very curiously, in fact, by the light of his own prejudices. (Hear, hear.) He should trace the history of the College of Maynooth, and show that the grant was founded on justice, on policy, and, going to the higher principle of morality, that it was founded on that too. When was the college founded ? It was founded in the height of the French Revolution—not, as the hon. member said, to keep out ultramontane doctrines, but to keep out Gallic doctrines. (Hear.) It was to prevent the introduction of the revolutionary doctrines of France into Ireland that Mr. Pitt originated the College of Maynooth. It was first established by the Protestant Parliament. It was not endowed by a mixed Parlia ment, such as the present one, and here he wished to contradict the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and who said that this was a Protestant Parliament. The Par: liament represented the people of the three kingdoms, and as the opinions of the people differed so did the opi nions of that house. But the Irish Parliament, which first endowed Maynooth, was an exclusively Protestant Parliament, and returned by Protestant electors. Let the house understand clearly why they did this. In 1795 the grant was made. At that time great terror prevailed in this country lest the revolutionary principles of France should be imported into Ireland by the priests, who at that time were in the habit of receiving their education in YEILIC. To prevent this the eellege was founded. Then when the union took place the English Parliament and all the great men of that day thought themselves bound in justice to accept what had been done by the Parliament of Ireland. They left the grant as a legacy to us, and we were in a position to say what duties that legacy had imposed upon us. For centuries we tried to root out the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland ; we passed laws that were a disgrace to civilisation ; we tried every possible means thatcrueltyand bigotry could induce men to take, for the purpose of rooting out Roman Catholic doctrines. We failed ; and tbea in 1829 we were compelled, from the fear of a civil war, to grant emancipation. What was the justice of the claim to put down the grant to Maynooth ? Mind, Maynooth was created for English purposes ; was maintained by the English Parliament on the ground of justice ; and, as it was for the interest of England and the United Kingdom that there should be peace and goodwill amongst its various inhabitants, it was good policy still to maintain it. But few years had passed awaysinee we endeavoured to be just to Ireland, yet he could point to that country now and contrast its condition with what it was under the old domination of Protestantism. (Hear, hear.) There was now a peaceable, a prosperous, and—he was almost ashamed to use the word—a loyal people. He said " ashamed," because it was some thing like a slur on the people of Ireland to vindicate their loyalty. They had been our brothers in the battle field ; they went shoulder to shoulder with England in the great_fights on the continent of Europe ; they had been to us great support in time of need; and it wa's good policy to foster in them the game principles] a n d the same feelings of kindness which they evinced towards' us in the hour of danger. (Hear hear.) It h a d b een said that England's d anger was Ireland's opportunity but the people of Ireland repudiated that sentiment whenever England wanted her. They should do every thing, therefore, to reciprocate that feeling towards the people of Ireland, and not in any way do them injustice or insult them. Ho believed the motion was irritating, unwise, unjust, and unchristian, and he hoped they would reject it by a strong majority. (Hear.) Mr. BOWYER protested against theological discussions being brought forward in the House of Commons, and said the grant to Maynooth was but a poor compensation for the religious foundations of which the Roman Catholics had been deprived by the Protestants. Mr. T. CHAMBERS said it might have been right ori ginally to have established Maynooth, but when those cir cumstances which led to its establishment had passed away, it did not follow that the continuation of the grant could be justified. Mr. Sergeant O'BRIEN said the Roman Catholics cared not for the money, but they viewed the motion as an in fringement on a right guaranteed to them by law, and as an insult to their creed, owing to the reasons assigned for bringing it forward. The success of the motion would no doubt lead to the education of Irish priests in foreign countri es , w hi c h , though •not detrimental to the Roman Catholic religion, n i g h t best interests of the country. prove detrimental to the Mr. G. MOORE said he would feel inclined to vote for the motion, if he could separate it from the reasons ale lodged for its introductioe, because in the abstraot be thought one man had no rijet to be called upon to pay for the religion of another. This reasoning, however, applied with equal force to the Established Church of Ireland as well as to Maynooth, and if enforced against one would most certainly be enforced ageinst the other. Mr. DRUMMOND said tint the question divided itself into two distinct parts. I'rst there was the political aspect. There was a bargaia between the English and Irish Parliaments which could not be honestly broken. If it were broken, the priests mist again be educated abroad ; and for his part he could not bring himself to look upon that result as a misfortune. In his opinion a better class of men would come from Rome than were now educated in Ireland. But still there would ha a breach of faith; and the hon. member who was fond of Scripture, should re member the commendation of "He that sweareth to his neighbour and disapeointeth him not, even although it be to his own hindrance" In its theological aspects, Popery reminded him of the story of the shield with two sides, but he quite agreed wi,h the hon. member for Warwickshire as to the mischief ,f the Maynooth examination. The nobleman who was at the bead of the commission proved himself utterly inceiable, and no sooner had he done so on every occasion on vhich he was employed than they made him a cabinet mini ter. (A. laugh.) It was an example of that sort of examiration by which the right man was ob tained for the righ place. The hon. member said that the doctrines of Pipery were unsafe, and he (Mr. Drum mond) granted thf position. He was not going to recant anything he had Hid in former debates. He would not let the People o f E ng l an d s u pp ose th ere h a d b een th e smallest cha nge i n any of t h e mos t a b om i na bl e t ene t s o f the Romish and he was surprised at hon. gentle men talking o f ti e difference b e t ween u lt ramon t ane an d cis-montane d oc t r h es, for there never was suc h a thi ng as a difference. It va s t r u e that certain bishops did set up a claim to what the3called an independent Gallican Church , but Rome nev er t oerate d i t f or a s i ng l e momen t. A great deal ha f been said i b ou t th e J esu its, but there was not a doctrine of the Curch of Rome, and all the harm he wished hon. gentle een opposite was to be obliged to read and study their owl books—for he had never met with a Roman Catholic tswhom they had been shown who was not horrified withthe tenets of his own church. Some thing had been s a l a b out supers titi on , b u t no one who know what w a s gcng on in the world could believe t hat the tendency o f ten ' s m i n d s was t owar d s s uperstition. The Piling that waicarrying a way the church and Protes tantism and ever m g in— else was German neology. The essential character s ti c o f th e church was to be found in this country in tho Church of Rome alone , and the oppo henta of that chune were denying that essential charac teristic, which wasthe presence of God in its priesthood and its sacram en t s Ho know no recogn ised church but which the Popish Church stood as a fa ithful witness to God for thos e t ru l is, and he would do a n y thin g rather than let that chute down. Mr. Sergeant SIIrE said the hon , gent leman who had just sat down seldomsp o k e without commanding and de serving the attent en o f t h e h o use. He had done so on the present occas i on and this was the second time in the , history of the wcr ld when a prop het, undertaking to curse the people of Goy had been obliged t o bless them— (laughter)--so obligq by i nsp i ra tion—(continued laughter) —from seine souse, o r other to pronounce the most do- cided possible judgment in their favour, and ho wished the hon. member no greater harm than what the former pro phet wished for himself, that ho might die the death of the righteous and that his last end might be like theirs. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) He did not believe that the proposition before the house had ever been fairly or fully met by those who were opposed to it—the proposi tion that it is unlawful for a Protestant le g islature to con tinuo endowments fur the education of the Catholic priest hood. Now, he proposed to meet that question fairly, and he would submit to the hon. member ( Mr. Spooner) this counter proposition : that it is not lawful, consis tently with his own principles, consistently with the prin ciples of any member of the Established Church of Eng land and Ireland, consistently with the principles of any member of any Christian established church, to withdraw the endowment which had been granted by Parliament to Maynooth. Those who were opposed on principle to all endowments for religious establishments might consistently and fairly vote for the motion ; but set ting aside that portion of the house, he did not see how any other members could conscientiously vote for the withdrawal of the endowment. It was a mat ter of religious obligation upon the house, as it was upon those who granted the endowm e nt, t o main tain it. The principle iat Church Establishments should exist in this country was a fundamental part of the consti tution. Such establishments existed in Englan 1, Scotland, Ireland, an 1 all the dominions of the British Crown. In some cases there might not be competent Church Esta blishments; bat a permanent endowment for the religious instruction of the people existed in all parts of the British dominions. To a certain extent the Maynooth endowment was a Church Establishment. One portion of a Church Establishment consisted of a provision fiir the education of the ministers of religion. Maynooth answered that pur pose, by affording instruction to those who must be pastors of the great majority of the Irish people. (Hear.) Now, if that was a Church Establishment, it must be tried by the test of civil utility. Did it produce that-civil utility, which was the onlyjustification of Church Establishments ? If it did, it ought not to be subverted until provision could be made capable of effecting the same civil utility, or until the laws had been for a length of time so just as to give the Irish people the means of producing the civil utility them selves. Now, had just and equal laws enabled the Roman Catholics to provide for the education of their own priest hood ? The very first act relating to Maynooth—that of 1795—recited, "that whereas by the laws now iu force it is not lawful to endow any college or seminary for the edu cation exclusively of persons professing the Roman Catho lie religion, and it has now become expedient that a semi nary should be established for that purpose ;" and then it provided that trustees should be empowered to receive sub scriptions and donations to purchase land not exceeding 1,0001. in value, and erect thereon buildings for the esta blishment of a college. And what has been done since that time? The act was amended from time to time, but in the last act (that of 1815) traces were to he found of restrictions upon the establishment of Roman Catholic colleges and institutions, which restrictions dii not apply to any other subjects of the Crown. That act author .sed the trustees to purchase land to the extent of 3,0001. in annual value. Now, there was no other establish ment in the kingdom limited to that revenue. Trinity Col lege, Dublin, had an annual revenue from land of 40,0,0/., and an annual revenue, including all sources, of 76,000/. The act of 1815 recited, " that wherever it is productive of inconvenience and insecurity that the said trustees can take no effectual grants of land for the purpose of the said college, it is expedient that the trustees shall be incorpo rated ;" and it then we n t on t o en ac t th a t the trustees of the Royal College of Maynooth shall be a body politic and corporate. It was therefore not until the year 1815 that a single Roman Catholic instituton in Ireland obtained that necessary facility for securing and increasing its founda tion and endowment—the security of a corporation. The position of tho Irish Roman Catholics differed very much from the position of the Church of England in that coun try. He would call their attention to the many institutions which had enjoyed the benefits of incorporation; they comprised all kinds of schools, hospitals, and infirmaries, together with archbishops, bishops, vicars, and . curates, of the Established Church. All these were connected withjthe Protestant Church—the church of a very small part of the population of Ireland, and yet this single incorporation, Maynooth, was grudged to the Roman Catholics. (Divide, divide.) He would also call their attention to the actual difficulties thrown in the way of the incorporation of insti tutions by Roman Catholics. Even after the foundation of Maynooth, the statute of Edward—the statute of supersti tious uses, which prevented gifts for Catholic purposes— was imported into Ireland by a theory that although that act did not actuallyextend to Ireland, yet it would be against public policy to permit gifts falling within the terms of the statute to be made in the sisterisland. And by the doctrine of Cypres, many gifts bestowed by the wills of Catholics for Catholic charities wore given to Protestant charities for the law finding a fund fixed for charitable purposes, which being Catholic, could not be carried out, administered that charitable fund as nearly as they could in accordance with the trust, by giving to a charity, but that charity one of the rival faith. Even so late as the time of Sir R. Peel's Govern ment an attempt was made to obtain the means of dot) applying bequests for Roman Catholic charities, but the reply to this was a statute of mortmaim This act was not so restrictive in its terms as the statute of George 11. The statute of George 11. exempted all the colleges of learn ing and grammar schools. They had not done the same, but far otherwise, with the Roman Catholics of Ireland. In every Roman Catholic diocese of Ireland there was a Roman Catholic seminary, in which the Catholic youth re ceived,their education, and not one of these seminaries was exempted from the restrictive clausesof the Charitable B ;quests Act. For the last fifty years the Roman Catho lics hael not enjoyed the same immunities in this respect as the Protestauts of England. (Divide.) But if they had not provided themselves with the means of endowing insti tutions for themselves, were they justified in withdrawing this grant on the ground that they hat provided institu tions for them ? That would indeed be an excuse. (In terrupt ion, and cries of " Divide ") Mr. E. BALL rose to order, observing that this was a sort of mockery. Mr. Sergeant SHEE said he was obliged to the hon. member for interfereing for his protection. (Laughter.) As the majority of the house were disposed to hear him— (cries of oh, oh)—he thought it right to speak on subjects which they ought to consider before they came to a vote. If the Protestant establishment fulfilled all the objects for which a religious establishment existed—disseminating piety and Christian knowledge—there might be some reason for withdrawing this grant. But how stood the fact? In the most Protestant province of Ireland—the province of Armagh—at the census of 1831 there was a population of 3,126,000. Out of that number there were only 517,030 members of the Established Church. There wereb3B,ooo Presbyterians, and 1,950,000 Roman Catholics. In the three other provinces there was a population of 4,817,000 persons, of whom only 331,000 were Episco palians. (Oh, oh.) They must be ashamed of it. It is impossible to look round the house, and not see the blush mantle on their cheeks. (Loud laughter.) If they withheld this endowment by whom were the children to be baptised? by whom was the sacrament of marriage to be solemnised, or the other holy ordinances? He had only one word more to say. (Loud cheers and laughter.) He was obliged to the house for that cheer. In the course of the discussion which took place on this subject last year it was stated that the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland had passed a resolution to the effect that they could do without this endowment. He was informed that that statement was a mistake, and that those prelates were of opinion that the endowment was, in fact, essential to the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. NE WDEGATE rose amid loud cries of " Oh, oh !" He had only to sweep away the fallacy of the hon. and learned member (Mr. Sergeant Shee), that the bill would sweep away the property of Maynooth. It would do nothing of the kind. All that it would do was to abolish the endowment. Without any similar endowment there were in this country eleven amply endowed and efficient Roman Catholic colleges. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON —Sir, I cannot refrain from ex pressing the pain I feel at the renewal of the discussions:to which the motion of the hon. member for North Warwick shire has led. (Hear.) It makes one fancy that we hare got back to the period when this house was the arena of con tentions between those who were advocating the removal of the disabilities of the Roman Catholics and those who considered that removal fatal to the constitution of the co'lntry. I had hoped, and we were told, that when Catholic emancipation was carried we should hear no more of these theological and religious discussions—(hear, hoar) —that we should know nothing of the religion of any member unless we followed him into his place of worship on a Sunday. I regret exceedingly that these anticipa tions have not been fulfilled, and that we are doomed to these annual and periodical returns of recriminating dis cussions on matters which ought to remain between each man and his own conscience —(hear, hear)—of which his neighbour has no right to judge—(hear, hear)—and on which a deliberative and legislative assembly ought not to be engaged. (Hear, hear.) I humbly submit to the hon. member for North Warwickshire that the main ground on which he founds his motion is irreconcilable with those principles which I consider he most tenaciously holds. The ground upon which he rests his motion is that no man should contribute towards the maintenance of a religion to which he does not subscribe. Why, sir, is the hon. member for North Warwickshire an advocate for an Established Church? I imagine that he is, and that no man in this house is more firmly its adhe rent. But does the hon. member for North Warwickshire —he being a Sincere and zealous Protestant—adhere to the principle of the exercise of private judgment, and that every man should form his religious opinions according to the doctrines he may hold ? If he does hold that prin ciple, does he believe that in a free country like this there can be identity of religious opinions, and that there should not be a great variety of religious sects? (Hear, hear.) Why, sir, the only manner in which the hon. member could reconcile his adherence to the Established Church with a principle that no man should coptribute to a reli gion he does not profess, is by an overruling and tyran nical pow,er to compel every man to belong to the Esta blishment, and not to allow any diversity of religious opinion. The doctrine of the hon. member is utterly in consistent with those fundamental principles which I am sure he, as a Protestant and friend of the Establish ment, must necessarily wish to maintain. My objection to the motion, sir, is, in the first place, that to abolish this endowmens and repeal the acts relating to the college would be a breach of faith towards th Irish nation. (Hear, hear.) It is perfectly true, as has been stated, that the Roman Catholic brethren are not dependent on this grant. No doubt the wealth of the Irish Catholics would enable them to erect other establishments for the same purpose, if this one were taken away. But that would be ma ungracious act towards the people of Ireland, indicating a want of sympathy with the feelings of the nation. It would be a breach of faith as connected with what passed at former periods; and on that ground, if on no other, I should resist the motion of the honour able gentleman. But I resist it also on broader grounds. I resist it on grounds connected with the in terests of the United Kingdom—with the interests of the British empire. The hon, gentleman has invited me to read all the books used in the course of instruction at May nooth. I certainly have no intention of accepting the challenge. (A. laugh.) But, for argument sake, I will admit there may be those things in these books which we might wish were not to be found there. But let me ask him whether, as regards the ordinary instruction of youth, there is nothing to bo found even in those classical hooks which are placed in the hands of youth—nothing to be found which some persons might not wish to be submitted to the eyes and instilled into the minds of the youth of the country? (Murmurs.) But, admitting that there may be in these books things which in point of doctrine and prin ciple are objectionzble, I have that confidence in the Irish people and in the Catholic priesthood of Ireland, that I do not fear those doctrines would impair their loyalty any more than the sarcasms of the hon. member for North War wickshire. Sir, the ground on which I call on this house to maintain this grant has regard to the interests of the United Kingdom. I hold that if this endowment were withdrawn, and the priesthood of Ireland should procure their education abroad, that it might be a worse education, but it would be a foreign education. (Hear, hear.) But I vent them to have an Irish education. (blear.) I may differ from them in all their religious teaching ; but i e is for the interest of this country that they should be edu cated at home, in order that they may be Irishmen in heart and in feeling. As long as they get that education, and re ceive their instruction in their native land, I am content to rely on their loyalty, and will never consent to repeal their endowment. (Cheers.) Mr. SPOONER, in reply, proceeded to answer two points raised in the speech of the noble lord. He held it to be a true Protestant principle to respect the right of private judgment. He would leave Roman Catholics full power to exercise their civil and religious sights, and he wou'd let them educate their own people. All he protested tte.ainst was, that, as there was an Established Church, the Government and Parliament of this country should foster and support a Church formed in exact opposition to that Protestant Church, and which the Roman Catholics said they should never be contented until they had destroyed. (FIG tr.) The noble lord talked of breach of faith. Why, there was the high authority of Sir Robert Peel and the noble lord the member for the City of London that no breach of faith was involved —that the endowment was a free gift, made with certain expectations, which had not been realised. (Hear, hear.) Mr. FORTESCUE, amid great manifestations of impa tience, moved the adjournment of the debate. (Cries of " No !" and " Divide !") Mr. MOORE saw no reason why the debate should be adjourned, except that some gentleinan'might apprehend the success of the motion, and some its defeat. The people of Ireland were prepared for either fortune, and he hoped the Government were so too. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON was prepared to go to a division; but at the same time if hon. members wished to adjourn the debate he would not object to their being gratified. (Cries of " No, no !" and " Go on.") The motion for the adjournment of the debate was put, but there being only a few cries of " Aye," it was nega tived without a division. The house then divided on the main question, when the numbers wero— For Mr. Spooner's motion Against it Majority against the motion - 8 The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers. 1857 IRISH GRAND JURIES. Mr. BOWYER obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the constitution of GrAnd Juries in Ireland. MEDICAL PROFESSION. Mr. HEADLA.M obtained leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the medical pro fession. CRIMEAN INQUIRY. Sir A. CAMPBELL rose to move an address for the copy of a letter from Sir John M`Noill, G.C.8., to Lord Pau mure, of the 9th Febru iry, 1856, respecting the services of Colonel Tulloch, and of any reply thereto. When the noble lord at the head of the Government was asked a question the other day with regard to a recognition of the services of the Crimean Commissioners his reply seemed to amount to this, that, not withstanding their efforts, which led to so many improvements in the condition of our soldiers at Sebastopol, they were, after all, unprofitable servants, and that they ought to be contented with the satisfaction which they must experience at what they had done. He had no wish to impugn so high an authority with reference to what was the standard of duty and the proper reward, but it appeared to him that there had been an omission in the distribution of rewards which almost amounted to a denial of service. He had not only to com plain that tho answer of the noble lord was unsatisfactory, but that what he did say came so tardily and reluctantly as to deprive his welds of half their force. No sort of commendation or approval of the labours of these commis sioners or their report had ever emaAated from the Govern ment that was not wrung from them by such questions as had been put the other night ; and of no spontaneous ap probation of their conduct could he recall any instance, unless it was that of Lord Panmure at a public dinner in Scotland. Now, ho understood that shortly after the publication of the report a communication was made by Sir J. M`Neill to Lord Panmure, in which he called at tention, not to his own services, for he had no desire and no expectation of any reward for himself, but to tho ser vices of Colonel Tulloch, to whom, it seemed, some ex pectations had been held out before his departure for the Crimea of promotion or employment in the army. He was not aware what reply was sent to that letter, and to ascertain this was the object of his present motion. If an answer was given it would be satisfactory to the house and the country to know what that answer was, and what reasons were given for not adopting the suggestion of Sir J. M`Neill. It could hardly be contended that the correspondence was private. He did not see why there should be any indisposition to produce the answer to the house. The Crimean Commissioners were selected by the Government ; they went out to the Crimea, as he was assured, with great reluctance ; they under took a most difficult and aiduous duty; they discharged that duty manfully and honestly; they investigated the causes of those disasters and horrors which had befallen the British army, and which excited so strong a feeling of in dignation in this country; they made suggestions which were in several instances adopted, and iu consequence of those suggestions the sufferings of the army were materially alleviated ; they returned to this country, and so far as he could ascertain, no notice had been taken of them on the part of her Majesty's Gos e nment. Even if Col. Tulloch was correct in supposing that a sort of promise of promo tion le 41 been held out to him, that reward to which, under such circumstances, he would have had a just claim was denied him. Now, the commissioners either did or did not discharge their duties faithfully. If the Government were of opinion that they had not properly discharged those duties, he thought it was only fair to them and to the people of this country that the points in whi.th they had ;ailed should be stated. If, on the other hand, they had fulfilled the expectations which were entertained of them if, despite the difficulties and obstacles they had had to encounter, they had successfully discharged the duty in trusted to them—if the result of their inquiries and report had been to ameliorate the condition of the army, and to point out to those who were at its head the dangers to be avoided in such a winter campaign as that of the Crimea, he thought they ought not on their return to have been re ceived in silence, or with cold and reluctaet approval, but that no meed of honour and no cordiality of approbation would have exceeded their deserts. (Hear, hear.) He begged to move an address to the Clown for a copy of a ldtter from Sir J. M`Neill, G.C.8., to Lord Panmure, of the 9th clay of February, 1856, respecting the services of Col. Tulloch, and of any reply thereto. Lord PALMEB,STON. -The hon. baronet has not done justice to her Majesty's Government in stating that no acknowledgment of tie services of Sir John M`Neill and Colonel Tulloch had been made beyond that which he says was tardily wrung from tnein, and which they were unable to withhold. I stated—not this session, but last session--in terms which I thought full and ample, the high sense her Majesty's Government entertained of the services of those officers. They performed a difficult and important tank with great credit to themselves, and with great advantage to the public service. With regard to the acknowledgment that should be made to them, we are still in communica tion with them on that subject. I must, however,object to the motion of the hon. baronet, and on these grounds. A letter was written by Sir J. M`Neill to Lord Panmure, lint from circumstances the only answer given to it was a private note from the private secretary of the noble lord, which was not, and was not intended to be, an official do cument. The hon. baronet asks for this correspondence, iu order to ascertain whether 6ir J. M`Neill recommended Col. Tulloch for military promotion, and what answer - was given to that recommendation. I am quite ready to give the hon. baronet as much information as to those two facts as he would possess if the papers were before him. Sir J. M`Neill did undoubtedly recommend Col. Tull. ch for pro motion, and her Majesty's Government did not think fit to adopt the recommendation. Their reason fur arriving at this conclusion was, as I stated on a former occasion, that the services performed by Col. Talloch were purely of a civil nature, and that military rank w as no t an appropriate a cknowledgment of civil services. Col. Tulloch had already attained the rank of colonel by merits of his Own, not in consequence of service ; and it was thought that it would not ha consistent with a due regard for the interests of the service to give hiFn the ran k o f ma j or-general for his ser vices in connection with the Crimean commission. Had we done so we must have placed him over the heads of several very distinguished officers who served in the field in the Crimea, and they would have had ground to com plain that this civil officer--for so I must call him with re gard to the service he performed—had been promoted over the heads of those who had been actually engaged in the field against the enemy. I give the hon. baronet the full benefit of the facts that Sir J. M`Neill did recommend Col. Tulloch for military promotion, and that we did not think it consistent with our duty that military rank should be given for such a description of service. The hon. ba ronet has stated that expectations were held out to Col. Tulloch that he would receive military promotion. I have no knowledge of such an intimation ; but, whether such expectations were held out or not, I think it would have been improper to make Col. Tulloch a major-general for the performance of civil duties, however well he may have performed those duties, and however valuable his services may have been. Mr. S. HERBERT thought there was some misappre hension on the part of his noble friend with regard to the past services of Colonel Tulloch. The noble lord seemed to say that Colonel Tulloch had already received such pro motion that he could not now be further advanced, and that that officer had never seen service in the field. Th e fact was, however, that Colonel Tulloch had served in the Burmese war, where he greatly distinguished himself. Colonel Tulloch subsequently rose by his merits, and had rendered very efficient services to the public. With re spect to the reward that might bo given to Col. Tulloch for the discharge of his difficult duty in the Crimea, which had undoubtedly been attended with great advantage to the army, he (Mr. Herbert) would say notbieg, because the noble lord had informed the house that the Govern ment were in communication with Sir J. M`Neill and Col. Tulloch on that subject. He would therefore only express his hope that these officers would receive some suitable acknowledgment for the services they had rendered. General CODItINGTON was understood to express his opinion that if Colonel Tulloch had been promoted to the rank of major-general for services performed in a civil capacity, many officers who had commanded battalions throughout the siege of Sebastopol, and who had not re ceived such promotion, would have had grounds for dissa tisfaction. Sir A. CAMPBELL said, after the statement of the noble lord, he would not press his motion. The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn. On the motion of Col. DUNNE the following members were appointed the Select Committee on Contracts for Go vernment Departments :—Col. Dunne, 'Mr. Muntz, Mr. Peel, Captain Laffan, Sir C. Napier, Mr. Thomas Mitchell, Mr. Moffatt, Mr. 'Cite, Mr. Ot way, Mr. Stafford, Colonel Boldero, Mr. Corry, Mr. Liddell, Colonel Gilpin, Mr. L. Davies, and Colonel Lindsay. COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND). Mr. WHITESIDE obtained leave to bring in a bill for seeming the titles of purchasers of estates sold under the Court of Chancery in Ireland. Also, a bid to make provi sion for the appoiutment of registrars to the Masters of the Court, of Chancery in Ireland ; also for the safe custody of title-deeds and documents lodged in the:said court, and to amend the practice in certain particulars. _ me • The bills were brought in and road a first_ta . CHIEF CONSTABLES BIL L. At the request of Sir W. JOLLIFFE, fur ther arrangements should be made with reference to super- Sir G. GREY promised to co a n t si t d h e e r sa w m h e a rs h om e lua r grhy s t. o raineaiidannuations. The bill was read a third time and passed. ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT. Mr. W EIITESIDE renewed his motion for ruiefdtgvueor.nsssi,bwleh2ctho stood over from yesterday, with respect to the removal of obviate e n: h e e b anredcse,ssdeclaring appointingh is ob object cat third r b d e j , Mr. lIORSMAN said the hon. and learned gentleman was too late. A third commissioner had been appointed. Mr. WHITESIDE thought it very sudden. Was he appointedjur.oitatstmhAe Nsamsaeids—alarryes?; The b e Ministern ti on fso,r Moneythe re t(tyrretisawn (Ireland) Billa! elvdastob. read a first tittle. The house aOjourned at 20 minutes past 1 o'clock. Sporting Intelligence. TATTERSALL'S.—THMISDAY. The room was very thinly attended, and only the fol lowing bets were made :—Liverpool Steeplechase-80 to 10 agst Minos. Northamptonshire Stakes-8 to 1 each agst Skirmisher and Adamas to 251. (The odds well/ taken freely about Skirmisher, and afterwards offered agst Adamas.) Derby-1,000 to 35 agst Kent. LINCOLN SPRING MEETING.—THUESDAT. The Two yr-old Selling Stakes of 5 soya each, with 2 5 added. Straight run in, nearly half a mile. 4 subs. Mr. Taylor's Woodmite, by Collingwood (300, 7st 61b (Esling) 1 Mr. J. Osborne's Marley by Vatican, (501.), Bst 21b (Challoner) 2 Mr. W. King's Negro (301.), 7st 10:b (W, Hull) 3 Betting—Even on Marley. Woodmite jumped off in front, made all the running, and won by half a length. Negro was beaten two lengths from Marley. The winner was sold for 31 guineas. The Lincoln Spring Handicap Stakes of 5 sous each, 3 ft, with 50 added. Certain winners extra. The second t 3 save his stake. One mile. 33 subs. Mr. Mellish's Huntington, 3 yrs, sst 131 b (W. Grimmer) 1 Mr. Saxon's Tom Thumb, 4 yrs, Est 111 b (Dale,) Mr. Ram-ay's Toe Early Bird, 5 yrs, B,t 121 b (MidgleY) 3 The following also ran :—Little Tum, Cardsharper , Alcyone, British Remedy, Old Stringhaults, Gazehoun' l , Polly, Passion Flower, Lady Malcolm, Wm* balls, Madame Palissy, Young Pompey. Betting-7 to 2 agst British Remedy, sto 1 aget Early Bird, 7 to 1 agst Walhalla, 8 to 1 agst Torn Thumb, 10 to 1 agst Cardsharper, 12 to 1 each agst Alcyone, Lady Malcolm, Little Toro, and Huntington. British Remedy made the running with Huntington , well laid up to the last turn, where she dropped back, and Huntington took the lead and won by half a length. Early Bird, who got badly off, was beaten about the same distance from Tom Thumb. Walhalla was a good I.urth, Cardsharper, Alcyone, and British Remedy were next. Polly headed the last lot. The winner was admirably ridden by young Grimmer' a very promising light weight in Stebbings' stable. The Scurry Stakes, of 3 soya each, with 20 added. The second to save his stake. The straight run in, nearly half a mile. 15 subs. Mr. Cliff's Jack th e Gi an t Kill er , 7 s t 21b (L . S now den) 1 Mr. Jackson's Remedy, 3 yrs, 7st 41b (Challoner) Mr. J. Giltiy's Ella, 3 yrs, Est 61b Mr. Morris's Admiral Lyons, 3 y rs , (W. Grimmer) 4 The following also ran :—Sir Richard, Sq u i re Watt , Usurer, Fashion, Blueskin, Gamester, Lady Malcolm , Passion Flower, Queen of the Isle. 6st ( 6 F ih osdhaeu) 3 Betting-5 to 2 agst Ella, 4to 1 agat Gamester, sto 1 agst Jack the Giant Killer, 6 to 1 agst L a dy M 3001019 7 to 1 aget Remedy, 10 to 1 agst Admiral Lyons. The start was considerably delayed by the fractioUP Bess of E la. The four placed lay in front through" / ' Jack the Giant Killer getting away with a slight leadt which he maint a i ne d t o t h e en d , w i nn i ng c l ever l y by " length, the sam e di s . ance b etween the second an d third; a head between the thi r d an d f ourt h ; U surer G a mester' Lady Malcolm, Fashion, an d S qu i re W att i n t h e o rder named, formed the next lot. The Handicap Hurdle Race of 5 so y a , eac h, w ith 3 5 added. The winner of any Hurdl e R ace , a f te r the weights were published, 71b. ; o f t wo , 101 b. e xtXP Two miles, over six flights of hurdles. 14 subs. Mr. P. Barling' s Nich o l as , 6 y rs , 9 st ... (G, E a twell) Mr. B. Land's Weathercock, 6 yrs, lOst 51b (B. Land, jun.) Mr. R. Shroed e r's Old St r i ng h an it s ,agedO at 41b (IWLeab) The following also ran :—Sir Rich ar d, T o m Perkibh Newbold, Coleshill, St, Julian, and Cripple. Betting-6 t 5 on Weathercock, 3to 1 agst Col °. hill, 6 to 1 ags o t agst Cripple, 6 to 1 agst Old Stria haults, 10 to 1 agat Nicholas. not Nicholas took the lead at the first hurdles, was afterwards caught, and wen cleverly by a length-- 4e a bad third. Newbold was fourth, Sir Richard fifth, 0 ,, Torn Perkins sixth. St. Julian struck into Old Strine(i haults' shoulder on taking the hurdles opposite the etA u n , and fell, and Cripple cannoned a ga i ns t St. Joi:„o,d, bringing him down, Ke n d a ll and P a l mer b e i ng unAel"" Coleshill, in following, blundered over Cripple and thre r Weaver, who was much i n ju re d. K en d a ll and P alm were unhurt. LATEST BETTING. LIVERPOOL STEEPLECHASE. 10 to 1 agst Emigrant 12 to 1 agst Hopeless Star 12 to 1 agst Omer Pasha 500 to 30 agst Teddesley ke ° Before the Handicap Hurdle Race 12 to 1 Was ta e l about Weath-ircock. After the race 20 to 1 was offer s against him. DERRY. 30 to 1 agst Glenmasson DONCASTER SPRING MEETING, MABCg Acceptances for the Doncaster Spring Handicap. no Leger Course. (50 subs, 22 of whom declared.) ,' 6O highest weight accepting being Bst 11b., it WO D e raised to Bat and the others in propirtion. weights were published on th e 9th o f February, * nine o'clock in the morning. Age at lb Art illery Forbidden Fruit, 4 8 10 Mary 5 8 7 Poodle Pantomime Vandal Merlin Reveillee Bolton Courtenay 5 7 11 Cossey Greencastle Lawn 4 7 9 Miss Harkaway 4 7 7 Age F t i t Little Nell (h b) 4 7 4 Night Hawk 4 7 The Martlet 4 6 1 .; Odd Trick 3 6 11 St. Gd 3es ° 1 4 Norton 4 Et England's Beauty 3 - Leo 6 V erona Charles O'Malley 3 6 Special Licence 3 6 1 Codrington 3 6 13 Mysterious Jack 3 5 5 11 Pizzaro Country Markets. DERBY SMITHFIELD.—FEB. 17. Our market was well supplied with fat beasts to-011°. from the North o f E ng l an d, Li verpoo l , our own and oatl jacent counties ; th e num b er o f b uyers was large, ,joa most of the animals w ere di s p ose d o f without reduc;o3, of prices. The s upply o f s h eep was also large and gtioa Fat and store calv es on th e i ncrease, without any altersoo, in price. The supply o f f a t p i gs was a full averag e principally Irish. a 60d; The following w ere th e quo t a ti ons t—Beef, 68 -L a per mutton, 74d to Sd ; l am b, —d t o Od ; vea l , 7d to to 0 1 lb. ; pigs, lOs 6d t o 11 9 Od per score; rough fa t , 6 5 5i 60 per 141 b.; hides, 4ld to 64d per lb ; calf-skins, 4jd 1 0 par lb. BOSTON—FEB. 18. 11 01 We had a fair supply of wh ea t, th e d ema nd for w,.. 0 , 0 ruled exceedingly heavy, at prices barely equal to ;f e s of last week, whilst t o effect sales of ordinary clii i " i s je, lower rates were submitt e d t o . Sp r i ng corn a slow!' at about previous rates. ; Prices :—Wheat, red, 44s Od to 56s Od ; new, --s to 4 7 ' white, 555 Od to 53 s Od; ex t ra , 61 s . B ar l e y, 38s Od "" 33S Od. Oats 18s to 255. Peas, 36s to 43s Od. Od to 46s Od per qr. NEWARK—FED. 18. A At our corn exchange to-day we had good suppll 6. , grain of all descriptions, and a good attendance of farrie r " at about last week's rates. g Wheat, white 6Js to 66s ' red 58s to 6 ) 5 ; b ar l ey , te1 , ,, 1 - tio , h t 44s to 48s, grinding 33s to 40s; oats, 24st. 30 6 t o 345, 'lo s ' 34s to 37s ; beans, 50s to 52 s ; ma l t, 76s to 80s ; pale'- to 42s ; tares, 50s to 54s per qr. LOUTH—FEB. 18. The corn ma r k e t was dull to-day, and wheat Was ! le t th o a e lower, ex ce pt f or the best sample,s,_ the greater W ag of offer bein g muc h out of condition: For other kin• grain last week's prices were realised. Inferior kinds di cult to sell. ao Wheat, 18s to 53 s ; ex t ra , 56 3; b ar l ey 43 s t o 463; 23s to 275; beans, 40s to 455. EDINBURGH GRAIN.—FEs. 18. bei Large supplies of grain to-d a y. S a l es were beavT, prices much better, with the exception of barley. la 01 Wheat, on the top, 5s Od up, and on the average the up. Barley, 2s up on the top, and is 6d down 00 average. Oats on the top Os Gd up—on the aver sg e is 3.1 up. Beans on the top 2s up, and on the aver" 2s 4d up. D W o h . e newat AVERAGES . A n 6TE R6 - .l2th. Barley 1 16 3 11-12ths. .... .......... ....0 0 0 0-12th. ........ Q Oats 1 7 3 11-12ths. Beans BIRT a s. OP A MI. On the 1 8 th inst., at 1 , Craven-hill, H y d e - par k, tke rife of William Carr, Esq. On the 18th inst., tho wife of F. Le Gros Clark, of Spring-gardens, and Leo, Kent. OP A DAUGHTER. f • Richard Durant, E s o On the 19th inst. at High Canons, Harts, the wl f . On the 17th inst.,q at Nethway House, Devonshire, 412 e wife of John Brooking, Esq. MARRIED. the.On the 19th lust , at St. Stephe n 's, C o leman's t he August E m il Clemens. Scheidel, Esq ,of Frankfort -0 ' t bs Maine, and W atling -street, London, to Mathildaw e i eldest d aug h ter of Charles James Fox, Esq., ° House, City-road. srP On the 19th inat. at the parish church of St. t o g., Stoke Newington diddlesex, Thomas Andrew, jun. , to Har r i o t Bentley, daughter of Charles Guest Parker, of the Albion -road, Stoke Newington. DIED. ar.l of On the 18th inst., at Bridgewater House, the E llesmere, ic.G , aged 57. nor/ On th e 18th inst., at Now Romney, Kent, Johniirs— Es Oq., th aged 83. st a e 18th inst., George Harrington, Esq., of 24 . 1 3113° Cuckfield. On the 17th inst., at Bockleton, Worcestershire, t he Rev. Thomas Elton Miller, aed 74. On the 17th inst., at Boldo g n, the Rev. John Collinso°' aged 76. ill Charles Bl ac hl e y, R o y a l H orse A r tillery, aged 70. On the 16th inst., at Ba nwe ll, Somerset, Major-Gen°_..........0, LONDON : Printed and Published by WIRD() Y0115.:' of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the coup 11 of Middlesex, Friday, February 20, 1657.