The Press.
London, England, 1853-06-04 00:00:00

100

Vrottebings in arlianunt.

AFFAIIIS tit' TURKEY
The Earl of liAnnwicxE, in inquiring, on Monday,
of the Government whether any instructions had
been sent out to Admiral Dundas to sail with the
Mediterranean fleet to the Bosphorus, and, if so, on
what day he was expeeted to depart from Malta, en-
tered into some computations which showed the im-
portance of hours in the present critical state of
affairs in Turkey. Prince Menschikutf, according to
the last intelligence, had finally broken off his cont.
utunications with the Porte on the .22nd of May..
Counting up the days required by his courier, if des-
patched that same day, to reach St. Petersburg, for
the consequent orders to be sent back to the Russian
fleet at Sebastinopol, and for the transit of that fleet
thence to !onstantmople, under average circumstances
of wind and weather, the noble earl arrived at the
result that the hostile force could make its appear-
ance otr the Golden Horn by the 12th of June. The
English Government, having the use of telegraphic
communications, might, on the other hand, have
transmittatl orders on Saturday, when the news first
arrived, which Admiral Pinatas could receive on the
following Wednesday, and, with ordinary diligence
and tact, bring his squadron on the scone of contest.
by the 10th, or two days prior to the computed ar-
rival of the Russian forces.
The Earl of Cl.,taKsoox remarked that the tines •
Lion before hint amounted to this, whether any orders
had been sent to Admiral Dandles to proceed from
Malta to the Dardanelles. Now, he was quite sure,
after what had occurred in the house only on the
previous Friday night, when their lordships seamed
concur in the propriety of her Majesty's Govern
meat not giving any explanations on a matter in
which they were imperfectly intOrmed,—he was sure
Unit they would still more concur in the propriety of
his declining altogether to state what orders had
been Riven. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Disraeli, in the House of Commons, having
made a similar inquiry, Lord Joas ltvssELL, in like
manner, declined to give any information on the
subject; adding, that, if notice of a formal motion
should be duly given, the Government would hold
itself ready to defend the course they might have
taken.
THE JUDUES' EXCLUSION BILL.
This bill, which was introduced by Lord llotn.vm,
declares the Master of the Rolls, and some other
judicial functionaries, ineligible for seats in the
House of Commons. It stood for a third reading on
Wednesday, when
Mr. H. DueumuND moved that the hill be read a
third time that day six mouths. lie wished to see a
greater infusion of learning and learned men in the
house, instead of dispensing with what they had, and
would' gladly enlarge the number of representatives
granted to collegiate bodies, as well as grant repre-
sentation to the inns of court and other learned
localities and institutions.
Mr. 31A(•tmetv supported this amendment with
pleasure and confidence. History taught us that
successive Masters of the Rolls had held seats in
that. house for six hundred years, and had recorded
the names and the services of a multitude of distin-
guished men amongst them, but had left. no trace of
a single injury or disadvantage sustained through
their being members of Pa.liament. Nor was it pre-
tended that any one of them had discharged his
judicial duties less efficiently in consequence. Thus
far facts went.. As for arguments, they seemed
wholly based upon the dictum of Lord Hallam, that
nothing was so hateful as a political judge. "If," said
Mr. Macaulay, "1 adopt. this principle of the noble
lorJ,—
" I must pr ttttt mop this hill the most wretelted and
pitiable reform that Was ever produeetl—tlw most hotno•o-
-pail& dose that ever glutei: proposed for the widest-spread
malady. I Hear, hear, hear.) For if he considers the nature
of the political and jitdivial institutions of this country, he
will Mal the political and judicial character so combined,
so interwoven from the top to the bottom of our system,
that the reform he proposes to make will lie only an infini-
tesimal change when compared with the system he proposes
to amend. (Cheers.) It has been asked, with great justice,
if the Master of the Rolls is to be excluded, why not the
Recorder of London? L should lie extremely sorry to see
the Recorder of London excluded from this house; but I
must say that the reason for excluding him is ten times as
swing as that for excluding the Master of the Rolls. But,
to go still further. why not ell recorders, and all chairmen
of quartersessions? I will venture to any that there arc
reasons for excluding chairmen of quarter
for excluding the Master of the Rolls. Yet
Or fifty of these jukes to be members of
assembly, but would exclude a judge whose
such that, since the time of Edward 1., nei-
,r any of his predecessors have been accused
ealunnty, or have ever been suspected. of using
• power for political ends. You turn them
forsooth, you say you hate political:m.ll4es.-
' was even stronger than this. Ln ann-
. assembly, so far from declaring men
judicial functions ineligible, there were
vitations given to them, and seats accorded

THE PRESS.

to men merely because, in legal gradation, they
had attained the rank of judges :—.
"Is not the House of Lords a political assembly ? Aud
is it not notoriously the fact that for several centuries
judges have always had considerable sway, nay, that they
have very often had a decided ascendancy in that house ?
Is it net perfectly notorious that Lord Hardt% ickei—it great
judge—long ruled that house?—that he bequeathed that
power to another judge, Lord Mansfield; mid that when
his energy eleeitycil the power petard to a third judge—
Lord Thttrlow ? We many of us can remember how power-
ful u Is,iitical influence Lure! Eldon exercised in that house
—how 1w made and unmade Ministries—with what vene-
ration, approaching to idolatry, he was regarded by one
great party in this eountry—with what peculiar aversion
by the other. When Lord Eldon's long domination ceases!,
other great judges, both Whig and Tory, Were contending
there. And yet this exciting and important arena the
wade lord, who hates political judges. is perfectly willing
to leave open to the Master of the Rolls. His objection is.
not to the union of the political and judicial functions, but
simply to the union of the judicial character with that of a
member of the House 111 Commons. War.) The Master
of the Relies may be—the noble lord has not the least objec-
tion to it—the soul of a great party—the head of it great
party—the leader of a ilemocravy—the leader of an aristo-
emey—he may use all his powers of rhetoric and sophistry
to inflame the passions and mislead the understandings of
the senate : but it must not be in this room ; he must go
a few I had feet from where we are assembled ;he must
sit on a red bench and not on a green one; he must say
my lords' and not ' Mr. Speaker; and then the noble lord
is perfectly willing to allow him to form part of a political
assembly. (('hemp.)"
Even thus, proceeded Mr. Macaulay, he was un-
derstating the case. Not merely were there judges in
that political assembly, the House of Lords, but every
member of that house was de facto a judge. The
supreme court of the country was a political
assembly :
" bi it. not perfectly clear that if the principle of the
noble lord was sound he should begin, not with the Master
of the Rolla, but with the House of Lords? For can any
position be clearer than this, that it is more important that
the court above should be constituted on right principles
than the court below? If the Master of the Rolls goes
wrong, the House of Lords may correct him ; but who is to
correct the errors of the House of Lords? (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord is perfectly content that their lordships
shall, in the morning, sit as judges upon those questions on
which depend the liberties and the property and the cha-
racter of every man amongst us, the Master of the Rolls
amongst them ; and that then in the afternoon the same
lords shall meet as politicians, shall attack each other
sometimes pretty sharply, and shall debate the question of
the Canadian clergy reserves, of Irish education, of the
Government of India—and to all this the noble lord says
he has no objection whatever. Here, then, you have it
judicial system in which the exercise of political functions
is combined with the judicature both above and below. If
we pass this bill it will probably be taken to the House of
Lords by men who have judicial functions, and will there
be taken out of their hands by the Lord Chancellor, who is
a Cabinet Minister, and at the same time the highest
judge in the realm—end this mummery wecall ' purifying
the administration of justice' (Cheers.)"
As far as it went the bill tended to degrade the
Commons' and exalt the Upper House. If the prin-
ciple were carried out consistently, every man who
held place or function must be removed from the
House of Commons, so that in the end the Lords
would concentrate all there was of official re ponsi-
Why or personal talent, would conduct the business
of the country, and assist in the great conflicts of
party, leaving the popular representatives to attend
to turnpike roads and canal btlis. The measure was
also supported upon the principle of the division of
labour. Mr. Macaulay dissected that argument :
" It is said that the duties of a Master of the Rolls us a
judge are hardly compatible with the duties of a member
of Parliament.; it is said he is paid by the public, and the
public require his whole time ; it is said, let us enforce the
division of labour, and let us not permit his time to be
wasted on anything, but oblige him to devote it to that to
which it more particularly belongs. If this be on argu-
ment, it is an argument for keeping judges out of the
House of Lords, as well as out of the House of Commons ;
but I deny it is useful for such purpose whatever. ( Hear,
hear.) I say the principle of the division of labour is one
of great value and importance, but one that may be most
easily abused. You can carry it out in matters that are
towel), mechanical, but you may easily carry it too far when
you come to higher operations. ( liter. hear.) I do not
believe that Miehael Angelo would have been a greater
painter if he had not been a sculptor ; or that Sir Isaac
Newton would have been a greater philosopher if he had
not been a mathematician. (Cheers.) Ido not believe
that a man would be a greater lawgiver because he' was
not a great judge; on the contrary, I think that between
the ditties of a legislator and those of a judge there is as
Anse a conniption as between anatomy and surgery.
(('heers.) I will refer to an authority that the hononrable
member for Meuntrose probably rates more highly than I
do—Mr. Bentham. Of Mr. Bentham as a moralist or a
inetaphyaieian alone I have no very high opinion; but I
look upon him as one of the greatest writers on the judicial
organisation that ever lived. (('heers.) I tind in his
celebrated work on judicial organisation an article in
which he dwells on the exceeding evil of plurality in oftle. :
he strongly objects to suffering a judge to be anything but
a judge, with one single exe...ption : A judge,' he says,
ought to be permitted to se: ,•epresentative assembly
that legislates for the commonwealth. tlir the very best

SATURDAY,

school for a great legislator is the judicial bench.' (Hear,
hear. )"
Adverting to one other plea that had been set up in
support of the measure, namely, that the process of
election was accompanied with circumstances which
no judge ought to encounter, as they soiled the judi-
cial ermine, Mr. Macaulay asked
" Are we prepared to say that no person can conic into
the House of Commons except by means that are incon-
sistent with the gravity and dignity of the judicial bench
If so, it well becomes us to set our house in order. (Hear,
hear.) How can any country long prosper. if that assembly
on which all its dearest interests depend—which by a sin-
gle vote ciut change its government, and give a new direc-
tion to its whole policy, domestic, commercial, colonial,
financial—can only be entered by means which must lower
its charaeter? But it is not so. In what measure did Sir
William Scott lower his character by coming into this
house? In what way did Sir John Copeley lower his chit-
meter by coming into this house as a member for the Uni.
versity of Cambridge ? But it is not necessary to speak of
universities; it would be most unjust and unfair not to say
that delicacy and liberality of aentimeut that would du
honour to any university may be found among the 101.
householders of a great city. (( lierrx.)"
Alluding then to the inconveniences and absurdities
which arose out of the existing disabilities of certain
public functionaries, and even some Cabinet. Ministers,
to hold seats in the Commons, and which he trusted
would be removed by a new Reform Bill, Mr. Ma.
caulay finally admitted that some exception must be
taken to his doctrine, that judges were fit and proper
persons for members of that house. He showed the
reason why :
" Any judge who is properly elected should be admitted
into the house, except there is some plain reason why that
judge should not conic in here. There is a reason, I ad-
mit, against the admission into this house of the fifteen
judges ; because they are occasionally summoned by the
House of Lords to assist them—they have a place in the
House of Lords—and, if you mean that the House of
Lords should continue to be the chief court of error, their
sitting in it is absolutely necessary. (Hear, hear.) It
would be impossible to continue the House of Lords as a
great court of error unless they are assisted by the fifteen
judges ; those judges have, consequently, seats in it, and
there von must leave them, for it would be inconsistent
with the privileges and dignity of this house to have any
member who was at the beck aril call of the other house.
The same rule applies to the Scotch judges, and the Irish
judges are excluded for the obvious reason that they could
not discharge their duty if elected in this country. But
certainly I would leave the door of this house open to the
Master of the Rolls ; I would throw the door open again to
the Judge of the Admiralty, who was most absurdly ex-
cluded; I would suffer those eminent judges who are
kept out of the house, not by any particular act, but
merely b: the operation of the old act of Amie—
the Lords Justices and the Vice-Chancellors—to sit in this
house, if they could get constituent bodies to elect them.
1 am perfectly certain that in that way we should add to the
credit of this great representative assembly—with the credit
of which the credit of representative governments all over
the world is intimately bound up—and render our own
body far more efficient for the discharge of our duties.
(Cheers.)"
On a division the bill was thrown out by a majority
of 221 to 123-101.
ALTERATION OF OATHS BILL.
The second reading of this measure, whose object
he described to be " simply to strike out of the oaths
which parties were required to take as qualifications
for seats in Parliament, and for holding certain offices,
such parts as were inoperative, idle, or absurd," was
moved on Tuesday by
Lord LYNDHURST, who dissected the language and
meaning of the three oaths at present exacted, those,
namely, of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, in
order to show the effect of his proposed bill upon
each of them. With the first he had no intention of
meddling ; its import was obvious, and it embraced
the whole duty of the subject towards the Sovereign.
The second, the oath of supremacy, was eNitlentV
directed solely against the Roman Catholics, and yet
was required only from Protestants; it was passed at
a time when the Catholic body had no social or po-
litical rights, and even hardly a recognised existence
in England, and it was still maintained, though they
were now, to all practical purposes, on an equality
with the Protestants. This oath, therefore, laboured
under the double absurdity of being in force only as
regarded those to whom it was never intended to
apply, and of setting forth a declaration which was at
the present moment untrue. It had been repealed
with respect to the Catholics ; and its affirmation that
the Pope had no spiritual authority in the realm
could not cohere with the tolerance of the Catholic
faith, which rested solely upon the Papal supremacy in
spiritual affairs. He proposed, therefore, to abrogate
this oath entirely. With regard to the oath of ab-
juration, lie urged that the extinction of the Stuart
dynasty had rendered all the clauses in that oath
relating to them, and abjuring their right and title.
altogether vain and frivolous ; it was making an in-
deeent mockery of a solemn rite to continue to use
them. those portions of the oath he proposed,
therefore, to cancel, retaining only the sentences
relating to the succession to the Crown, as fixed by
the Act of Settlement. This he considered amply
sufficient to secure the Protestantism of the t.kae-

1

111 110:0-wr 7.1,7111
lunch stronger
acasiotta than fi
volt allow• forty
this political t
functions are
th •1• he nor
rit. 11 Ly cahut
tll •lr judicial
Olt hccause, tO
lint the case
tit •r llolitirnl
exercising. •jt
special ita
'
I

JUNE 4, 1853.

reign through all future tunes. Alluding then to the
rumours that his bill was designed to admit Jews to
Parliament by its indirect operation, Lord Lyndhurst
declared himself compelled, reluctantly. to retain the
words "on the true faith of a Christian" in his
amended formulary :-
- In the first place, I should not feel tayself justified in
a:tempting to do by a sidewind what 1 conid not do openly.
(11.14 e, hear.) Ala us Ido not wish in any wry to alter
the class of persons who are to ether that house, I should
pr.pose to strike out those general words in committee.
and to confine the Lill, its now, to Quakers only odfirming
in the ma iiiii er described by the net. I have been asked
to strike out the words 'on the true faith of a Christian.'
My answer to this has been 1001111t1I41 respect the
decision of this house. I cannot strike tins those words,
beesnse, if I strike them out, there is no chance of any
passing this bill. I yield to necessity on this tKwasion ;
ut
the same time 1 must be allowed to say, having voted in
the minority upon the deeisiont to which I have just
referied, that iu yielding to this necessity it is against my
own convictions. (liter, hear.) 1 say, that it is utterly
ttujitst to exclude the Jews. against. the principle of the
constitution. I say, no British subjeet, Ito natural-horn
st6eet of the Queen, ought to Ike deprived of the rights
enjoyed by his fellow-subjects, ndess he has committed
some crime, or unless he is excluded by some act of Partite
meat directed against him or against the Blass to which
he belongs. ( Hear. hear.) That is the true principle of
the constitution, and. such being the case, these persons
can only rightly be excluded by the concurrent voice of the
two Houses of Parliament kind with the assent of the
Crown. If you exclude them by the casual operation of a
Anise which was never directed against them (me it
the plass to which they belong, you unjustly deprive them
of their birthright. I say, then, my lords. that it' I retain
these words the true faith of a Christian' in my bill,
I retain them entirely es neeo,itate, and as entirely against
my decided conviction on the subject."
Tho Earl of DERBY had no opposition to offer to
the principle of the bill. He admitted that in the
three oaths there were many things it might lie de-
sirable to amend, and others which might be re-
trenched as mere surplusage ; but he would not
pledge himself to adopt the alterations suggested by
Lord Lyndhurst. whose new version he found many
causes to disapprove. Recollecting, however, the cir-
cumstances under which the bill had been intro-
duced—the expectations to which it had given rise,
and which Lord John Russell himself had apparently
shared with regard to its possib effect i admitting
Jews to Parliament—he looked upon its with very
grave suspicion :
He felt quite certain that his noble and leamed friend
had no intention of reversing the decision to which their
lordships hail come on the subject of the admission of the
Jews to Parliament, for that question had been most so-
lemnly disenssed, and decided by a considerable majority
/Pao%) His noble and learned friend said he ivtaitied
iu
this bill the words which excluded the .lews, But he put this
to his noble and learned friend. This Lill was introduced
now on the last day of May. The House of Commons had
Leen so overwhelmed with the amount of financial bolsi-
itess that they had made very little progress with many
other important subjects of legislation. Now, he wanted
to know this, what security had they that, supposing their
Lordships pissed the bill, and it went to the House of Com-
mons worded as his noble friend proposed it. should he,
it would not Le amended there by the omission of these
significant words, and then not remitted to their lordships
t'or their assent till the end of July or the commencement
of August, when very few of them would still be in their
Olives. (Hear, lace,'.)"
He called, therefore, on the Government, as a reason-
able assurance against the possible perversion that
might be given to the effect of the bill, to pledge
themselves to resist in both houses every amend-
ment which might have the consequence of revers-
ing by a sidewind the decision lately pronounced in
that house.
The Earl of ABERDEEN, after characterising the
speech of Lord Lyndhurst as a triumph of good
sense, and to whose
.convincing arguments he felt it
superfluous to add a word, proceeded to decline
giving the pledge required by Lord Derby 7-
With regard to that suggestion, I must any it is one of
the most unusual description, late I never recollect hearing
made in this house before, dud one to which it would be
impossible for me to secede. (llear, hear.) I do) not wish
to interfere with the progress and success of a measure so
manifestly consistent with reason and common sense us is
the Lill proposed by the noble and learned lord, and I shall
therefore sbstuin entirely front interfering with any of the
provisions of the bill. Stich will be' the comae of the Coo-
vernment ; but then. as to what may he the consequences
if amendments should take pine.• in the House of Com-
mons, I must unquestionably decline to give any pledge
with regard to the course which the tiovemment may think
it their duty to take. ( Hear, hear.) 1 think it most in.
reasonable that any noble earl should expect us to fetter
our discretion in such a way. Why is the noble earl who
talks of inability to meet such amendments as may be
made unable to exercise the same power in opposing the
amendments as he exercised in opposing the bill which was
rejected by hint and his noble friend.? At all events, he has
the power—which loss been used more than once—of en-
forcing a majority by means of proxies Only the other
night the noble earl bad a greater number of proxies exer-
cised on his side of the house than were exercised by the
Government. It' his friends find it inconvenient towards
the close of the session to attend to their duties in this
house, they eau thou again have recourse to the same

THE PRESS.

means. 1 can say no more than this, that I&t in'. to give
any pledge or to fetter my diseretion in dealing with any
amendments that Made in the bill of my 'whit and
learned friend."
After some further debate the bill was tidlOWM to
pass the second reading without a di% isioti.
The MU tanning on again on Thursday, upon the
motion for committal,
The Fowl of ELLENuonovon considered any further
progress with the measure inexpedient. Ile did not
approve of the present tenor of the parliamentary
oaths, thinking many of the expressions %ague and
others idle. But he feared that if this bill went down
to the Commons it would stimulate new attempts to
introduce the question of the dews' admissibility to
Parliament, and he thought they had hail enough of
that controversy for the present
For himself, he should be most willing that the oath
should commence with the words, ' L Sittt.Bl' till 11le trite
faith of a Chritailui, in order that the Christianity of
Parliament might be put forward itt the very begi tttt of
the oath. He was not disposed. however. by sending this
bill down to the House of Conn 11111 l s. to 'drool to gentlemen
of the Jewish persuasion any additional futility of bringing
their question again before the house this session. Then'
WOW no debate ilm•ing the whole which Wits to tarn so
tlituwres.able as that upon the Jewish claims. lie gate his
tote with pain upon that question; but he gave it cull.
St• io iously , and shuttled always to the (111111 W be
had hitherto taken. The Jewish gentlemen, it sts.nwel to
hint. had knocked enotefli at their doors already. He
wold not give hem a oppiirtunity of doinc so again. If
their lordshipst owedn tlwin money they coal not ktmek
Avner than they had diet—( a laugh undoubtedly,
he was not disposes( to afford theta new facilities."
The Earl of InAtitv concurred in opposing the bill,
and added many reasons for his determination to
resist its further progress :
" Aitl gh lie fnutkly admitted that the wording of the
present oath was not altogether satisfactory, illaßlallt.ll as
It had It'd to some differences of opinion tutu some doubts
which they were bound to respect, yet be thonght it was
nut undesirable that. the Protestant members of Parliament
should, in the oath upon taking their semi', continue to
'word their protest against the usurpation of lamer. mei.
ritual, ecclesiastical, or temporal, within these realms.
( Hear, hear.) Now. the oath as proposed by his noble and
learned friend altogether omitted such consideration. Ile
confessed, too, he did not feel sanguine in regard to the
certainty of stud' an attendance of their lordships at a very
late period of the session as would ensure the rejection of
such amendments as might lie sent up front the I louse of
Commons. He thought. her Majesty's tiovernment would
have done. well it' they had IV 'Ca those apprehensions
and those doubts, by doing that which they might have
dime without in the slightest degree compromising their
own position, namely, by giving the assurance which bit
ventured to ask the other night, that, as far as the inductive
of the tiovernment went. they would not allow the ostensi-
ble object of this bill to is' changed by the introduction of
words which would give it a totally ditti.rent effect from
that embodied in the measure ass it now stood. But in the
thee ~t' the refusal of the noble earl opposite to give any
assurance to the house with regard to the twurse. which the
Government might pursue—knowing the opinions of all
the members of her Majesty's Government with regard to
this question, namely, the introduction by a aidewind
of
the Jewish claims into this hill—knowing that, on the part
of the Government, there was a determination to favour
those claims—and knowing that the NSW reaolut.
existed on the part of a majority in the other house, that
majority being sanctioned and upheld by the members; of
her Majesty's Government there,—knowing all this, could
he shut his eyes to the possibility, or rather could he ex•
chide from himself the absolute moral certainty, that such
an amendment as that, they deprecated would he made in
tho other house, and that that amendment. if so made,
would he supported by the whole 'strength of the I 'oven'.
The Earl of ABERDEEN remonstrated against this
course taken by the Opposition, declaring that it. was
disrespectful to the House of Commons :
" They had before them a bill which it was generally
considered wise and expedient to adopt. The only objec-
tions were precisely such as admitted of amendment in
committec—objectiona, Some of them grammatical, some
more or less important, but, all eapable complete Amend-
ment. And their lordships were asked to decline to muter•
take the amendment. of the bill Is.cause, forsooth, it. WWI
itottodloitt till' HOUS4. of Commons might amend it in a neat!
of which their lordships might not approve. ( Hear, hear.)
It was not respectful to the !louse of l'oinußnift to object
to a good measnre, from MI apprehension that they would
exercise their lawful privilege of amending it according to
their own views. Nor did he think it creditable to their
lordships to reject a measure of which they approved, in
conmespienee of vague apprehensions. (Hear, hear.) With
ref erenec to the practical objectiiin made by the made earl,
that this bill, if sent down to the of Contmons in
the present state of the session. might he returned at a
time when their lordship; would be unable to deal with it,
he could only say this, that although he mold give Ito
pledge as to Ant any tnemlwr of the House of Commons
might think proper to do, be would 'pledge himself that no
delay should take place which it was possible for her
Majesty's iiovernment to avoid. Olean) Ile only looked
at this bill us at any other bill in the eourse of their lord-
ships' proceeding's, and be thought they were bound in
fairness to go into committee in order to remove any oh-
jeet ionable portions of the bill (Hear, hear.( do far as
he knew, on the part of those who were friendly to the ail-
mission of Ow iewa, no attempt would be made to introduce
any amendment.'

Their lordships then divided :
For going into eouttuittee tin
.%gainst
It‘jority --15
'lite bill k therefore rejected.

Tll I.: MIMI clll'ltcll.
'Mr. Moouv. on 'Uttesilay moved for a *elect com-
mittee •• to inquire into the eeelesiastical revenues of
Ireland, with a view tit' ascertaining how far they are
made applicable' to the benefit of the Irish people."
'Phut people, stilt' the ham. ittentlatr, were altogether
void of loyalty to the Itriti4ll Crown. There way
scarcely a point on the coast of Ireland where. it' nit
English and an American Ship came into collision. the
large. Illajorit of the IookCIN on from the shore would
nut a isit the .kittericatts to win. A. 4 regarded cased
tantlartaahs at home, this disloyalty might be of no
apparent consequence. 111'610 was then the mouse
under the paw of the lion. lint the tinte had been,
and might be again, when loyal Iridimmi hail alone
Mt IllittlSl`.S 'ollie(' to England, awl when Irish tlitli
cnities hail threatened her with no mouse's perils. 111.
then traced the origin of this ilisiiifeciiou to the do
minion.) of the Protestant Establishment, to the
Amin put round the necks of Irish Cittlittlics, and the
insults tittered to their understandings, and especially
1 to the vast stuns drawn out of the resources of the
eountry anal lavished upon the t'lturelt of the mino-
rity :-
- 'Elie Church rt.,Voillit'S Weri, it property In thettotelva.%,
set apart lay piddle authority for it public purpose—they
were a slireitsi of itellit•lN•lit, itliterliir and superior tea lite
fight of any individual proprietor; awl it was the duty of
OW State to Stre that they were nut diverteil trout the ori•
gittal purposes of the trust. It was clear that they haul been
set apaii for the religions instruction and spiritual imamate
60111 of the whole Vs pie , Rua, it' they had lust (Weil VIM .
thi lied tat be strictly 1%04641 to that end, they' had manifestly
been diverted frsant their original purpose. Itut. were the.
etaclesiastical revetaateaseillrelatall Mamie applicable tea the lour-
poses of the religintta instruction of the Irish people? It Wits
idillitltt at mockery to gas into the eletailed stattsties of the
abuse, gross, palpable, end already cost& vi by the
voter' of the whole tit distal world. Its 17:11 the eallatlie
population of Ireland wits I AIM 1.1)110. iiii4l the Preatestatat
alatial ?MIAMI(); but in le:al the Catholic population
(anal hal ascii tea 11,MaIAMIO, whilst the tnembeis of the
Est ahlislitsl 4it unit were SIMIAN aI. Inuring the whoae of
this period the 'stabile of England were autineed with stories
of the marvellous sttecesot of l'ottestantisui.ausl the ge
moats tool deluded people of England altsolittely routs i.
bluest a parliamentary grant of 1,0410.000/., Ills ' ally to
supply the inerelowil necessities of Protestant minirti'le
ttislis, but. in reality to feed the maw of the laminable and
oiergorgell Irish clergy. This. pritiviovs salt Whii•iii every
rational plea all' am establirehtlielat all.' funned were, II 1/.1 ,
that the poor slitattil have a right to religious itetritetiolt ;
anti, SV4.I mill y , that the pastors should have aright to their
ittaintenanee 1.. r life. Inn what was the system on which
they titled in It...laud? They endowed the religion of the
rich, whilst they handed over that of the poor tea the
Unfettered operittion of the voluntary system. l'hey de-
prived the Suns, endowment of every argument which
rendered it defensible, whilst they placed the moluntaty
system ill the very position in which, twcortlitag to their
own principles, it was capable of working the greatest
moonlit of evil."
Protestantism itself, he conte.ided, would benefit by
having fair play, and the removal of the golden col-
lar now around its neck.
Ir. M. O'CoNNEt.i., though he seconded the rmo
tion, stigmatised Mr. Moore's appeal to the volume..
principle as rash and impnulent, being mire that it
was utterly distasteful to the Irish people.
Sir .1. Yorso treated the motion, tattensibly ono for
inquiry, as an undisguised pmposal to abolish the
Established Church in Ireland. This he could not
consent to, knowing how notch it would disturb the
public mind in England, r.til Inc- ' ornpletely it would
shake their faith in parliament,. y leaders and pro-
mises. He adduced many reasons for his cohelitsion
that. the evils of Ireland grew out. of bail mom. : .inn
legislation and the ernaleotts method Of treatitii; . •
people, and lay in no degree at the door of the Pro
testant Church. That Church, he adtletkettioyed her
present revenues by a prescription of three hundred
years, and they were not too great for the necessary
purposes to which they were appropriated.
Mr. MultltAtill attpliorttst the 'notion on the prece-
dent set with rearo the C anadian t "lergy Resrves.
fool Mr. Itom.vgitod t
FIN, it virr by the ettatn ale Of

Scotland.
Sir IL !Solis rested his opposition to the motion
upon the solemn vonipact entered into at the Union :
" A solemn treaty was than passed between two nations
perfectly indepcialoit. t ilrar, hrar. 1 Tlw Ciattrdi 4.t•
irt.hind hash ry n.wl to mist from the looming 114 the eat ;
the Chllreh ut 11.11111,1111111 had also eeill4Cd to exist, and the
two lourclics 'oceans: sone itudivisled—atitl, he trusted,
sintlivisilol44-1144), 1114. united Churl+ of Englund unit lye.
land, sod no litbliklit I.lslllll be Insole to slnike the fostiolit
titans of the property of the one without affecting the liPell•
rity of the other. ( I blur, hear.) mends.' .4
\ll.l'e ndruittsylinto that house on the faith that their would
not disturb the preperty of the Established t hnrci, as
Lt
low it now exists, and yet that was the proposition of tls.•
litotiossrs6l4l tneinloer for Mayo. It wiis not because ht•
believed the Chtirvli to he true that he willed upon them
to support it. but because honourable members, both
itonum Catholic and Proteatant, sat iu that house on it