The Express.
London, England, 1855-07-21 00:00:00

On the order of the day fur going into committee of
supply,
Mr. SPOONER rose, amid uproarious

i laughter, to move

fora select committee to inquire into the cirolimstanees
under which, in the evidence taken before the commis-
sioners appointed to inquire into the management and
g ant of the College of Maynootb, and reported to
parliament, titles prohibited by law were allowed to of
ascribed to Roman catholic bishops ; and also why, and
under what circumstances, some of the witnesses were per-
mitted to make alterations in the evidence which they bad
given before the oommissianere ; and also to inquire into
the facts and circumstances connected with the alleged
communication to Dr. Callen of a portion of the evidence,
and the us which be made of the information so received,
end as to the person by whom the evidence was so furnished,
and as to the delay which took place in laying the report
of the commissioners before the houses of parliament.
The hon. member proceeded to say that it was necessary (or
him to recall the whole of the circumstances of the easy to
which his revolution referred. (Laughter.) It would be
recollected that he stated on a former occasion that illegal
titles were given in the report of the bleynooth commission
to the Roman catholic bishops in Ireland, without the con-
sent of the noble lord at the head of the commission, and
that the evidence was most unfairly dealt with. (Much in-
terruption.) It would likewise be remembered that his
right hon. friend the Secretary for Ireland read a letter
from the no►le lord partly in contradiction of what
he stateti, and that at the end of his speech
he tendered to him (Mr. Spooner) a full inquiry.
The hon. member went on tom that he had submitted his
motion to the noble lord at the head of the government,
who said that if some litt`e alterations were made he
should have no objection to it ; but it appeared there was
some Irish influence, emanating from below the gangway,
which induced the government to resist it now. He (Mr.
Spooner) thought it important, for the sake of the dignity
of that house of parliament, that they should not pus over
without notice the serious fact that, in the evidence taken
by the commissioners upon Msynooth College, in several
' instances the titles prohibited by law were bestowed upon
the Roman catholic bishops; and it was not true, as had been
stated in the House of Lords during a recent debate there,
that such titles only occurred in two ins ances in the report,
having been copied in those instances accidentally from the
Catholic Directory, or Catholic Almanack ; but, on the con-
trary, it was proved by the secretary of that commission
himself that the commissioners laid down a rule,

whenever • catholic witness in his evidence need the
territorial title for a catholic bishop, that they should not
think themselves justified in erasieg that part of the wit•
lieu's reply. Tee bon. member read, amidst some inter-
ruption, vine letters from the witnesses whoa evidence
was alleged to have been altered.
Mr. HORSMAN said that Mr. Spooner said he had not
had an opportunity of bringing on this motion before;
whereas he (Mr. Housman), on a former occasion, offered
him a committee of inquiry to inquire into the allegations
mane by Mr. Spooner on the eutjec', but he did not move
for it. It Le had then accepted that committee, all the
facts would have been sifted long before this. As the coin.
mutes was not to be pressed for this session, ho would say
no more.
Mr. SPOONER attempted to make some observations in
explanation, but was stopped by cries of " Order" and
" Spoke."
Mr. WHITESIDE, on his behalf, said that Mr. Spooner
did not refuse the committee, but be objected to the form in
which the inquiry was to be made.
Mr. J. MACGREGOR asked whether he was to under.
stand that the motion was not to be objected to ? It not, he
should urge that this inquiry should be granted.
Mr. F. SCULLY said be had no objection to this inquiry,
but as it was moved for at this period of the session he
thought it was only a delusion and a sham, and he should
oppose the motion.
Mr. BENTINCH contended that the parliament only
sought to rads an inquiry in which a strong interest was
felt throughout the matey.
After a few words from Mr. MUNTZ,
Sir J. PAKLNOTON asked on what ground the govern.
rant was ab •ut to refuse this inquiry, after having twice
over practically enno. dad the motion ?
Lord PALMERSTON said he had promised to concede
the motion of the non. member for Warwickshire, but had
subsequently altered his opinion, and had informed the hon.
member of the change. He was not prepared to accede to
the present motion.
After a few words from Sir G. Gast the hones divided—
For the motion
For the amendment 97-21
EDINBURGH LANDS BILL.
The Lords' amendments were considered, and agreed to.