The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-01 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER-BRIDGE BILL.

On the motion for reading this bill a second time,
Sir D. OORREYS inquired whether the right hon. ba-
ronet (Sir W. Molesworth) intended to give the house an
opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the site of the
bridge ? He suggested that if the bridge debauched at
Richmond-terrace it would be a great convenience to the
public, and especially such of them as used the South Wes-
tern terminus, some 900.00) a year.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH replied that the bill would
have to pus a general committee of the house after it puled
the select committee, and would come before the house in
two distinct stages, when an opinion might he expressed as
to the site or any point connected with the proposed bridge.
lie admitted that so far as the appearance of the houses of
parliament was concerned it might be better if the bridge
were placed lower down the ' than it at present was,
but taking all things into consideration it was considered
that the present site was the hest.
CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.

The report on this bill was brought up.
ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES IN IRELAND.
Mr. G. H. MOORE moved the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the ecclesiastical rereaua of lla
land, with the view of ascertaining how far they are made
applicable to the benefit of the Irish people. Mr. Moore ex-
pressed himself anxious to tell home truths in relation to his
subject, however unpalatable they might be. One of these
home truths was, that the Irish people were not loyal—for
he knew that should an American frigate happen to visit the
shores of Ireland for hostile purpose, the Irish people would
wish that frigate success. England, however, need not fear
that Ireland would rebel. Ireland was a mare mouse under
the talons of the British lion. At the same time, he remem-
bered that Ireland had not served England like a mouse
daring the last war, and the time snigh. emu when similar
service might be again needful. Discussing general griev-
awes Mr. Moore arrived by au easy transition at the ques-
tion of the Irish church, with regard to which he quoted
past and present authorities, and expressed his opi-
nion that if their testimony did not induce the
house to grant an inquiry, intelligence might be
sent to &dim, and Mr. Spooner made prime minister
at ones. In the case of an abut. which was emdemned by
the whole civilised world, it would be a mockery to go into
statistics. Sun he asserted that, notwithstanding all that
had been done to diminish the Roman catholic population,
they were as five to one in comparison with the protestant,
and that the revenues, if fairly and properly managed,
would amount to a million sterling. Yet all this benefit
was enjoyed by the church of the rich, while the meagre
and uncertain support of the voluntary principle was all
that was accorded for the spiritual instruction of the poor.
Discontent and disaffection must be the consequence of
.such a state of things, and such a consequence could not but
prove dangerous and injurious to imperial interests.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL seconded the motion, in order to
have an opportunity of describing it as rash and imprudent,
needing as it did to stir up the verato guestio of religious
differences, which had proved beneficial either to one
country or the other.
Sir J. YOUNG was of opinion that the ills of Ireland
were attributable, not to the established church, but to the
vicious system of commercial legislation which long
prevailed in that country, and to certain peculiarities
in her domestic circumstances. The established church
bed enjoyed revenues, which were not larger than were
asonsassy for her maintenance, for three hundred years.
A Imager distribution of the funds was a fair subject for
dissunea, but not the alienation of those funds from
that sightful permileor, as advocated by Mr. Moore, whose
motion amid net have been better framed to add to the
I evils esenplained of. The result of previous concessions al-
lorded no encouragement to proceed in the same direction.
And the object of Mr. Moore being evidently to extirpate
the Protestant Church in Ireland, it deserved, and should
meet with, a steady resistance.
I Mr. MURROL GE, as a Protestant, thanked Mr.
Moore for his motion, from which he believed that the
protestant& of of England would derive comfort and moos-
ragentent.
Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART believed that an alien
chereh was the real cause of the misfortunes of Ireland,
and he saw in the fetus a fartheraggravation other wrongs
in the withdrawal of the Idaynooth rent.
Sir R. INGLIS maintaiaed that the churches of England
and Ireland were one, by the Act of Union, and that u
one church they must continue to be regarded Al an in
tegral part of the empire. It was not a question of truth
or falsehood, bat a question involving the maintenenes of •
solemn treaty.
Mr. GARDNER justified himself in supporting the me
ties by his experience of the evils of the Irish church.
Mr. NEWDEGATE would not support the motion, be-
cause it involved the destruction of the Irish Church.

~Mr. t}. PHILLIMOBE supported the motion, which
he
wished had been brought forward by the government in.
stead of by Mr. Moore.
Mr. B. MOORS defended the established chureh of
Ireland, end said that it was probably is account of its
beneficial activity that the amiss Ina boss brought
forward. '

Mr7ii. DRUMMOND described the established church
of Ireland se ezhilsiting more disgusting exhibitiens et ne-
potism than the church of Roam itself, cad add that the
people of that country had • right to demassi the seer
meat of the question, for which there could net he • better
tints than the present.
Mr. MAGUIRE supported the notices at great length,
and with even greater vehemence.
Mr. WHITESIDE described the motion as one to Legatee
tate a letter which did not seed inquiry, because Mae
waft_astallest seamed with the Irish emelt that was
set knows. mad not • single fact of which its supporters
need be mimed. The main object of the motion was the
eanibilatiem et the Irish church, mid, while opposiag
it on he welts, he could not refrain from considering
it is esamenisa with the mare* hem whence it came.
He deed to the bet that the Emancipation Act
kneel ape the Rim= eathdie asemben of the
heel is feath that they weld ad Meet to overthrow
tha adadhimed alma .1 head; se ha ma tended that
while that shlisFaidmas ia Uses the pease proceedings
mold et le without reamem to a species of
eesaistry whim he meld neither admit nor admire.
He urged, in addles, the argument founded upon
the Am of Union, by whisk the tie churches had
been permanently united; sad he fader maintained,
taking up the grated of expedieasy, that the Irish Marsh
bad been suoosesfal, and that Irelaad astetheating
her misfortunes, had in her all the chronic of rem
perity, and required aething from England be pod go-
ceramist.
Mr. 'LIMAS mid that the dilkalty al this game._ ,
In lie imilag eemilistely bayed all argameall. bee
upset the mesa- Mhishas. feed as es that aught to pass
wittiest diatede he soy retied ememilily. The motion of
his his. Mimi Mil been grieveeeiy misstated and men-
&seed. It es sae ter inquiry into all the ecclesiastical
reissues of Inissa. NA She extent to which they operated
he ike welfare at the mmumaity in that country. The
red= was ad ea of the abolition of the established
de=bat am of equality of treatment et all religious
natimes. The smog was admitted the remedy was
left to the people of Ingiemd, but of this they might make
sure, that the Rome esthetics would never rest satisfied
without religions equality. Reference had been made to
language which had held in former times by Roman
catholic. It was language which he could neither applaud
nor approve. The use- which had been made of it would
teach him that the expression of political gratitude was a
dangerous thing. That line of conduct would not be re-
posted. What was the real matter in dispute 1 The whole
question lay in a nutshell. Was there any man in the
house who would not in his conscience say he would do
as they were doing to-night if he were treated
with Wank* and looked upon as an inferior, as they
were. An hon. member ban quoted an opinion of some'
catholic that in despotic countries the church was safe, but
it was attacked in countries haring parliamentary govern-
ment. That might be because parliamentary governments
had been conepirators against the church. lie believed that
in spite of the hon. member's advice, they should remain
attached to parliamentary government. But they diked
about the constitution. What did they mean ? His notion
of the constitution of England was, that by means of re-
presentatioa the deep-roeted convictions of the people
eventually were triumphant through public discussion,
despite some anomalies that existed in England,
but it did not exist in Ireland. Here they
were, in the year of grace 1853, discussing
the monster grievance of the established church in Ireland,
and they talked to them about the constitution. The con-
stitution in Ireland was the exact opposite of the constitu-
tion in England. In Ireland they had bean, generation
after generation, complaining of an injustice which no
human being would submit to without being coerced by
military violence. No nation—no clam of men that ever
existed on the face of the earth—would ever have endured