The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PA RL/AMEN T.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, ✓v 13.

The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
The Grantham Small Debts Bill Committee was re.
vived and permitted to sit again. From the statements
of Mr. Christopher and Mr. Greene it appeared that
the Committee had not been able to sit to-day.
owing to the absence of the selected Members,
and the - former Honourable Member suggested
that in cases (like the present) of unopposed Bills, the
Committees have power to sit in the absence of the
selected Members.
The Report upon the West Croft (Nottingham)
Canal Bill was agreed to.
The Bradford (Wilts) Improvement Bill was read a
third time and passed.
On the motion of Sir H. FLEETWOOD the Pres-
ton and Wyre Railway Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Tyne Dock Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Birmingham Canal Bill, on the motion of Sir
EARDLEY WILMOT, was read a third time and
passed.
On the motion of Mr. M. PHILLIPS, the Man-
chester and Birmingham Railway Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Lord SA NDO N moved that the Committee on the
Liverpool Churches' Bill be revived. The Noble Lord
was understood to say that this motion was rendered
necessary in consequence of the non-attendance of the
Members of the former Committee.
After a short conversation, in which Mr. CHRIST°.
PHER and Mr. GREENE took part, the motion was
agreed to.
On the motion of Captain!ALSAGER, the Croydon,
Mertsham, and Godstone Railway Company's Dissolu-
tion Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. GREENE presented a petition from Bolton,
against the Ministerial plan of education.
Lord COLE presented four petitions in favour of a
universal penny post.
Mr. THORNELY presented similar petitions from
parishes in Norfolk.

Mr. DILLON BROWN presented a petition from
the Catholic Archbishop and Priesthood of the Diocese
of Tuam, against the national system of education in
Ireland. Tue petitioners stated that they considered
the educatio❑ of the people of that Diocese was exclu-
sively vested in the Catholic Clergy, and that such
being the case, they could not give up what they con-
scientiously believed to be their rights. The following
is the petition
The bumble petition of the Archbishop of Tuam and
Clergy, professing the Roman Catholic Religion, most
humbly showeth,
That your Petitioners beg to approach your Honourable
House with the unfeigned assurance of their devotion to
the throne and person of our most gracious Sovereign.
That whilst they give unto Caesar the things that are
Caesar's, they cannot be unmindful of the other precept
that issued from the same Divine source, of giving to
God the things that are God's. That the Religious
Education of their respective flocks is a duty solely and
exclusively belonging to the spiritual authority of
the Pastors of the Church, and which they cannot re-
sign into any other hands without a renunciation of
those obligations which they owe to its Divine Founder.
Petitioners beg to impress upon your Honourable House,
that religion, to be effective, must be definite in its creed,
and that any plan that would attempt to 'combine the
discordant tenets of different sects of Christianity in a
vague belief would be utterly subversive of its foundation,
and equally at variance with that solicitude which Protes-
tants feel for articles of the Established Church, as
well as with the zeal with which Catholics have
clung to their faith under the most adverse fortunes.
Petitioners further beg leave to observe, that in the diocese
of Tuam alone there is a Catholic population of 470,000
persons, and there is not more than one to fifty of all other
religious creeds. That petitioners conceive it utterly
unreasonable that for one in fifty they should submit to
a system of Education fashioned for a mixed popu-
lation of all Christian sects, and regulated by a ma-
nifest preponderance of Protestant principles and influence.
Petitioners, therefore, seeing no hope of accommodation
with a body whose pretensions are so arbitrary that they
cannot be submitted to without the most imminent peril to
the Catholic faith, since it undisguisedly supersedes the
authority by which that faith is protected, take this solemn
opportunity of assuring your Honourable House that hence-
firward they hold no connexion whatever, pecuniary or
otherwise, with that Board, and they will use all the spi-
ritual influence of their sacred office to withdraw the chil-
dren of their respective parishes from so dangerous a con-
nexion.
Mr. LAW moved that the petition be rejected. He
thought the Hon. Member bad stated that the petition
was signed by a person calling himself the Archbishop
of Tuam, and thereby incurring penalties under the
Statute. Would the Hon. Member be good enough to
state if that were so ?
Mr. D. BROW NE—lt is signed " John M'Hale."
Mr. LAW—How is it headed ?

Mr. D. BROWNE—It is stated to be the petition of
the Archbishop and Clergy of the Diocese of Tutim,but
it, is not signed by John M'Hale, describing himself as
the Archbishop of Tuam.
- Dlr. LhW---Tile utoecciou -arises—upon a petition
.which is described as.that of the Archbishop of Team,
some person having falQely as‘umed to himself that title.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose, and exclaimed with great
vehemence, " The word falsely is inapplicable. It is
false to say so."
Sir R. INGLIS called on the Speaker to protect the
House from the Hon. and Learned Member. That
Hon. and Learned Member was unrestrained by any-
thins out of that House, but he bad now dared to desig-
nate a statement made by his Hon. Friend the Recorder
of the city of London, and Member for the University
of Cambridge, as false. He trusted the Speaker would
call on the Hon. and Learned Member to withdraw the

expression—to apologise to him—to apologise to his
Hi►r.. and Learned Fr:end—and to apologise to the
H ouse.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose, but was met by loud cries
of " Order.'
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, as he understood him, had used an expres-
sion which was most disorderly, and it was only r.eces•
nary to state that to induce the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman to retract the expression, and to apologise
to the House.

Mr. O'CONNELL said the moment the Speaker
had offered such an opinion he should at once withdraw
it in the fullest manner.

The SPEAKER—The question is that this petition
be now brought up.
Mr. O'CONNELL apprehended that the question
properly arose upon its being laid upon the table.
The -Clerk then read the heading of the petition, which
was stated to be the humble petition of the Archbishop
of Tuam.

Mr. O'CONNELL—That is enough.
Sir R. INGLIS who, with two or three other Mem-
bers had examined the petition, said it was signed
John M‘Hale, with a cross affixed to it, and there
was an erasure after it. He begged to ask
the Honourable Member for Mayo whether he was
cognisant of any erasure, which was very visible ? To
his eye the words " Archbishop of Tuam " had been
craged.