The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-29 00:00:00

practices were carried on in these monastic institutions
which dared not face the light, and hence the opposition to
inerairy.
Colonel BLAIR, in supporting the motion for inquiry,
said there must be something to conceal, or the inquiry
would not be. so strenuously opposed.
Mr. PACKE believed that the reason why there were no
complaints from these institutions was to be found in the
system of tyranny which prevailed in them.
Mr. CHAMBERS remarked upon the unprecedented
step taken, in this attempt to reverse the solemn decision
of the house after seven hours debate, and by a majority
of 67. No ground, special or otherwise, had been shown
for retracing the course which had been adopted. He
recurred to the position to which ho had brought the
question, and the case he had made out against these
institutions—a case which had satisfied a large majority
of the house. He had stood, not on particular in-
stances, but on general principles, and he still stood
on the same ground. The constitution of these bodies
was in itself evidence that they ought to be watched
by the law, as they hid always hitherto been. The
inquiry had a very definite object, and he earnestly repu-
diated the idea that any member of the proposed commit-
tee had any intention to annoy any human being. Ex-
plaining the object of the committee, and urging that
general surmise and belief as to these institutions afforded
ample reason to a statesman for inquiry, he contended that
either the evil should be corrected, or the fallacy exploded.
The former Papal aggression was a highway robbery, but
this system was a perpetual pilfering. He complained
.of
the tone which Lord John Russell had taken on the sub-
ject, and declared that either he or his successors would
assuredly have to deal with it; and he demanded whether
we would wait until these institutions had become enor-
mously greater and richer, as they were daily becoming.
He called upon the house not to retrace its course, urging
that the conviction that an honest inquiry was designed
had caused the tranquillity of the popular mind on the I
subject.
Mr. B. OSBO.RNE wished the house to consider whether
this proposed inquiry was not an attack upon the Roman
Catholic religion. He did not deny that there was a strong
feeling on the subject out of doors, while members, under
electoral pressure, supported Mr. Chambers, though dis-
!avowing sympathy. with him- He should vote for the
amendment, believing that a member of Parliament was a
trustee for religious liberty, which he considered would be
compromised by this measure. The promoters of this in-
quiry, of whom Mr. T. Chambers was the unconscious in-
strument,viewed this motion forinquiry as only the means
to this end—their real object being to procure the repeal of
the act of 1829. The hon. gentleman then referred to the
proceedings of the Scottish Conference and of the Pro-
testant and (a name taken, he supposed, in opposition to
that of ,thaPope's Brass Band), from which it appeared
that they avowed their object to be the exclusion from
Parliament of the Catholics, and also their exclusion
from holding office under the Crown at home or abroad.
Next he excited continuous laughter by his description of
the itinerant lecturers imported from abroad by such so-
cieties, and he argued that it was by such means that the
popular feeling was produced which compelled members to
such measures as this. He then denied that the number
of religions houses had increased, and expatiated on the
great benefits which they conferred on both England and
Irelandinthe education which they had given to the people,
and the employment they had also been the means of giv-
ing to those who resided in their neighbourhood. He re-
ferred hon. gentlemen to the report of Mr. Marshall upon
these establishments, and predicted that not a single
Member who read it would be founclvoting for the inquiry.
He objected to sending upstairs such a body of gentlemen,
whom he looked upon as little better than " polemical Paul
Pus," who would have formed their conclusions before
they deliberated, and who would carry in their head the
notions, as they probably always had in their pockets, the
books of all kinds of old-fashioned casuists. He sincerely
believed that this committee would answer no other pur-
pose than to raise a "No-Popery cry" throughout the
country. He hoped that the house would pause before it
lent its countenance to the further progress of this ill-
omened attempt of the hon. and learned member for Hert-
ford. No measure, in fact, could be more injudicious and
unseasonable at the present time than that of the hon. and
learned member, when it was remembered that we were
just on the eve of a war, or engaged in a war, in
which thousands of Roman Catholics were serving in
our armies, and all of whom would feel the passing of
this measure as an unnecessary insult to and a
brand upon them. He could hardly remember when we
had ever been invited to take so imprudent a step as that
to which the hon. and learned member was now urging us
on, and he believed that history could scarcely furnish any
instance of greater folly and infatuation, except, perhaps,
that one mentioned' by Gibbon, relative to the Greeks,
whom he describes as busily employed in a discussion of
mixed theology and philosophy, as to whether the light on
Mount Tabor was created or uncreated, and who were
ready to massacre the supporters of the unpopular theory,
when the enemy of all religion and science, Mahomet IL,
entered, through a breach, into the capital of the Chris-
tian world. He entreated the house to seriously hesitate
before it lent its aid to carry out the nefarious project of
the hon. and learned member for Hertford, and he called.
upon all hon. members who had any consideration for their
country and respect for themselves, upon every principle of
expediency and justice, to support the amendment that
was now proposed. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said that no gentleman in that house
would give a vote for the inquiry upon the bigotted grounds
which the hon. and gallant officer had enumerated. He
thought the hon. gentleman having transferred his services
from the army to the navy, and the country being on the
eve of war, would have had too much to do to prevent his
collecting such a bundle of trash as he had that night pro-
duced to the house. The real question at issue was this—
they had ample proof in decisions in the courts of law that
there were abuses in those institutions, and then came the
question, would they not resort to an inquiry with a view
to their remedy? The Roman Catholics should, he thought,
not resist this inquiry, as, if the surmises against these in-
stitutions were false, its result would bo to remove the pre-
judices now existing with respect to them.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN supported the amendment, as did like-
wise Mr. J. O'CONNELL.
Mr. DUNLOP said that the resolution attributed to the
Scottish Conference by Mr. B. Osborne, to the effect that
Roman Catholics should be excluded from office under the
Crown, at home and abroad, had never been adopted by
that body.
Mr. J. FITZGERALD said that the fourth resolution re-
ferred to was adopted at a large Protestant meeting in
Edinburgh.
Mr. L. BLAND, as an Irish Protestant, opposed the in-
quiry, and said the Protestants of Ireland did not enter-
tain the same hostility to those establishments as was felt
in England.
After some observations from Mr. GOOLD,
Mr. COGAN moved the adjournment of the debate.
After some observations from Mr. BENTINCK and Mr.
B. OSBORNE,
The house divided, and the motion for adjournment was
negatived by a majority of 233 to 91.
Mr. G. A. MOORE then moved the adjournment of the
house, stating that several hon. members were anxious to
address the house upon a subject so important to Ireland.
Sir J. WALSH opposed the adjournment.
Mr. F. SCULLY threw out a proposition that they
might go to a division on the main question, provided Mr.
Chambers would not proceed that night with the appoint-
ment of the committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
this a fair proposition, which, he was of opinion, ought to
be acceded to.
After some remarks from Sir T. D. ACLAND and Lord
GODERICH,
Mr. T. CHAMBERS said he would assent to the sug-
gestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. F.
Scully.
A desultory conversation ensued, terminating in a divi-
sion, on which the motion for the adjournment of the house
was negatived by a majority of 223 to 59.
Mr. F. SCULLY then gave notice that, on the nomina-
tion of the committee, he would move that it be nomi-
nated that day six months.
The house then divided on Mr. Bowyer's amendment,
which was negatived by a majority of 177 to 120.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS then gave notice that he would
move the committee:this day; but, on an objection from
Mr. Scully and Mr. Goold, he consented to move it on
Thursday.
The remaining business was then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.