The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-17 00:00:00

TII.E SUN,

grants for Maynooth; and he now wished to know from
the NCO!. Lord at the head of the G.veroment how he,
who had denounced "the mummeries" of the Church of
Rome, should now sanction a vo,e for maintaining those
" mummerieF," for cut+ he believed was the expression
that had been made use of by the Noble Lord —(Cheers
and laughter.) By a recent bull from Rom?,, the 10-
wan Catholics were ordered not to attend at any of the
Queen's colleges; and now they were called upon in
that House to give a vote for those who opposed those
Queen's colleges, and to promote the education of those
who were alone to be educated in the mummeries of the
Church of Rome.—(Laughter and cheers.) Why, he
asked, was the Noble L-ird that night voting for "the
naumnaerie." of Rome, and all the reat of the session
prof,ssing to act in accordance with the Vroteitant feel-
ing of this county} ?—(Hear.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE old not think that a proper
time for discussing the general policy of the Government
was in c,usidering whether they should pay for the re-
psirs of ctuttain buildings at &taynooth. Toe vote ought '
to be allowed to stand upon its own merits. Certain re-
pairs were to be done at Maynooth; these repairs were
not required for this buildinf,s for which the 30.000/. had
been granted, but for the repairs of the old College of
Mlynouth, which was under the direction of the Board of
Works. It was to keep up that building that the money
was required.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON referred to the Act of 1845
to show !hitt in tr•cordatice with its words, the 30,0001.
was granted for the fitting-up and repairs; and by the
10th clause of that Act, the expense of repairs was to he
defrayed out of the 30.000/. They gave 6,0001. for pro-
fessors, and 20,0001. for students, and yet in addition to
that they were now called upon to give 1.200/. a year for
repairs.

After a few words from Mr. TRELAWNEY in sup-
port of the vote,
Mr. H. DRU ;IMOND said that he could not shut his
eyes to the open declaration of war which had been made
against them from Rome. The head of the Roman Ca-
tholic Church had oeclared them to b.. all Pagans, and
expressed his desire to bring them back from the slavery
of Protestantism into the glorious liberty of Popery.—
(Laughter.) They were here called upon to pay for a
oody of priests to preich against another institutioe
which they had set up, and that they desired to establish
fur the benefit of the Raman Catholics. He would re•
mind them of Pascal's Letters, and of the teachings it,
his time of the secular clergy as opposed to the regulars.
They would find that eery one of the doctrines that bait
been rejected. not by Protestant bigotry, but by the en
lightened Catholics in every part of the world, that these
were the very doctrines that were now taught by the
Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland.—(hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY observed that the real point at issue—
economy, had been overlooked by all the previous
speakers. When the time came it was his intention P.
vote against the Regium Denum and against the gram
for the French refugees, and acting on toe same prin-
ciple, he thought he should begin most fitly by votink
against the proposed grant in favour of his own Church.
He could tell the House that ever since Catholic Eman-
cipation passed there were many of the Roman Catholic
bishops opposed to the annual grant to Maynooth
There was no man in the three kingdoms more strongl)
opposed to it than the Most Rev. Dr. APHale; and at
the annual meeting of the Roman Catholic bishops a•
Maynooth, that Most Rev. Prelate had propose i its re-
jection, and on such occasion had the support of a ver
large minority of the Irish Roman Catholic bishops
This fact he bad from the Most Rsv. Dr. Mtlfalo him
self. It was mast erroneous, then, to say that thr
Cburch of Rome was desirous of obtaining those grants,
or that there was anything like an unanimous feeling on
the subj,-ct.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS opposed the vote, on grounds
distinct from religious asperity; he opposed it becaus,
fir R. Peel had distinctly stated, on obtaining the gram
of 30,0001. and 9,0004 a year, that no further annual
vote would be demanded. He (Mr. Williams) saw in
the civil contingencies 1001. f at auditing the accounts of
the College of Maynooth. Why not put all the expenses
together? He would oppose that as well as all oche►
votes of money for religious purposes.
Mr. NEWDEG ATE congratlated the Hon. Member
for Youghal on his candour, and the Hon. Member lot
Lambeth on his consistency. He was, however, sur-
prised to hear the Hon. Member for Montrose, the op•
ponent of all grants for religious purposes, say he would
vote on the occasion for " Peter's pence," especially
when it was borne in mind that Maynooth College was
provided for out of the Consolidated Fund. fie (Mr.
Is7(-Ivdegate) was all the more suprised at the vote of the
Hon. tlember, because after what the Hon. Member for
Youghal had said, it seemed that the Roman Catholics
themselves were far from unanimous on the subject. The
Honourable Member, however, would at least admit
that these bonuses to secure the goodwill of tht,
Roman Catholics had not been successful; indeed, on
the contrary, the difficulties in which the country was
at this moment placed might in a great degree oe traced
to the policy which dictated this vote. It he (Mr.
Newdcga'e) believed for a moment that in supp
rt-
ing Maynooth he was supporting the means of giving a
liberal education he would nct oppose the present vote,
but he could not find any alteration in the characters o.
the priesthood produced by it, except one that con-
trasted unfavourably with the priests who received their
education in France, who were imbu, d rather with the

hbmrality of the Gallica❑ Church than with the bigutr)
ut Ultr4mont4rie cloctrinpx.

Mr. KEIISHAW would vote against the grsnt, net on
ncoout,t of the Papal aggression, bu: because he con-
sidered it objectionable to support any sect of religionists
by grant-, or the public ,r,oney. He was opposed to the
egium Donurn, and would be to any grant to the body
to which he himself belonged; and be recommended to
Parliament the ad“pt!on of the voluntary principle.
Mr. MO WATT raid these who voted against the
grant because they were opposed to any grant, were
consistent; but the opponents on the opposite bide of
the House had not, it s, emed to him, a single reason
in common in their opposition to it. The Ilonourab
and Learned Member for the University of Dublin for-
got to state that the present vote was to prevent the
30 0001. to which he alluded being wasted. The Estab-
lished Church took from halt a tndlion to two-thirds of
a million annually from the Roman Catholics of Ire-
land—which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
also forgot to advert to. This made the case of
Ireland an exceptional case; and, therefore, he (Mr.
Mowatt) should voce for the grant in question.
Colonel SII3THORP should vote in support of the
motion of the Hon. Member for Warwickshire, on the
ground of consistency. He had never voted for the grant
tor Maynooth, and he should not do so on this occasion.
The Hon. Member for Tavisteck said he would vote for
the grant to make the Roman Catholics less dangerous.
He (Colonel Sibthorp) would vote against it not only for
consistency sake, but because it was a clap-trap ou the
part of the Government, and to put the Noble Lord in
the wrong. He bade the Roman Catholics beware of
the Government as of man-traps and spring-guns.—
(Laughts,r.)

_
Mr. FOX would oppose the vote, but not on theologi-
cal nor on economical grounds. Ile remembered that
the Roman Catholics were entitled to equal rights, and
he would not oppose them. On the economical side he
would not oppose it, because he remembered that they
had been robbed of their magnificent cathedrals. He
would nut persecute the Catholic;, but neither would he
pay them. There could be no more degrading position
for a religion than to have public prosecution hanging
over their heads on the one hand, and on the other the
public purse held out to them for a paltry pittance as a
set-off. For the sake of the Roman Catholics themselves,
therefore, he would vote against the grant.
Colonel RAWDON asked whether it was wise to re-
fuse this paltry sum in the face of other proceedings that
were pressing on that House? To depart from the prin-
ciple acknowledgd by the House of Commens in the in-
stance of this grant, would be a most impolitic act.
Alderman SIDNEY supported the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Warwick, because the policy of
winning the Roman Catholic hierarchy by such means
had totally failed. He believed he was voting in con-
sistency
with his feelings and the wishes of his con-
aliments.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the vote ... ••• ••• ••• 121
Against it ... ..• ••• 119
Majority.for the vote ... ••• —2
The vote was then agreed to.
10 6601. for Kingstown Harbour and works.
Alderman SIDNEY objected to the vote on the ground
that there was no trade at Kngstown, and unless some
explanation was given, he should divide the House, and
move that the chairman report progress.
Mr. HUME ohjecte,f to the form of the estimate. The
House ought to know what had been expended, and how
much more would he wanted.
Alderman SIDNEY said this was a portion of a
larger vote, and the House had a right to know some-
thing more ab iut it. Thera might be some small trade
at Kingstown, but nothing to justify so large an outlay.
Mr. HAMILTON said there was a growing trade at
Kingstown.
Mr. C LEWIS said the vote was for important pur-
Poses connected with the making the harbour suitable
for trading vessels.
The vO,O was then agreed to without a division.
92,3001. for salaries and expenses of the two Houses of
Parloiceent, and for certain retiring pensions.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the Committee who had re-
commended reductions had had their recommendations
totally disregard, dby the Government. It was very
poor encouragement for Members to do their duty in
such Committees if they were to have their labours thus
made a nullity.
In reply to a question as to the increase of 5,0001. in
the estimate for the salaries of the clerks of the House,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
tilt. salary used to be taken from the Consolidated Fund,
while now for the first time it wad included in the es-
timate.
Mr. HUME could not understand the explanation.
There was a positive increase of 5 0001. in that dePart-
ment as far as he could understand the estimates.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that this was not the case.
After come further divussion the vote was agreed to.
On the vote of 53,7014. for salaries and expenses of the
department of the Treasury.
Major Li ERESFORD objected to the Assistant Secre-
tary of the Treasury having 5001. a year more than his
superior officer, the Secretary of the Treasury; the
former having 2 500/. a year and the latter only 2,000/.,
notwithstanding that in addi:ion to the heavy duties he
had to perform in his office he had to give constant at-
tendance in that House. He moved to reduce the vote
by 500/.
Tire CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Assistant-Secretary, Mr. Trevelyan, had his present sa-
lary when the present Government came into office; and
it was the case with all the Under-Secretaries of State,
both in the Home aid Foreign Departments, that the
moveable officers bad less than the permanent ones. ,He
was not prepared to say that 2,500/. a year was tad much,
for the Secretary to the Treasury; but iu fixing bib sa-

LONDON,

lary at 2,000/. e year they had only lollosved out the re-
conemeed.,t,ori e' the Committee on salaries.
Mr. DISiZAELI thought tate G ivernment ou:=ht to
expiem to the Mouse the principle upon which they
acted with respect to the recointneedations of the Com-
mittee on public salaries. That Committee, for instance,
recoin.,nended that the embassy at Paris should be re-
duced t) a mission, and the salary cut down one-half;
but the Government did not adopt thee recomtaenda'ion,
and the an l.try of the ambassador at Paris remained the
same, Now, the Right Hen. Gentleman told them that
they had reduced toe salary of the Secretary to the
Treasury against their will, in consequence of the re-
commendatiees of the Committee. The time was come
for the Government to expl tin the principle on which it
acted in the matter. No Government ought to
agree to the appointment or a Select Committee unless
they were prepared to accede to the reccmrnendation of
the Committee. Why did they not act in the case of
the Secretary to the Treasury in the same spirit in which
they acted with respect to the ernbasiy at Paris? It
was, besides, preposterous that the Assistmt•Secretary
should be remunerated with a higher salary than the
Secretary, who was his superior officer.
Lord J. RUSSELL sad the Hon. Gentleman must
have forgotten that he (Lord J. Russell) had already
stated in the present session the reasons for which the
Government had adopted some of the recommendations
of the Committee and had disagreed to others, and the
general principles upon which they went on the whole
question. He could not accept as just or reasonable the
proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, that the Government
ought not to assent to the appointment of a Committee
unless prepared to accede to all its recommendations;
nor c,eild he see that because the public service would be
injured by the reduction of the salary of the embassy at
Paris to 5,0001. a year, that therefore the reduction of
the salary of the Secretary to the Treasury to 2,000/.
should not take place.
Mr. V. SMITH said the proposed reduction would
destroy the character for permanency which the salary
of such an officer as the Assistant Secretary to the Trea-
sury should have; but he did not see any objection to a
reduction in the case of Sir C. Trevely au s successor.
Major BERESFORD said he meant to divide. He
could see no justice in a Secretary to the Treasury re,
ceiving 5001 a year less than an under-secretary.
Mr. MANGLES thought it would be a breach of
faith to reduce the salary of Sir C. Trevelyan, after he
bad undertaken to discharge the duties of his office at
a salary of 2.500/.
Mr. DISRAELI protested against considering this as
a personal question. and could not admit because a
salary had been paid by the Treasury that the House
was no longer at liberty to touch it.
Mr. HUIIE -aid if there had been a vacancy in the
under-secretaryship, he would have supported the motion
'or reduction or the salary; but that not being the case,
at present any reduction would be a breach of faith.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Though the reduction in Tees-
tioh was only 5001, yet an important principle was in-
volved in it. The office of under-secretary was gene.
rally given to iedivlduals who had to relinquish other
avocations, and it would be unfair, after having fixed
the salary, to reduce it. Such a course would not be
advantageous to the public service. It was proposed to
reduce the salary of Sir C. Trevelyan 500/., but if the
right to reduce the salary was admitted, what was there
t prevent its being reduced still further in another
er? If the Hon. Member for Bucks had ever filled a
blic situation—and that he might do so some day was
not improbable—he would have been convinced how im-
portant it was that persons holding such situations as
.hat in question should be men of character and abilities,
and how impossible it would be to obtain persons unless
he salaries attach, d to their office were looked upon as
certain. He hoped the Committee would not consent to
he reduction.

Mr. BRIGHT said that the argument of the Noble
Lord would be fair if the public servants were under-
paid, which no one pretended to say was the case. For
2,0001. a year they might have the bust head that was to
sote hound on any pair of shoulders in England.
Mr. W. PAT FEN admitted that be thought the Com-
mittee would have recommendt'd the reduction had they
4iven it their consideration; but he was sure they would
nave stipulated that it should not be made except on the
next vacancy.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the Ex •
CHEQUER and Mr. CLEMENTS,

Mr. MILES reminded the Committee that the expense
of living had of late years very grea•ly diminished; that
he cry for a reduction of the public expcncii-ure had
increased, and that there were now placed on Sir Charles
rrevelyan's shoulders duties from which ho (Mr. 01iles)
hoped ,that the Hon. Gentleman would shortly bo re-
lieved. The question appeared to him to be simply this.
After a service of five or six years, was Sir Charles
Trevelyan paid well at a salary of 2,0001, or was he,
merely upon a Treasury minute, which was adopted c.r-
.:ainly previous to his accepting office, to have 5001.
more? Ii they were to have a Treasury minute con-
stantly thrown into the teeth of the House of Commons
every time it was engaged deciding on votes, it would
seem that all the Ministers would hereafter have to do
was to pass such Treasury minutes as it pleased, and
invariably to appeal to them against what ought to be
aledecision of the House.

'The CH A NCELOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
Sir Charles Trevelyan would have returned to India had
he not received this appointment, upon the understanding
.hat at the expiration of five year, his salary should be
2,5001. But the Treasury minute under which this ar-
rangement Wai made had been in existence for more than
Lw-roy year,,.

Lord EBRINGTON supported the vote.
After a few words from tlr. J. EVANS, the Commit-
tee divided, end tho numbers were—
For the aznendineut ... 72
Against it ...
... 118
ALjority .. ..• ••--46
The vote was tht n agreed to; as were also the votes of
25.270/. for salaries and expenses of the ilome•otfice, and
37.100 i. tar War and Colonial Departments.
The House then resumed, and the Chairman obtained
leave to sit again.

THE .JEW BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL. is reply to Mr. Bright, said he
had tix,od the above Bill for Monday next.
The Court of Chancery (Ireland) Regulation Act
Amendment Bill passed through Committee;• as did also
the Fee F,trm Rents (Ireland) Bill.
AUTS OF PARLIAMENT ABBREVIATION ACT
REPEAL BILL.
Mr. J. STUART moved the third reading of the
above Bill. It was imp sssible, he contended, to keep
the Act which it wss intended to repeal on the statute
book. That it had signally failed even the Acts passed
during the present session had proved. By the 4th sec-
tion of the Act, it was provided, that all words import-
ing the masculine gender should also be taken to include
leinsles—(Lsughter)—and all words of the singular
number should also mean the plural. Now that section
had excited the greatest alarm, and might be produc-
tive of the greatest inconvenience. It included all Acts

past as well as future. how vOtlicl that section operate
with respect to the Reform Bill far instance? On

!erring to it he found that every wale person paying rent
and occupying a house of a certain value, should be en•

titled to a vote. According to the Act, however, which
he was then asking the House to repeal, that clause
should mean every female person also.—(Laughter.)
It also destroyed all distinctions between private and
public Acts or Parliament, which was a very mischievous
thing. How many Acts of Parliament had there been
.

passed in favour of the issue male, with the express in-
tention of excluding the female line?—(Hear.) They
had already passed prison discipline Acts with specific
regulations for the different sexes, and how would
the Act be applied there ? Even this very
session,one of the last Acts which had received theßoyal
assent—he meant the Income-tax Act—would bo

very materially and seriously affected if the singular
word " one" year was to be taken to mean many years.
—(Hear and laughter.) The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer seemed to be pleased with that interpretation.—
(Laughter.) Although the Act professed to be one to
shorten the language of Acts of Parliament, he did not
find it to have that effect, for the wording of Acts during
the present session was as lung as on any former occa-
sion.
There were sections in the Act which did not
seem to him calculated to shorten the wording of Acts
of Parliament. On consulting his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Master of the Rolls on that subject, the latter
bad admitted that the Act might be objectionable; but
as he had not time himself to consider its repeal, he had
referred him (Nlr. Stuart) to a Learned Friend, with
whom hn had carefully gone over the Act, and that gen-
tleman had also been sensible of the absurdity and in-
convenience of most of the clauses of the Act. He would
not detain the House at that late hour (past one o'clock)
by going further into details.—(Hear.) He was con-
vinced of the good intentions of those who introduced
the Act, but ho should say it was framed without care,
and not even in a manner to carry out their views. Its
tact no man could hereafter decide upon the construction
of an Act of Parliament unless he had the Act by heart,
or at least a copy of it in his pocket. He received com-
plaints from many respectable legal friends of the diffi-
culty which the Act caused them. Even if the principle
of the Act were to be carried out hereafter, let it be so, and
let it be done carefully and advisedly; but for the present
he would ask them to repeal the Act by agreeing to the
third reading of the Bill then before them.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would oppose the
third reading of that Bill, which he believed to be one of
a most mischievous tendency. The Act referred to had
not emanated from the Government, but had been ori-
ginated in the other House of Parliament, where it had
had the sanction of the highest legal authority. The
Act appeared to him a most useful one as tending to
abridge the verbosity of Acts of Parliament generally.
His Honourable Friend had referred to the Master of
the Rolls ; but so far as they could form an idea of his
opinion, it would seem to be tolerably plain, for he had
a notice on the paper that the present Bill should be
read a third time this day six months whenever his
Honourable Friend's motion should be brought on.—
(Hear, hear.) On referring to the first four clauses of
the Act, he found that they were of a highly useful
character. His Honourable and Learned Friend had
alluded to the Reform Bill and the right it gave to
males to vote ; now it never could occur for
a moment to a lawyer that that could have a
retrospective effect of the nature referred to. Then
there was a provision that when an Act repealing other
Acts was itself repealed, it should not ipso facto revive
those repealed Acts. This section prevented a manifest
inconvenience. The next was a provision relating to the
same matter. Then it was provided that every Act
should be deemed a public Act, unless the contrary should
be expressly enacted. This was always inserted in all
Acts, and the object of the Act was to prevent the ne-
cessity of perpetually inserting that provision. His Hon.
and Learned Friend apprehended that this would tend
to destroy the distinction between public and private
Acts; but it would always be easy, when it was not in-
tended to be a public Act, to insert a provision to that
effect. This was also intended to prevent the necessity
of Perpetually repeating the usual clause in all Acts of
Parliarceut. lii short, be regarded the Act which his