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

THE SUN,

grants for Maynooth; and be now wished to know from
the Nobl, Lord at the heal of the Gr,verun2ent how he,
who had deneune.el "Vie mummeries" ot the Church of
Rome, should now sauction a vo.e for maintainieg those
" mummeries," for such he believed wai the expression
that had been made use of by the Noble —(Cheers
and laughter.) By a recent bull from Rom., the Ro-
man Catholics were or lered not to attend at any of the
Queen's collegesi and now they were called upon in
that 11 )090 to give a vote for those who opposed those
Queen's colleges, and to promote the education of those
who were alone to be /donated in the mummeries of the
Church of Romp.—(Laughter and cheers.) Why, he
asked, was the Noble L)rd that night voting fur " the
mummeries" of Rome, and all the rent of the session
pruf,ssing to act in accordance with the Protestant feel-
ing of this country?--(Hear.)
Sir W, SOMERVILLE did not think that a proper
time for discussing the general policy of the Government
was in con,,ifierina whether they should pay for the re-
pairs of certain buildings at Maynooth. 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 the buildings for which the 50,000/. had
been granted, but for the repairs of the old College of
Maynooth, 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 ihat iii accordance with its words, the 30,000/.
was granted for the fitting-up and repairs; and by the
10th clause of that Act, the expense of repairs was to be
defrayed out of the 30,000/. They gave 6,0001. for pro-
fessors, and 20,000/. for s'udents, 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 trio vote,
Mr. H. DRUNIMOND said that he could not shut his
eyes to the open declaration of war which had been made
against them from Rime. The head of the Roman Ca-
tholic Church had oenlared them to ba all Pagans, and
expressed his &sire to bring them back from the slavrry
nl Protestantism into the glorious liberry of Popery.—
(Laughti-r.) They were here called upon to pay for a
body of priests to. preach against another institution
which they had set up, Had that they desired to establish
for the bent& of the Raman Clatholies. He would re•

mind them or 114 seal's Letters, and of the teachings it
his time of the secular clergy as opposed to the regular',
1111.,y would find that every one of iho doctrines th:st ba.
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 Cythnlic clergy in Ireland.--(Rear.)
Mr. ANSTEY observed that the real point at issue—

Peonomy, had . been overlooked by all the previotb

speakers. WhPh the tira. carne it was his intention

vote against the Regium Donum and against the gran`
for the French retugewo, and awing on t'e same prin.

ciple, he thought he should b-gin most tidy by votink
against the proposed grunt in favour of his own Church.

He could tell the House that ever since Catholic Ewen

cipation passed there were many of the R man Catholic
bishops opposed to the annual grant to Maynootb
There was no man in the three kingdoms more strong')
opposed to it than the Most Rev. Dr. M'Hule; and as
the annual meeting of the Roman Catholic bishops a,
Maynootb, 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 had from the Most Rev. Dr. Mtliale him
self. It was most erroneous, then, to say that thr
Church of Rome was desirous of obtaining those grants,

or that there was anything like an unanimous feeling on

the subject.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS opposed the vote, on grounds
distinct from religious asperity; he opposed it becaus
Sir R. Peel had distinctly stated, on obtaining the grant

of 30,0001. and 9,0001. a year, that no further annual
vote would be demsnded. He (Kr. Williams) saw in
the civil contingencies 1001. f,r auditing the accounts of
the College of Maynootb. Why not put all the expewet.
together? He would oppose that as welt as all other
votes of money for religious purposes.
Mr. NE WDEGATE congratlated the Hon. Member
for Youghal on his candour, and the Hon. Member fo.

Lambeth on his consistency. He was, however, sur-
prised to hear the Hon. Member fur Montrose, the op-

ponent of all grants for religious purposes, say be would
vote on the occasion for " Peter's pence," especially
when it was borne i❑ mind that Maynooth College was
Provided for out of the Consolidated Fund. He (Mr.

NPwderate) was all the more suprised at the vote of the
Hon.. Member, because after what the Hon. Member for
Youghal bad said, it seemed that the Roman Catholics
themselves were far from unanimous on the subject. Tne
Honourable Member, however, would at least admit,
that these bonuses to secure the goodwill of thf
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 be traced
to the policy which dictated this vote. It he (Mr.
Newdega,e) believed for a moment that in supp•irt-
ing Maynooth he was supporting the means of giving a
liberal education he would net oppose the present vote,

but he could not find any alteratiOL in the characters o'
the priesthood produced by it, except one that con-
trasted unfavourably with the priests who received their
education io France, who were itribu--d rather with the
lib-rality of the GaMean Church than with the bigotry
of Ultramontane doctrines.

Mr. KERSEIAW would vote against the grsnt, not on
actv.ut,t of the Papal aggression, but because he con-
. .

sidered it objectionable to support any sect of religionists
by grant., of the public ,noney. He was opposed to the
r eyium Donum, and would be to any grant to the body
to which he Nevelt belonged; and he rtcommended to
Parliament the ad..ption of the voluntary principle.
Mr. MO WATT said th,se 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 5, emed to him, it single mason

in common in their opposition to it. The Honoureb e
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 million 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 vote for the grant in question.
Colonel SIBTHORP should vote to 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 Taviateck 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 on 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.—
(Laughter.)
Mr. FOX would oppose the vote, but not on theologi-
cal nor on economical grounds. He 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 to en robbed of their megnificent cathedrals. He
would not persecute the Catholics, 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
publics purse held oat 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 Commons 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-
ssitsittuenen.
cytswith his feelings and the wishes of his con-
stituents.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the vote ... ••• ••• 121
Against it ... ••• ••• 119
Majority for the vote —2
The vote wag then agreed to.
10 6601. for Kingstown Harbour and works.

Alderman SIDNEY ohjectud to the vote on the ground
that there was no trade at Kngstown, and unless some
explanation was given, he shoteld divide the House, and
move that the chairman report progress.
Mr. HU VIE objected to the form of the estimate. The
House ou.ellit 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 ,ut it. There might bo 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,e wa4 then agreed to without a division.
92,3001. for salaries and expenses of the two Houses of
Parildwent, and tor certain retiring pensions.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the Committee who had
they for
such
hr encouragement
Committees . re-
commended reductions had gad their recommendations
totally disregard, dby the Government. It was very
p
wMereemtboerhsavteo
tdhoeirthlaehiroodrus thus
yina
made a nullity.

In reply to a question as to the increase of 5,000/. in
the estimate for the salaries of the clerks of the House,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCEIEQUER said
the salary used to be taken from the Consolidated Fund,
while now for the first time it was included in the es-
timate.
s Nal Ep
sciotui
vied i
corte
ausnedeorfs t
odootp.
ei
n etlch aP !Idea; ornt
inheMnertre.as far as he could understand the estimates,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex.plained
that this was not the case.
After borne further discussion the vote was agreed to.
On the vote of 53,700/. for salaries and expenses of the
department of the Treasury.
Major IiERESFORD objected to the Assistant Secre-
tary of the Treasury having 500/. a year more than his
superior officer, the Secretary of the Treasury; the
former having 2.5001. a year and the latter only 2,0004,
notwithstanding that in addi(ion to the heavy duties he
had to perform in his office he bad to give constant at-
tendance in that House. He moved to reduce the vote
by 500/.
The 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 and Foreign Departments, that the
moveable officers bad less than the permanent ones. He
was not prepared to say that 2,500/. a year was too much
for the 001.047 to the Unary; but in fixing hie 1113*

LONDON,

lary at 2,000/. a year they had only followed out the re-
co'nmenchtitto or the Committee en salaries.
Mr. DISRAELI thought the G weritmeat on, ht to
exptatn to the House the priectple upon which they
acted with respect to the recoinmetalea.toes of the Cam-
mittee on public salaries. That Committee, for instance,
recomalende.l that the embassy att Paris should be re-
duced to a mission, and the salary cut doern one-helf;
but the Governey.trit did not adopt that recommendation,
and the celery of the ambassador at Paris remained the
same. Now, the Right Hon. Gentleman told them that
they had reduced the salary of the Secretary to the
Treasury against their will, in 'consequence of the re-
commendations of the Committee. The time was come
for the Government to explain the principle on which it
acted in the matter. No Government ought to
agree to the appointment of a Select Committee. unless
they were prepared to accede to the recommendation of
the Committee. Wive 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 embassy at Paris? It
was, besides, preposterous that the Assistant-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. Russet!) had already
stated in the present session the reasons for which tho
Government had adopted soma of the recommendations
of the Committee and had disagreed to other:a and the
general principles upon which they went on the whole
question. He could not accept as just or reasonable the
proposition of the am. Gentleman, that the Government
ought not to assent to the appointment of a Committee
unless prepared to accede to all its recommendations;
nor could he see that because the public service would he
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 2,0001.
should net 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 s successor.
Maj BERESFORD said he meant to divide. He
could see no justice in a Secretary to the Treasury re-
ceiving 500/ 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, aft-r be
had undertaken to discharge the duties of his office at
a salary of 2.51)01.
Mr. DISRAELI protested against considering this as
a personal questi and could not admit because a
salary had been paid by the Treasury that the House

was no I,ingPr at liberty to touch it.
Mr. HUNIE said if there had been a vacancy in the

Aer-seesetAryship, he would have supported the motion
re,luclion of the salary; but that not hying the case,

At present any reduction would be a breach of faith.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Though the reduction in ques-
tioh was only 5001, yet an important principle was in-
volved in it. The office of under-secretary was gene-
rally given to individuals who had to relinquish other
evocations, 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. Trevelyau 5001., but if the
,ight to reduce the salary was admitted, what was there
t prevent its being reduced still further in another
7 ar? If the lion. Member for Bucks had ever filled a
vablic 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
shat in question should be men of character and abilities.
and how impossible it would be to obtain persons unless
he salaries attached to their office were looked upon as
certain. He hoped the Committee would not consent to
ho reduc.ion.

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 best head that was to
be ioand on any pair of shoulders in England.
Mr. W. PATTEN admitted that he thought the Com-
mittee would have recommended the reduction had they
given it their consideration; but hO was sure they would
have 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 greatly diminished; that
the cry for a reduction of the public expenditure had
increased, and that there were now placed on Sir Charles
frevelyan's shoulders duties from which he (Mr. Miles)
hOped ,that the Hon. Gentleman would shortly be re-
lieved. The qaestion appeared to him to be simply this.
After a service of five or six years, was Sir Charles
Frevelyan paid well at a salary of 2,0001., or was he,
merely upon a Treasury minute, which was adopted cer-
tainly previous to his accepting office, to have 5001.
more ? It' they were to have a Treasury minute con-
Ntantly thrown into the teeth of the House of Commons
every time it was engaged deciding on votes, it would
~eena 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
,he decision of tnn House.

'The CHANCELOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
Sir Charles Trevelyan would have returned to India had
he not received this appointment, upon the understanding
nat at the expiration of five years his salary should be
2,500/. But the Treasury minute under which this ar-
rangerneit was made had been in existence for more than
twenty

Lard EBRINGTON supported th- vote.
Aft,r a few words from Mr. J. EVANS, the Commit-
•ee divided, and the numbers were—
For the anacndinect
Against it
114jority ... t 6
The vote was int n azrerd to; as were also the votes of
25.2701. for salaries and expense% of the Homs•offtce, and
37 1001. lar War and Colonial llop,trtments.
The Eloise teen resumed, and the Chairman obtained
leave to sit again.

... 72
... 118