The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-28 00:00:00

the petitioners and it should be both permitted to lie on
the table.—( Laughter.) The Hon. Member for the City
of Durham has completely vindicated himself from partici-
pating in the sentiments of the petitioners—
Mr. A. TREVOR—Not as to the charge of perjury.
Mr. O'CONNEL L—The petitioners have not the manli-
ness to bring a direct charge, but they deal in base and
cowardly insinuations, fit only for the ribaldry of news-
papers of a certain description. He would not reject
the petition on that account, but he would like that the
prayer of it would be attended to, and that some spe-
cific motion was founded upon it. For his own part, there was
one portion of the oath which he did not like—he referred to
that part which called this a Protestant Government. He
could not understand what was meant by calling this Govern-
ment a Protestant Government, when, in fact, there were only
three offices to which Roman Catholics were not eligible.
He would be glad, however, that the charge was made di-
rectly, and that a motion was founded upon it.—( Hear, hear.)
He had more than once in that House given his construction
of the oath, and he asked any Hon. Member who differed
from him in that construction of it, to never fear his (Mr.
O'Connell's) expulsion. As to Lord John Russell's measure,
he was prepared to vote for the measure on the same princi-
ple as if the Catholics had the possession of this Church property
under similar circumstances to those under which the Protestants
now possess it, and he would do this because he was convinced
that the scandalous robbery, the outrageous peculation, and dis-
graceful love of Mammon, would infringe upon and destroy
that respect for the retigi,;., Li, c --nee he believed
to be true, and because he thought it would bring into iii,grac.,
and contempt the Clergymen of that religion, to have them fed,
fattened, and gorged at the expense of the wealth, industry,
and comfort of Protestants. He would vote for that measure
as a Catholic, in order to remove those causes which he
was of opinion would prevent Protestants from considering
the truths, and embracing the principles, of the Catholic reli-
gion. How could Hon. Members account for it, that the
principles of Protestantism had not extended in Ireland ?
( Hear, hear.) It was because of the Scenes that took place
in that country, in enforcing the payment of tithes—it was
because the excessive and unnecessary wealth of the Pro-
testant Church prevented Catholics from inquiring into the
truth of its doctrines, by creating prejudices against it—
or was it owing to the extreme ignorance of Roman
Catholics ? He would be glad to know whether any other
reason could be assigned why papists did not become Protes-
tants, if it were not either on account of the violation of jus-
tice which was inflicted upon them, which they felt more sen-
sitively when they reflected that this property was originally
designed for Catholic purposes—for the education of Catho-
lics—for the maintenance of the Catholic clergy—for celebra-
ting masses for the relief of the souls of the deceased from
purgatory—_

An HON. MEMBER said " No, no," to this statement.

Mr. O'C 0 NNEL L begged to ask where the Church pro-
perty was that was originally so designed? Surely the Hon.
Gentleman was not so unacquainted with history as to assert
that it was granted for any other purpose. What, therefore,
was it that he proposed—first, that the spiritual wants of Pro-
testants should be completely supplied, but Hon. Members
wanted more than that their spiritual wants should be supplied
—they wanted the pounds, shillings, and pence—( Cheers)—
and shame to those who insisted that religion was not a subject
between the human mind and its creator, but that it was rather
a question of mere paltry pelf, and the mere exaction of the
mammon of this would. This is the point he wanted to try
—admitting that it is the ignorance of Catholics that
keeps them in ignorance of the Catholic religion.
By what arguments can Honourable Members opposite
justify themselves in refusing to appropriate the sur-
plus of the Church revenues to their education, and so enable
them to know the truth, thus giving to the Protestant reli-
gion a clear stage and no favour—then God would defend the
right. Give the means of enlightening the human mind—supply
us with a good moral education, and then they would have the
power to ascertain the truth. The Hon. Gentleman then re-
ferred to the decrees of Popes that had been quoted ; and
stated that the doctrines of his Church, in respect to per-
jury, was the breaking of a lawful oath, or the taking of
an unlawful oath.—( Hear, hear.) He concluded by hoping
that some Hon. Member would make a motion on the subject
of this Catholic Oath, and then he would not care for the
ribaldry of South Lancashire, or the lies of Durham.
Sir C. PEP YS took the oaths and his seat as member for
Malton.

Sir A. AGNEW gave notice that he should move a clause,
to be inserted in the London and Birmingham Railway Bill,
to prevent travelling on Sundays.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," and
laughter.)
Mr. WILK S presented a petition from the householders
of the southern division of the parish of St. Pancras against
the St. Pancras Paving Bill.
Some other petitions to the same effect, and some in favour
of the Bill, were presented by Mr. Tooke, Mr. Russell, Sir
R. Inglis, Sir S. Whalley, and other members.
Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from the Trustees of
the Truro Roads against the Truro Improvement Bill. The
Hon. Member also moved the first reading of the Stretham
(Cambridge) Inclosure Bill.