The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-06 00:00:00

MR. CARUS WILSON.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, in answer to a question from
Mr. ROEBUCK, that be had received letters and petitions
from Mr. Carus Wilson, now confined in Jersey gaol, upon
the subject alluded to by the Hon. Member for Bath, and he
bad referred them to the governor of the gaol of Jersey.
SCOTCH BANKS.

Mr. FOX MAULE said that the first notice on the paper
was that for the second reading of the Banking Scotland Bill.
He wished to know (as we understood) whether it was the in-
tension of the Right Hon. Baronet to take the discussion on the
Bill before the holidays?
Sir ROBTART PEEL said he hoped there would be no ob-
jection to take the discussion before the holidays, and he
hoped that the House would allow the second reading, with
the understanding that the discussion should take place upon
the question going into Committee.
POOR-LAW (SCOTLAND).
Mr. F. MAULE said, that with respect to another Scotch
Bill, he wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the Lord
Advocate as to his intentions ? The House would recollect
that it was understood that every parish and county in Scot-
land should have an opportunity of considering this Bill before
it would be passed. A great meeting had taken place, at
which a committee had ben appointed to examine the whole
suhject. The report o!' that committee was in preparation, but
had not been published. He wished to know whether :the
Lord Advocate would delay the Bill until the result of the in-
quiry was known ?
The LORD ADVOCATE was understood to say that on
Wednesday he would fix the day for the second reading.
Mr. feOCHE wished to know from the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of her Majesty's Government, when it was his in-
tention to bring forward the Irish Municipal Corporation and
Registration Bills, and what the objects of those Bills were ?
Sir R. PEEL said that it was the desire of her Majesty's
Government that the business connected with Ireland
should undergo very full consideration during this session.
He had already expressed his desire to state the
general outline of the measures which the Governme,A pro-
posed with regard to academical matters. He was pressed
very strong), the other night by the Hon. Member for Kerry,
as to any measures which he might intend to introduce with re-
spect to landed properey in Ireland ; but he was aware that
the other House of Parliament would bring forward a measure
during this session with reference to that subject. There were
other measures with regard to Ireland which were also to be
disposed of ; but there were no advantages to be obtained by
placing several measures on the table of the House. It would
be better to proceed with those which were mostipressing. He
thought that the principles of the measure which the Hon.
Member referred to, would have the effect of extending the
franchise in Ireland, and making it equal to that enjoyed in
England.
Mr. HUME wished to ask the Secretary for the Home
Department a question with respect to a man who was lately
brought before a magistrate in the parish to which he belonged
for an assault, and though it was a bailable offence, bail to any
amount was refused. It had created a very strong feeling in
his parish ; and he wished to know if the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had instituted any inquiry respecting it?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that as yet he knew nothing of the
case, except what he read in the public papers. He was to
have a deputation from Marylehone to-morrow, when the
matter would be brought officially before him, and it would be
then his duty to institute an inquiry.
Sir R. PEEL wished to say that there was another measure
in contemplation, with respect to Ireland, relating to the
banking establishment in that country, which would be brought
before the House this session.
Mr. MACLEAN said that to-morrow he would put a
question to the Right Hon. Baronet, relating to any com-
munication that may haue b en made between the Tuilleries
and St. James's, connected with the right of search question ;
and also a question as to that part of the Emancipation Act
which related to the Jesuits.

Mr. ROSS wished to put a question to the Hon. Member
for Montrose. lie wished to know whether it wa; his inttn •
tiri to bring on his motion with respect to Sir Henry Pottinger
to-morrow niAt ?

Mr. HUME said that when he came down to the House that
was his intention, but he was compel!ed to postpone it on find.
ing that many Ah.mbers who would support it would necessarily
be absent on that evening.
l' -r. ESCOTT gave notice that it was his intention to call
the House over on Thursday, the 22.1 inst.
THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—IRELAND.
. _ _

Mr. WARBURTON said that a matter of much importance
oecurred during the business of the day, relating to the Great
Western Railway, Ireland, respecting which a motion was
made by his Hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon to the
effect that this Bill be allowed to proceed. The motion was
under discu;sion, and the Chairman and several Members of the
Standing Orders Committee spoke on the merits of he motion.
It was stated that in 3fio rases it was found that the standing
orders had not been enmplied with, and that out of these 3tlo
eases, there were thirty-four cases of very great importance.
Other Gentlemen spoke in favour of the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman the Member fur Roscomiten, and stated that it
was a matter of the deepest importance that this Bill should be
proceeded with, in spite of its non-compliance with the stand-
ing orders. The House came to a vote, and the motion wits
emied by a majority of eighty or ninety. It was strange that
a Member of the Goeernment, and that Member the Secretary
for Ireland, spike in favour of that motion, and coted for it.
Private applications had been made to himself( Mr. Warburton)
to support motions for throwing over the reports
of the Standing Order Committee, and particularly in the
case of the Birkenhead and Manchester Railway,
when all parties admitted that it was only in one or two cases
where the standing orders of the Committees had not been
comelied with. Many desired that the Bill should be proceeded
with, and to cast out the report, but he would not he a party
to the upsetting of a report of the Standing Orders Com-
mittee, and it was his opinion that the House should not in-
dulge in the practice of throwing out such repents, for in
many eases the question would not be decided on the merits.
lie now rose to ask the Rieht Hon. Baronet the course that
be now woul t recommend after such a precedent had been set
to Hon. Gentlemen. He now would ask him what course he
would recommend the House to pursne, in respect to the sup-
porting or not sdtpporting the recommendation of the Standing
Orders Committee. If they allowed the Bill in this instance
to nrccecd, great injury would be done to the Birkenhead and
Manchester Railway
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to state to the Hon. Gen-
tleman, t son exem:lificatic.n of his own opinion, that a gen-
tleman principally interested in this matter came to him (Sir
R. Peel), soliciting his interference to throw out the standing
oreers, hut he told him that he ti.enellt that the report of the
0-hors Committee was a judicious one, and made
with perfect purity of intention, and he positively declined to
interfere in upsetting it. The Vice-President of the Board
of(oTrade hart an interview with him !hat morning, when he
Vote-President) said that although it was a private mea-
sure, e, it had been usual for one Member of the Board of Trade
to vote in favour Of the opinion of the House and to come to
give his voice and vote in
had
favour of the decision' of the Standing
Orders Cna
ornitteo. t
and it was, therefore, entirely dependant
connexion at all with the Bill,
dependant upon his own viewe of
the merits of the case.
Mr. L&BOUCHERE said that he objected to the Secre-
tary for Ireland coming down there ' vote in that capacity.
He hoped the Secretary for Ireland wouldti not suppose that he
was taking that opportunity of attackinr him—he wished to
see him using all fair means of gainii;g popularity, but he
should say that he never recollected such course as this.
What he objected to cn this particular occasion was, that he
as Secretary for Ireland took a partieular course b
3 withut regard
to a private Bill, which he not only not supported, resisted
the sense of the Government as expressed by the Chancellor
the Duchy of Lancaster. The decision was a most unfortunate
of
one, and he quite agreed with what had been said bylaisHon
Friend (Mr. Warburton). He (Mr. Labouchere) had been
asked by some of his Irish friends to support their views, but
lie told them that unless the Chairman of the Committee had
intimated to him that there were particular reasons which
should induce them to deal with this Bill in a different way
from the others, he would not support the motion which re-
si.dted the report of the Standing Orders Committee.
Mr. OSBORNE said that lion. Gentlemen were not aware
that in coming before the Standing Orders Commtt tee there were
many more difficulties attending ilje tenure of land in Ireland,
and in serving notice on middlemen there than in England.
He thought that his Hun. Friend ( Sir T. Fremantle)
exercised a sound discretion. Hon." Gentlemen who were not
acquainted with Ireland, and who belonged to the Startling
Orders Ccmtnittee, were not aware of those diffid ulties. If
the standing orders were to be complied with, it would be im-
possible to construct a railway in Irelatal.
Mr. ESCOTT said that he recollected that the very first
words which the Secretary for Ireland used with respect to
this question were these, that he did not wish to induce
any man in the Heuse to vote in favour of th motion

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it might be quite right that
they should not require a strict compliance with respect to
railways in Ireland, but it should be regulated by some rule of
that House.—( Hear, hear. ) It would not be right that the
Committee of Standing Orcl,rs should be respected with regard
to all English Railway Bills, but whenever a report of an
Irish Railway Bill was to be made it was to he set at nought.
No public reivens could be given for upsetting their au-
thority. He wished that the House would come to some re-
solution with respect to Irish Railway Bills.
Sir T. FREMANTLE did not think that he was deserving
of the imputation of the Noble Lord, that he did not give his
authority for opposing this report. He was desirous that every
Member of the House should exercise his own discretion. He
would not say anything that would influence the mind of any
other person. He certainly did not vote in the capacity of
Secretary. In his own individual capacity, he could not think
that it was important that a railway communication, from the
east to the west of Ireland—(Hear, hear) —should pass this
present session.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he could assure the Hon. Member
that he had no personal feeling whatever on the subject ; but
having been a member of the Standing Orders Committee he
wished to say a few words in reference to this Bill. He was
not present when the discussion Ras brought on, nor did he
happen to be un the Committee on private Bills either at the
time, though a member of the Committee also; but he did now
seriously call on the House to pay attention to this matter, par-
ticularly as to what had been said on the subject of standing
ortlers.—(Hear, hear.) The House well knew that the Com-
mittee on private Bills had been sub-divided into four sub-
Committees, and each of them had to sit three or faur days in
each week, and the chairmen of some of them had frequently to
ask leave of the Speaker to Fit after the House had met.—
( Clear, hear.) Now, surely, if the same rule that regulated
English Railway Bills was not to be applied to Irish Bills, he
would say the sooner the standing orders were altered to that
effect the better.—( Hear, hear.) At present the Committees
had somewhat of a judicial charactert and if that were not to be
kept up, and its decisioFs respected, the House had better alter
the standing or. ers at once.—( Hear.) If the House did not
do that, then he would pray that it would respect the decisions
of its Committees—( Hear, hear)—for if it reversed those de-
cisions easily, or lightly, or inconsiderately, then neither the
public nor that House could have any confidence in those deci •
sions in future.—( Hear, hear.) He ILad heard something said
about the non-compliance with standing orders in certain cases
not being sufficient to warrant the House in rejecting a Bill.
Now, he was aware of an instance—that of the Mao chester and
Birkenhead, in which there were but a few instances of non-
compliance with the standing orders, and the line was not per-
mitted to be proceeded with that session ; but here was an in-
stance of a Bill which contained more instances of non-com-
pliance, fifty per cent greater than those:in the one he had men-
tioned, and yet the House had declared that the Bill was to be
approved.—( Hear, hear). If the House meant to act with
consistency, let them not approve of a bill that had 300 or 400
objections in it, or else alter the standing orders so as to suit
Irish Bills.—( )lear, hear).
Mr. F. FRENCH said, that if he and others had not been

led to understand that there would be no opposition to the
Bill in question, he could have beedprepared to show the Com-
mittee that none of the important standing orders had beers
violated.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN said it would be setting at
nought the labours of the Committee, if such proceedings as
had taken place here this evening were to be persevered in.
And he should also remark, that in his opinion the House could
not too strongly deprecate the practice of canvassing that had
been going on—(hear, hear)—for the purpose of procuring a
majority in favour of a Bill that had been reported against.—
( Hear, hear). If such a practice were to be continued—if the
House did not strenuously set its face against it, there would
be an end of the duties of Committees.—(Hear, hear.) He
now begged to give notice that he would, on to-morrow, move
a resolution, by which the whole merits of the case now in
question would be brought before the House, in order to show
that the Committee on Standing Orders had done their duty.
Lord HOWICK looked upon this question as one of great
public importance. They all knew how loud and general were
the complaints that this canvassing and other jobbing had been
going on, and that by it many Bills had been passed that never
should.—( Hear, hear.) If the House persevered in the deci-
sion it had just come to, all the old system of jobbing would
again be revived.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Buckingham had stated, in his capacity of
Chief Secretary for Ireland, that railway projects were of
great importance to that country. He (Lord Howick) knew
that perfectly well, but he conceived it would be much more
important not to make Ireland the victim of a jobbing system.
—( Cries of " Hear, hear.) Let this Bill now re-
main in its present position. A lapse of one year
was all the time that could be lost, and it would
be much better that that course should be followed than inflict
upon Ireland the evils that would be certain to follow from tha
effects of jobbing.—(Hear, hear.) They all knew the dan-
gerous results that had flowed from doing business carelessly in
that country, and the Irish people should therefore be taught
to do it as it was done in England. He had heard of a deci-
sion that the House bad come to in reference to one of those
Bills this evening ; he 'looked upon that as a step taken in a
wrong direction, which no time should be lust in retracing,
and he believed it was competent for the House to do so.—
( Hear, hear.) He would therefore suggest that when this
Bill should be presented, it should be postponed for six months.
—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for
Ireland had spoken in favour of this Bill ; but it was well known
that it was not in his private capacity as Member for Bucking-
ham he did so, but as the Secretary of State for Ireland—
( Hear, hear)--and it would be impossible for him to divest

himself of the weight of influence and authority that attached
to him in his official capacity. —(Hear, hear.) He would beg
of the House not to take any step in this matter which they
might have occasion t• regret, but he hoped they would sup-
port the proper and wholesome authority of the standing orders.
Lord ‘VORSLEY said that this was the first he had heard
of canvassing ; but he was greatly surprised at it ; and he
would ask, if it were to be persevered in, where would it stop ?
—(Hear, hear.) If it were not put a stop to, it might extend
to the members of Committees.

Mr. DUNCOMBE contended that there ought to be some
appeal from the decisions of the Standing Orders Committee;
if not, the appeals that had been made would be a mere
mockery.
Here the subject dropped.
THE NEW ZEALAND QUESTION.
Captain ROUS wished to say a few words in reference to
the New Zealand question. He would say that, in his opinion,
it would be impossible fckr any officer to rule that colony with
' the present Company ; and if ever that Company brought the
question before the House, he would prove that they had_been
guilty of most discreditable practices.
Mr. AGLIONBY, as one of the Directors of the Com-
pany, begged to say that he could show that the Gallant
Officer had been misinformed on the subject.
Mr. RICE TREVOR said that no man could be more
amiable in private life, or better intentioned than Captain
Fitzroy.
Mr. WARD said that no act of the present Government
could have given more sa'isfact ion than having recalled Captain
Fitzroy.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said he knew that Gallant Officer
well, and was aware that he had made considerable sacrifice
when going out to New Zealand.
Mr. G. W. HOPE fully confirmed the statement which
had been made by the Hon. Member for Westminster, that
Captain Fitzroy had great difficulties to contend with.
Mr. B. ESCOTT inquired when the Hon. Member for
Sheffield intended to bring on his motion respecting burdens on
land ? _ _ _

Mr. WARD said, that if Government could not fix days for
public business, it was not to be expected that a private Mem-
ber could fix a day for any motion.
MAYNOOTH BILL. .

The order of the day for bringing up the report on this Bill
was then read.
A number of petitions for and against the Bill were pre-
sented. _ _

Mr. P. HOWARD presented a retition from Carlisle
.

against the Bill.
Sir R. PEEL presented several petitions in favour of the
Bill.

Mr. SPOONER presented petitions from Worcestershire
against the Dill.
Petii ions against the Bill were presented by Mr. Hamilton,
Mr. Lockhart, and Mr. Granger.
The report was then brought up.
On the question that the amendments be read a second time,
Mr. S. CRAWFORD rose to move as an amendment, that

any provision for the separate or exclusive education of any par-
ticular religious denomination, or for the support or endow-
ment of any religious sect or sects by State grants or funds
raised by ccmpolsory assessment, whether under the name of
tithes, rents, ceases, taxes, regium donum, or under aey other
name or form whatever, is a violation of the rights of conscience,
detrimental to religious truth, and dangerous to civil and reli-
gious freedom ; and that all such establishments, grants, or el:-
doer:news now in existence in the United Kingdom ought to
be discontinued, with as little delay as may be consistent with a
due regard to the rights of those who have life-interests in the
same. He had proposed this amendment in order to pot on
record the opinion of a large body of the people of this country,
who had entrusted him with their petitions against this Bill.
He did not oppose this measure in a very hostile spirit to his
Catholic fellow-subjects. He believed that if this Bill were
allowed to pass, other denominations besides the Catholics
would call for endowments. He was against all State
grants fur ecclesiastical purposes. He wished to go the
full extent of repudiating all State grants. Religion was an
ordinance of God, and not of man ; and man had therefore no
right to interfere with it. It might be said that it arcs not in •
terfering with the conscience of a man to impose a tax upon
him. But ha contended that to make a man pay for a Church
to which he did not helong, was to compel him to violate his
conscience. In matters of religion the State ought not to in••
terfere. Let them render to Caiar the things which were
Cw3ar's, and to God the things which were God's. State
establishments and forced contributions were not calculated to
advance religious truth. The Established Church in this
country had large endowments, and yet they were im-
potent in extending their religion. The Dissenters were
invading them with great strides. The State Church and the
Church of the people in Ireland were always in a state of
hostility to each other. Let them look at the dissensions which
were at present tearing the Church in this country. There
were dissensior s as to the colour of a gown, or the shape of an
altar. How was that state of things to be remedied? Ceuld it
be done bj that house ? No ; the only remedy that could be
found was in the Church itself. They did not find, in the
churches of the State. that any provisions were made for the
poor. If a State Church were necessary, why was there
not provision made for all its members. In the churches
of the State, provision was always made for the rich,
while the poor were not cared for. State chn-ehes were
hus' Ile to religious liberty. State Churches were unjust and
impolitic, and the proposition which he now submitted to the
Ho ise, was a declaration against all Establishments. But
while his proposition affirmed this principle, it did not violate
any vested rights. He would propose that the revenues of
the lands now applied to: ecclesiastical purposes should, at
the decease of those parties who'at present had a vested right
in them, he placed in the consolidated fund. He objected to
this grant to Maynooth simply because he supported the volun-
tary principle. The Protestants of England had, on other
occasions asserted the voluntary principle in preference to that
of an Establishment, and if they were now opposed to the
grant to Maynooth, on the voluntary principle, it ought not to
be construed into hostility to Ireland. He was opposed to
monopoly in religion, as be was to monopoly in trade. He
might go into much detail in support of the proposition which
he now submitted to the House, but as this subject generally
was sn much before the House of late, he would not now
enter upon it, but would content himself with proposing the
motion of which he had given notice.
Mr. HINDLE Y seconded the motion.
Mr. W. WiLLIANIS regretted that the motion of his
_
Hon. Frignd was one of an comprehensive a character, and
sid
upport
tibt
a,
tb
he
oeudg
ihs
at
gf
er
ewda redn,t
ra
es i
yi t
wwi
gat
biintechiimd eont
oa lnl .
embraced so many important considerations, that he could not
He
h
ive
voted for the present measure, he would
statsestt'hpePorreta.
but for t(lh. '
reason he had assigned he'could no
s ons Having
why
t
he did so. When he considered the vast amount of money
paid for the support of the Protestant religion, and that a large
portion of this money was
paid from the money contributed by
the Roman Cathoiica and the Dissenters, in the shape of taxes,
he was astonished that the Hon. Baronet the Member for Ox-
ford, and the Hon. Member for Kent, and other supporters of
the Established Church should have given such opposition to
the Government measure. 'fhe amount of money so paid was
absolutely astounding. In the Army Estimates, the Navy
Estimates, the Civil Contingencies, and the Miscellaneous
Estimates, he found large sums appropriated for the support of
he Protestant .Establishment. 'I here was no less a sum than