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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, MAY 6 1845.

and told him it was utterly impossible for him to attend.
He was in hopes that this explanation was sufficient.
It was quite impossible that he could do duty upon both
these Committees.

Mr. ESCOURT was not sorry that his Hon. Friend
had brought this matter before the House, because it
was of considerable importance with reference to the
carrying out of that plan which they adopted,
for the purpose of forming a Congress to investigate
railway projects. His Hon. Friend had most accurately
stated all that had passed on the occasion. When the
letter of his Hon. Friend was laid before the Com-
mittee of Selection, they found that what he had
stated was that he hal served upon two Com-
mittees, and that he could not discharge both duties.
me apprehended that the House would consider whether
the being appointed upon a public Committee exemyted
a Member of that House from his Parliamentary duties.
If his Hon. Friend, however, had stated, on a similar
occasion, the facts which now appeared, considerable
difficulty would have been avoided. He was very glad
that he had an opportunity of stating to the House
that if an Hon. Member felt reason for considering that
he could not serve, it would be attended with great con-
venience if he instantly informed the Committee of his
inability to act. The Committca of Selection did not
consider the explanations of the Hon. Member sufficient
excuse, and, therefore, did not excuse him. The same
circumstance occurred in several other cases, and they
were dealt with in the same way. However, the Com-
mittee of Selection would, of course, adopt whatever mea-
sure the House might think proper to adopt in reference
to this rule.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was quite obvious that
the fact of an Hon. Member serving on a public Cum-
mittee could not excuse him serving on a Committee of
this House.

Mr. HUME differed altogether from the Hon. Gen-
tleman. The duties of the Committees were twofold.
One of those duties was of national importance, the
other related to private interests. Ile could not under •
stand why Committees on measures of great public
and national importance should be neglected for
the business of private Committees. Attendance on
public Committees nas not compulsory. It was com-
pulsory on Committees on private Bills. He himself was
at the head of a Committee appointed to investigate a
subject of great national importance. Several
Members who were appointed on that Committee had
been asked if they would attend; they had all replied that
they should be most happy to attend, but that they were
on Committees on private Bills, which they were com-
pelled to attend. Now there was the Committee on
Prisons in Scotland; that was a subject of national
importance ; but several Members who had been
appointed on that Committee had been since drafted
off into private Committees. Now, he thought the
public business ought not to be neglected in this
manner. Members should be compelled to attend
on public Committees in the same manner a.;
they were compelled to attend on private Committees,
and Members who were placed on public Committees
ought not to be compelled to serve on any others. His
Honourable Friend had stated that there were upwards
of one hundred Members serving on Railway Com-
mittees, but there were five hundred Members
still to be chOsen from. He did not know whether or
not there was a scarcity of Members, but if such , was
the case they ought to have a call of the House, and
compel the attendance of Members.--(Hear.) There
were many Members absent, upwards of 100, as far
as he knew, without any reason. Their attendance
should be enforced, in order to compel them to
attend on Parliamentary Committees.
Sir J. TYRRELL had great satisfaction in seeing a
large number of Irish Members present. They ought
to call upon the gentlemen of Ireland to take their fair
share of business.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree with the Hon.
Member for Montrose that the fact of a Member being
appointed to a public Committee was an excuse for his
not attending a railway Coinmi ttee upon which the at-
tendance was compulsory; because everybody knew that
a Member upon a public Committee might leave London
altogether, and go to reside in the country without being
missed. But he agreed with the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose that as the House had adopted a compulsory course,
they ought to re-quilt, the attendance of Members who kept
away without leave of absence, or any justification.—
(Hear, hear.) It was obvious that the absence of those
Members rendered the duties more onerous to others.
—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He thought, therefore, that
the House ought to be obliged to the Hon. Member
for Montrose for calling attention to the subject.—(Hear,
hear)—and he hoped that the House, by a call or other-
wise, would enforce the attendance of the Members who
were absent without excuse.

Lord G. SOMERSET said that as he was the
person who proposed the compulsory resolution, the
House might expect him to say something upon this
question. It certainly was not intended that the resolu-
tion should be enforced without any modification.
But he thought that the attendance of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Winchester, upon the public Committee
was not of that constraining character which should excuse
him from attending to the railway Committee, which he
(Lord G. Somerset) considered of as much importance
to the public as the business of Committees called public.
Dr. BOWRING thought as the House had come to a
resolution on the subject of Railway Committees that
regulation should to be enforced. The questions for the
consideration of the Committees were of the utmost im-
portance, and it was quite impossible they could be
attended to if Hon. Members were not compelled to attend.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said it would be impos-
sible to admit the excuse of the Hon. Member for Win-
chester without neutralising the effect of the very regu-
lation passed by the House.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he had been appoirted
Chairman on a Railway Committee while he was serving
on two public Committees. He had applied to the Hon.
Gentleman the Chairman of the Committe of Selection,
to be relieved from the Railway Committee, but
he was informed he had no locus standi before the Com-
mittee of Selection in making such an application. Ile
was therefore obliged to leave the comparative repose of
the two Committees to consider ten Bills and listen
to twenty lawyers. If the House should come to a de-
cision in favour of the Hon. Member opposite, be (Mr.
Stewart), hoped it would be made retrospective.
Captain BERKELEY said the Members who thought
proper to attend the Repeal Association had never been
summoned on any Committee.
Mr. SOTHERON thought the Hon. Member for
Winchester had better be relieved from further attend-
ance on this Committee.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. F. SHAW said he had served upon a Committee
at great inconvenience to himself. He understood that
about forty Committees would be appointed, so that a
constant attendance of about 200 Members would be
absolutely requisite.
Sir GEORGE GREY said there ought to be some
motion on the subject. He would suggest to the Noble
Lord that the Honourable Member be directed to attend
the Committee to-morrow.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that after the
general expression of the House he thought no motion
on the subject would be necessary.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH wished to know whether,
if those Irish Members did not attend, the Sergeant-at-
Arms would not be sent over to Ireland to compel the
attendance of such Members.—(Hear.) He agreed en-
tirely with his Hon. Friend opposite that some under-
standing must be come to on this matter, and he could
not help expressing his surprise that none of the names
of those gentlemen had yet appeared on the list.—(Hear.)
He regretted that the Right Honourable Gentleman
(the Recorder of Dublin) should have made such a
friendly attack.—(Laughter.) Yes, a friendly attack on
the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford. He
seemed to say, "I will excuse you for non-attendance,
and put you to serve upon another." If a preference
was extended to one, it ought to be extended to all.
Mr. M. MILNES wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman what would take place if an Hon. Member re-
fused to attend the summons ?
Mr. HUME said, that if this were made a compul-
sory matter, he hoped that a call of the House would
take place immediately, so that every Hon. Member
who could not furnish a sufficient apology might be
compelled to attend.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said he had put a question to
the Noble Lord, and he hoped he would answer him.
Lord G. SOMERSET said he was not aware that
the Noble Lord had put a question to him. lie
conceived that any Member who had been selected
by the Committee of Selection to serve on a Railway
Committee would, if he had not obeyed that call, be
committed, by order of the House, to the custody
of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The czse had not yet arisen,
and the House expressed no opinion upon it. lie
hoped, however, when the case did arise, that the House
would not allow their resolutions, emanating from
a Committee, to be considered as so much waste paper.
He was afraid, if the attendance of Members was not
enforced, that they would not attend at all.—(Hear.)
Lord CASTLEREAGH said that the Noble Lord
had not answered his question. He wished to ask him
distinctly whether, in the event of certain Members
from Ireland not attending, they would be compelled to
do so ?
Lord G. SOMERSET said that if any Member, whe-
ther from Ireland, Scotland, or England, did not attend
when summoned by the Committee of Selection, he
(Lord Granville Somerset) should certainly propose to
the House that such Member be committed to the cus-
tody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.—(" Hear, hear," and
cries of " Move, move.")
Sir G. GREY begged to move that the Hon. Member
for Winchester (Mr. B. Escott) be directed to attend
upon a Railway Committee to-morrow.
The SPEAKER having put the question that Mr.
Bingham Escott be directed to attend upon the Railway
Committee, Group Q, to-morrow----(Laughter),
Mr. ESCOTT said the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site misunderstood the reasons which he gave for
not attending the Committee. He did not re-
fuse to attend because be preferred being on a public
Committee. What he meant to state was, that it was
incompatible with bis duty on the public Committee to
attend upon a railway Committee also. Not only as it
seemed to him did he exercise a sound discretion in re-
fusing, but he took the only course that would enable to
him to perform his duty to the House.
The gallery was then cleared for a division but none
took place. On our entrance
Mr. HUME was addressing the House, and gave no-
tice that on Friday he would move for a call of the
House, and that every Member not present be requested
to attend on that day ten days.
LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY.
Lord JERMYN moved the second reading of the
London and Croydon Railway Bill.
Dr. BOWRING said a few words in opposition to it.
There was a very large population in those towns
that had been named ; but they would not object
to the forMation of the line, provided 'no other line
that d 7 six
Neviatia_ to be run near the town of Newmarket. He con-
months.
Mr. P. HOWARD
ded by moving that the Bill be read a second time
conceived that that House should
not delegate its powers to the Board of Trade, and be

conceived it woulC be unjust to exclude this line from
public competitioi.
After a few 'eords from Lord JERMYN, the BM
was read a secondtiwe.
The Edinburgh Life Assurance Bill was read a third
time.
CONDEMNID SERMONS IN NEWGATE.
Captain POLhILL gave notice that he should to-
morrow ask the Secretary sf State for the Home Depart-
ment if any communication had taken place between him
and the Sheriffs cf London respecting the admission of
persons to hear tie condemned sermon at Newgate ; and
whether the Sheriffs had acted according to their un-
doubted right ani privileges ?
EDI.73ATION IN ENGLAND. _ _ .

Mr. COCQCIJOUN rose to put a question of which
he bad given notice. He understood that an increased
grant was intended to be proposed f.r education in Eng-
land, and he was anxious to ascertain from his Right

Hon. Friend tie Chancellor of the Exchequer whe-
ther it was the intention on the part of the Govern-
ment to alter tae arrangement under
.which sums of
money were granted by that House for education in
Encland ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he
was aware that there was an uneasiness in the public mind
about it.—(Hear, hear.) He had no such intention.
CAPTAIN FITZROY.

Captain RODS said the House would remember that in
March last, when the Hon. Member for Dartmouth brought
forward a motion respecting New Zealand, that motion was un-
opposed, but an opportunity was taken for making a fierce at-
tack on his friend Captain Fitzroy, the Governor of New
Zealand. He was then absent, but he was happy to say that
its effects were as feeble as the attack was fierce.
The SPEAKER said the Noble and Gallant Officer was
not in order. There was no question before the House.

Captain ROUS said that he would put a question to the
Hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Mr.
Hope), respecting the governorship of New Zealand. He
had heard with great rain that that officer had been super-
seded. At the same time that he asked this question, he would
appeal to Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, who
knew the Gallant Officer, whether they did not believe him to
be, both in public and private life, a straightforward, honour-
able man ?
The SPEAKER said the lion. Gentleman was quite out
of order. He could only 'preface his question with such ex-
planation as would make it intelligible.
Captain ROUS—Then he would ask the Hon. Gentleman
the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether or not it was
true that Captain Fitzroy had been superseded as Governor of
New Zealand ? _

Mr. G. HOPE said, his Hon. and Gallant Friend had
given him notice, and, therefore, he was prepared to answer
the question. But he understood that his Hon. and Gallant
Friend wished him to state, upon what grounds the supersedeas
was issued, and whether it affected Captain Fitzroy as a gen-
tleman, or as an officer in her Majesty's service. It certainly
was the intention of her Majesty's Government to appoint a
successor to Captain Fitzroy, but this intention had been com-
municated to none beyond the Members of the Government,
except the members of Captain Fitzroy's own family, from
whom the lion. and Gallant Officer must have received the

intelligence. The step did not in any way affect Captain Fitz-
roy, either in his public or private capacity, nor was it in con-
sequence of charges preferred against him, by members of the
New Zealand Company. He would not go into the details of
the whole question, or any statement of them; but he would
read a passage from the last dispatch from the colony in refer-
ence to that officer. The Hon. Member read the paragraph,
which was to the effect that the Gallant Officer was entitled to
much praise for the great personal sacrifices he had made.
'GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.
Mr. BANKS said that upon bringing up the report on the
Maynooth Bill, he would move that it be received that day
six months.

MR. CARUS WILSON.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, in answer to a question from
Mr. ROEBUCK, that he 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
had 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-
tention of the Right Hon. Baronet to take the discussion on the
Bill before the holidays?
Sir ROBERT 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 been appointed to examine the whole
subject. The report of 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. ROCHE 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
vpeorsyedetrweintghlyrtehgearndthteor
naigcandtebmyicthale mHaetnt.erAseientHheer wfears
Kerry
general outline of the measures which the Government pros
as to any measures which he might intend to introduce with re-
spect to landed property 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 most pressing. He
.ce
eh
hpiwciahmal:warannuaodhi Hteb
another
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
he knew nothing of the
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
case,
s matteri r exceptßw.opul
Edwhat
brought
wished
ueh
ge
hrd et
ta
officially
asi
ancyi
at
lht
that
a public uetbfhlewri
measureowu
broughtla was
bt to
have a deputation from Marylebone to-morrow, when the
then his duty to institute an inquiry.
in contemplation, with respect to Ireland, relating to the
banking establishment in that country,
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 been 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 toput a question to the Hon. Member
for Montrose. He wished to know whether it was his inten-
tion to bring on his motion with respect to Sir Henry Pottinger
to-morrow night?
Mr. HUME said that when he came down to the House that
was his intention, but he was compelled to postpone it on find-
ing that many Members who would support it would necessarily
be absent on that evening.
Mr. ESCOTT gave notice that it was his intention to call
the House over on Thursday, the 22d inst.
THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—IRELAND.
Mr. WARBURTON said that a matter of much importance
occurred 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 dismission, and the Chairman and several Members of the
Standing Orders Committee spoke on the merits of die motion.
It was stated that in 300 cases it was found that the standing
orders had not been complied with, and that out of these 300
cases, there were thirty-four cases of very great importance.
Other Gentlemen spoke in favour of the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Roscommon, and stated that it
was a matter of the deepest importance that this Bill should be
proceeded with, its spite of its non-compliance with the stand-
ing orders. The House came to a vote, and the motion was
carried by a majority of eighty or ninety. It was strange that
a Member of the Government, and that Member the Secretary
for Ireland, spoke in favour of that motion, and voted 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
complied with. Many desired that the Bill should be proceeded
with, and to cast out the report, but he would not be 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 reports, for in
many cases the question would not be decided on the merits.
He now rose to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the course that
he now would recommend after such a precedent had been set
to Hon. Gentlemen. He now would ask him what course he
would recommend the House to pursue. in respect to the sup-
porting or not supporting the recommendation of the Standing
Orders Committee. If they allowed the Bill in this instance
to proceed, great injury would be done to the Birkenhead and
Manchester Railway Bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to state to the Hon. Gen-
tleman, as an exemplification 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
orders, but he told him that he thought that the report of the
Standing Orders 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 Trade had an interview with him that morning, when he
(the Vice-President) said that although it was a private mea-
sure, it had beep 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 favour of the decision of the Standing
Orders Committee. He had no connexion at all with the Bill,
and it was, therefore, entirely dependant upon his own views of
the merits of the case.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that be object e d to the Secre-
tary for Ireland coming down there to vote in that capacity.
He hoped the Secretary for Ireland would not suppose that he
was taking that opportunity of attacking him—he wished to
see him using all fair means of gaining popularity, but he
should say that he never recollected such a course as this.
What he objected to on this particular occasion wan, that he
as Secretary for Ireland took a particular course with regard
to a private Bill, which he not only not supported, but resisted
the sense of the Government as expressed by the Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster. The decision was a most unfortunate
one, and he quite agreed with what had been said by his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Warburton). He (Mr. Labouchere) had been
asked by some of his Irish friends to support their views, but
he 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-
sister' the report of the Standing Orders Committee.
Mr. OSBORNE said that Hon. Gentlemen were not aware
that in coming before the Standing Orders Cornmtttee there were
many morekfficulties attending the tenure of land in Ireland,
and in serving notice on middlemen there than in England.
He thought that his Hon.• Friend (Sir T. Fremantle)
exercised a sound discretion. Hon. Gentlemen who were not
acquainted with Ireland, and who belonged to the Standing
Orders Committee, were not aware of those difficulties. If
the standing orders were to be complied with, it would be im-
possible to construct a railway in Ireland.
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 House to vote in favour of the motion

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it might be quite right that
they should not require a strict compliance with respect to
railway's 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 Orders should be respected u ith 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 rca oils could be given for upsetting their au-
thority. He wished that the House would came 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. A GLIONBY 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. Ile was
not present when the discussion vsas brought on, nor did he
happen to be on 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
orders.— (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 four days in
each week, and the chairmen of some of them had frequently to
ask leave of the Speaker to sit after the House had met—
( Hear, hear.) Now, surely, if the same ule that regulated
English Railway Bills was not to be applied to Irish Bills he
would say the sooner the standing orders were alt. red 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 decisions respected, the [douse had better atter
the standing or, ors 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 Reuse could have any confidence in those deci-
sions in future.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard something said
about the non-compliance with standing orders in certain eases
not being sufficient to warrant the House in rejecting a Bill.
Now, he was aware of an instance—that of the Manchester 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-
tionel, 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.—( Hear, hear).
Mr. F. FRENCH said, that if he and others bed not been
led to understand that there would be no opposition to the
Bill in question, he could have been prepared to show the Com-
mittee that none of the important standing orders had been
violated. _ _ _

Mr. WILSON PAI TEN 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—(tear, Lear)—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 he 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 Howe 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 project, 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 lust, 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 the
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 had 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 he lost 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 mond s.
_-(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 to regret, but he hoped they would sup-
port the proper and wholesome authority of the standing orders.
Lord WORSLEY 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 RODS wished to say a few words in reference to
the New Zealand question. He would say that, in his opinion,
it would be impossible for 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 satisfaction 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
bad 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 petition from Carlisle
against the Bill.
Sir R. PEEL presented several petitions in favour of the
Bill.

Mr. SPOONER presented petitions from Worcestershire
against the Bill.
Petitions 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. CRA WFORD 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 compulsory assessment, whether under the name of
tithes, rents, cesses, taxes, regium donum, or under any 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 en-
dowments 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 put on
record the opinion of a large body of the people of this country,
who bad 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 for 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 was not in
terfering with the conscience of a man to impose a tax upon
him. But he contended that to make a man pay for a Church
to which he did not belong, was to compel him to violate his
conscience. In matters of religion the State ought not to in-
terfere. Let them render to Caesar the things which were
(-moor's, and to God the things which were Uod's. State
establishments and forced contributions were not calculated to
advance religious truth. The Establisbel 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 counts v. There
were dissensions as to the colour of a gown, or the shape of an
altar. How was that state of things to be remedied? Could it
be done by 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 churches were
hostile to religious liberty. State Churches were unjust and
impolitic, and the proposition which he now submitted to the
House, 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 w hotat present had a vested right
in them, be 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 he 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 so 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. Friend was one of so comprehensive a character, and
embraced so many important considerations, that he could not
support it, brought forward, as it was, incidentally. He did
not say that he disagreed entirely with the motion, but for the
reason he had assigned he could not give it his support. Having
voted for the present measure, he would state the reasons why
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 Catholics and the Dissenters, in the shape of taxes,
he was astonished that the Hon. Barnet 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. The 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
the Protestant establishment. There was no less a ewes than