The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1844.

there was no danger of an insurrection ; but ho asked if the
general peace of Europe were broken, and in the event of a
war, if foreign enemies landed in Ireland, would they not find
a large portion of the people of that country a friendly popula-
tion ?-- No, no," from both sides of the House.) They
knew full well that that danger was not unreasonably appre-
hended before, and it was averted, not by any want of ability on
the pare. of our enemies, but because fhe Irish people were not
inclined to rise against this nation. Ile had touche 1 upon that
subject very l'glitly, and he ventured no assertion of his own
upon it.—( Hear, hear.) But, he asked, was there nothing in
that subject which would point. out a want of security in Ire-
land, in the case of a war? Was not the contingency of war
publicly di:classed in Ireland, and in America? And did not
Louis Philippe, simple as he was—( A laugh)—possess an
inkling of the matter ? Those were only the probable evils of
the present state of Ireland ; but the real evils whieli it. im-
posed were the enormous expense—the constant violation of the
constitutional principles and free form of government under
which we lived—and, above all, the total impossibility of taking
any measures to ameliorate the condition of the people of Ireland.
The state of Ireland—the turbulent disposition and utter
misery of the peasantry of that country—made it the great eye-
sore of the whole of Europe. Intelligent travellers from all
countries—men conversant with the state of every nation of
the continent of Europe—drscribe the destitution and misery
of Ireland as being beyond that of the peasantry of any country
in the world. This is a frightful thing; it is more—it is a
scandal to us who have governed Ireland. And yet, exist
will till they removed the religious grievances of the people,
for it was totally impossible to ameliorate the condition
of a disaffected people—it was totally impossible, till the first
was effected, to do any good. The great evil of Ireland put
out of the question any plan that wisdom might. suggest for
the improvement of the people.—( Hear, hear.) Now he had
stated the existence of this disaffection without justifying it,
without palliating it, and even without reprobating- it ; for he
wished to represent it simply to the House in a practical point
of view. —( An Hon. Member on the Opposition benches, we
believe Mr. J. O'Connell, expressed his disapprobation of the
word " disaffected.") He wished to present that feeling to the
House in a practical point of view, namely, as one
that they could nst dream away, that they could
not doubt away, and that they could not allow
to exist unheeded. He had been guarded in his use of the
word disaffection—he had guarded himself against any mis-
aprehension, by stating his wish to present it to them as a
thing with which they must deal as " a great fact," one to be
taken into consideration as the basis of all their policy with
regard to Ireland. It would not do at this time of day, to lay
all the blame of the agitation on agitators and demagogues,
because the world at large had pretty well arrived at the con-
clusion that a people 'might be provoked, but never instigated,
into a re ;olt. They must use the knowledge of this feeling, in order
to direct them in applying a remedy. They must not be
misled in endeavouring to apply that remedy, by attending
merely to what the people asked ; it was their business to at-
tend to that cry so far as it led them to an acquaintance with
their grievances, and those grievances it was their duty to re-
lieve when they discovered them. He did not say that, because
the people of Ireland demanded the repeal of the union, they
were to discuss that question as the only remedy, or to apply
any remedy except that which might be most just and the
most practical. . It was impossible to look at the state
of Ireland, without seeing that the real grievance which had
alienated the affections of the people, was a religious grievance,
else why was the agitation going on through all the Catholic
population of Ireland? Why were the Catholic priests the
leaders of it, and why did the present outbreak take place on
the accession of an Anti-Catholic Ministry to power ?
(Cheers. ) These coincidences showed that it was a religious
grievance. And when they looked round on the state of Ire-
land, and asked what it was that called forth the in-
digeant feelings of the people, they saw that which the
voice of the world hail pronounced to be a gfeater outrage on
religious feel ng than was to be found in any part of it—the
ascendancy of the English Church in that country. He knew
that there wet e some gentlemen who maintained that the hos-
tility to the English Church, on the part of the people of Ire-
land, was a sort of point of honour—a feeling far too fine for
people of common sense—and who looked on the mass of the
people as a set of beasts, who, as long as their bellies were filled
—( Hear, hear, from an Honourable Member on the Mi.
nistei ial side)—had no business to trouble themselves with
any point of the kind. Those who held this opinion
Leal!), overlooked the fact, that almost all great movements of
a national character that had ever taken place in the metro-
polis had been caused by outrages on national feeling, rather
than by injuries to national interest.—( Hear, hear.) It
seemed to him that the ascendancy of the English Church in
Ireland had every characteristic of an outrage on national
feeling. First, it was a great and palpable injustice—the
maintenance of the English Church as an establishment in
Ireland, was a thing so opposed to every principle on which
Church establishments were maintained by any rational
set of men, that no one could doubt that they ventured to
keep it up, solely from a scornful disregard of the feelings of
the Irish people. Why, the only national principle on which
he had ever heard the connexion of Church and State de-
fended, was that it was their duty to provide for the religious
wants of the majority of the people, and, above all, tor the
religious instruction of the poor. Now, what was it that they
had done in Ireland? They had plundered the many of the
provision made for their religious wants, in order to establish
a sinecure Church for the few.—(Cheers.) They had robbed
the very poorest people in the world, in order to
gorge the avidity of the rich.—( Hear, hear.) The
Irish Church was associated with more recollections of
suffering and grievance than any other institution in any na-
tion with which he was acquainted. He thought it was not
too much to say that—taking not-only the intensity of its per-
secutions at particular intervals, the long period it had lasted,
and the numbers 'over which it extended ; but also, the
evils that had been their results —a greater amount of human
misery had been caused by the attempts made by Queen Eliza-
beth, and since the time of Elizabeth, to force the Protestant
religion on the people of Ireland, than by any other
cause that ever operated to the detriment of any nation. It
was impossible that in the minds of the Irish peasant the
English Church could ever be viewed except as surrounded
by a dark aloud of recollections of conquest, of repeated
massacre, of as oft-repeated confiscation, as the source
of the laws that made his religion penal, that broke
the peace of society, and severed the ties of families
—the laws that pronounced unnameable barbarities as the
punishment of the teachers of his own faith—as the
source of evils from which he had himself suffered, or mise-
ries from which he had seen others suffer. It was impossible
for any man to look on the Church in Ireland but as associated
with these evils and mischiefs, or to regard it but with feelings
of alienation and hatred. But he would go further ; he would
say that there was not one evil in the present state of
Ireland with which the ascendancy of the English Church
was not connected, either as cause or concomitant.
He attributed entirely to that ascendancy the alienation
of the rich from the poor, the horrible relations of landlord and
tenant, the neglect of a proper provision for education, and the
perverted administration of justice, which had deprived the
people of all confidence in their magistrates. The peasantry had
always been ill-treated under the name of Papists, and did they
wonder that they hated the institution by which all this wrong
had been perpetrated ? He would new only ask one more ques-
tion on this subject. If this was the feeling with regard to the
Church in the mind of the Irish peasant, what must be the
feeling of the Irish Catholic gentlemen, and still more in the
mind of tke Irish Catholic priest ? The Irish Catholic priest
was fully cognisant of all the horrors of the past—he was fully
cognisant of all the evils that afflicted his country—he was per-
fectly acquainted with the position his Church occupied in all
the rest of Christian Europe, and he deeply felt its
humiliation in his own country. Above all, he deeply
felt the mortifying position in which that humiliation
placed him. Under the influence of the common
feelings of human nature, could lie feel anything but hostility
to the ascendancy of that Church which he believed was he-
retical, and which he
,knew to be obtrusive ?—( Hear, hear. )
His opinion of all these facts, therefore, was, that the great
barrier to all improvement, to the tranquillity of Ireland, was
the present position of the Engli 1 and the Catholic Church
in that country. And until they removed that, and other
grievances connected with it—which he might call Church
grievances—such as the defects of the franchise and of the
municipal corporations, it would be impossible for them to
do anything for the amelioration of the condition of the people
of Ireland. He was aware that he had used very strong lan-
guage, and which he feared might give offence to some gen-
tlemen. He saw with pleasure the sensitive manner in which
the Hon. Member for Kilkenny had taken up this ap-
plication of the term disaffected to the people—
( Hear.) He applied it in a limited sense, and he wished
now to explain by an instance which he wished particularly
to press on the atteetion of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite ;
it was one that showed how easy it was, by a simple course of
justice, to remove the most unequivocal disaffection. Ile
wished to call the attention of the House to an instance
that had occurred within their own experience, and of which
they were cognisant. They remembered the state of Canada in
1838. During that year there were no less than two
insurrections in that colony—(Hear, hear)—and in that
insurrection, nearly the whole of the French population of
the colony was implicated, either by having taken part in it, or
by being known to be friendly to the insurgents. He was
sure that no one doubted—at least no one did when he was in
Canada—that had a foreign army made its amearance, it
would have been able to have held its ground. The steps
taken to redress the grievances of Canada were founded en-
tirely on two recommendations. One was the union of the two
provinces—the second was to establish a responsible Parlia-
mentary Government. He did not allude to the union of the
two provinces as a step that quite alleviated the French discon-
tent. Lord Sydenham was not able to alleviate that discon-
tent. It went on increasing till the Hight Hon. Baronet sent
out Sir C. Bagot to administer the affairs of that country. Sir
C. Begot adopted the system of responsible government, that
is, he admitted the leaders of the French party to office, and
what effect did this step produce on the French popu-
lation? Why, within six months the whole of this
devoted people were offering up prayers in their churches
for the health of the Governor who had granted the boon,
and for the prosperity of the mother country, to whom they
were grateful for it. He brought with great pleasure this
instance before the Right Hon. Berenet, because it was an
instance of the conciliation produced by his own wise measures.
He had seen the effect of conciliation in Canada. Let him try
its effects in Ireland. Let the Government act in the same
spirit as that is which they had acted in Canada, and he was
bound to say that, however strong the feeling of the people
might be, they would be conciliated by acting with jus-
tice and in a liberal spirit. He was not going to take up the
time of the House —( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches )
of the valuable time of those important gentlemen opposite.—
( Laughter)—but he thought it was absolutely necessary that he
should specifically state how he thought these grievances might
be remedied. It could only be by establishing perfect religious
equality. He was always glad to have recourse to any preced-
ents when it was possible. and he believed it would have been
the best thing for the country had Mr, Pitt been able to effect
the large and comprehensive plan on which he conceived the
union. tie believed he intended first to emancipate the Catholics
with respect to their civil rights. Secondly, to have grante4
payment to the Catholic clergy ; and, thirdly, to have effected
the union. But the order of those measures was reversed, the
union was carried, but the other parts of his great and sound
policy were not effected. This was deeply to be regretted. If,
at the time of passing the union, these measures had been car-
ried, Ireland would have been as tranquil and as well governed
a country as any in the world. But he feared that the time
for those measures had now passed away. He feared that they
wereinscribed in one of the Sybil's books that had been
irrecoverably consumed:—(Cheers.) In 1825 they might.
perhaps, have coupled with their liberal policy a measure for
the endowment of the Catholic clergy, but now they would
distrust the spirit in which they made the offer.—( Hear,
hear.) It would be believed that their object was, as indeed
it was avowed to be, to bribe the priests, and to seduce the
leaders from the people. The offer would be entirely re-
jected, and would be viewed from one end of Ireland to the
other with feelings of hostility. And more than this--he be.
lieved if they have to do this without the consent of the
Catholic priests or people they would be paying a costly price
for an instrument which would not he of the slightest service to
them. If the Catholic priests were to take the pay of the Go-
vernment, they would immediately lose all their hold on the
people ; anti thus would be utterly destroyed the influence the
Government relied on. On the other hand, he did not
believe that the prejudices of the people of this country
could be got over, unless the Government openly de-
clared that a measure like this was absolutely necessary for
securing the tranquillity of Ireland. And how could they
declare this, when both the people and the pries.ts of that
country rejected their proposal?—( Hear, hear.) They must
then give up their plan, and produce equality in another way.
NON the plan he had to propose had been already alluded to I
by the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and the

Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. The Learned Mere
ber the Recorder of Dublin had stated that the adop'
the congregational principle of paying the ProtestgintS
clergy would be equivalent to stripping it of
character as a national establishment. That was re"o—
ely the ground on which, he would say, they :oujeiX
to adopt the principle.—(Hear, hear.) He beheired it
was not so much the amount of the money paid to the church
that was objected to by the Irish people. What they objected to
was the, dominancy of the Church.—(Loud cheers.) th
Protestants of the Established Church were paid in t4ratd
manner as those of the Presbyterian Church, he thougct.ebe6.l
the discontent would be in a great measure appease
should wish, in the change which he proposed, to see a let
regard paid to existing vested interests—( Hear, hear) —Vdslie
did not believe that there was a single Irish Catholwho
would not wish to have a proper regard paid to existitfikin-
terests.—( Loud cheers.) Let them take the whole property of
the State Church into the hands of Government, let thermpay
the clergy of that Church on the congregational principle,
saving the increase as the incumbents died off; let them make a
fair and liberal allowance to the ministers of the Established
Church in Ireland, and they would have done all that was ne-
cessary on this point to remove the indignation of the people
of Ireland.—(Cherrs. ) This measure must be preliminary to
every other measure. This would remedy the religious ine-
qualities, hut it would not better the physical condition of the
people. But itmust precede every measure for bettering their
ph) sleet condition, in order to prepare their minds for the re-
ception of those measures. Hence arose his chief repugnance
to the landlord end tenant commission. He did full justiefro;
the talents and character of the Noble Lord who was at the
head of that Commission.— ( Hear, hear.) But the Right
Hon. Baronet had begun at the wrong end.—(Cheers,) The
Right Hon. Baronet thought that the appointment of !this
Landlord and Tenant Commission would allay all the discontent
in Ireland without a remedy of their religious grievances.
It would be impossible to allay that discontent. unless
those grievances were first remedied.—( Loud cheers. )
It was not giving the remedial measures a fair chance.—
( Cheers.) He was convinced that if those religious grievances
were redressed, it would not be long before they would secure
the material prosperity of a country which long wanted justice
done to it, to develope its great natural resources. Loud
cheers.) He was grieved to find that her Majesty's Govern.
had taken their stand on maintaining the existing religious ine-
qiiality.—(Cheers. ) They depended on the majority by
which they were backed in that House—( Cheering and coun-
ter-cheering )—and they placed reliance upon the prejudices of
the people of England; prejudices which had frequently been
brought to bear.on these questions.—( Iseult cheers.) lie was
prepared to meet them upon that point. England never dealt,
fairly with the people of Ireland on this question.—( Cheers. )
They had never fairly placed before the people of
England the horrible injustice which the maintenance of this
system perpetrated in Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) They had
been kept in ignorance of it..—(Cheers.) He was sure that
all the efforts to govern Ireland upon their present principles
would be wholly useless, and would only add another chapter
to the disastrous history of that most injured country,
Lord STANLEY would not deny he had no desire to deny
to the Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, the
credit of having made on this important question a most able
and clever Opposition motion—(Cheers)—and a most able and
clover Opposition speech.—(Renewed cheers.) It was a most
able and clever opposition motion, because, in moving merely
for a Committee of Inquiry, the Noble Lord hoped,
that, in the certainty of the rejection of that
motion—and without that certainty, the Noble Lord
would hardly baxe ventured to make it—(Loud cheering
from the Ministerial benches)—the Noble Lord trusting in
that certainty, hoped that he might hereafter be able to al-
lude to the rejection of that motion ; a motion, as he would
say, merely for inquiry, and tamit the majority by which he
had been opposed as heaping injustice, injury, and insult upon
the people of Ireland.—(Loud Opposition cheers.) A motion
for inquiry into the grievances of the Irish perwle had been
rejected, it would be said, with contempt by a arliamentary
majority.—(Cries of "No, no.") No, not by the Noble
Lord. The Noble Lord would hold no such language, but the
Noble Lord knew well that there were those among his sup-
porters who held, and who would hold, such lan-
guage.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial side of the House. )
The form of the motion was intended to afford them
the greatest facility for holding such language.—( Renewed
Ministerial cheers.) No one in the House could doubt but
that the motion was intended as a, direct and palpable vote
of censure on her Majesty's Government.—(Tremendous
cheers from the Opposition.) Such was the intention, but
such were not the terms.—(Cheering.) It would have been
more manly and straightforward in the Noble Lord to have
proposed a direct vote of censure —( Cheers)—but not so
politic.—( Cheers.) For the debate afforded ample opportu-
nity for insinuating charges against their political opponents,
while the avowed object of the motion was only to suggest
a remedy for grievances. He would not go to the whole
length to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had
just sat down had gone, but he would admit that he viewed the
case of Ireland with care, with anxiety, and with some alarm.
He did net believe with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that if
a foreign army was to land in Ireland they would find a friendly
greeting from the greater part of the Irish people.—( Hear,
bear.) He had a higher opinion of the loyalty and good feeling
of the people of Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) If such, indeed,
were the case ; if in the event of a foreign war, a great portion
of the people of Ireland would be ready to welcome any army
that should be hostile to Great Britain ; if it were true, as the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated, that Ireland was not
only disaffected but revolted—a revolted people coolly awaiting
the moment to show their hostility—excited almost to mad-
ness--at the command of one man who could either
lull them to temporary repose, or excite them to
action as might suit his ulterior purposes—if that
were the state of Ireland could they conceive how,
at such a moment, such a motion should be proposed for
mere party object—when everything ought to be merged in
patriotic feeling.—( Hear, and cheers.) Could they conceive
anything more tremendous than the responsibility of those men
who had once served the Crown, who might hope again to
serve the Crown, and who yet at such a moment could
bring forward a motion calculated to cause every possible
prejudice in the Irish people, whose feelings were already ex-
cited to the verge of madness—(Loud cheers)--and who en-
deavoured, by every species of misrepresentation, to obstruct
and to thwart those who under such tremendous circumstances
were charged with the safety of the empire?—(Loud cheers.)
Now, what had been their course under these circumstances?
Had it been as ',the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated
it must and would be ?—(Cheers.) No.—(Cheers.) There
had been no violation of constitutional principle.—(Tremen-
dons Opposition cheers.) What prineiple had they violated?
—( Cheers and counter-cheering.) What law had they strained?
—( Immense cheer ing from the Opposition.) What new powers
had they asked for ?—(Ministerial cheers.) What rights or
privileges had they restrained ?—( Renewed cheers.) They
were told that the country was in a most dangerous state ; that.
Mr. O'Connell was at the head of a people actuated by hostile
feelings. and acting, or ceasing to act, according to the direc-
tion of their leader ; they were told by the Noble Lord that Mr.
O'Connell possessed the confidence of the Irish people,
and the Noble Lord intimated that they ought to
be guided by the councils of Mr. O'Connell.
A snore forgiving man than the Noble Lord he had never
heard of.—(Ministerial cheers.) They had been reproached—
nay, they were even now reproached—by Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite with not having interfered earlier.—(Cheers.) They
had, however, pursued a steady and a legal course.--( Cheers. )
Without any violation of the law—without asking for any in-
creased power—(Loud cheers)—but trusting to the law alone,
they had brought to judgment and to conviction the leaders of
the band. —( Cheering and counter-cheering.) They told him
that the danger was not over—(Loud Opposition cheers)—that
they had not effected their object—(Opposition cheers)—that
the conviction had driven the people to madness.—( Cheers. )
And before the record could be received of that conviction—
before the law-officers of the Crown could appear to face their
charges and their calumnies, they thought it right—(Cheers)
—they thought it decent— ( Cheers)—they thought it patriotic
—(Cheers)—there, in that House of Commons—(Cheers)—
to excite this already maddened people, by remarking in that
assembly, trusting to such reports as alone they could have yet
received, upon the conduct, upon the words, upon the voice,
aye ! even upon the gestures of the highest functionaries
of the law.—(Loud Ministerial and Opposition cheers.)
He was sorry to see Hon. Gentlemen opposite so strongly-ex-
cited.—( Renewed cheering.) The Noble Lord, at an early
period of the debate, had charged the Government with occu-
pying, but not governing, Ireland.—( Loud Opposition cheers. )
It had been made, for a considerable time past, a matter of
charge against the Government that they restrained the people
of Ireland by military force, and not by law.—(Opposition
cheers.) The Noble Lord had commented on what he deno-
minated the fallacious returns of the amount of military force
in Ireland which had been produced by his Right Hon. Friend
the Secretary of State for the Home Department. An Hon.
Gentleman had called for returns of the rasik and file in Ireland,
for every year since the year 1830; those returns had been
produced, and the result had been to show that this Govern-
ment, which was charged with having introduced a military
despotism into Ireland, with having superseded law by military
force, had actually during the two years which they had been
in office, up to the commencement of 1843, maintained in Ire-
land a force lower, on the average, by '2,000 men than the
average which had been maintained by Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site during the time that they administered the Government.
—( Cheers.) In 1832, the military force in Ireland amounted
to 19,301 men. In 1833, to 23,998.—( Hear, hear.) In 1834,
to 23,055. During the next five years, from 1835 to 1841, the
average force in Ireland was 16,810 men. The lowest amount
of force was 14,687 men. During the two years 1842 and 1843,
the average force was 14,833 men, and in the month of
May, 1842, the force in Ireland was below 13,000
men, being the lowest force since the union that
had ever been retained in Ireland.—( Hear, and cheers.)
The Noble Lord moved for a letter of the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, offering to give up four or five regiments to quell the
disturbances in England in 1839. Why, in 1839, the force in
Ireland was 16,260 men, and if the whole four regiments,
being of the ordinary strength of regiments, had been sent out
of Ireland, they would not have reduced the force in that coun-
try below the average at which they were kept by her Majesty's
present Government.—( Cheers.) But in 1843 commenced that
system which he might venture to describe as a system
of pernicious agitation—( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) Mul-
titudinous meetings were held in every part of the
country which, if nut of themselves strictly illegal, were of
such a character as to cause reasonable and serious alarm—not
of immediate violence, because that was not the object of the
leaders, at whose beck the people would rise or be still ; but
no man would tell him that a succession of those meetings, at
which 100,000 persons were assembled to petition Parliament,
but who did not petition Parliament.--(Cheers)—using exciting
language, selecting scenes calculated to excite rancorous hos-
tility to England— (Cheers) using at those meetings
language, the tendency of which was to create hatred
and ill-will between the two countries—if he said those
meetings were not in themselves illegal, their tendency was to
create a rersonable apprehension, if not of an immediate dis-
turbance of the public peace, at least of an attempt to overthrow
the functions of Government. —(Cheers.) Would any person
tell him that the responsible Minister of the Crown would be
justified, seeing, day by day, and week by week, meetings of
200,000 persons taking place, arrayed and disciplined, and
boasting of their strength, with a leader, who, according to the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman who spoke last, had
but to hold up his finger, when they would rise
up in their strength and might—would any person tell him
that the Cove! 'anent vvonld be justified—nay, would not be
deserving of impeachment—(Loud cheers)--if they did not
meat that display of physical force by the exhibition of physical
force, sufficient, thank God, not only to check an outbreak,
bat even the possibility of such an outbreak ?—( Cheers.) He
admitted that, in 1843, they added a large increase to the
military force in Ireland; yet, even now they bad not
increased it to the same amount at which it stood in 1834,
nor had they raised the whole force in Ireland above what it
was in 1834 and 1835. And though at an early period of the
Government they had somewhat reduced the military force,
the House would recollect at the same time, that a large in-
crease was made to the police—( Hear, hear)—and this Go-
vernment, which talked of nothing but moral influence, and
governing Ireland by the means of that influence, had,
if not so large a military force in Ireland, in point of
fact, as large physical force. ( Hear, hear.) If the
House would permit him, he would now deal with some of
those topics in which the Noble Lord and other Members of
the House dealt, and he must take the liberty of saying, that
the whole course of the debate exhibited the prudence of the
course pursued by the Noble Lord in bringing forward a motion
for a Committee, and not a substantive motion ; because,
though there was great unanimity in condemning the Govern-
ment on account of the present state of Ireland, there was great
discrepancy as to the causes which produced it, and great dis-
crepancy as to the course which ought to be pursued, and as to

. .
-
the.nreastrresswisteir the Government, which was to succeed her
pg6sy'sitrieet;rst Government, ought to adopt with regard to
kir.aland.,.:-Medtiens had been urged to the c turse adopted by
d7tht,,,ktpsn,qs.--an objection was taken for not interfering
soyidurr..4. ItA4erobjection was made for interfering too seen—
'•irsnfrfe4Yaid' they, issued the proclamation too late, but he
I)iiiiight his .-Right. Hon. Friend proved, by fair statements of
.4-sles,'-tfiArit"-tstas impossible the proclamation could have been
lirecrot.,siiy,Sooner after the intention of the party became
krspae.rs,•( observation was here made which did not reach
its:4 LiclkAa
writ Stanley) believed that question had been set-
alit 4ot weary the House by repeating what had
-144 subject by his Right Hon. Friend, and was
rtsWskellfer leave.ihe statement to the‘ House and the country.
---CsOfisAtA:tittr-:)1.But Hon. Gentlemen opposite gave him an
:irclikkbal'phor;,vvlsen he said they did not strain the law ; and
'Seqtrki Ttra gentleman rise up and tell him, the House, and the
country;-whit dam' had been strained ?—( Hear, hear.) What
course had been pursued by the Government which was not
only justified ley circumstances, but compulsory upon them ?
With regard to the accidental omission of the names from the
general jury list, it was a question with which the Government
had nothing to do. Ile merely mentioned it as an instance of
the haste, the breathless haste, with which gentlemen pressed
assertions against the Government before the circumstances
were known.— ( Hear, hear.) They heard over and over again.
unite ad nauseam, that sixty Catholics—("" No, no)"—well
names, were excluded from the list. The Government had
nothing to do with that ; but if that was so, why was the charge
Made against the Government? It was said that the prisoners
-being Catholics—or a majority of them—were prejudiced in having
a fair trial by excluding the names from the jury list, many
of wlurn were of the Roman Catholic persuasion. Was it
efirfet e
oonmwi t
et erde ?fr No,m
nneopr
atrhi
si rht y; ,
abnudt
twenty-four;
tetLos w
of these he did not know, nor did the Recorder, whose state-
ment he followed—( Hear, hear)—who were Roman Catholics
and who Protestants ; but this he did know, that the gentle-
man by whose negligence, or in consequence of whose omit-
stop, those names were left out, was himself a Roman Catholic.
—( Hear, hear.) And yet it was made a charge against the
Government that they were emitted to prejudice the tra-
versers, being Roman Catholics, on their trial. This was the
charge with regard to the omission of the names. Then with
regard to striking the Roman Catholics off the jury—
Lord J. RUSSELL—Challenging them.
Lord STANLEY thanked the Noble Lord. He did not use
the accurate expression—which was challenge. What was the
fact ? The Noble Lord contrived to omit the distinction be-
tween a common and a special jury, and omitted to tell the
Hduse this, that if they had a common jury, which they might
have had, it would have given the Crown a power of causing
personsto stand by, and they might then be charged--perhaps
unjustly charged—with packing the jury. They sought no
such advantage ; they applied for a special jury—they applied
for it as the last special jury list stood. The traversers corn •
ptained that it was not correct, and they applied
for time to have a new list framed. The
Crown acceded to that request, and gave them time to have
a new jury list. Was this done by any law introduced by
them, or according to any mode or arrangement of theirs?
No, but according to a law, framed, he presumed, to facili-
tate the due administration of justice' and introduced, he
believed, by Sir M. O'Loghlin, when Attorney-General of
Ireland. What were the conditions of that law ? Forty-
eight names were to be taken by ballot from the general jury
list. From this number both the Crown en the one hand and
the traversers on the other hand had the right of striking out
twelve names each, and no discretion whatever was
left them in the exercise of that right ; but then it was
said that the officers struck off all the Roman Catholics. His
Noble Friend stated—and he was sure any statement he made
would not be for a moment doubted—that psitive directions
had been given by the Irish Government, which had the cor-
dial approval of her Majesty's Government here, not to strike
off any person on account of his religion. Ten Roman Ca-
tholics were struck off who were Repeaters, with one exception.
Mr. SHEIL—No, no.
Lord STANLEY—The Right Hon. Gentleman possessed
a great advantage over him, because he had a little professional
bias in the question—(Laughter)—he was counsel for the parties.
He (Lord Stanley) was not.—( Cheers and laughter.) It
was sworn by the officer who struck the list, that the Roman
Catholics were Repeaters, to the best of his belief.—(Cries of
" No, no," and" Hear, hear.") If the affidavit was not put
in, a statement was made on the part of the Government
officer, that he believed they were members of the Repeal
Association. On the other hand another affidavit was put in
by the traversers, to the effect that they were not Repeaters.
—(Cries of " No, no.") He believed, in the first instance
that an affidavit was offered, stating that they were
not Repeaters, or connected with the Repeal Association.
But after a considerable time it happened to be mentioned
that it was not.forthcoming. The solicitors for the traversers
then came forward and filed an affidavit, that to the best of
their belief two of the number were not rtepealers.—(Cheers
and laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member
for Devonport, conceived that, with regard to those who were
members of the Repeal Association, they would not be justified
in leaving them on the jury. One of these two was at the
time believed to be a member of the Repeal Associa-
ationr,equiaanitdion hfeor bae i erveepde
al atm e
el
teiansgt. thatrhe
theen
thsigpneer.l
son was struck off not because he was a Roman Ca-
tholic, because at the period of striking the jury he was
HP,r,aorte, Protestant in )
arnedl religion h
obungt
hat
iyot Protestant—(Hear,
because upon making
hafiterrmocnloygu
lcbdoegnl
iiaveeevrevedaotnui
fivoertmpoanrtol
inquiry in Dublin (at least so he was informed), he was re-
gistered as a Protestant on the part of the Conservative in-
terest.-( Cheers.) He was not struck out on account of his
supposed
religion, and yet the greatest prejudice had been
excited on this subject, because it was said that they were
struck off, because they were Roman Catholics, were
insulted, and it was supposed they thought that
Roman Catholics could not be believed on their oaths.
He had now received the affidavit which had bean alluded to
in the course of the debate.—( Cheers.) It was signed Wm.
Kemmis, and sworn before Mr. Bourne.—(Great cheering.)
Now the deponent in that affidavit stated that he did not be-
lieve that eleven persons professing the Catholic religion had
been struck off from the jury on the late trials in Ireland.

Mr. SHEIL—But he did not say that eleven Repealers had
not been struck off.—(Great cheering.)
Lord STANLEY—CouId any one doubt, after that observa-
tion, that the Right Hon. Gentleroan had brought into that
House the quibbles and quirks by which, in courts of law, it
was sometimes sought to impede the course of justice?—
(Hear, hear.) The Crown was charged ssith striking off ten
Roman Catholics from the panel of the jury. Now supposing
that to be so, which he denied, what had the traversers done ?
—( Hear, hear.) Had they struck off any but Protestants ?
( Hear, hear.) He did not blame them for doing so. —( Bear,
hear.) They were entitled to adopt such a course.—( Hear. )
If a party thought A would be better for him than B, the
constitution of the country gave him the power of striking A
off the list, and God forbid that it should be otherwise.—
( Hear, hear.) He hoped that he had now disposed of this
question of striking off jurors.—( Hear, hear.) But then it
was said that it was a matter of certainty that it was im-
possible for Catholics to have a fair trial in Ireland.—( Hear. )
He would appeal to that House, he would appeal to the
country, whether the late trials had not been conducted in the
greatest spirit of fairness.--( Hear, hear, and cries of
Oh, oh.") Hon. Gentlemen might sneer—( Hear, hear)—
but this he would assert, that no law had been strained, the
charge of the Chief Justice had been most impartial—( Hear,
bear, and cries of " Oh, oh")--and it was not fair on the
part of members of the legal profession in that House to use
the privilege they possessed to endeavour, if possible, to in-
flict a slur on those who administered the law of the land.
--(Hear, hear.) The law had been framed long since ; the
Chief Justice, in summing up to the jury, did not pronounce
his own opinion—( Hear, 'hear)—but the unanimous opinion
of the whole Bench.—( Hear.) Then with respect to the jury,
he believed there was not one man in that House that would not
say that they had shown, in the most praiseworthy manner,
their determination not to violate their oaths—( Hear, hear)—
and before they pronounced their verdict of guilty, they acted
with the greatest discrimination.—(Hear, hear.) There was
no haste on their part—( Hear, hear)—and no man could tell
him that the jury had not employed their time and attention
fully to consider the case of the traversers.—( Hear, hear.) Well,
these trials had taken place ; they had been conducted by the
Government in the greatest spirit of fairness—( Hear, hear, ,
and " Oh, oh")—and had been brought to a conclusion with-
out
a violation •f the public peace.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.")
Such being the case, was it right—was it just—to come
forward and ask for a Committee of Inquiry?__( The Noble
Lord who had brought forward the present motion had ex-
pressed in general terms his resolutions.—(Hear, hear.) In
doing so he had stated his pure veneration of justice.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Lord Stanley) agreed with all he had said with
respect to that subject ; but he could nut accede to what had
been stated by the Noble Lord with respect to the Govern-
ment.—( Hear, hear.) If it was meant to be inferred that the
Government, in the late trials, had connived at injustice, he
denied the imputation with the utmost disdain. '1 he Noble
Lord had told them that the franchise was wretchedly confined,
and that the people, in order to vote, had to go great distances.
The Noble Lord had said the franchise ought to be increased.
expressed by their leader Mr. O'Connell,
so as to meet the wishes of the people of Ireland. Now, if he,
Isere to take the wishes of the people of Ireland, as they were
would say that he would not take Mr. O'Connell as his guide.
—( Hear.) The Noble Lord said, why not place the people
eodf
Ireland on an equality with the people of England as regarded
the franchise? He would answer the Noble Lord, that if t
into ofipen
Registration Law in force in this country was put
he (Lord Stanley)
diminish
tion, it would, instead of increasing very materially
It was
action in Ireland, with the English interpretation and quali ca-
the existing franchise in that country.—(Hear, hear.)
further stated by several Hon. Members who had spoken
the other side, that there was no lasting peace, no contentment
for Ireland, as long as the Protestant Church Establish me nt on
existed there.—(Hear, hear.) Did the Noble Lord answer
that declaration? It was a very exciting question to bring
forward at any time, but especially dangerous at the present
moment, unless they knew the result. The Noble Lord dif-
fered widely from those who:now joined with him ; echoed by
those Hon. Members, he did not hesitate to bring into this
subject topics which were highly calculated to increase the dis-
content of the people, and which could not, by any possibility,
produce any practical result. Now, it the responsibility of
office were thrown upon the shoulders of the Noble Lord, he
would not, he could not, he dare not, propose the measures,
without which he now declares it is impossible to think of satis-
fying the Irish people. Could anything be more miserable—
more wretched—than the suggestions or propositions thrown
out by the Noble Lord? He attacked the Landlord and Tenant
Commission, and used expressions well calculated to inflame
It was a most lame and impotent
the tenantry of Ireland, and then turned round and said it was
a most difficult question.—( Hear, He did not say he
bates."—(Hear, could propose a remedy, bait, if
nasukmedbefroroofne, the Noble Lord
could only say, " increase the stipendiary magis-
, but he thought
s"Ton(fifoeratri;ehleeaard'el of a party, for one who had been a
Minister of the Crown, and hoped to be one again.—( Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord said he did not wish to destroy the
asy principle, said the Noble Lord,
is equality between all religious denominations.; but yet, when
he came to act upon this high sounding term equality, he would
slh'reohteasdtatroito
mChnuehrchweaolrthim. pair her revenue
find how impracticable it was. The Catholic Church might be
endowed with the revenues of the Protestant Church, or
the present revenues of the Established Church might be
divided and distributed, viz., 500,0001. among the Protestants,
Catholics, and Presbyterians, a third to each, or on the more
strict principle of equality, to divide seven-eighths of the re-
venueshea
.) e
iogfhrtthhhee
between
No
ble Protestant
LordProtestantst
hChurche Aamongand
Member
e pr,be the
rf Catholics, and the
other
rosrb
Presbyterians.—( Hear,
Sunderland had
spoken out, and spoken truly. It was not the wretched ques-
tiono of the appropriation clause—that, the Noble Lord said,
in that Act than that
would never give any content. The real question was, would
sin, they or would they not destroy the Protestant Church in Ire-
land ?—(Hear,
which guaranteed the seem ity of the Protestant Church Esta-
blishment. The Noble Lord then quoted from the address of
Hn
oe a
provision
hear.)vsion w
a The h
me o
r Act cst t
r oifng Uenn:ton Contained a provi-
sion,
both Houses of Parliament, and from the Act of Union itself, pas-
sages in which the security of the Protestant Church was gua-
ranteed. He also quoted from the speech of Mr. Grattan, in 1613,
in introducing a Bill for the removal of Roman Catholic disabili-
ties, in which he expressed his confidence that the securities of the
Protestant Church would be strengthened and maintained by
admitting Catholics to equal rights. The Noble Lord quoted
from a declaration made by the Catholics of Ireland in 1757,
in which they disclaimed and disavowed in the most solemn
manner any intention of subverting the Protestant Church
Establishment ; but that if they were admitted to an equality
of civil rights with their Protestant fellow countrymen, they
would support the Protestant Church as established by law,
and would not endeavour to injure or impair it. In 1808, the

I Roman Catholics declared, in their petition to the House, that
they did not in any way seek to injure the rights, privileges, or
possessions pertaining to the bishops or clergy of the Church
as by law established ; that their petition was an humble ap-
plication, praying that they might be governed by the same
laws, have the same privileges and be admitted to a participation
in the same civil rights as their countrymen of a different persuasion
In 1824, Dr. Collins said he believed, and would make a
solemn declaration, that there was not the slightest disposition
on the part of the Catholic hierarchy or clergy to disturb the
rights, privileges, or possessions of the Protestant Church, and
that he was satisfied they would not seek to disturb it. In 1826,
another declaration was published by the Roman Catholic
bishops, stating that they solemnly determined to uphold all
the rights and privileges of the Church—that they cons:dered
the Roman Catholics did not entertain any feelings against
the Established Church, and that they regarded all the revenues
and temporalities of the Church as established as the property
of those on whom they were settled by law.—( Cheers from the
Tory benches.) He had been told by Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site that this property had been plundered from the Roman
Catholic clergy, and consequently should in justice be restored,
and that until this were done the Catholics would not, nor
ought not to be content.—( Loud cheers from the Tory
benches, answered by " No, no," from the Opposition.) It
might be convenient just now for Hon. Members to call out
" No, no" at this moment, but hg was sure there were Hon.
Gentlemen on the other side of the House who would long
hesitate before they would consent to any measure that would
tend to thisresult.—( Cheers and laughter from the Ministerial
benches.) That former declaration had been over and over
again made by the lion. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. WARD rose to explain, but was, owing to the noise,
vociferation, and cries of " Order" from the Tory benches, quite
inaudible in the gallery.
Lord STANLEY said ha hail quite forgotten the principle
which the Hon. Member had laid down. He ( Lard Stanley)
would allude to that by and bye. Previous to the passing of
the Emancipation Act. his Majesty, in his speech at
the opening of the session, in 1829, said—" They (the Par-
liament) were to consider, solemnly, whether those, and what
enactments against the Roman Catholics of Great Britain
Protestants oat es stan ts established
bishops by
lcouldlaw w;
and
removed et
oove d
the
r iwg
hi tths saanfedt y
privilegesthe C Church, r
and clergy of this realm, for those institutions which should
ever be supported." Such were the words of his Majesty in
1899 ; and, in reply to this speech of his Majesty, the House of
Commons did not content itself with acknowledging the
speech; it also stated that these Are institutions which should
ever be maintained in their integrity, and stating that
that House thanked his Majesty for his gracious announce-
ment of his determination to support them. So far as it was
possible to be bound by a solemn declaration—by a declara-
tion as strong as it was possible to embody in language—that
declaration of their intention to support that Church, had been
made by Parliament. Nay, even that declaration on the part
of the Roman Catholics, one and all, had been given that
they had not the slightest intention to weaken the Church.—
( Hear, hear, and cheers.) That was the language used
preiious to emancipation, and his Right Hon. Friend at the
head of the Government declared that he trusted in their pro-
fessions, and rejected a proposal made by a Right Hon. Friend
of his, now no more, to prevent Catholics from legislating on
any subject which might affect the Established Church. His
Right Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury said he had
framed the oath sufficiently stringent to prevent the re-
sult anticipated ; that he believed the declarations
of the Roman Catholics, and would adhere to his original
determination. The subject which he now came to was one
which he trusted would not be considered offensive to any
Roman Catholic, because he thought a Catholic had as good
a right to legislate upon any subject as a Protestant, provided
only that he adhered to what he considered a conscientious
conviction. After this statement, he thought the course he
should pursue could not be deemed offensive, and that he had a
right to'quote the oath required to be taken by Roman Catholic
Members of Parliament, anti which had been enacted for the
protection of the rights -of th`r.Protestant Church. The
Noble Lord then read the oatfilitlidst much cheering from
the Ministerial benches! and continued to say this was the
oath which had . b'eed taken by *e Roman Catholics, and
he thought the spirit ,of it must be evident to every per-
son. again said lie had no intention to impute any want
of coiispjentious pritaisiPle to the Catholic gentlemen, but still
he thenaght that the question of 4upporting the Established
Churith was one of too much importance not to require the
utmost precaution. The Hon... Member had alluded (as we
understood, from the manner in which he dropped his voice) to
the Settlement Act.

Mr. WARD (amidst nrinfroetoise and confusion)—The in-
ference put on my expressions are not correct. What I
stated was that since the battle of the Boyne the Irish had
never been averse to the Act of Settlement.
Lord STANLEY said he was going on to explain when the
Hon. Member interrupted him, that the Hon. Gentleman had
since withdrawn those expressions which had fallen from him
in the heat of debate. But he (Lord Stanley) did not think the
Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard had very much im-
proved the case, because he said that the oath was unnecessary,
seeing that the intention of that oath was to exclude the Roman
Catholic descendants of the House of Stuart.
Mr. C. BULLER-1 did net say a word about the oath.
Lord STANLEY—The Hon. Gentleman said that the ob-
ject of the Act of Settlement was to exclude the Roman Ca-
tholic descendants of the house of Stuart, but the house of
Stuart was extinct, consequently the Act of Settlement was a
dead letter. How then could this be an insult to the Roman
Catholics, seeing that it was to operate against a
Roman Catholic family which did not exist? Was
it not so ? It was not because this country felt
that Roman Catholics were not fit to enjoy civil liberty that
such an imposition was placed upon them. With regard to him-
self he could say that he was prepared, sod he was sure that her
Majesty's Government were prepared, to give the same privi-
leges to the Roman Catholics that were enjoyed by Protestants.
But they would never consent to the destruction of the Pro-
testant Establishment.—( Cheers. ) He did not think that it
was at all inconsistent, in doing the fullest justice to the Roman
Catholics, and in removing their grievances, if such grievances
remained—it was not inconsistent with the removal of those
grievances, if, at the same time, they firmly maintained the ex-
iszence of the Protestant Church.—(Cheers.) What was it that
the Roman Catholics asked with regard to the existence of
the Established Church ? Did they ask to be endowed with
the proceeds of the Protestant Establishment ? No such thing.
They would refuse it. They would not take it if it were offered.
They would neither take a division nor the whole. They
did not want the plunder that had been taken from them to
be given back to them. They did not, ask for the violation of
all those prescriptive rights which had been acquired by a pos-
session of three hundred years. What, then, did they ask ?
They refused to enter into an alliance with the Protestant
Establishment—that Establishment which submitted to the law.
How, then, could the Catholic Chnrch claim or ask to be
.placed on an equality with the Protestant Establishment?
The Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said the Catholic Bishops
'ought to be placed on an equality with the Protestant Bishops.
Did the Noble Lord mean that those Bishops should have seats
in the House of Lords? He (Lord Stanley) would like to
know that.
Mr. C. WOOD—No, he did not.
Lord STANLEY—Then the Noble Lord denied that inten-
tion, which had been imputed to him by an Hon. Gentleman
who was sitting immediately by him. But if the Noble Lord
did intend to advocate the admission of Roman Catholic Bishops
into the House of Lords, did he mean that those Bishops should
be appointed by the Crown ? No such thing ; they would be
the appointments of a foreign potentate.—(Hear, and
cheers.) lf, then, they refused this alternative, what
became of their equality ! Would they remove the Protestant
Bishops from the House of Lords.—( Cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) That was a favourite doctrine with some gentlemen
opposite. Why did they not try their hand in this matter, and
bring forward a motion on the subject ? He would beglad for
them to take the sense of the House of Commons, and the peo-
ple of England, upon a motion for the exclusion of the'Bishops
from the House of Lords. He (Lord Stanley) trusted that the
Noble Lord opposite did not represent the Roman Catholics of
Ireland; but sure he was, that whether he did or not, the
sweeping propositions he had brought forward, amply proved
that he did not represent the Protestants of this country.
He ( Lord Stanley) would not support anything in the
way of compromise inconsistent with the maintenance
of the Protestant Establishment. He had been particularly
sorry to hear the Monourable Member for Kildare (llr.
More O'Ferrall) repeat the reflection which had been cast on
the Lord Chancellor by the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), that
he had been raised to his present position on account of his
hostility to the Irish people. He regretted to hear that senti-
ment fall from the Noble Lord; but he believed that it had
been made in the midst of a very excited speech; and he was
sure that it was not the deliberate opinion of the Noble Lord.
But he regretted more deeply having heard that sentiment
fall from the Honourable Member for Kildare, because
it showed that it was a deliberate opinion of the
Honourable Member.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman
said his hostility to the Established Church in Ireland was not
a religious one. His objection, was that the Protestant had so
much power of interference in secular affairs. He said that if
he wanted a power of attorney, he was obliged to obtain the
signature of a Protestant clergyman. Now, he ( Lord Stanley)
knew not if this were correct, but of this he was certain, that
the Protestant clergy would have no objection to the abolition
of such a practice; on the contrary, he believed that they would
feel much indebted to any one who would abolish such a custom.
Well, then, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said -that the
certificates of marriages and of baptism must be obtained'
from a Protestant clergyman. Now, what was the grievance
in that respect ?—( Hear, hear.) He felt that he was tres-
passing too much.—(" No.") But if there were any grievance
really affecting the Roman Catholics in Ireland, he wished to
show that her Majesty's Government were disposed to remedy
it.—( Tory cheers.) In England, before 1836, there was a
real grievance in respect to marriage and baptism— (Hear,
hear)—for the law was that a Roman Catholic clergyman or a
Dissenting minister could not celebrate marriage except in
the presence of a clergyman of the Established
Church, and, according to the forms of that Church.
In Ireland, no such grievance existed now. But on
the contrary, a marriage by a Roman Catholic priest, accord-
ing to the forms of his own Church, was perfectly valid ; and
if any question arose in a court of lay, the evidence of the
Roman Catholic clergyman would be legal and complete proof.
—( Hear, hear.) What, then, was it that the Right Hon.
Gentleman required ? The certificate of the minister of the
Established Church was at present necessary, because he was
obliged to keep the register. And was the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman sure that the Catholic clergy would be willingto under-
take the duty of keeping the register ? Was he quite sure that
they would not say " if you place us in that position, and im-
pose upon us the labour and responsibility of keeping the
register, we would rather be without any advantage which it
might confer?—( Hear.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite knew well
that there was no question of greater difficulty, and that, in a
Committee of the House of Lords last year, copious evidence
was taken upon this subject ; but that evidence had not yet
been published, because, as he believed, the inquiry had not
yet been completed. —( Hear. ) Another statement from the
other side of the House was that the Roman Catholic clergy
would not accept an endowment from the State. Now he
thought that the objection was not confined to one party in the
case. In the first place he was not aware that it was intended
to offer them any endowment—(Cheers and laughter)—and,
secondly, he believed that, on the part of the great body of the
very
hgreat
spoken disinclination
with
to
contempt of a proposition which appeared to him (Lord
any people
such
grant. this
T he Hon. there
Gentlemana
Stanley) to carry with it a very great recommen-
dation. That was, to give to the Catholic priest-
a
hood, and their flocks, a greater security for property,
whtch might be voluntarily endowed in their Church, and
this could he done without offending the feelings of the Pro-
testant people in this country. The proposition was to en-
able the Catholic clergy, or rather persons in trust for them,
to hold real property in the same manner as it was held in this
country by Catholics and Dissenters. Before the passing of
the 23 Wm. IV., real property was not allowed to be held
by Roman Catholic priests, qua Roman Catholics for the pur-
pose of their religion. That Act, however, gave them the
power, and it was proposed to extend the provisions
of the Act to Ireland, and to allow the Catholic gentry
and Protestant Dissenters to endow their respective clergy.
This would give the Roman Catholic clergy a fixed status, a
power of acquiring property in land, which they did not at
present possess. This ought not be taken as any indication of
hostile feeling on the part of the Government towards the Ca-
tholics of Ireland.—( Tory cheers.) He would say, if there
were grievances affecting the Catholics in Ireland—if there
were any assistance which the Government could give them in
removing those grievances—bigots as gentlemen opposite might
think them, they would not End any want of that consideration
which was due to the priesthood of so large a portion of the
people.—( Tory cheers.) But if it were truly the purpose of
the other side to extinguish, covertly but entirely, the Estab-

lished Church in Ireland, he would ever raise his voice against
that policy. [The Noble Lord then turned round to his teat
and appeared to be about to sit dawn, when an Hon. Member
rose and moved that the "debate be now adjourned," where-
upon Lord Stanley returned to Cie table with a book in his
hand, and said]-2Sir' I have rot done yet.—(Great laughter. )
Before sitting down, he would" call to the recollection of the
House the sentiments of a Noli;le Lord oppcbtte to him (Lord
Palmerston), who was then a member of her Majesty's Go-
vernment—no, he begged pardon, not a member of her Ma-
jesty's Government, butane who had assisted that Government
in carrying the Emancipation Bill into force. At that period
the Noble Lord said, and said most wisely, that
the changes which the Catholics aimed at could only be
brought about by the consent of the whole melon. lie might
suppose an administration introducing a measure against such
consent, but the end of it would be to prove that they were
. tottering in their seats, and the effect would be to give to their
opponents ten times the strength which they might previously
have possessed—for every honest and independent Pro-
testant would stand by the institutions of the country,
and s,veep with ignominy from their seats the men who
by such aids would endeavour to alter the ancient and admitted
limits of the Constitution. SuCh, in 1829, was the opinion of
the Noble Lord (Palmerston) as to the fate, and the well-'
merited fate, of any Administration that would coalesce with
any party whose desire might be to weaken the Protes-
tant Constitution of these realms. He (Lord Stanley) would
not use terms more strong; but this he would say, that while
with the bulk of the English people, he was most anxious to
preserve to, and respect, every civil right of the Catholic body,
there was another feeling he shared in common with them, and
that was a fixed and unalterable determination to maintain and
uphold, in every portion of the empire, the Protestant Estab-
lishment of the country.—(Loud cheers.)
The debate was then adjourned until Monday next.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES—IRELAND.
Lord EBRINGTON moved for a return of the number of
stipendiary magistrates appointed in Leland, from April, 1839,
to August, 1811.

Lord ELIOT took occasion, in assenting to the granting of
the return, to correct an error which had been made on the
subject. For that purpose, he begged to mention that four of
the magistrates mentioned in the return were appointed five
weeks previous to the dissolution of the Iste Government.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the return wont,' show that between
the let of June and the Bth of August, seven new stipendiary
magistrates had been appointed by the Irish Government, and
one was appointed on the 7th of August, the very day, if he
mistook not, before that on which they retired from office.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that the Right Hon. Baronet
had availed himself of an erroneous return to prefer against
the late Government a charge, the gravamen of which was that
seven magistrates had been appointed by them in Ireland
under circumstances which led the House to have an impres-
sion that they were appointed not for the purpose of maintain-
ing peace in that country, but in order to effect a mere job.
It now appeared, that there were three vacancies, and that
they had only filled up those vacancies.
Sir J. GRAHAM said it was better to postpone the discus-
sion until the return was made.

Lord ELIOT said he had inadvertently been led to state
that the whole of these seven appointments were made between
the 15th of June and the 25th of August. It now
appeared' that three of the magistrates were appointed
in the spring of 1841, and the other four between the 12th
of July and the 27th' to 7th August. Four new magistrates
were appointed, he did not say for %hat purpose—in the last
five weeks during which the late Administration held office.
Mr. F. T. BARING said what appeared remarkable was
that the explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman did not
confirm the statement of the .Noble Lord. He would be glad
ter know if the returns would show whether the appointments
were made to fill up vacancies, or whether they were new ap.
pointments? It. was stated that one appointment was made on
the very last day ; it might be to fill up a vacancy caused by
death or resignation.
Sir J. GRAHAM—No, no.

Mr. F. T. BARING said he believed the practice of the
Treasury was to fill up all vacancies which occurred while the
Administration were in power.
Lord ELIOT said he had searched the Government Ga-
zettes that morning, in which it was customary to state whether,
appointments were new, or made in the room of others, and it
appeared that four of these were new appointments.—( Hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said he could make some allowance
for the soreness of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, but
he hoped that that soreness would not be removed by their
coming over to that side of the House.
In reply to a question from Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL,
Lord ELIOT said he would endeavour to ascertain for what
districts the magistrates in question had been appointed, and
whether they had been retained.
The return was then ordered.

The House then adjourned, at a Quarter to One.

ebtrZT Mtittion

I'll E FUNDS--(CLOSING PRICES.)
BRITISH FUNDS.
Bank Stock
3 per Cent. Red.
3 per Cent. C0n5...... 974 Ditto Old Annuities —
34 per Cent. Red....,.. 103 A Ditto New Annuities —
New 34 per Cent 102% Ex. Bills, 1,0001. 14d. 70 pm
New 5 per Cent.
Long Annuities to expire Ditto 5ma11..... 71 pm
Jan. 1860
Oct. 1859
Jan. 1860
FOREIGN FUNDS.
A utrian, 5 per cent.... Portuguese, b per cent..
111,1gian. S per cent — Ditto, New Ditto —
Brazilian 80nd5......... Prussian, 5 per cent —
131,3ncs Ayres 6 per cent Russian, 5 per cent —
Ctilian, 6 per cent ' 1 'Ditto Metallic . ....
Colombian, 6 per cent 134 Spanish, 5 per cent
Ditto. 1824 Ditto, 3 per cent —
Cuba Bonds, 6 per cent. 93 Ditto, Deferred.... .
Danish, 3 per Pent — French, 5 per cent. —f. ..,.
Greek, 1825, 5 per cent — Exchange .... —f. —c.
11exican, 5 per cent. ... 344 French, 3 per cent. —f. —c.
Ditto, 6 per cent. 1837 Dutch, 24 per cent. 55%
Pernvian,lB2s,6 per ct. 31 Ditto, 5 per cent.... 1018
SHARES.
Birmingham and Derby (100 paid) ... ......
Bristol and Exeter (70 paid) .. ••• ..,
Eastern Counties (23 paid)
Ditto New Shares (25 paid) ...
Ditto Extension (1?s 4d paid)
Edinburgh and Glasgow (50 paid) —
Ditto New Shares (124 paid)
Liverpool and Manchester (100 paid)
Ditto Quarter Sharos (25 paid)
London and Brighton (50 pa d)
London and Birmingham ( paid).. .....
Ditto New Thirds (2 paid)
London and Guildford Junction ( 5 paid)... 74
London and South Western (411.6 s 10d pd) 77%
Ditto Eighths (15s. paid)
London and Croydon Railway ( Trunk) ... 16
Manchester and Leeds (70 paid)
Ditto New Quarter Shares ( 2 paid) lO
Midland Counties Railway (100 paid)
Norwich and Brandon (2 paid) .....
Newcastle and Darlington Junction(ls paid' 354
Northern and Eastern (45 paid)
North Midland (100 paid) B7
Ditto Half Shares (40 paid)
Paris and Orleans (20 paid)
Paris and Rouen (20 paid) ... . ....
Yarmouth and Norwich (13 paid).....
...
York and North Midland (50 paid) .. .. 119

b 9
68i-
10A
12i

54
42
233

IMPORTANT NEWS FROM SPAIN.
The Messager of yesterday contains the following
important telegraphic dispatch :
" BAYONNE, FEB. 12.

" On the 7th the insurgents evacuated Murcia,
into which the Authorities and the National Militia,
who had' retired, were on the point of re-entering.
" The disarming of the National Guard at Malaga
has excited some disorders, which have been promptly
repressed. In all the other cities of Andalusia the
disarming is taking place without difficulty. Galicia
is tranquil. On the 4th the events at Alicante were
known at Corunna."

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.

GLOBE.—We regard it as a piece of great weak-
ness to keep harping upon the Catholic oath ; and we
are surprised that Lord Stanley should have wound
up an able speech with a topic ineffective, when not
offensive. From whom, after all, proceed most
of the attacks on the Irish establishment ? From
the Roman Catholic Members ? By no means ?
Why, one of the most outspoken recent sallies
on the subject of that Church, as exclusively
e; ablished in Ireland, proceeded from the Gal-
lant and most Protestant Member for Westminster,
Captain bons. We have before us a pamphlet, pub-
lished by Mr. D. Perceval, containing his father's
speeches on the Catholic question, in an appendix to
which we find bitter and just complaints of having
been taken iri to vote for Captain Rous, as a Pro-
testant Conservative. Now, if that is all the depend-
ence Protestant Churchmen can place on their own
members, what possible use is there in twitting
Roman Catholics with hostile conduct towards the Pro-
testant Church? Are the Roman Catholics the only Dis-
senters in Parliament who must express no opinion
on that subject? If they may express opinions, are
they to express their own opinions, or some others ?
To have made this oath good for anything as a
defence of the outward Protestant Establishment,
it ought to have been an oath, or engagement,
neither to speak nor vote on any subject affect-
ing that Establishment. All general pledges are per-
fectly useless, the object of which is to withhold one'
section of the Legislature. from doing what all the
rest. may do. If the Catholic oath had succeeded in
imposing this exclusive restriction on Catholics, it
would have produced a second Catholic question. If
then g were no Protestants who attacked Protestant
ascendancy, the supposed Catholic pledge to abstain
from doing so might be pleaded more colourably.
But to say Roman Catholics must hold their
tongues, and withhold their votes, on public ques-
tions, on which all other Members may speak
and vote in what sense they please, is to talk idly.
And what would be the consequence, if Roman
Catholics acquiesced in this doctrine ? The conse-
quence could be no other than this, that they must all
turn .Repeaters in a body—all at least, of those who
regard it as their duty to act upon their Church feel-
ings in Parliament as elsewhere. Every one of them
must throw their weight into the scale of separate
Roman Catholic legislature, if the Perceval, and, it
would seem, Stanley construction of their oath could
be brought hometotheirconviction. Lord Shrewsbury
said, very justly, last year, that " until both Houses of
Parliament combined to give a different interpretation
(from Lord Camoys) of the oath, Roman Catholics
would be justified in giving their opinion in the Legis-
lature even on subjects that might trench on the esta-
blished religion of the country. On any other terms
he would not condescend to sit in Parliament."
Would the party in power think the British con-
nexion with Ireland greatly strengthened, if every
Roman Catholic, who thinks himself bound to act in
favour of his church on all occasions, could be convinced ,

...
--......_
that he was not at liberty to do so within the Hall
~
of Parliament ? 'Why then, let them pasta a declaratory'
Act of the stringent sense in whkell the oatiftaken by'
Roman Catholics is understood by ra rliament,.lf they
4 Ant
Tt
could make their majority relax •c 9 Lisp; A
they can make them tighten Catholilittifsv
won't do so—that it would annoy them ama ',l'l if •
Roman Catholic 3 took them at their word—consi 'defe a
d
theinselves, as they affect to consider them, debarre 'd all
free expression on Church subjects—and thereur on
succeeded en masse, and took service, as loyal Repeal
auxiliaries, under Mr. O'Connell—proves, as wo
began by stating, the weakness of talking everlast-
ingly about an alleged engagement they shrink from
enforcing. It would seem our opponents have got
such a habit of talking about this oath, that it always
comes uppermost when they find they have nothing
else left to say. But whatever colour there might be
for throwing it in the teeth of a Whig majority, there
is no shred of pretence now for a single word more
about:it.

" Vou say the oath's evaded—why then, take it—
I'm all submission—what you'd have it MAKE IT."
All this whining is utterly ludicrous with a large
majority in both Houses. It is your fault if Roman
Catholic consciences are ensnared an hour longer by
general terms. Make them so stringent, that no zeal-
ous Roman Catholic- can speak or vote henceforward on
any Church question. Every straightforward Tory
(as Sir C. Wetherell) derided your oath, as securing
establishments. Every straightforward Tory (as Mr.
Perceval) demands, if you make anything of it, to
make it stringent and penal. And Mr. O'Connell
will be much obliged to you. What need we say
more ?

LATEST FROM CHINA.
(From the Devonport Independent.)
We have received letters, by the last Overland mail, from
Hong-Kong, China, dated November 30th, 1845, from which
we extract the following :—" The ward-room officers of her
Majesty's ship Minden have, at their sole expense, erected a
neat monument to the memory of their late messmate, Mr.
Thomas Hancorn, late master of that ship. About 200 men
have invalided from the squadron, and will shortly leave for
England, in the Rattlesnake, troop-ship. The Cornwallis,
Dido, and "Vixen steamer, will sail as soon as the two mails
which are now due arrive. As soon as the hospital at Hong-
Kong is ready, the sick soldiers will leave the Minden, and
be taken on shore. The ship has been moved about two
miles further out from the town for the benefit of the sick,
amounting now, in all, to seventy-five—twenty-five of whom
belong to the Minden. The Rattlesnake has about forty of
the 55th Regiment on board, the Sapphire about fifty, and the
Lansier more. Admiral Sir W. Parker will leave here (Hong-
Kong) on the Ist November. Messrs. Allen and Rogers,
assistant-surgeons, of the Minden, go to England in charge of
the invalids m the Rattlesnake. The Cornwallis, flag-ship,
sails to-morrow (Ist December), and the Admiral, it is said,
will return in May. All the troops will be taken out of the
Minden, and sent to Chusan, so that ship will only have her
own sick in hospital on board."

Hong-Kong barracks will be ready in about two months.
There has been a survey held on board the Samarang, sur-
veying-vessel, Captain Sir Edw. Belcher; her copper being
all off, it is certain that the destructive worms of these seas
will soon make great havoc in her, and the officers have re-
commended that. she shall be hove done.
11Ir. Gordon, Mate of the Cornwallis, is appointed acting
Lieutenant of the Starling; Mr. Spreat, Master command-
ing the Rattlesnake, has invalided, and is superseded by Mr.
King, Master of the Agincourt; Mr. Elliott, Master of the
Dido, is appointed to the Agincourt; Mr. Allen, Master of
the Vixen steamer, to the Dido; Mr. Giles, Second Master
of the Starling, to the Vixen.
Lieutenant Wade, of the Samarang, is in the Minden's hos-
pital. Lieutenant Heard, of the same ship. has been thrown
from a horse and dragged along the ground, which disfigured
him very much, but he was not at all dangerously hurt.
Captain Call, and his father, Paymaster of the 18th Regi-
ment, go home on sick leave.

Mr. Sullivan, Master, is appointed Consul at Amoy.
On the9th of November a_plot was discovered for blowing
up the markets here (Hong-Kong). Had it succeeded there
is no knowing what the consequences would have been : it is
very likely one of the victualling stores and the commissariat,
would have been destroyed. One Chinaman has been appre-
hended, and he will be hung. The police are now burning
down a range of buildings, occupied by a disaffected body of
Chinese. The guards are all doubled, and armed boats now
guard all night. On the 11th November an alarm of fire
was given, and it was found that fifty houses were burning
at once here. Sir Henry Pottinger is at Canton, and is not
expected here till Hong-Kong is more healthy. The gunner
of the Samarang has been tried by Court-martial, and broke
for drunkenness.

We have also received a letter from a medical gentleman
at Hong-Kong, from which we extract the following :
" Sickness prevailed to a great extent; fifteen have died in
the last week, and about thirty are expected not to recover.
Strange to say, that although the Admiralty have fitted out
the Minden, hospital-ship, with every comfort, the men
have a great dread of being sent to her, preferring to remain
in their own ships even to death. A large house has been
taken for a military hospital. Mr. Rae, R.N., is ill in the
hospital. The Kejudice against the Minden is so strong, that
it is thought no more sick will be sent on board her. The
soldiers are to be taken out of her, and sent to Chusan ;
therefore the Minden will only have her own sick on board."
We ought to have held Chusan, it being worth a hundred
islands of Bong-Kong, and I think we only wait for a fair
chance to take it again ; for if we do not America or France
will, if we allow them to do so. A great " squabble " has
arisen between the nobs here, the Governor supposing the
Admirals and General have not paid him proper respect as to
salutes. Sir W. Parker has been unwell, but is recovered,
and has returned from Macao.

The Starling, cutter, Lieutenant Gordon, has been con-
demned, being found rotten. The Castor, frigate, is expected
to arrive daily.

COLONEL STODDART and CAPT

CONOLLY.

We regret to have to state, that accounts were yesterday
received at the Foreign-office from St. Petersburgh, stating
that the Russian Envoy at Teheran. in a dispatch dated the
15th (27th) of December, had reported to his Government,
that the information which he had indirectly obtained from
the Envoy of the Ameer of Bokhara, who had arrived in
Teheran, had only to surely removed all uncertainty as to
the tragical end of Captain Conolly and Lieutenant-Colonel
Stoddart, for he positively asserted that the first had been
executed for having shown on many occasions great par-
tiality for the Khan of Kokan, at that time at war with
Bokhara; and the second in consequence of the discovery of
a secret correspondence which he kept up with his country-
men at Caubul, through the channel of Indian merchants
established at Bokhara.

The Russian Envoy adds, that although the truth of these
details can hardly be questioned, an Envoy from the Shah of
Persia, who is about to proceed to Bokhara on a special mis-
sion, will be expressly instructed to collect on the spot the
most precise information as to the details which accompanied
the death of the two English officers.
The Russian Envoy further says, that the agent from
Bokhara, whether from fear or from delicacy, had evaded
Lieut.-Colonel Sheil's attempt to obtain information from him
as to a catastrophe which must painfully shock the British
representative.— Times.