The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-12 00:00:00

I going to these people thus beaten down and trodden
to the earth, and ministering to them courageously
and bravely all the religious comforts which their condition
demanded—suppose a demagogue in England could say these
things, would England be quiet under such circumstances ?
woul t she not rise up as one man and put down the op-
pressor ?—(Hear, hear.) And had not the Irish people
the same feelings and power as we had? And were we to
forget that this hypothetical case wliich he was putting was
actually the case in Ireland ? Mr. O'Connell regarded the
proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet as a'• bidding" against
him ; he (Mr. O'Connell) knew very well that if justice were
done to Ireland, Ireland would no longer seek to be divided
from us, but would be our right hand in the time of war,
and our friendly ally in the time of peace. Taking into con-
sideration the religious and moral aspect of Ireland, he would
ask if the proposed grant could be considered in any other
light than as a donation given to the people in the best form ?
If he were asked the mode in which he could do the greatest
good at the least possible cost, he should say it would be by
educating the Irish priests. It would be a contribution made
in the best form for educating the Irish people. The grant
was objected to on the score of religious principle. These
arguments were difficult to reply to, and for the most part
he could not understand them. They eluded his under-
standing altogether. He was told the objection was that the
teaching at Maynooth was a teaching of error, and they
objected to support such teaching. He had in his hand a
very remarkable report of a speech made at Liverpool.
He wished to call the attention of the House to observations
made upon the present question, by a reverend gentleman at
Liverpool (as we understood). He really felt it necessary
to beg pardon of the House for bringing upon them a mode
of treating the present question which was in all respects
so objectionable, but yet the manner in which the reve-
rend gentleman discussed this matter was, in its way, very
striking. He said—" Was God's word to be practically
supreme, or not ?" and then he went on to observe,
that though no part of the Bible was obscure, cer-
tainly not unintelligible ; yet there were some pictures
of the sacred Scriptures so characterised by extreme clearness,
that to doubt their meaning was little less than to deny the use
of the Bible itself. The Bible prohibited the bowing down to
graven images, it prohibited adultery, it prohibited theft.
Then he added that inasmuch as Parliament would not think
of endowing a college for promoting adultery or theft, so
they ought nut to endow a college which inculcated the prac-
tice of bowing down to graven images. Now he would ap-
peal to Hon. Members to say, if that was the manner in
which such a question as the present ought to be argued—
could he or any Member be fairly called upon to meet such
arguments ? For his part, he should not attempt to do any-
thing of the sort. Neither should he seek to answer those
who affirmed that their views of that which was the truth
ought alone to be accepted as the truth. Who should say
what is as the truth as compared with the opinions of other
men? For the reasons, then, which he had stated, he gave to
the grant his most cordial support.
Lord NORTHLAND next rose, but owing to the con-
fusion which prevailed in the House, the few observations
which the Noble Lord made were nearly inaudible. He was
understriod to shy that he felt great regret at being thus
obliged, for the first time, to differ from her Majesty's Go-
vernment.

On the motion of Mr. HAWES the debate was then ad•
journed.

AUCTION DUTIES REPEAL BILL.

The Auction Duties Repeal Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed on Monday.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.