Resolved in the Affirmative. Bill read 3a accordingly. discontinue his agitation, or that the peo- | nooth they had done more for the good of ple should not all at once confide in those the country than by any other method; whom they had been so long taught to and much more than could be done by distrust. That the people they were now looking to the recurrence of that system interfering to enlighten should not see all of force in which not the power but the at once your object, was, in the course of vice of their Government had consisted, human nature, to be explained by what would be effected by this measure, of they found in all countries after a long which not the least merit was, that it indicourse of misgovernment had produced an cated an intention of abandoning that syshostility to the laws and the Legislature. tem for ever. He had somewhere read that a Govern- On Question, That "now" stand part of ment could make the laws, but could not the Motion? House divided :-Content make the prejudices of a people. Certainly-Present 104; Proxies 77-181: Nona Government could not unmake the pre-content-Present 34; Proxies 16-50: judices of a people; that could only be Majority 131. the work of time; and though their Lordships had not wings to fly before time, yet they might go on in the course they had adopted; and they would find that if not the present, future generations would be seen enjoying the increased benefits arising from this measure. He must not be told that better educated priests would not be better men, and that the son of an artisan who was educated at this College would not henceforth be a better man, and a better subject. He thought those were consequences of this measure which would follow from it with a certainty that could be reckoned on; and that the change which Burke anticipated as the proper result of a better and more wholesome system of government in Ireland would be established there. That great statesman, not less than half a century ago, wrote thus in a prophetic spirit He On the Question that the Bill do pass, The Earl of Winchilsea said, he felt bound to repeat his protest against this measure, which involved an entirely new principle-namely, that of the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church. Their Lordships were placing themselves in a fearful position by assenting to this measure; and if they did not previously retrace they steps, they would find the sense of the country strongly manifested at the next election. After the division which had taken place it was vain to hope that such an humble individual as himself could produce any impression on them. could only repeat that he considered the question one of the most serious importance. The Government under which they lived was an hereditary, but a restricted monarchy. The monarch could not ascend the Throne except on Protestant principles; and long might those principles and the Throne be connected! The peerage itself was hereditary: long might it remain so! but it was his honest conviction that if the people once suspected the principles of the leaders of the Government in that House, they would prefer the principle of a peerage elective for life to that of an hereditary peerage. It wss quite certain that if this measure had been proposed by the Whig Government, many of those who had then voted for it would have declared that they could not That was the opinion of Burke, than conscientiously give it their support. He whom a greater friend to religious estab- could not conceive why, if they agreed lishments never existed; their Lordships with the noble Earl who had that night had the benefit of his experience and his expressed himself in favour of inquiry, the prophetic mind, and they had the benefit Roman Catholics generally had not sought of their own experience, all which had investigation into that system to which shown them, that by adding to the force their Lordships were about to give a perand power of the establishment of May-petual endowment. If that inquiry had "I see a disposition to take the state of things of Ireland as it is, and improve it to the best advantage to the State, whether Catholic or Protestant, or mixed of both. Hitherto the plan of the Government of Ireland has been to sacrifice the civil prosperity of Ireland to its religious improvement; but the people in power at length have come to other ideas, and they will consider that good order, decorum, virtue, and the morality of every description of men would be of infinitely more value than those schemes which put in hazard the objects which are of more importance to a State, in my poor opinion, than all the polemical matter that has been agitated since the beginning of the world." DISSENTIENT— been granted, it would have been clearly | The following Protest against the Third proved that the College of Maynooth was Reading of the Maynooth Bill, was enestablished on the principles of the Jesuits tered on the Journals :--on principles which militated against the best interests of society. That was, "1. Because I hold it to be contradictory to indeed, an eventful day for England. the first principles of the Reformation to proAfter the passing of that measure, and the vide for the establishment of an order of men signing of it by their gracious Sovereign, to be educated for the express purpose of rethe Protestant character of their Constitu- sisting and defeating that Reformation-men tion would have been destroyed. And on whose office and main duty it will be to diswhat day would this Bill have passed?tions of the Christian faith which the Church seminate and to perpetuate those very corrupWhy, on the proud anniversary of the of England has solemnly abjured, and some signing of Magna Charta. Yes, that was of which the whole Legislature of England the anniversary of the day on which the has declared to be superstitious and idolabarons of England wrested from King trous. John the charter of English liberty. Lord Campbell: The Roman Catholic barons. "2. Because the most unbounded toleration of religious error does not require us to provide for the maintenance and the growth of that error, but rather imposes upon us a strong obligation to prevent by all just and peaceful means its increase, and to discourage its continuance. of succession to the Throne, which is the title and by consequence to subvert that principle of the present dynasty, and which forms an integral and essential part of the Constitution of this kingdom. The Earl of Winchilsea said, he believed that the early religion of this country was very different from the Roman Catholic religion of a later period. The peo"3. Because this measure has a tendency to ple of England would never surrender raise in the public mind a belief that religious their Protestant principles. Let a disso-truth is a matter of indifference to the State; lution come when it might, he believed that a majority in the House of Commons would be returned on sound Protestant principles, and their Lordships would then have a measure brought up from the other House of Parliament calling on them to rescind the vote which they had given that night. Until that period came he would do all in his power to save what remained of Protestant principle in this great Empire. The noble Earl concluded by moving to insert before Clause 20 the following Clause, viz. "And be it further enacted, That after the Expiration of Three Years from the Time of passing this Act, no further Sum shall be charged upon or payable out of the Consolidated Fund for the Purposes of this Act." "E. LLANDAff. WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAM. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, June 16, 1845. MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.-20. Timber Ships. Lord Brougham said, no one could Reported.-Great Western Railway (Ireland) (Dublin to doubt the noble Earl's perfectly sincerity in the views which he had stated that night, or in those which he always expressed in reference to that subject. It was from no want of respect to his noble Friend that he contented himself on the present occasion, after the full discussion which the measure had received, with giving a simple negative to the Amend. ment. Mullingar and Athlone); West London Railway; Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway, and Bury Extension); Edinburgh and Northern Railway; Molyneux's Estate; Duke of Argyll's Estate; Newry and Enniskillen Railway; Belfast Improvement; Runcorn and Preston Brook Railway and Docks; Northumberland Railway; Richmond (Surrey) Railway. 3o. and passed:-Dundee Waterworks; Reversionary Interest Society; Harwell and Streatly Road; Blackburn and Preston Railway; Newcastle and Darlington (Brandling Junction) Railway; Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway; Sheffield and Rotherham Railway; Taw Vale Railway and Dock; Waterford and Kilkenny Railway; Kendal Reservoirs; Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland. On Question, That the said Clause be there inserted? Resolved in the Negative: PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Maher, from Bonleagh, Bill passed. House adjourned. against the Dissenters Chapels Bill (1844).-By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Chertsey, against Grant to Maynooth College. By Col. Rawdon, from Clonfecle, in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.-By Mr. Hope, from Hawkhurst, against Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.-By Mr. Hume, Mr. Smollett, and Lord J. Stuart, from several and reported to the House, that they places, in favour of Universities (Scotland) Bill.-By Mr. ought to be allowed to proceed. The Bill W. Miles, from Compton Pauncefoot, for Relief from was then referred to the Committee on Agricultural Taxation.-By Mr. Corry, Col. Rawdon, and Col. Verner, from several places, for Alteration of Group X. It was ascertained in that field, from several places, in favour of the Ten Hours Committee that an error had been introSystem in Factories.-By Captain Hatton, from several duced into the Bill as to the construction places, for Alteration of Parochial Settlement Bill.--By of one of the sections of the line, as comLord R. Grosvenor, and Mr. Gladstone, from several Banking (Ireland) Bill.-By Mr. Kemble, and Mr. Stans places, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.-Bypared with the datum line. He would quiry (Royal College of Surgeons).—By Viscount Clive, from Robert Burton, Salop, against Salmon Fisheries Bill.-By Lord Robert Grosvenor, from Chester, in favour of the Salmon Fisheries Bill.-By Mr. Wawn, from not enter into discussion as to the character of that error-as to whether or not it affected the real merits of the line-nor Would he ask the House to interfere with the functions of the Committee. He W. H. Brockett, Newcastle-upon-Tyue, for Prohibiting would not ask the House to express the certain Toll (Scarborough Harbour). CAMBRIDGE AND LINCOLN RAILWAY.] Mr. M. Sutton rose to move "That the Cambridge and Lincoln Railway Bill be re-committed to the same Committee (Group X.); and that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to take into consideration whether the Section deposited in the Private Bill Office may not be amended, without injury to public or to private interests; and that it be a further Instruction to the said Committee, that they have power to amend the said Section, if, on inquiry, they shall deem fit so to do." slightest opinion as to the merits of the case. All he asked them was, to give to the Committee on the Bill the power to inquire into these circumstances. When the error was discovered in the Committee, the Committee considered that the best course to pursue was, to decide that the preamble do not pass, and to report the matter to the House, accompanied with the reasons upon which the decision was founded; so as to give an opportunity of bringing the subject before the House at the earliest possible time. The hardship of this case was, that the adverse decision of the Committee did not arise from In bringing forward this Motion, he did any demerits in the measure itself, but not mean to impugn, either directly or from the fact of a clerical error-an error indirectly, the decision to which the Com- that had escaped the notice of the original mittee had come; nor did he ask the promoters of the Bill, and also the StandHouse to impugn that decision, or to with- ing Orders Committee, and which was draw its support, without which it would not detected until the Bill was brought be impossible for Committees to perform under the consideration of the present their functions. He would confine him-Committee of Inquiry. The Committee, self to simply stating the facts of the case. No doubt, he should be told that there was no precedent for the application he was making; but in reply to that he would observe that the circumstances of the case were likewise unprecedented. The petition for the Bill had been presented in February, and had been referred to the Sub-Committee of Standing Orders, and it had not been opposed. The parties who promoted the Bill informed the Standing Orders Committee of every point, as far as they knew, in which the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The Sub-Committee reported, that the Orders had not been complied with. The petition was then referred to the Standing Orders Committee. It was then also unopposed; and the promoters of the Bill brought forward before the Committee all the errors of which they were aware. The Standing Orders Committee permitted the promoters of the Bill to alter two lines; though they did not consider the error as fatal to the merits of the measure, were nevertheless bound to take notice of it, and report in the manner they had reported. This was a case of special and peculiar character, and called for the interference of the House. He did not ask the House, in dealing with the case, to reverse the decision of the Committee, but to grant it further powers of inquiry. As regarded the power he proposed to vest in the Committee, he did not believe it would be exercised prejudicially, either towards the parties interested in the measure, or the public. The powers he proposed they should exercise were those which had been exercised on several occa. sions by the Standing Orders Committee. He could state a few cases, in which that Committee had allowed the sections and the datum line to be corrected. There was a case during last Session in which an error similar to the one in the present Bill was allowed to be corrected in a branch of the Sheffield and Huddersfield Railway. In the present year, there had been eight cases in which corrections had been made. Of these, he might instance the Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole, the Cornwall, the North Wales, and the Brighton and Chichester Railway Bills. He saw no reason why a power which had been exercised in these several instances might not with perfect safety be extended to the present Committee. The merits of the competing lines was not the question at present; but it was, whether it would not be judicious and proper to extend, in this special and important case, those powers of reconsideration which had been exercised by the Committee on Standing Orders? Were this doue, he was sure the power would not be abused. Lord Courtenay, as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill had been referred, wished to make a few remarks before the discussion proceeded further. He did not wish to express any opinion as to the propriety of granting the application; but he would just state, on behalf of the Committee, that in the main the statement made by the hon. Member for Cambridge was perfectly correct. It certainly was correct, as stated in the petition, that it having appeared, on the examination of the principal engineer, that this error existed, and the Committee being further convinced, that as far as the evidence enabled them to form a judgment, it was a clerical error-feeling the importance of the investigation which was committed to them, and the desirableness of giving the promoters of the Bill an opportunity of setting themselves right before the Committee, if they could do so-they thought it fair to all parties to ask leave to present the Report at as early a period as possible, in order that the promoters of the Bill might as soon as possible amend their position. The error, so far as the evidence enabled him to speak, was one which did not materially or prejudicially affect any one landowner on the line, or any public or private interests; but it was an error on which they felt bound to decide in the manner they had done, according to the clauses in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. They came to a decision after the most careful deliberation; but they did not proceed upon any impression that the existence of the error was prejudicial to the landowners; because the evidence would have led them to the opposite conclusion. It was with considerable regret that the Committee felt bound, under the circumstances, to place one of the competing lines in a position less favourable than the other; for the Committee would have had more satisfaction in deciding on the merits of the Bill, if they had been placed in an equal position. Mr. Estcourt considered the error to be one of great importance; because the datum line was a substantial part of the measure; and the House had directed certain notices to be given, and certain sections to be deposited, and that the datum line should be so marked out that all the world might be able to judge of its correctness. How, otherwise, could individuals ascertain whether their property was likely to be affected or not? He trusted the House would maintain the Standing Order; and not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge. The hon. Member had referred to various instances where parties had been allowed to make corrections; but the Standing Orders Committee considered the datum line of such importance, that he knew of no case in which they had dispensed with it. He trusted the House would adhere to the Standing Order, and repel the Motion of the hon. Member. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, his constituents were so greatly interested in this measure, that he felt it necessary to make a few remarks, although he seldom interfered in the private business of the House. He thought that a sufficient case had been made out for the adoption of the Motion of his hon. Friend. The parties whose properties were affected could not have been misled by the error which had occurred. The hardship in this case was, that the objection was not taken before the Standing Orders Committee. If the objection had been taken then, the House would undoubtedly have permitted the parties to correct the error. If the Bill should be thrown out, in consequence of the parties not having had the opportunity of bringing the matter before the Standing Orders Committee, great injustice would be done to them, and a most inconvenient precedent would be set; for parties who were aware of the existence of objections might refrain from taking them, for the purpose of profiting by them at a future opportunity. Lord G. Somerset said, the Standing Orders expressly directed, that the datum line should be taken and adhered to with regard to all the plans and sections; and by the Act which had been passed during the present Session, it was enacted that no deviation of more than five feet above that datum line, should be made without the special consent of every individual affected by it. Now, what was the proposition before the House? That because the parties, by their own negligence, had omitted to give the information which every party was bound to give, they should have the means of rectifying the mistake, and putting themselves in a better position than those who had complied with the rules of the House. If any motion had been made, it ought to have been, that the matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, whose province it was to consider the equitable construction of the Standing Orders. The Chairman of that Committee had stated that he did not remember an instance in which such an objection had not been considered fatal. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the House would adhere to the Standing Orders, and reject the Motion of his hon. Friend. I do not think that, consistently with those Orders, it would be competent for me to put the question which the hon. Member has suggested. The House divided on the Question that the Bill be recommitted :-Ayes 77; Noes 118; Majority 41. IDOLATRY IN CEYLON.] Sir R. Inglis wished to ask a question of the Under Secretary for the Colonies with reference to a report which he had read, as to certain proceedings on the part of the British authorities in Ceylon, which if true were a violation of the resolutions which had been come to on the part of Her Majesty's Government and the East India Company for the suppression of idolatrous worship in India and Ceylon. It was reported that homage had been paid by the English authorities to some object of idolatrous worship in Ceylon. He wished to ask whether there was any truth in that report? Mr. G. W. Hope said, that the statement to which his hon. Friend had alluded was to the effect that the Government Agent in one of the provinces of Ceylon had been a party to the exhibition of the tooth of Buddha, which the House would understand was a Mr. W. Patten was afraid, according to the regular rules of the House, that the matter could not be referred to the Stand-relic of great sanctity in Ceylon. At the ing Orders Committee. He thought it time we took the island, it was believed by would be more advisable to refer the case the natives that whoever held the tooth to the Committee on Standing Orders. could also hold the government, and, acThat Committee would make a Report, cordingly, means were taken to secure it and the House could then come to a deci- from other parties. Nothing, however, sion upon the Motion. If the forms of was done from veneration; there was the House would permit it, he would merely a sentry placed over it, and it was move an Amendment to that effect. not allowed to be exhibited except in the presence of a public officer. Subsequently the Agent having had a representation made to him that placing a sentry over the tooth had an appearance of veneration, the practice was discontinued, the relic was given up to the native priests, and all ceremonies were prohibited. Mr. Speaker: I am not aware whether the hon. Gentleman intends to enforce his suggestion by way of Amendment or not; but before I put the question to the House, I ought to state that I do not see how it is possible that such an Amendment can be put consistently with the Standing Order. The Standing Order requires that the House shall not receive any petition relating to the Standing Orders after the second reading of the Bill. Now, this petition has been presented after the second reading, and it does relate to the Standing Orders. For the parties have certainly been guilty, though unintentionally so, of not complying with the Standing Orders; still it is quite clear that they had not complied with those Orders. Therefore, if this petition should be received as one relating to the Standing Orders, it would be decidedly against the rule of the House. Sir R. H. Inglis was understood to say (but he was very imperfectly heard), that the answer of his hon. Friend was perfectly satisfactory. |