Current:

Northern Star (1837-1852), 5th April 1845, Edition 2 of 3, Page 8, Office in the same Street and Parish, fo...

Page 8
Page 8
8 of 8

On this page

  • Departments (2)
    • fonpmal ita rlfrment
    • Printed by DOTJGAL M'GOWAN , of 17, Great Winding street, Hnymarket, iu the City of Westminster, at the
  • Text (5)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      G The Northern Star- April 5, 1845.

      g THE NORTHERN STAR- April 5 , 1845 .

      Fonpmal Ita Rlfrment

      fonpmal ita rlfrment

      House Of Commons, Mosmv, Jfcncn 11. In R...

      HOUSE OF COMMONS , Mosmv , Jfcncn 11 . In reply to a question from lord Duncan , Sir XG » ahJ- repeated his answer of a . former ¦ evenimj to the effect that on the whole the bffl for abohshing SrSo ^ en tfordehtfor sums under £ 20 worke 0 welh and he conM not therefore consent to any proposition iavingfor its ohjectthe re-enactment of that power of imprisonment . The right hon . baronet further stated , in reply to a question from Mr . Divert , that it was desirable to have still further experience of its operation before e-rtenohw the measure to Ireland and Scotland . of

      Upon the order ofthe day for the committee supply heing read , the Speaker caUed on Mr . Wakley and Sir C . 2 Tapier , who had each given notice of their intention to more amendments npon it , hut neither gentleman re sponded to the call ; and the house accordingly resolved itself into committee without any previous discussion , to the great amusement of the members who were present , and to the no small annoyance , as afterwards appeared , ofthe two gentlemen who chanced to he absent . In the committee Mr . Cobby Drought forward the If avy Estimates , briefl y stating the causes for the increase or decrease of each particular grant . Among other matters

      he explained the reasons why he demanded an increase of 4 , 000 men for the naval service of the present year . That increase was rendered requisite by the necessity of having squadrons on the coast of China , on the coast of Africa , and in the Pacific Ocean . A vote of 40 , 000 men for tlie service ofthe present year was a less vote than that wliich "Was required for the service of the year 1 S 4 I-1 S 42 , for at that time wc had no considerahlesquadrons in those seas , and at present 5 , 000 men were wanted to man tlie ships of the three additional squadrons to which ho had just referred . He then moved a resolution fixing at 40 , 000 , the number of men to lv » employed in tlie naval service for tlie year ending the 31 st of March , 1 S 4 C .

      Mr . Waklet immediately rose , and moved that the Cfanirmaudo report progress . He had been pressed by iis constituents to bring forward a motion respecting the 3 . * 5 * -ofSee . They were most anxious that he should xnore & r a copv ofthe -warrant , if any existed , authorising the Postmaster-G eneral to open the letters of his colleague , Mr . Duncombe . That motion he must bring forward , and whenever he did so , he ivould take tlie sense of tlie house upon it . He had been absent from the house only five minutes , ar . d when he returned to it he found it in a committee of supply- It was a sad pity that Government should hare lent itself to snch sharp practice , especially as it was not then live o'clock , tlie hour at which public business generally commenced , Sir Jt . Peel disclaimed all intention of taking advantage of . Mr . Wal-ley's absence . - After the notices of motion were read , the Speaker waited five minutes , and it was not till then that Mr , Corry proposed to proceed with the public business .

      Sir C . X . * . nni observed , that if Mr . V * akley felt that he had a right to complain of sharp practice , he had a still stronger reason to urge tlie same complaint , for his notice of motion stood lower down on tlie orders of tlie flay . After a short discussion , Mr . Vfakley withdrew his amendment . Sir C . Nawee then entered at some length into an e--posinon of liis vh-wof the present state of the navy , and more particularly of the steam navy , as regarded the mode of construction , & c ., which he nue-yuivoeally condemned as unfitted for " tlie purposes for which war steamers were intended , and suggested tlie propriety of insEtuting a commission for tne purpose Of inquiring Into the subject , A discussion ensued , in which Sir 6 . Cockbarn , Captain Berkeley , Captain Rous , Captain Pechell , and Captain Carnegie took part ; after which

      Mr . Hujie moved that flie number ot men employed for the naval service should be 30 , 000 instead of 40 , 000 , as proposed . After a brief discussion Mr . Hume said he should not press his amendment . lengthy speeches were then delivered by Lord Palmerston , Sir II . Peel , and Lord John Russell , after which tlie vote was agreed to . The Chairman was then directed to report progress , and the house resumed . The Customs ( Import Duties ) Bill and the Public Museums Bill were then read a second time . The other orders ofthe day were thenread ; after which ihe house adjourned .

      T l * esbat , Aran . 1 . Mr . T . S . Doscohde presented a petition , signed by between S 0 D 0 and 9000 calico and cotton printersiu Derbyshire , Cheshire ^ Lancashire , and Yorkshire , complaining of the amount of labour imposed on children in calico and cotton factories . Dr . BowuixG brought forward his motion for a select committee to inquire into the state of the colonial accounts , and the means of improving them . He rested his motion on the fact , that we possessed forty-one colonies , containing a population of 5 , 000 , 000—that the imports from those colonies into the United Kingdom amounted to jno . ono . nnn or £ 11 , 000 , 000 sterling—that the exports

      from the United Kingdom into those colon ' es amounted to nearly £ 17 , 000 , 000 , of which nearly one-half was of British produce and of British manufactures—that those colonies employed 3 , 000 vessels and 900 , 000 tons—that no accounts from them were ever laid before the house , but only abstracts of them—that those accounts were kept in a - very irregular way—and that the same system of keeping them did not prevail in any two colonies . He contended that we ought to have a colonial budget annually , and that we ought to watch over the receipts and expendirure ofthe colonial Govcrnmentwith the same vigilance which we employed in examining tiie receipts and expen-( Store of tlie Administration athome .

      After some observations from Mr . Dope and Mr . Hume the motion was agreed to .

      POST-OFFICE ESFIOXAGE . Mr . Sheil . —Ihave risen in order to move the resolu tion of which I gave notice before the Easter recess . I submit it in the following tei-ms : — "Besolved , that this house has learned with regret that , with a view to the prevention of apolitical movement in Italy , and more especially in the Papal States , the letters of a foreigner , which had no relation to the maintenance of the internal tranguility of the unitedl * ingdom , shouldhave been opened under a warrant bearing date tlie 1 st of March , and cancelled on the 3 rd of June , 1 SU , and that the information obtained by such means should have been communicated io a foreign power . " Let me be permitted in the first instance to correct a misconception . Jtisnot my purpose to n * aifce the fatalities which happened in Calabria the

      grounds of imputation . I believe every -word which has been stated by Lord Aberdeen . In this country—this Teracious country , in which the spirit of truth is preeminent , if a Minister of the Crown , no matter to what -party he may appertain , rises in his place in either house of Parliament , and either with respect to what he has done , or what he has not done , makes a solemn asseverat ion , with an instinctive promptitude lie is instantaneously believed . Lord Aberdeen has cleared himself with regard to any perfidy practiced towards the Bandieras , but the Post-office intervention with regard to the movement in the ecclesiastical territories has with the Calabrian catastrophe little to do . ( Sear . ) I cannot help - thinking that more plausibilities may be pleaded for the opening of the letters of a member of Parliament than

      for breaHngthe seals of letters written to a foreigner , who had no English confederates , who had -raised no money in "England , who had not made any shipment of arms , who bad not enrolled any auxiliary legion , and -whose letters related to transactions with which the internal tranquillity of England is whoDy unconnected . The Duncombe is not as strong as the Mazzini case . What is the case of Joseph Mazzini ! He is an exile in a cause once deemed to be a most noble one . In 1814 England called on Italy to rise . The English Government ( it then suited their purpose ) invoked the Venetian , and the Genoese , and flie Tuscan , and the Roman , and the Calsbrian to combine for -flie liberation of their country . Proclamations ( I hare one of them before me ) were issued , in which sentiments were expressed for which

      Maziiniis an exile , and for winch the Bandieras died . Botta , the Italian historian , tells us that Lord "William Bentincfc and Sir Itoberi Wilson , acting by authority of the English Government , caused a banner to be unfurled , on which was inscribed " The Independence of Italy , " and two hands were represented clasped together , as a symbol ofthe union in wliich all Italians were invited by the English Government to combine . How badly have we acted towards Italy ! "When our purpose had been served , after having administered these provocativesafter having dragged Italy with provocatives- , -we turned suddenly round—we surrendered Italy to a domination worse than that of Sapoleon , aud transferred to Austria tbe iron crown . But the spirit of nationality did not

      expire ; it remained , and a long time , dormant , but it was not dead . After the revolution in France of 1 S 30 , and the revolution in England in 1831 , a reform of abusesof proved abuses—was demanded in the ecclesiastical states . It was denied , and an insurrection was tiie consequence . It was suppressed , and Mazzini , who was engaged in it , was compelled to fly from Italy , bearing ihe love of Italy , the malady of exile , in his heart Louis Blanc , in his history of the ten years , gives an account ofthe incidents which took place in tbe struggle between the Papal Government and its subjects , to which I will not minutely refer , because he may not be regarded as an impartial writer : but in the appendix to the third volume of his work a document is to be found of a most remai-kable land . Lord Pabuerston had

      directed Sir Hamilton Seymour , who belonged to the legation at Plorrace , to proceed to Home with a view , in concert with the representatives of the four great powers , to induce the Papal Government to adopt such reforms as would prevent sny popular outbreak , from which conseonences prejudicial to the peace of Italy might be apprehended . Mr . Shell here read aletter which Sir Hamilton SeymourLadwritt { m whilst at Rome to the foreign ambassadors in that capital on receiving orders from the English Ministry to return to his post In that letter our Minister complained that though a reform of abuses had

      been declared necessary in the administration of the Bomau States , nothing had been done by the Papal Go-Terament to ease the discontentof its suhjecte ; and stated that the English Government anticipated more serious troubles , if the same coarse of proceeding were further continued . The hon . gentleman continued : Theantici-^ tionsof Sir Hamilton Seymour had since been fulfilled dre \ r * ? i ^ ? 1 i the De 0 Ble of Ital y . despairing of re-SsT ^ T lnt 0 « -- " * conspiracy or plot « hich the rinpSr m ^^ Viafl enaea-- ouret - *<> repress by tlie ^ tedthTt i ^^^^^ ntl y adopted . It \ va « nr GortnS ^^! ** ** <> - ** been given to what quarter _~> ,. „ . £ . not explained from *» - Ma . miehigeuce came . The informa-

      House Of Commons, Mosmv, Jfcncn 11. In R...

      tion having been conveyed to the English Governincut , a singular circumstance occurred . Had the warrant for opening Mr . Maz-sim ' s letters been issued as a mere matter of form , he would not have adverted further to it . But the Earl of Aberdeen had stated that he had not issued the warrant himself , and further , that tlie warrant had not been issued at his desire . That was a remarkable circumstance , as tlie matter to which it referred fell within the exclusive province of the Secretary for foreign Affairs . The question then rose , at whose desire was it issued ? Though the dominions in wliich the Pope exercised temporal authority fell to a certain degree under the superintendence ofthe noble earl , it was notorious that a certain country in which the Pope exercised a spiritual authority was under the superintendence

      of another Secretary of State . He had therefore " a prurient desire"' to know at whose request this warrant was issued ; and fortunately the report of the committee stated that it was issued by the Home Secretary . It was said that there was a finding in the report of that committee favourable to the Government ; and that finding was , that though Mazzini ' s letters had been opened in consequence of intelligence furnished from a high but nameless quarter , the information deduced from them , when communicated to a foreign power , implicated no individual within the reach of that foreign power . Xow , he did not consider that finding very satisfactory , " for the information mig ht have been communicated to another foreign power by that to which it was originally sent , and hence much mischief might have arisen . He wished to know whether

      the details of that information were ever given to the Pope or to any other Italian potentate . It had been stated that -time and p lace had been given in that information , bet not the names of any individuals . Did they imagine that if they put an Italian bloodhound iu this manner on the track , he would not soon be able to hunt his victim to the death ? "What tiie Government communicated ( said the hon . gentleman ) I do not know : I can scarcely conjecture ; but I know that in the Austrian papers , and in the papers under the control of the Austrian Government , there is a most remarkable specification of circumstances in April , the warrant having been issued on the 1 st March . Now mark these words : —In the . Vita Gazette of the 20 th April , and a few days before in the Swaoian Mercury , it is said , "Thepromises of th « rEnglish Government are

      extremely satisfactory concerning the agitation prevailing , especially in tlie territories of the Pope . The English G overnment state thatthe Italian exiles'hospitality would he confined to mere limits of duty ; that Ma-mni would cease to be a person unknown to the London police . " ( Hear . ) But there is another foct . Lord Aberdeen declared , in language as emphatic and solemn as ever was uttered by the lips of man , that , as he hoped for mercy . , he was innocent ofthe blood that had been shed in Calabria . On theGfh . May these men were put to death . On the 15 th June there was a further execution . You are innocent of the blood shed in Calabria . "With the blood shed in Calabria I trust in God the hands of no British Minister is stained . In the course of this discussion it has been said that the Government have only done what their

      predecessors had done . The first Lord of the Treasury distinctly stated that he had only done what had been done by his predecessors . Sir , I deny it . That is my statement . I flwry that information was ever communicated to a foreign sower . I repeat it . I deny that information was ever communicated to a foreign power obtained by the opening of letters at the Post-office . You have , therefore , iu this particular , such as It is , the merit of having stiained an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of Anne , and founded , as thecommittee state , upon an Act of Parliament passed in the time of the Commonwealth . Could you not find , in the history of the commonwealth , something better worthy of your imitation ? At the time of tlie commonwealth your republican predecessors did interpose in the affairs of Italy , and at the hazard of

      creating a European war , they made Savanna quail , and they rescued a portion of her subjects from the merciless persecution of which they were' -tlie objects . If aU England was animated by tlie feeling to which the greatest orator in your language has given an immortal expression , in phrases too fannliar for citation , if your democratic forefathers were fired by the fearless passion for religious freedom , is it fitting that then" descendants should not only be insensible to the cause of civil liberty , but that they should become the auxiliaries of despotism , — that they should lend an aid so sinister to crash the men who have aspired to be as you are , and that by an instrumentality so deplorable , they should do their utmost to aid in the oppression of a country in whose freedom those who are in the enjoyment of true liberty can never be

      unconcerned ? You think , perhaps , that I have in a moment of excitement into which I have permitted myself to he betrayed forgotten the facts of my case . I have not . I go back to the Post-office and to the Home Department . And I ask what is the palliation for this proceeding ? I will give it li'om the answer given by the Prime Minister to a question put by the member for Pontefract . Your extenuation is this—not that the inhabitants of Romagna have not monstrous grievances to complain of—no such thing ; hut this—if there be an outbreak in Bomagna , tlie Austrian army will march into the Papal states—if the Austrian army march into tho Papal states the French will send troops to Ancona—if the Pwaiob . send troops to Ancona there may be a collision—if there be a collision there may be a war between

      Austria and Prance—if there he a war between Austria and France there may be a general continental war—if there be a continental wax England may be involved in it , and therefore , but not at the desire of Lord Aberdeen , you opened Mazzini's letters , and acted on the most approved principles of continental espionage . The word is strong—is it inappropriate ? If you had employed a spy in the house of Mazzini , and had every word uttered in his convivial hours , at his table , or even at his bed-side , reported to you , that would be espionage . Between that ease of hypothetical debasement and what lias actually befallen , tlie best casuist in an Italian university could never distinguish . ( Loud cheers . ) Are we , in order to avoid the hazards of war , to do that which is iu the last degree discreditable ?

      You would not , in order to avoid the certainty of war , submit to dishonour . When an Englishman was wronged in a remote island in the Pacific , you announced that the insult should be repaired , or else— and if you were p repared in that instance to incur the certainty of war , and to rush into an encounter , the shock of which would have shaken the world , should you , to avoid the hazards of war , founded on a series of suppositions , perpetrate an act of self-degradation ? ( Loud cheers . ) There are incidents to this case which afford a warrant for that strong expression . If you had sent for Mazzini—if you had told him that you knew what he was about—if you had informed him that you were reading his letters—the offence would not have been so grievous ; but his letters were closed again—with an ignominious dexterity they were re-folded ,

      and they were re-sealed , and it is not exaggeration to say that the honour of this country was tarnished by every drop of that molten wax with which an untruth was impressed upon them . ( Loud cheers . ) Is there any clause in tlie statutes of Anne , and of "William , and of Victoria by which this fraud is warranted ? There have "been questions raised as to whether a separate warrant is requisite for every separate letter . 15 ut there is no proviso in the Act legalising this sleight of hand , this worse than thimble-rig proceeding . I have not entered , and will not enter , into any legal disquisitions ; it is to the policy , the dignity , the truthfulness of this transaction that my resolution is directed . It will no doubt be said that the committee—men of great worth and high integrity , and singular discriminationhave reported in favour of the Government . I admit their worth , their integrity , and their discrimination , but I deny that they have reported in your favour . They avoid ,

      caut iously avoid , finding a justification , giving en approval of your conduct . They say that they see no reason to doubt tiie goodness of your motives . Your motives J There is an aphorism touching good intentions to which it were a deviation from good breeding too distinctly to refer ; hut it is not for your good intentions that you were made a Minister by the Queen , or that you are retained as a Minister by the House of Commons . The question is not whether your intentions are good or bad , but whether you have acted as became the great position of an English Minister , named by an English Sovereign , aud administering a great trust for tlie high-minded English people . I think that you have not ; and it is because I think so , that I propose a resolution in which I have set down facts beyond doubt and beyond dispute , and with facts beyond doubt and dispute I have associated an expression of sorrow in which I trust this house win participate . ( Loud cheers . )

      Sir J . Gn / LHAJt said , that in addressing himself to a matter which had been brought before the house not for a first nor a second nor a sixth time , he should not aspire to any rivalry with tlie splendid declamation of Mr . Shell . Mr . Shell had stated that this transaction was enveloped in mystery . That mystery should be removed by the statement which he was then about to make . In the month of October , 1 S 13 , he happened to be the only Secretary of State at that time in London . As such , he was bound to perform the duties of liis absent colleagues and to receive all communications made to this Government by foreign powers . In the September of that year serious disturbances had broken forth at Bologna , which , according to the representations of Lord Holland , our Minister hi that country , were not of an

      insulated , but of a general character , pervading all the Italian states . Towards the close of October Baron Uieumann , the Austrian Minister , had waited upon him in London , had represented to him that the commotions at Bologna were of a threatening aspect , and had complained of the inflammatory pamphlets on the state of Italy which were daily issuing from the press at Malta . The Baron had desired him to suppress those publications ; but , as the liberty ofthe press was established in Malta , he told tbe Baron that the law of England prevented him from acceding to his request . The Baron replied , that these inflammatory pamphlets did not proceed merely from Malta and the other British colonies in the Mediterranean , but that they were concocted in London , and were written in London , by one individual ,

      whom he then specified to be Mr . Mazzini , and of whom , till that moment , he ( Sir J . Graham ) had no knowledge whatever . His communication with Baron Nieuinann terminated with that conversation , as liis colleagues returned to London , and , of course , resumed the management of their respective departments . TiU the ensuing January ne heard nothing more on the subject of Mazrini . In thaf-iiionth a conunmiication took place between Lord Aberdeen and himself respecting the progress of tlie revolutionary spirit in Italy . It was then admitted that the representations of Baron Kieumann were perfectly correct , and that it was from London that all tlie orders proceeded which were likely to disturb the peace of Europe . At the end of February communications reached Win ami his colleagues that Mazzini was in London , and that h : was carrying on a very extensive correspondence will ,

      House Of Commons, Mosmv, Jfcncn 11. In R...

      foreign refugees . It therefore became his duty to obtain some knowledge of the proceedings of that individual ; and , though it was not his intention to press hardly on an individual who was not present to defend himself , truth compeUed him to state some facts as to the past character and conduct of Mr . Mazzini . He then read a despatch of Sir Hamilton Seymour to Lord Palmers-ton , in 1833 , calling the attention of the Government of Earl Grev to the conduct and proceedings of Mazzini ., In 1831 Italy was convulsed , and an insurrection was attempted , but utterly failed . The leaders of it fled into France and were aUowed to reside at MarseUles . There they founded the Society of Young Italy , over which Mazzini presided . Sir Hamilton Seymour complained of the formation of that society , and declared it to be the source of great

      disturbances in Italy . His next information as to M . izznu was not so precise , and was founded on an article inserted in the Jfoiiifeiu of the 7 th of June , 1833 . He then read an article , in which it was stated that a threefold assassination had alarmed tlie town of Rodez , and that an Italian refugee had fallen by the hatius of his countrymen . It was stated in the same article that a sentence of death against four individuals had been discovered , and that that sentence of death was signed by Mazzini , as PresU dent . Orders were sent to the authorities to examine into the authenticity ot that document . Mazzini threatened to prosecute the JMon ' tetir for this defamation of his character ; but he never instituted the prosecution which he threatened . Soon after this transaction the French Government ordered Mazzini to quit Marseilles , and

      Mazzini took up his abode at Geneva , and commenced a series of intrigues to disturb the peace of Savoy . To show the character ofthe man . Sir J . Graham read u despatch from Mr . Morier , our Minister in Switzerland , dated January , ISSi , giving an account of the entrance of an armed band of insurgents into Savoy , under the command of Creneral Iiomarino , stating that the expedition had been prepared under the direction of Mazzini—who appeared , since the murder at Hodez , to have been residing at Geneva—and ascribing the failure of it to the impatience of that individual . Mr . Morier likewise stated , that after the return to Geneva , the insurgents attempted another expedition into Savoy , and thereby violated the solemn pledges which tlioy had given to tho Governor of Geneva , not to create any further disturbances in that

      country . He did not think it necessary to follow Mazzini from place to place from the year 1834 to the present time . The data of the warrant issued by him for the opening of his letters was the 1 st of March , 1841 , and he received a despatch , dated that same day , from Sir Hamilton Seymour , now our Minister at Brussels , stating that the Belgian Government had refused one of the Boilapai'tes permission , to i' 6 sid « i in Brussels , because the French Government had connected him with the disturbances in the Papal States . " We understand , " added Sir Hamilton , "that Mazzini , the head of these disturbances , is in England . I think that he aud bis associates are dangerous adventurers , whose proceedings should be closely watched . " His noble friend the Earl of Aberdeen had stated , that the warrant to open Mazzini's letters bad

      not been issued at his desire , He ( Sir J . Graham ) confirmed that statement . The information which he received from time to time convinced him that London , under Mazzmi , wasinadetliccentrcol * agreatniovcmentinItaly , which was likely to endanger the peace of Europe ; therefore it was that he did not shrink from issuing his warrant to open Mazzini ' s correspondence . If any fault were thus committed , it was his fault , and his alone . He gave the house his most solemn assurance that that warrant was not issued by him at the instance of any one , much less at the instance of any foreign Minister , but that it was issued in defence of British Interests , and of British interests alone . Having issued the warrant he was then merely ministerial . He forwarded to the Earl of Aberdeen a copy of every letter that was opened , and Ms lordship made such use of the copy as ho deemed consistent with his public duty . Adverting to Mr . Shell ' s question , whether any communication of Mazzini ' s letters had been

      made to any other Government than that of Austria , he gave a solemn reply to it iu tlie negative , and then proceeded to notice another of Mr . Shell ' s observations—that the honour of England was tarnished by intercepting his letters and forwarding them to him resealed . He showed that the form of these warrants had remained unchanged for many years , and that , ever since they had been issued , the letters were not stopped , but were forwarded to their address , after copies of them were taken in the Postoffice . In confirmation of his assertions on this point , he read the warrants issued by the Duke of Newcastle in 1744 , by Mr . Pox in 17 SL > , and by tho Marquis of Carmarthen in the same year . He then contended that in the absence of any power to refuse admission to foreigners , or to remove them in the case they abused the hospitality of tliis country , he had not betrayed , but promoted the public interests , by opening the letters of Mazzini . He uas sensitive at all times ofthe favour and the censure of

      the house . To receive the censure of the house , even m the modified form now proposed , would be one of the most painf-il events in his life ; but considering the knowledge which his political opponents had of the forms of office , he would rather be the victim of attack in this case than the assailant . Mr . T . Duncombe said , as he had presented on two difterent occasions petitions front Mr , Mazzini , he should rise with great anxiety to address the house , were he not prepared to state , iu his place , that a more undeserved calumny was never asserted as to the character of any gentieman than that which the right hon . baronet had thought fit himself on that occasion to cast on the character of Mr . Mazzini . He must say , that a time when the conduct and character of the Government were under

      investigation was not a fit opportunity for them to blacken the character of others . Yet the right hon . gentleman had not scrupled to give currency to a foul calumny on Mr . Mazzini in tlie absence of that gentleman . It appeared to him ( Mr . Buncombe ) that every time they stirred this most painful subject the darker , deeper , and more disgraceful were these transactions , and the worse the Governit . ent came out of them . "When the committee was first moved fov , tbe right hon . gentleman promised that as far as he was concerned the house should know the whole truth , and nothing but the truth . Yet they had heard much more on this occasion , and he was of opinion that they should stiH get out a little more , What had occurred ou that occasion showed that there must be further inquiry , and that the public , would not

      be satisfied if the report of the committee was to be considered the close of the affair . His' ( Mr . Duncombe ' s ) last motion was that the subject , and the report of the select committee , should be referred to an open committee . He then called the report of the committee an unsatisfactory and evasive report , and every step they had since taken had proved it . Why did he ask for that inquiry ? Why , because Mr . Mazaini said in his petition that gross calumnies had been stated against him in the committee , and that he wished to set at rest those vile calumnies which had been set on foot , more particularly by a member of the other house . If those calumnies were uttered before the committee , then it was their duty to have Mr . Mazzini before them , and not to let his character be aspersed without giving- him

      the opportunity of replying . They ought to have done this , because they had before them his petition , in which he denied the truth of these calumnious statements . The right hon . gentleman had quoted from tho Monileur ; if instead of doing so he had condescended to read the Westminster Review , he would have seeu a very different version of the story he told . Had the right hon . gentleman read the article in the Westminster Review on the subject of Mi \ Mazzini ? In that article the following passage was to be found : — " What imputation will the reader suppose was circulated in high quarters as to Mr . Mazzini , and brought privately to the ears of the committee , to make it appear that extraordinary precautions were required ? Wh y , no less than that of bar ing instigated the murder of two of liis

      countrymen in 1832 . Yet the committee did not allow either Mr . Mazzini or his friends to come forward and meet that charge . " The article went on to say that a document , in the nature of a proclamation , appeared in the non-official portion of the il / oiii ' eier , upon which this charge was founded . Now , the l'ight hon , baronet had quoted that document as if it had been true and authentic . Yet what was the fact ? Why , that the document was a forgery . Yet oil this document the right hon . baronet had founded his charge . Even tlie numerous grammatical errors in that supposed proclamation proved that it could not have been the production of uneducated Italian , much less of a man of high literary reputation like Mr . Mazzini . That gentleman , on the document being copied in the Gazette des Tribunaux ,

      denounced it as a forgery . What was the fact as to the murder of the tivo men ? Why , it was proved on the trial that they were murdered by the accused person in broad day , and entirely on his own impulse and without instigation . Every one was satisfied that no such secret tribunal existed . In fact , the document now brought forward against Mr . Mazzini was not produced at the trial . ( Hear , hear . ) The jury returned a verdict of liomlcidc sans premeditation , and the accomplice of Mr . Mazzini , who was exhibited to the world as an instigator of assassination , was on the pension list of Prance . The story was revived by the ex-Prefect of Police . The right hon . baronet said Mr . Mazzini had threatened a prosecution , but no action was ever brought . Now , the right hon . baronet should take care to be well informed before he

      ventured upon such a statement . Mr . Mazzani did bring an action , in 1841 , for the publication of this libellous document . Sir J . Ghaham said the action was not brought against the Moniteur . Mr . T . Dcncohbe did not know what difference that could make ; it was a mere quibble . ( Hear , hear . ) The right hon . baronefs words were , that no prosecution was ever instituted . ( Hear , hear . ) Inpointoffact , anaction was instituted . It was tried before Le Tribunal Cowectionnelle de Paris in 1841 ; and what was the defence set up on the occasion 2 The defendant met the charge by asserting that there was more than one Mr . Mazzini in the world , and that Mr . Mazzini , the prosecutor , being a man , as aU admitted , of tlie highest possible integrity , no

      one could suppose that he was the Mr . Mazzini referred to in the paragraph quoted from the Mwiteur . ( Hear , and laughter . ) Now , lie wanted to know what pretence there was for opening Mr . Mazzini ' s letters , when the very man who had cop ed the statement from the Moniteur said that he was u man of so much integrity that the accusation could not be intended for him ? ( Hear , hear , ) A totally new defence of the course which had been pursued had been made by the right hon . baronet that evening ; it was altogether a new species of defence . ( Hear , hear . ) Neither Lord Aberdeen , till he thus made the right lion , baronet ( Sir J . Graham ) his organ , nor the right hon . baronet himself on any former occasion , had ever stated that they had never seen any letter from Corfu . As it was iiv stated that no letter or copy of a letter had ever been "ived from Corfu at the Foreign-office , it became neces-

      House Of Commons, Mosmv, Jfcncn 11. In R...

      sary to have some furfli ' or inquiry . upon the subject . He ( Mr . T . Buncombe ) would prove that the Government had opened letters from Corfu . ( Hear , hear . ) If the Government would give him the opportunity he would bring this home to them . Would they shrink from that ? ( Hear , hear . ) He hadgotletters of Mr . Mazzini ' s whic h they had opened . He did not know whether the man who copied those letters , who forged the seal , who went through this dirty work , acted iu this respect by authority or not ; but he had extracts of letters dated , not Corfu , indeed , but Autun . ( An observation was here made by Sir 3 . Graham , which was inaudible in the gallery . ) Why , this was like the quibble about the Jfoniteur . ( Hear , hear . ) In his opinion it came to very much the same thing , whichever ' might be the place

      whence the letters were written . ( Hear , hear . ) He still believed that the unfortunate men put to death in Calabria were murdered by the treachery of tbe British Govern , men ! . ( Hear . ) They were told , indeed , that there were no troops to put them down ; that the peasantry alone rose with a spirit of indignation against persons who thus invaded their peaceful valleys . Was that so ? The regular troops were employed against them . ( Hear , hear . ) There was a portion of the 11 th Chasseurs who met with , and were engaged with these persons . To prove that it was not the peasantry alone who took these unfortunate individuals prisoners , he need only state that the King of Naples , in his official gazette , thanked 170 persons , who were chiefly military men , for the services which they hadperformed , besides thanking and conferring

      an order upon the Neapolitan Consul at Corfu for the services which he hadrendered in this lamentable transaction , thus bringing the question of our foreign relations before the house . ( Hear , hear . ) It was a subject which they too much lost sight of . It was said , that if there should be an insurrection in the Papal States , Austria would immediately send there 70 , 000 men ; and immediately our own Government commenced opening the letters of foreign exiles residing in this country to prevent such a result . He should like to know on what principle they interfered with the domestic concerns and internal commotions of foreign countries ? ( Hear , hear . ) That was a subject well worthy of the consideration of the house . It certainly was the policy of tho Holy Alliance to claim the right of interference in such matters ; but England had always repudiated and resisted such a claim . ( Hear , hear . ) On hearing that Austria threatened to march 70 , 000 men into the Papal States , they gave , according to their own admission , information to a foreign Government . The

      subject was one , he repeated , wliich deserved attention . He wanted to know what hope there was ofthe redemption of the Italian population if such a course were pursued . The petty states of Ital y -were a disgrace to civilized Europe ; but there could be no redemption for them , however badly they might be governed , if , whenever Italian subjects showed a spirit more or less insurrectionary , Austria could , by threatening to send 70 , 000 men , secure the assistance cf England in its favour . Was the Government to be the police of every despot in Europe ? Their whole conduct in reference to this matter bad , in fact , that character ; and the further they proceeded with these transactions the more disgraceful must their conduct appear in the eyes of Europe . He thanked his right hon . friend for having introduced the motion : and as far as the vote of a single member of that house could avail to wipe away the stain which rested on the country in consequence of these transactions on the part of the Government , it should be cordially given in favour of the motion . ( Cheers . )

      The house then divided , when there appeared for the motion : — Ayes ... ... ... ... 38 JVoes 52 Majority —14 On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer , the house resolved itself into a committee on tbe Excise Acts , and , The CiUNCELLon of the Exchequer proposed a resolution for the repeal ofthe glass duties . —The resolution was agreed to . The CuAiiiMAi * then reported progress , and the house adjourned . Wednesday , April 2 . Mr . JIackixsos moved the second rending -of the Smoke Prohibition Bill . Mr . Hawes considered the bill unnecessary , and , if necessary , impracticable . He therefore moved that it be read a second time this day three months ,

      After a short discussion Mr . Hawes agreed to withdraw his amendment . The bill was then read a second time , and was ordered to be referred to a select committee . On lord Ashley's moving tlie second reading of the Calico Printworks Bill , Sir James Gkaiiam observed , that when the noble lord first introduced this bill , ho bad stated that he entertained great doubts as to its policy . His feelings then went with the noble lord ' s proposal ; but his sense of public duty prevented him from giving to it his immediate ' acquiescence . He had made since that time several inquiries into the subject , and he would now briefly state the resul t of them . If by assenting to the second reading of tlus bill Government were to be considered as pledging itself to all the details which the noble lord had introduced

      into it , it would ho Ms duty to resist its second reading but though he could not assent to many of its provisions , he could not , on the other hand , deny on the part of the Government that some regulations for the labour of children employed in these factories were necessary . lie should , therefore , give his consent to the second reading ofthe bill , and in doing so would state the provisions of it to which he objected , and would describe the provisions which ho thought preferable' to them . The preamble of the bill limited the operation of it to calico print-works ; but the interpretation clause extended it to all works where bleaching , dyeing , and calendering were carried on . To that extension of the powers of the bill he entertained great objections . The provision in the third clause , which limited the hours of

      labour for children employed in calico print-works to eight hours every day , and to twelve hours on alternate days , was altogether inapplicable to the works in question . He had shown on a former occasion that in these works labour was never continuous throughout the year ; that there were " pushes" in the trade , which generally occurred in spring and in autumn , and that afterwards the demand relaxed , and a " slack" occurred . This clause , therefore , could not be carried into effect without producing injury , not only to the employer of labour , but also to the adults and tothe children employed . These were the provisions of the bill to which he objected . On the other hand , he assented to the clause which prohibited the labour of children under eight years of age , and considered it wise and politic . He also assented to the

      prohibition of night-work , with reference to children of both sexes under thirteen years of age , and also with reference to women . He thought it light , however , to have a definition of night-work introduced into the bill ; and he would define night as the hours between nine o ' clock in the evening and five in the morning . He should propose that children between the ages of eight and thirteen should be at liberty to work at any time between five in the morning and nine at night . Some provision must be made for the education of these children ; aud , as the period of intense demand for labour in these works was eight months out of the twelve ,, during wliich it was expedient to aUow them to work day by day dur ing the hours he had mentioned , he thought that some regulation should be introduced into the bill to secure them

      education during the other portion of the year . He should therefore propose that , for 100 days in the year , the children between eight and thirteen years of age employed in these factories should attend a school for three or four hours each day , and that they should be provided with certificates of their attendance . If these propositions were adopted , it would be important to make this bill a substantive measure in itself , and to introduce into it all the regulations affecting printworks . If Lord Ashley concurred in this view of the subject , he should be happy to co-operate with his noble friend before the bill went into committee . After it was altered as he had suggested , it could be circulated in its amended form , in order to obtain all the improvements of which it was capable . With this understanding , he consented to the second reading of the bill .

      lord Ashley obsevved , * tbat as Sir James Graham had communicated to him yesterday the propositions wliich he had just detailed to the house , he was not taken by surprise on the present occasion . He found that , supposing those propositions were adopted by the house , he should stand in this position with respect to his bill , —he should lose the protection which he wished to throw over the bleaching , dyeing , and calendering works , and the protection which he wished to give to children under thirteen years of age ; for though night-work was prohibited with reference to those children , they might still be worked for sixteen hours each day ; on the other hand

      he obtained protection for them during the night , and he obtained a prohibition of night-work not only for them , but for women of all ages . That was the state of things on which he had to make his choice . On the one side he saw himself almost alone ; on the other he saw the Government , supported by the great mass of the master manufacturers . The struggle was , therefore , hopeless . Under such circumstances , he was prepared to say that though he reserved his own opinion , and the right of free action on this question hereafter , he accepted with thankfulness theoffer now made to him by her Majesty ' s Government .

      The bill was then read a second time , and was ordered to be committed on Wednesday next . Sir . 1 . EastHOPE called attention to two petitions which he had presented in the early part of the evening from a man and a widow woman who had been committed to hard labour in Leicester gaol under the following circumstances ;— -Warrants had been issued against each of them for arrears of poor rates , amounting altogether to not more than five shillings . A benevolent individual paid the money to save them from prison . Subsequently they were summoned for twenty shillings costs in each case .

      They appeared to tlie summons , but were not allowed to go before the magistrates , the officers having ascertained that they had brought no money with . them . The result was that they were sent to Leicester gaol for one month , with hardiabour , and were lying there at this moment . On hearing of these facts , he had written to the magistrates , and he grieved to say that their reply substantially admitted the facts . He wished to ask the right hon . baronet if he had caused inquiries to be made on the subject , and if the result was such as to induce him to recommend the release of the parties ?

      ;; Sir . J . Giuhaji said , that the statement of the hon . baronet was quite correct , that the circumstances he T 6-fcrred to had created a great sensation in Leicester . As soon as the facts came to his knowledge , which was only two days ago , he at once called upon the magistrates for an explanation , and he felt bound to say that the explanation he had rereivtfl was not satisfactory . The act was

      House Of Commons, Mosmv, Jfcncn 11. In R...

      one , to say tiie least of it . , of great indiscretion . The magistrates should at all events have . seen tlie parties before committing what , he must say , was a gross violation of thelibery of the subject , and a denial of justice . He had heard of the whole of the occurrences with regret . He could not justify the conduct of the magistrates . He was sorry that he had not heard ofthe cases sooner , for it appeared that their month ' s imprisonment would expire on the 5 th instant . An order should be sent instanter for their release , but unfortunately they had nearly completed their term of imprisonment . Mr . T . Duncojhie considered the conduct of these magistrates to be grossly illegal and oppressive . What redress were these poor persons to have for tliis imprisonment and separation from their families ? He hoped that Sir James Graham would go further than he yet had done , and would strike these magistrates out ofthe commission of the peace , which they had disgraced by their gross injustice , tyranny , and oppression .

      Mr . Home said that Sir J . Graham might intimate to the magistrates that they should make compensation to these poor people- —they might give them 25 guineas each , and even that would not be more than a sufficient compensation . Sir . J . Gkaiux could do no more than express his disapprobation . The magistrates were liable to be proceeded against if their conduct was wilfuUy illegal . The house then went into a committee of supply on the army estimates . A vote fixing at 100 , 011 men the number of troops to be maintained fur the military service of the United Kingdom , exclusive of the troops employed in the East Indies , during the year ending 31 st of March , 181 G , was proposed and agreed to .

      AMENDMENT 01- THE SCOTTISH POOH LAWS . The Lonn-AnvoCATE moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment and butter administration of the laws relating to the relief ofthe poor in Scotland ' . He commenced his speech by giving a detailed account of the measures which had been adopted since the year 1838 , down to the present time , to obtain information respecting the condition ofthe poor in Scotland , and the law for administering relief to th ' -m during periods of destitution . He showed that the inquiries ofthe General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1838 , the returns ordered from all the parishes of Scotland in 1812 , and the report of the Commissioners of the Poor Law published in 1 S 44 , established beyond all dispute that there was a great deal of poverty and misery casting in Scotland , and that the the towns

      means of relief were insufficient both in large and in the rural districts . He then proceeded to describe the state of the law in Scotland relative to the relief ofthe poor , and to demonstrate that the two statutes—one passed in 1070 , and the other in the reign of William and Mary—on which that law rested , made provision for the infirm and debilitated poor only , and not for the ablebodied pauper whom want of employment ov other causes might have plunged into distress . In explaining to the house the Scotch law of settlement , he stated that in Scotlaud settlement arose from four causes only—namely , from birth , from parentage , from residence , and from marriage ; and that , when once acquired , it could not be lost until another settlement was acquired in another parish , He explained

      that the funds for the relief of the poor were obtained from contributions made every Sabbath at the door of every parish church in Scotland , from voluntary contributions made at other times , from sums mortified for the use of the poor , and from assessments on landward parishes , and on large towns , levied at stated times , and under various conditions . The law did not prescribe that the relief given to the poor should be girai in any particular fcvm -, it only declared vh ;\ t it should be given for their needful sustentation . The poor had a statutory right to relief in some parish . In every parish there was an administrative body armed with power to aft ' ot'd relief ; and if that body did not perform its duty in a satisfactory manner , the courts of law were mined with power sufficient to compel them . There existed , therefore , under

      the present law a rig ht to relief , funds to administer relief , obligation to provide relief , and power to enforce that obligation . He then pointed out the difference between the English and Scotch system of Poor Law . The Scotch Poor Law limited relief to infirm and debilitated persons only , whilst the English extended it not only to them , but also to able-bodied paupers . Sotiting , he said , would create greater alarm in Scotland than an attempt to introduce into that country the English system of Poor Laws . He would not undertake to account fov the reasons of that alarm , — it was sufficient for him to know that it existed , lie then proceeded to explain some of the defects of the Scotch system , and of tiie remedies which he proposed to apply to them . In Scotland no parish was bound to

      relieve a pauper except that wherehe had a settlement . It might be very distant from the parish in which he was suffering under destitution , and if he went to it he might on his arrival find his right to relief resisted . Supposing that to be the case , he had no mode of redress , except by an appeal to the supreme courts of Scotland . He ( the Lord Advocate ) proposed that in future the pauper should be relieved from these difficulties , and that he should obtain relief in the first instance in the parish where he happened to be when the necessity for relief fell upon him . He further proposed that the parish which sought to relieve itself from that burden should bo liable to afford him relief until it had established the right of another parish to relieve him . By this arrangement the pauper would obtain relief inunediately . He further proposed , that if

      the parish in which the pauper was refused to relieve him , he should not have occasion to apply to the supreme courts , hut that the sheriff of the county in which the parish was should have the power to decide on the right of tlie pauper to be admitted to relief . If the sheriff decided in favour of the pauper , and if the parish appealed against his decision , lie proposed that in that ease tlie parish should relieve him until an adjudication was made on the appeal . The pauper having thus obtained his admission on the roll for relief , the next thing was to provide for his obtaining relief adequate to his necessity . To secure this object he proposed that there should be in each parish a party to attend to the wants of the poor , who should keep a list of all applicants to him for relief , and a record of the manner in which the application was met ,

      and relief administered . He also proposed that there should be a central authority , to whom all those lists and records should be sent , That would keep public attention alive to the subject ; and that consideration brought him to the question , what was to be done in case the local authorities ncgleeted their duty ? It was quite evident that it was for the interest of ail parties that the right of appealing to the supreme courts should be placed under regulation aud control . For that purpose he proposed to constitute a board of supervision , consisting of nine persons . Throe of its members should be appointed by the Crown , and one of them should be paid for the performance of his duties . The other six members should be ex officio members of tho board . He proposed that one of them should be tiie Lord Provost of Edinburgh , another

      the Lord Provost of Glasgow , and a third the Solicitor-General for Scotland for the time being . The three other members should be the sheriffs of three important counties in Scotland—namely , of Perth , of Ross , and of Renfrew ; and to each of them he would make a small annual allowance in addition to tlieir present salaries . Having a board of this mixed character , he would now state how he would make it useful in controlling the right of appeal to the courts of session , which he considered to be injurious at present both to parishes and to paupers . If the parochial board should give to any pauper aliment which he deemed insufficient , the pauper should state it to the board of supervision . If the board of supervision should concur with the parochial board in considering it sufficient , then he proposed that that judgment should be

      held conclusive ; but if the board of supervision should think that injustice had been done the jwupcr , then he proposed that their opinion should be sufficient to enable him . to plead in forma pauperis before the court of session , and the board of supervision should determine what amount of relief ths pauper should receive , and that amount he should be entitled to receive until his litigation with the parish was determined . Considering the constitution of the board of supervision , in which there must always be some eminent lawyers , he thought it most probable that the parishes would generally acquiesce in its decisions ; but if they did not , he left them at . liberty to litigate tho matter in the ordinary courts of judication in Scotland . He then proceeded to describe the construction of the local boards of relief , of which the mem

      bers are to be elected by the rate-payers . He proposed to extend tbe period which gave a legal settlement from three years to seven years ; and in cases of removal , lie provided that tbe parish alimenting the pauper should , when his right patish was ascertained , give notice of the fact to that parish , and should be at liberty , after a given time , to send him to his proper parish at the cost of that parish . With respect to providing funds for the poor , he did not think it necessary to make it compulsory on the local boards to assess the inhabitants . If the funds were sufficient , the parties might raise them among themselves as they deemed most

      fitting ; but if they were insufficient , power should be given to raise them by assessment . He then proceeded to describe the powers which he gave to the different boards in order to provide education for the children of the poor , medical relief for such of the poor as were sick and infirm , and refuge in asylums for such of them as were lunatic and distract . He also gave power to the towns to erect workhouses and to assess the inhabitants for the money necessary to erect them ; but he did not make it compulsory upon the towns to erect such buildings . He then entered into some minor details of his measuae , and concluded by recapitulating the advantages which he expected to derive from passing it into law .

      ^ The bill was subsequentl y brought in and read a first time , after which the house adjourned .

      Thursday , April 3 . J .-EW WK 1 T FOK GREENOCK . Mr . Hume moved that the Speaker do issue his writ to the Clerk ofthe Crown to issue a new writ for a burgess to serve in Parliament , in the room of Robert "Wallace Esq ., who since his election had accepted the office oi Steward to Die Chiltei-n Hundreds .

      GRANT TO JIATNOOTn . The Speaker said , that those members who had petitions against the additional grant to Maynooth had bettei present them at once . At this announcement almost every member on the Ministerial side of the house rose and pointed towards the table with a roll of petitions which he held in hand Thi < simultaneous movement elicited roars of laughter . ' Then were upwards of 200 members on the Ministerial benches , and of these certainly not twenty kept their seats on tl « announcement of the Speaker . On the Opposition sid ( ofthe house , on which there were about 180 member- ! not more than , 'Ycuiy had petitions to pi-went on th < suhject .

      House Of Commons, Mosmv, Jfcncn 11. In R...

      Sir 11 . Pxkx . rose and spoke as follows;—Iu the CUUl ' s ot * the last session of Parliament I took the opportunity of pubUcly declaring , on the part of her Majesty ' s Go " , vernment , that it was our intention , during the recess , to apply ourselves to the consideration of the state of a ' ca demical education in Ireland . I accompanied that deeln . ration with a distinct intimation that the circumstances and position of the toman Catholic College of -Maynooth would undergo the consideration of the Government I added that , undertaking the consideration of the state of

      Maynooth , it was our intention to undertake it j R friendly spirit , and I made that public declaration at tli . v time in order that due public notice mi ght be given nf the intentions of her Majesty ' s Government , I .... not unprepared for the demonstration of 0 uinin which has been made this day . I could ] 10 f , . back to the discussions which have taken nlnnn this house with respect to Maynooth , Without forese " ing that a proposition upon the subject of Mavnootl ! connected with its extension , was likel y to encounter th ' risk of great opposition . I could not disguise from mv

      sell that there were many entertaining strong re ! H opinions and conscientious scruples , [ the sincerity of which cannot be questioned , and which , on account of th * . sincerity , are entitled to respect—Sir , it has anpc- , ™! to us that we were at liberty to pursue one of these courses with respect to the CoUege of Maynooth . We consirt-V rt first , that it was competent to us to continue , vvithot t alteration , the present system pursued in that hi ' stitutio * and the amount of the Parliamentary grant annvill ' made hitherto ; secondly , that it was competent to dj / continue that grant , and repudiate the I nstitution alto getlwY , and all connexion with it , and , after providin . ' - for " existing interests , publicly to notify that , hereafter " « connexion whatever should exist between the Govern ment of this country awl Maynooth . ii lu j „ . , v ™" that this course wc were not nrennvnil fn .., i .,.. < J ! uvm uus course wc were not prepared to adopt ti

      , third course open to us to pursue was , to ' come forward in a friendly spirit and offer to improve xhl present system of Roman Catholic educ ation-rftn position cheers ) -and to extend , to a iiberal an . o mt " Parhaiiientavyprotoction . ( Cheers from the O pposition J This weproposeto do , not by attempting any i » tU" ° "' with the doctrines of the Kouian Catholic weed , but bv a more liberal grant to improve the system and elevate Ihe one of the Catholic people of Ireland . Sir , with regard tothe mst—the continuance , without alteration or modi , fleahon of any Kind , of tho present ., „ , t „„ , i the present s . StenUdeel . i . e , on behalf of her Jh-ycsty ' sOovcrnnient that it is our deliberate conviction , that of all courses that could be pursued , that is tlie most objectionable In fmi » Li 11 !' . CSC , l lir * " w ° * " - '• »» " « Provision for tho education of those whoarc to give spiritual fcwtrwc . tion aud religions consolation to many millions of people . hear

      ( Hear , . ) We just give enough , bv votin- aOT . wUv f ) , 000 l ., to discourage and paralyse .. u voluntary mif . ibu lions . ( Hear , hear . ) You have n . c . si-ncd ¦ ¦ , <) , « , ¦ , vo . . for several years past , as a provision for tliis eoi ' e » e in respect to which establishment a vote had been a « m-aliv made , to lie expressly applied to the amnwl jaiari .-s of ten professors in that college . There are three Professors of Theology , which you endow , and to which your grant is applied , but that » „ t is 50 limited in amount , that you are not enabled to assian more to tbe professors than £ 121 ) a year . ( Hear , " hear . ) Iu seven out of ten cases , the provision made for Pro ' , lessors was less than the sum named . In the ease of the three Professors of Theology , you expuct to have tlie services of men of learning , of eminence , and integrity , for a salary of £ 120 a-year . ( Loud cries of " Hear , hear , " from Mr . Shit- ' . ; That institution , at the present moment , contains 440 students . I think that

      1 b 0 ot these students belong to the class denominated pensioners—that is to say , parties who pay a certain sum fov their admission , and in addition provide for their oirn support . In addition there arc 250 free students whom the State professus to ui . tiutain . The average sum paid by the State for each student is £ 23 per year , ( "llcav , lienr , " from tiie Opposition . ) For that sum of £ 23 the student has to provide his college dress , the furniture of his rooms , his commons , and , iu addition , out of the £ 3 for each student , there are to be provided for the reiaii-s Of tllG College , tho expense of eonls , and a variety of oilier incidental expences . ( Hear , hear , from the Opposition . ) Again , the building has tho appearance of a descried barracks instead of a college , and is grossly deficient in accommodation of the most necessary character . Thcri ghJ

      Therightbon . gentleman went on to say , that tlie principle of the grant was uo new innovation , but of fifty years ' standing . In 1795 an act was passed by an Irish legislature , establishing a grant for the education of llwiwa Catholic Priesthood . The Marquis of Cvmdk . v , when Lord Lieutenant , presided at laying tlie foundation of the College of Maynooth . Another act was pttsstd in 1800 , about the time of the Union , confirmatory of the principle agreed to in 1793 ; and again in 1 S 0 S the united legislature confirmed the previous acts of the Irish parliament . The right lion , baronet here entered into a statement of the various sums of money granted tothe College of Maynooth under these acts at various times . The principle therefore , he said , of supporting an instil ntion for tlie education of the Irish priesthood , had it precedent in its favour of more titan fifty years' standing . The principle being settled , the amount was a secondary

      consideration . If it was right at all to make a grant itought to be such a one as would niakeitcnieieutfor the inmoriaii i purposes of education . This was not the case at present ; the professors were ill-remunerated , the students badly provided for , while the institution had got into a debt of £ 4 , G 0 O , and the students were nnuer ihe necessity of taking an extra vacation of two months , in order to relieve these embarrassments . It was to put an end to this state of things , and to place the only College which theltoman Catholics of Ireland possessed for the education of their spiritual teachers ou a respectable and efficient footing , that he brought forward the present motion . He then proceeded to state the various sums he intended to apply to the purposes of Maynooth College , amounting in all to . £ 30 , 000 for the current year , and concluded by moving that a bill be introduced to amend the existing Acts relative to that academical institution .

      Sir Robert IIaruy Ixglis rose to object to the proposition of the right lion , baronet . He eonleiuled that the act of the 35 Geo . 3 rd , on which the right lion , baronet had founded that proposition , did not warrant him in the motion wliich he had that night brought before the house . How ran the -35 th of Geo . the 8 vd ' It van thus : — " Whereas by law as new enforced , it is uot lawful * a > endow any college or seminary for the education of Roman Catholic persons , it is therefore enacted , kc . " Bid the house think it was to demand an annual grant

      from a Protestant country "to receive subscr iptions to enable them to establish and endow an academy ?* ' Did this empower them to ask support for their college at the expense ot" the nation ? Most certainly not . " The intention of the Act of Parliament of that time was-never supposed to support the principle that the Catholic priesthood should be binding on the country . The pledge given at the Union of applying £ 8 , 000 to Maynooth for the period of twenty years had be ; n fully redeemed . He was , therefore , opposed to any further concession on the subject .

      Captain Beknal expressed himself favourable to the motion , but was opposed to tho amount of the grant going out of the pockets of the people of England . The Commissioners who acted under the Church Temporalities Act , had more money than they knew what to do with , and he thought the Government should take the sum from that fund . Sir . Giu-coiiv could not reconcile himself to any of the arguments he had heard that night in favour of the grant . He was opposed to . " all measures that tended to encourage Romanism , and of course to this . Mr , Waku designated the proposition as a wise and liberal one , and well worthy the support of Parliament . Mr . Law contended that tlie income would advance Romanism , and degrade Protestantism , and of course he should oppose it .

      Mr . BELi , E \ v , [ at considerable length , supported the proposed grant . Mr . Plumptbe denounced the Roman Catholic religion as an idolatrous system , and a scheme of fraud and imposition , which a Protestant Government ought not to support . Loan Saxdon briefly defended the Government proposition . Lord John Russell thought it was the duty of the Government to increase the grant so as to afford an efficient means for the instruction of the p riesthood of Ireland . The people of that country were honest and conscientious in the support of their religious faith , andhence it was to the interest of the empire that their spiritual teachers should be better educated .

      Col . SiBTHoiip-- , in a speech which kept the house in one continued burst of laughter , denounced the ( SovvYnment proposition as disgraceful to a Christian leg islature . | Mr . SriEit , amidst cries of divide , adjourn , & c , rose to I address the house . He entered into a long and eloquent I vindication of the Roman Catholics from the aspersions : which had been cast upon them , and expressed himself I strongly in favour of the proposed grant , I Mr . T . Duncombe opposed the motion from princip le . , He was against all grants Of public money for the siip-. port of any particular religious party . He opposedit on the grounds of permanency , on account ofthe sources from which it was derived , and tlie purpose to which it . was to be applied . ! Several other members having briefly spoken , the houi 0 divided , when the numbers appeared—| For tlie motion ... sit ) | Against it \ u j Majority for it ... .. . —102 I The house shortly afterwards adjourned at two o ' eto *

      i t Leeds . —Chaktist CnuRcnwAnDEss . —Tlie Clia *' - j tists of Leeds have carried the election of the follow-! ing persons as Churchwardens for the ensuin :, - year ' — ' W- & . SaodoMon , cloth dresser , Chatlmin-stieci i Mr . William Scott , whitesmith , Scott-strcefc , Woodhouse ; Mr . Clarkson , boot-maker , Central-market i Mr . Elijah Lord , mechanic , Grantham-street : Mr . i Thomas Bvaithwaite , Lion-street , Newtown ; >}>' ; Joseph Saville , cloth dresser , Chatham-street ; Mr . George Pullan , commercial traveller , Butt ' s-court .

      Printed By Dotjgal M'Gowan , Of 17, Great Winding Street, Hnymarket, Iu The City Of Westminster, At The

      Printed by DOTJGAL M'GOWAN , of 17 , Great Winding street , Hnymarket , iu the City of Westminster , at the

      Office In The Same Street And Parish, Fo...

      Office in the same Street and Parish , for the Ir 0 ' prietor , PEARGUS 0 'C 0 XN 0 R , Es ( i ., audpuu 'i 5 li <'' l- 'f William Hewitt , of No . 18 , Charics-street , Bm ^ o ' street , Walworth , in tlie Parish of St . Mary , SewM ton , in the County of Surrey , at tbe Office , »• Strand iti ' the Paris o St . Mavy-lcfttran i City of Westminster Saturdnv , / tP ,-il 5 , 18 Jf ..

  • Citation
    • Northern Star (1837-1852), April 5, 1845, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns2_05041845/page/8/