On this page
- Departments (2)
-
Text (6)
-
e THE NORTHERN STAR, April 5, 1845. O ¦¦...
-
tomal ?arltamw
-
HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mootat, March 11. In r...
-
_ Leeds.--Chartist Churchwardens.—The Ch...
-
Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN, of 17, Great Windmill*
-
°"«'"" . ».«-, , me viity ox W , av"** O...
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.
-
-
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.
E The Northern Star, April 5, 1845. O ¦¦...
e THE NORTHERN STAR , April 5 , 1845 . O ¦¦ ' _•^ _fUJSSSH ' : ... '" ' ' " = _' _* = _* S _*^!!! _g ! g-- _»
Tomal ?Arltamw
tomal ? arltamw
House Of Commons, Mootat, March 11. In R...
HOUSE OF COMMONS , Mootat , March 11 . In reply to a question from Lord Duncan , Sir T _Giahax repeated his _answer of a former _even-*^ _MK 2 S * . whole the b ill for abolishing _inKooment fordebtfor sums under £ 20 worked well _KTSSd not therefore consent to any proposition _havine-for its object the re-enactment of that power of _tpr _iVZett . The right hon . baronet further stated , _5 J . a question from Mr . Divert , that it was _desirabletoihave still further experience of its operation before extending the measure to Ireland and Scotland . Upon the order ofthe day for the committee of supply being rea < L the Speaker called on Mr . WaMey and _Sn-C . -Napier , who had each given notice of their intention to move amendments upon it , hut neither gentleman reapondeato fhe call ; ana 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 . Court , _brought forward the Navy "Estimates , briefly staring 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 fhe coast of Africa , and in the Pacific Ocean . A vote of 40 , 000 men for the service of the present year was a less vote than that which vras required for fhe service of the year 1 S 41 JS 12 , for at that time we hail no considerable s quadrons in those seas , and _atjpresent 5 , 000 men were wanted to man the ships of ihe three additional squadrons to which he had just referred . He then moved a resolution firing at 40 , 000 , the number of men to he employed in the naval service for the year ending the list of March , 1846 .
Mr . _VVaelet immediately rose , and moved tliat the Chan-man do report progress . He had been pressed hy Ins constituents to hring forward a motion respecting tlic _3-St-office . They were most anxious that he should move for a copy of the warrant , if any existed , authorising the Postmaster-General to open the letters of liis colleague , Mr . Duncombe . That -motion he must bring forward , and whenever he did so , he would take the sense of the house upon it lie had been absent from the house only five minutes , and when he returned to it he found it in a committee of supply It was a sad pity tliat Government Should liave lent itself lo sueh sharp practice , especially as it was not then five o ' clock , the hour at whicli public Imsiness generally commenced . SirR . _Fbei . disclaimed all intention of taking advantage of Mr . _Wakley's absence . After ihe notices of motion were read , the Speaker waited five minutes , and it was not till then that Mr . Corry proposed to proceed with the pnblic business .
Sir C . "Xame _** . observed , ihatif Mr . Wakley felt that he had a right to complain of sharp practice , he had a still stronger reason to urge the same complaint , for his notice of motion stood lower down on the orders of the day . After a short discussion , "Mr . Wakley withdrew his
amendment . Sir C . * yAMEE then entered at some length into an exposition of his view of the present state of the navy , and more particularly of the steam navy , as regarded the mode of construction , & c , which he unequivocally condemned as unfitted for the purposes for which war steamers were intended , and suggested the propriety of instituting a commission for the purpose of inquiring into the subject , A discussion ensued , in whieh Sir G . Cockburn , Captain Berkeley , Captain Sous , Captain Pechell , - and Captain Carnegie took part ; after which Mr . Hum moved thatthe number of men employed for the naval service should be 3 C , 000 Instead of 40 , 000 , " as proposed . After a brief discussion Air . Hume said he should not press his amendment _. Lengthy speeches were then _delivered by Lord Palmerston , Sir It . Peel , and Lord John Russell , after wliich the vote was agreed to .
The Chairman was then directed to report progress , and the house resumed . The Customs ( Import Duties ) Bill and the _Tuhlie _Museums Dill were then read a secoud time . The other orders ofthe day were thenread ; after wluch Ihe house adjourned .
_Tcesdat , April 1 . Mr . T . S . DnscosiBE presented a petition , signed by between S 000 and 9000 calico and cotton printers in Derb y-Shire , Cheshire , _Iancashire , and Yorkshire , complaining of the amount of labour imposed on children in calico and cotton _factories . Dr . Bowbixg brought forward his motion for a select committee to inquire into the state 0 / the colonial accounts , and the means of improving them . lie 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 io £ 10 , 000 , 000 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 ivas of British produce and of British manufactures—that _thosa 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 keot in a very irregular way—and that the same system of keeping them did not prevail in any two colonies . He contesded that -we ought to have a colonial budget annually , and that-we ought to watch over the receipts and expenditure ofthe colonial Government-niththe same vigilance which we employed in examining the receipts and expen diture ofthe Administration at home .
After some observations from Mr . Hope and Mr . Hume the motion was agreed to .
POST-OFFICE -ESPIONAGE . "Mir . Sheix . —Ihave risen in order to move the resolution of which I gave notice before the Easter recess . I submit it in the following terms : — "Itesolved , that this _nouse 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 tranquility ofthe united _kingdonijShouldhave heen opened under a warrant bearing date the 1 st of March , and cancelled on the 3 rd of Jnne , lS 4 i , and that the information fcbtainedbysuek means should have been communicated io a foreign power . " Let me be permitted in the first instance to correct a misconception . Jt is not my purpose to make the fatalities wliich happened in Calabria the grounds of imputation . I believe every word which has . been stated hy lord Aberdeen . In tliis country—this veracious country , in wliich the spirit of truth is
preeminent , if a"HimS . terof the Crown , no matter to what party he may appertain , riste j " * P lace m eitL -er house mi "Parliament , and either with _resp- _^ t tC _T _^** _nas done , or what he has not done , makes a solemn asseveration , with an instinctive promptitude he is instantaneously _helieved . Lord Aberdeen has cleared himself with regard to any perfidy practiced towards the Bandieras , hut the Post-office intervention with regard to the movement in the ecclesiastical territories has with the Calahrian catastrophe little to do . ( Hear . ) I cannot help flunking that more plausibilities may he pleaded for the opening of the letters of a member of Parliament than for breaking the 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 had not enrolled any auxiliary legion , and whose letters -related to transactions with which the internal tranquillity of England is wholly unconnected . The Duncombe is not as strong as the _ATazzrai case . " What is the case
J _jf _Jos' 55 _V-3 _&& A . f 5 ? Is an exile in a cause once deemed to be a most noble one . In J 814 England called on Italy to rise . The English Government ( it then suited iheir purpose ) invoked the Venetian , and the Genoese , and the Tuscan , and the Boman , and the Calahrian to combine for the liberation of their country . Proclamations ( I have one of them " before me ) were issued , in which sentiments were expressed for which 2 uazziniis an exile , and for which the Bandieras died . Botta , the Italian historian , tells us that Lord William Benfinch and Sir Hubert Wilson , acting by authority of the English Government , caused a banner to be unfurled , on which - was inscribed " The Independence of Ital y , " and two hands were represented clasped togethe ? , as a symbol ofthe union in which 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 drngged Italy with provocatives , we turned suddenly round—we surrendered Italy to a domination worse than tbat of "Napoleon , and transferred to Austria the iron crown . But the spirit of nationality did not expire ; it remained , and a long time , dormant , but it was not dead- After fhe revolution in "France of 1 S 30 , and ihe revolution in England in 1831 , a reform of abusesof proved abuses—was demanded in the ecclesiastical states . It was denied , and an insurrection was the consequence . It was suppressed , and Mazzini , who was engaged in it , was compelled to fly from Italy ,
bearing the love of Italy , the malady of exile , in his heart Louis Blanc , in his history of the ten years , gives an account of the incidents which took place In the struggle between the Papal Government and its subjects , to which I trill 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 remarkable land . Lord _Palmerston had directed Sir Hamilton Seymour , who belonged tothe legation at Florence , to proceed to Borne with a view , in concert with the representatives ofthe four great powers , to _isduce the Papal Government to adopt such reforms as would prevent any popular outbreak , from which consequences prejudicial to the peace of Italy might be apprehended . Mr . Sheil here read alerter which Sir Hamilton
Seymour had written whilst at Borne to the foreign ambassadors in that capital , on receiving orders from tbe English Ministry to return to his post . In that letter our Minister complained that though a reform of abuses had heen declared necessary in the administration of the Boman States , nothing had been done by fhe Papal Government to ease the discontent of its subjects ; and stated that the English Covernment anticipated more serious troubles , if fte same course of proceeding were further continued . The hon . gentleman continued : The anticipations of Sir Hamilton Seymour had since been fulfilled • _*» _d in the year 1814 the people of Italy , despairing of re-«« ss , entered into that conspiracy or plot which the _riXf" GoTernma _« t had endeavoured to repress bv the S " _" _^ _^ _<* it had recently adopted . It was _rfi : _?^ * «* Plot had heen given to what q _uarte _ttat _^ Lv _^ * _**&*** _* ° _* 4 that intelligence came . The informa-
House Of Commons, Mootat, March 11. In R...
tion having been conveyed to the English Govern ment , a singular circumstance occurred . Had the warrant for opening Mr . Mazzini ' 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 the warrant had not been issued at his desire . That was a remarkable circumstance , as the 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 whicli 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 ofthe 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 Ma ' zzinrs letters had been opened in consequence of intelligence furnished from a high hut nameless quar . ter , the information deduced from them , when communicated to a foreign power , implicated no individual within the reach of that foreign power . Sow , he did not consider that finding very satisfactory , for the information might 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 place had been given iu that information , but uot the names of any individuals . Did they imagine that if they put an Italian bloodhound in this manner on the track , he would not soon be able to hunt his victim to the death ? What the 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 J / c & tn Gazette of the 20 th April , and a few days before in the Swabian Mercury , it is said , " The promises of the ' English Government are extremely satisfactory concerning the agitation prevailing , especially in the territories of the Pope . The English G overnment state thatthe Italian exiles'hospitality would be
confined to mere limits of duty ; that Mazzini would cease to be a person unknown to the London police . " ( Hear . ) But there is another fact . 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 of the blood that had been shed in Calabria . On the _' Cth 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 tliat he had only doue what had been done by liis predecessors . Sir , I deny it . That is my statement . I deny tliat information was ever communicated
to a foreign power . I repeat it . I deny that information was ever communicated to a foreign power obtained by de opening of letters at the _Tost-office . You have , therefore , in this particular , such as it is , the merit of having strained an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of Anne , and founded , as the committee state , upon an Act of Parliament passed in the time of the Commonwealth . Could you not find , in thc history of the commonwealth , something better worthy of your imitation ? At the time ofthe commonwealth your republican predecessors did interpose in the . affairs of Italy , and at the hazard of creating a European war , they made Sardinia quail , and they rescued a portion of her subjects from the merciless persecution of which they were the objects . If all England was animated by the feeling to which the greatest orator in yGur language has given an immortal expression , in phrases too familiar for citation ; if your
democratic forefathers were fired hy the fearless passion for religious freedom , is it fittiug that their descendants should not only be insensible to the cause of civil liberty , but that they sheuldbecoine the auxiliaries of _despoflsro , — that they should lend an aid so sinister to crush the men who have aspired to be as you are , and tliat 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 he unconcerned ! "Vou think , perhaps , that I have in a moment of excitement into which I have permitted myself to be betrayed forgotten the facts of my case . I have not . I go back to the Post-ofiice and to the Home Department . And I ask what is the palliation for this proceeding ? I will give it from the answer given hy the Prime Minister to a question put by the member for Pontefract . Your extenuation is this—not that the
inhabitants of Bomagna have not monstrous grievances to complain of—no such thing ; but this—if there be an outbreak in Bomagna , the Austrian army will march into the Papal state *;—if the Austrian army march into tlic Papal states the French will send troops to Ancona—if the French send troops to Ancona there may be a collision—if there he a collision there may be a war between Austria , and Prance—i { there tea -tvar between Austria and France there may be a general continental war—if there be a continental war England may be involved in it , and therefore , hut 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 Ms table ,
or even at his bed-side , reported to you , that would be espionage . Between that case of hypothetical debasement and what has actually befallen , the best casuist in an Italian uuiversity could never distinguish . ( Loud cheers . ) Are we , in order to avoid the hazards of war , to do that which is in 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 prepared 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 tliis 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—ivith an ignominious dexterity they were re-folded , aud they were re-sealed , and it is not exaggeration to say that the honour of this country was tarnished by every drop of that _molteu wax with which an untruth was impressed upon them . ( Loud cheers . ) Is there any clause IS the 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 . But there is no proviso hi the Act legalising this sleight of hand , this worse than _Sumble-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 he said that the committee—men of great worth aud high integrity , and singular
discriminationhave reported in favour of the Covernment . I admit their worth , their integrity , and their discrimination , but I deny that they have reported in your favour . They avoid , cautiously avoid , finding a justification , giving an approval of your conduct . They say that they see no reason to doubt the goodness of your motives . Your motives ! There is an aphorism touching good intentions to which it were a deviation from good breeding too distinctly to refer , but 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 had , but whether you have acted as became the great position of an English Minister , named by an English Sovereign , and administering a great trust for the 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 iu wliich I trust tliis house will participate . ( Loud cheers . )
Sir J . Graham 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 the splendid declamation of Mr . Sheil . Mr . Sheil had stated that this transaction was enveloped in mystery . That mystery should he removed hy the statement which he was then about to make . In the month of Oetobcr , 1 S 43 , he _happer-ed to he the only Secretary of State at that tune in London . As such , he was bound to perform the duties of his 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 in tliat country , were not of an insulated , but of a general character , pervading all the
Italian states . Towards the close of October Baron _iNieum-mn , the Austrian Minister , had waited upon him in London , had represented to hiin that the commotions at Bologna were of a threatening aspect , and had com . plained 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 the 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 colonics in the Mediterranean , but that they were concocted in London , aud 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 Nieumann terminated with that conversation , as his colleagues returned to London , and , of course , resumed the management of then' respective departments . Till the ensuing January * ne heard nothing more on the subject of _Mazt-ini . In that' _^ uonth a communication took place between Lord Aberdeen and himself respecting the progress of the revolutionary spirit in Italy . It was then admitted that the representations of Baron _Xieuinann were perfectly correct , and that it was from London that all the orders ;> voceeded which were likely to disturb the peace of Ev . - -. At the end of February communications reached him aud his coBeagues that Mazzini was in London , and that he was carrying on a very extensive correspondence with
House Of Commons, Mootat, March 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 ou an individual who was not present to . defend himself , truth compelled 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 Palmerston , iu 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 allowed to reside at Marseilles . There they founded the Society of Young Italy , over which Mazzini presided . Sir Hamilton Seymour complained of the formation of tliat society , and declared it to be the source of great disturbances in Italy . His next information as to Mazzini
was not so precise , and was founded on an article inserted in the Jfoniteur ofthe 7 th of June , 1838 . He then read an article , in which it was stated that a threefold assassination had alarmed the town of Rodez , and that an Italian refugee had fallen by the hands 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 President . Orders were sent tothe authorities to examine into the authenticity of that document . Maz 7 . hri threatened to prosecute the Moniteur for this defamation of ' his character ; but he never instituted the prosecution whicli 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 3 . Graham read a despatch from Mr . Morier , our Minister in Switzerland , dated January , 1 S 34 , giving an account of the entrance of an armed band of insurgents into Savoy , under the command of General Romarino , stating that the expedition had been prepared under the direction of Mazzini—who appeared , since the murder at Rodez , 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 , aud thereby violated the solemn pledges which they had given to the Governor of Geneva , not to create any further disturbances in that country . He did not tliink 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 Bonapartcs permission to reside 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 his associates arc dangerous adventurers , whose proceedings should be closely watched ; " IDs noble Mend the Earl of Aberdeen had stated , that the warrant to open Mazzini ' s letters hud 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 Mazzini , was made the centre of a great movemen tin Italy , 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 thc 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 , hut 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 his lordship made such use of the copy as he deemed consistent with his public duty . Adverting to Mr . Sheil _' 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 in the negative , and then proceeded to notice another of Mr . Sheil'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 f or 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 tiie Postofiice . In confirmation of his assertions on this point , he read the warrauts issued by the Duke of Newcastle in 1744 , by Mr . Fox in 1782 , and by tho Marquis of Carmarthen in the same year , lie 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 this country , he had not betrayed , but promoted the public interests , by opening the letters of Mazzini . He was sensitive at all times of the favour and the censure of the house . To receive the censure of the house , even in the modified form now proposed , would be one of the most painful events in liis 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 different occasions petitions from Mr . Mazzini , he should rise with great anxiety to address the house , were he not prepared to state , in his place , that a more undeserved calumny was never asserted as to the character of any gentleman 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 the absence of that gentleman . It appeared to him ( Mr . Duncombe ) that every time they stirred this most painful subject the darker , deeper , and more disgraceful were these transactions , and the worse tlm
Govcrni ? _-ent came out of tliem . When the committee was first moved for , the right hou . 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 still get out a little more . What had occurred on 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 . _Mazsuni said
in his petition that gross calumnies had been stated against him in the committee , and that lie wished to set at rest those vile calumnies wliich 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 thc 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 the Moniteur ; if instead of doing so he had condescended to read the Westminster Review , he would have seen a very different version ofthe story he told . Had thc right hon . gentleman read the article in the Westminster Review on the subject of Mr . Mazzini ? In that article the following
passage was to be found , *— " What imputation wiR the reader suppose was circulated in high quarters as to Mr , _Mazi-ini , and brought privately to the ears of the committee , to make it appear that extraordinary precautions were required ? Why , no less than that of having instigated the murder of two of his 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 Moniteur , upon which this charge was founded . Now , the right 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 on this document the r ight hon . baronqt had founded liis charge . Even the numerous grammatical errors in that supposed proclamation proved that it could not have been the production of au educated Italian , much less of a man of high literary
reputation like Mr . Mazzini . That gentleman , on the document heing copied in the Gazette des Trihmaux , denounced it as a forgery . What was the fact as to the murder of the two men ? Why , it was proved on the trial that tlicy 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 homicide sans premeditation , and the accomplice of Mr . Mazzini , who was exhibited to the world as an instigator of assassination , was on thc pension list of France . 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 thc publication of this libellous document .
Sir J . Gbaham said thc action was not brought against the Moniteur . Mr . T . Duncombe did not know what difference that could make ; it was a mere quibble . ( Hear , hear . ) The right hon . baronet ' s words were , that no prosecution was everinstituted . ( Hear , hear . ) Inpoint of fact , an action was instituted . It was tried before Ie Tribunal _Correctionnelle de Paris in 1811 ; and what was the defence set up on the occasion ? 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 all admitted , of the highest possible integrity , no one could suppose that he was the Mr . Mazzini referred to in the paragraph quoted from the Moniteur , ( Hear , and
laughter . ) " Now , he 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 a 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 eveninsc ; it was altogether a new species of defence . ( Hear , hear . ) Neither Lord Aberdeen , till he thus made the right hon . 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 now stated that no letter or copy of a letter had ever been received from Corfu at the Foreign-office , it became neccs
House Of Commons, Mootat, March 11. In R...
sary to have some further inquiry upon the subject . He ( Mr . T . Duncombe ) 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 had got letters of Mr . Mazzini ' s which 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 in this respect by aut hority or not ; but he had extracts of letters dated , not Corfu , indeed , but Autun . ( An observation was here made by Sir J . Graham , which was inaudible in the gallery . ) Why , this was like the quibble about the Mon iteur . ( Hear , hear . ) In his opinion it canie 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 the British Government . ( 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 sol The regular troops were employed against tliem . ( Hear , hear . ) There was a portion of the llth 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 tbe King of Naples , in his official gazette , thanked 170 persons , who were chiefly military men , for the services which they had performed , besides thanking and conferring an order upon the Neapolitan Consul at Corfu for the services which he had rendered in this _lamentabletransactien ,
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 il subject well worthy of the consideration of the house . It certainly was the policy of the 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 tho Papal States , they gave , according to their own admission , information to a foreign Government . The subject was onc , he repeated , which deserved attention . He wanted to know what hope there was ofthe redemption
of the Italian population if such a course werc pursued . The petty states of Italy 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 ov less insurrectionary , Austria could , by threatening to send 70 , 000 men , secure the assistance of England in its favour . Was the Government to be the police of every despot in Europe ? Their whole conduct in reference to this matter had , in fact , that character ; and the further they proceeded with these transactions tlic more disgraceful must their conduct appear in the eyes of Europe . He thanked his right lion , friend for having introduced tho 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 -3 S Noes 52 Majority —14 On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer , the house resolved itself into a committoe on the Excise Acts , and , The Chancellor of the _Exchequer proposed a resolution for tho repeal ofthe glass duties . —The resolution was agreed to , The Chairman then reported progress , and the house adjourned . Wednesday , AriUL 2 . Mr . MacKinnon moved the second reading 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 . Thc bill was then read a second time , and was ordered to be referred to a select committee . On Lord Ashley ' s moving the second reading of the Calico Printworks Bill , Sir James Graham observed , that when the noble lord first introduced this hill , he had 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 thc subject , and he would now briefly state _theresult of them . If by assenting to the second reading of this bill Government were to be considered as pledging itself to all the details which the noble lord had introduced into it , it would he his 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 partof the Government that some regulations for the labour of children employed in these factories were necessary . He should , therefore , give his consent to the second reading ofthe bill , and in doing so would state the provisions of it to whicli he objected , and would describe the provisions which he thought preferable to them . The preamble of the bill limited the operation of it to calico print-works ; but thc interpretation clause extended it to all works where bleaching , dyeing , and calendering were earned 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 witliout producing injury , not only to the employer of labour , but also to the adults and to the 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 , aiid 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 , nc thought it right , 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 aud 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 ; and , as the period of intense demand for labour in these works was eight months out of the twelve , during which it was expedient to allow them to work day by day during 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 propositionswere 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 _ofuBi * to obtain all the improvements of which it was capable . With this understanding , he consented to the second reading of the bill .
Lord Ashley observed , { thatas 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 , —lie should lose the protection which he wished to throw over the bleaching , dyeing , and calendering works , and the protection wliich 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
bo 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 nil 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 the offer 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 3 , E _asthope called attention to two petitions which he had presented in the early part of the evening from a man and a w idow 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 the 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 hard labour , 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 substantiall y admitted the facts . He wished to ask the right hon . baronet if ho 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 . Gbaham said , that the statement of the hon . baronet was quite correct , that the circumstances he referred 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 au explanation , and he felt bound to say that the explanation he had received was not satisfactory . The act was
House Of Commons, Mootat, March 11. In R...
one , to say the least of it , of great indiscretion . The magistrates should at all events have seen the parties before committing what , he must say , was a gross violation of the libery 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 thc 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 bo sent instanterfor their release , but unfortunately they had nearly completed their term of imprisonment . Mr . T . Duncombe considered the conduct of these magistrates to be grossly illegal and oppressive . What redress were these poor persons to have for this imprisonment and separation from their families 1 He hoped that Sir James Graham would go further than he yet had done , and would strike these magistrates out of the commission of the peace , which they had disgraced by their gross injustice , tyranny , and oppression .
Mr . Hume said that Sir 3 , 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 he more than a sufficient compensation . Sir . J . Graham could do no more than express his disapprobation . The magistrates were liable to be proceeded against if their conduct was wilfully 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 for the military service of the United Kingdom , exclusive of the troops employed iu the East Indies , during the year ending 31 st of March , 1 S 1 G , was proposed and agreed to .
AMENDMENT OF THE SCOTTISH POOR LAWS . The Iobd-Advocate moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment and better administration of the laws relating to the relief ofthe poor in Scotland ; He commenced his speech by giving a detailed account of the measures wliich had been adopted since thc year 1 SS 8 _, down to the present time , to obtain information respecting the condition ofthe poor in Scotland , and the law for Administering relief to _Himh during periods of destitution . He showed that the inquiries ofthe General Assembly of tho Church of Scotland in 183 S , the returns ordered from all the parishes of Scotland in 1812 , and the report of the Commissioners of the Poor Law published in 1814 , established beyond all dispute that there was a great deal of poverty and misery existing in Scotland , and that the
means of relief were insufficient both in the large towns and in the rural districts . He then proceeded to describe the state of the law iu Scotland relative to the relief ofthe poor , and to demonstrate that the two statutes—one passed in 1579 , 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 or other causes might have plunged into distress . In explaining to the house the Scotch law of settlement , he stated tliat in Scotland settlement arose from four causes only—namely , from birth , from- parentage , from residence , and from marriage ; and that , when once acquired , it could not he lost until another settlement was acquired in another parish . Ho explained
that tho 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 thc relief given to the poor should be given in any particular form ; it only declared that it should be given for their needful sustentation . The poor had a statutory right to relief in some parish . In every parish there was nn administrative body armed with power to afford relief ; and if that body did not perform its duty in a satisfactory manner , the courts of law were armed with power sufficient to compel them . There existed , therefore , under
the present law a right io relief , funds to administer relief , obligation to provide relief , and power to enforce tliat 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 , Nothing , he said , would create greater alarm in Scotland than an attempt to introduce into that country the English system of Poor Laws . Ho would not undertake to account for the reasons of that alarm , — it was sufficient for him to know that it existed . He then proceeded to explain some of the defects of the Scotch system , and of the remedies whicli ho proposed to apply to them . In Scotland no parish was bound to
relieve a pauper except that where he 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 whicli sought to relieve itself from that burden should he liable to afford liim relief until it had established the right of another parish to relieve him . By this arrangement the pauper would obtain relief immediately . He further proposed , that if
the parish in wliich the pauper was refused to relieve hhn , he should not have occasion to apply to the supreme courts , but that the sheriff of the county in which thc parish was should have the power to decide ou the right Of the pauper to be admitted to relief . If the sheriff decided in favour of the pauper , and if the parish appealed against his decision , he proposed that in tliat case the 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 doue in case the local authorities neglected their duty 1 It was quite evident that it was for thc interest of all parties that the right of appealing to the supreme courts should be placed under regulation and control . Tor that purpose he proposed to constitute a board of supervision , consisting of nine persons . Three 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 the board . He proposed that one of them should be thc 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 Itoss , 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 , tho pauper should state it to the board of supervision . If the hoard 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 pauper , then he proposed that their opinion should be sufficient to enable him to plead in forma pauperis before thc court of session , and the board of supervision should determine what amount of relief the pauper should receive , and that amount he should be entitled to receive until his litigation with the parish was determined . Considering the constitution of tho 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 the 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
members are to be elected by thc rate-payers . He proposed to extend thc period which gave a legal settlement from three years to seven years ; and in cases of removal , he provided that the .. parish alimenting the pauper should , when his right parish was ascertained , give notice of the fact to tliat 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 thc 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 , lie 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 aud distract . Ho also gave power to the towns to erect workhouses and to assess the inhabitants for the mouey 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 mcasuae _, and concluded by recapitulating the advantages which he expected to derive from passing it into law .
The bill was subsequently brought in and read a first time , after which the house adjourned .
lHURsnAY , April 3 . MEW WRIT FOB GKEENOCK . Mr , Hume moved that thc 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 of Steward to thc Chiltern Hundreds .
OK ANT TO _MATNOOTH . The Speaker said , that those members who had petitions against the additional grant to Maynooth had better present them at once . At this announcement almost every member on thc Ministerial side of the house rose and pointed towards the table with a roll of petitions which he held in hand . This simultaneous movement elicited roars of laughter , There were upwards of 200 members on the Ministerial benches and of these certainly not twenty kept their seats onthe announcement of the Speaker . On the opposition side of the house , on which there were about l _.-: _i members not more than twenty had petitions to _pivbent on the subject .
House Of Commons, Mootat, March 11. In R...
Sir R . Peel rose and spoke as follows : —In the course of the last session of Parliament I took the opportunitv of publicly declaring , on the part ofher Majesty ' s Government , that it was our intention , during the recess to apply ourselves to the consideration of the state of academical education in Ireland . I accompanied that declaration with a distiuct intimation that the circumstances and position of the Ionian Catholic College of Maynooth would undergo the consideration of the Government , T added that , undertaking the consideration of the state of Maynooth , it was our intention to undertake it in a friendly spirit , and I made that public declaration at that time in order that due public notice might be given of the intentions of her Majesty ' s Government . J „ ,.. not unprepared for the demonstration of opinio which has been made this day . I could not ] ook
back to the discussions which have taken piann this house with respect to Maynooth , without fores " * ing that a proposition upon the subject of Mavnooth " _connected with its extension , was likely to encounter th risk of great opposition . I could not disguise from to * self that there were many entertaining strong _i-oii Kim ' " opinions and conscientious scruples , | the sincerit y of which cannot be questioned , and which , on account of tho * sincerity , are entitled to respect—Sir , it has appeared to us that wc were at liberty to pursue one Oftliese courses with respect to the College of Maynooth . We considered first , that it was competent to us to continue witlioi _t alteration , the present system pursued in that institntio and the amount of the Parliamentary gram annually made hitherto ; secondly , that it was competent to d * continue that grant , and repudiate the institution alto .
gether , and all connexion with it , and , after _providing for existing interests , publicly to notify that , hereafter no connexion whatever should exist between the Govern ment of tliis country and Maynooth . But I need not say that this course we werc not prepared to adopt The third course open to us to pursue was , to ' come forward m a friendly spirit and offer to Improve the present system of Boman Catholic education— ( On position cheerS ) -and to extend , to a liberal amount Parliamentary protection . ( Cheers from the Opposition ' ) This wc propose to do , not by attempting snr interference with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic creed but bv a more liberal grant to improve the system and elevate the tone ofthe Catholic people of Ireland . Sir , with « -ard tothe first—the continuance , without alteration or modi . _flcation Of any kind , of the present grant and thc present
system I declare , behalf of her Majesty ' s Government , that it _w our deliberate conviction , that of all _^ that could be pursued , that is the most objectionable In giving the preset grant , we profess to make provision for the education of those who are to give spiritual tannic _, ion and religious consolation to ... any millions of people . » r _. _2 , ' ' f r ° C JUSt giVe enou ° ' _> voti , 1 S « " _* "aUy 0 , 0002 ., to discourage and paralyse all voluntary contributions . ( Hear , hear . ) You have assigned 9 , 0 * 00 ' . a vcar for several years past , as a provision fur this coik * 4 in . respect to whicli establishment a vote had bew -. _mimaliy made , to be expressly applied to the annual salaries of ten professors iu that college . There arc three Pro fessors of Theology , which you endow , and to whieh your grant is applied , but that grant is so limited in amount , that you arc not enabled to assign more to
the professors than £ 120 a year . ( Hear , hear . ) In . seven out of ten cases , thc provision made for Professors was less than the sum mimed . ] n the case of the three Professors of Theology , you expect to have the services of men of learning , of eminence and integrity , for a salary of £ 120 a-year . ( Loud cries of " Hear , hear , " from Mr . Shicl . ) That institution , at the present moment , contains 140 students . I think that 180 of these students belong to the class denominated pensioners—that is to say , parties who pay a certain sum for their admission , and in addition provide for their own support . In addition there are 230 free students whom the State professes to maintain . Thc average sum paid by the State for each student is £ 23 per year . ( "Ilcar , hear , " from the Opposition . ) For that sum of f . 23 the student has to provide his college dress , the furniture of
his rooms , his commons , and , in addition , out of the £ 23 for each student , there are to be provided for the repairs of the College , the expense of coals , and a variety of other incidental expellees . ( Hear , hear , from the Opposition . ) Again , the building has the appearance of a deserted barracks instead of a college , and is grossly deficient in accommodation of the most necessary character , The right Therighthon . gentleman went on to say , that the principle ofthe grant was no new innovation , but of fifty years ' standing . In 1795 an act was passed by an Irish legislature , establishing a grant for the education of Konian Catholic Priesthood . The Marquis of _Cajidex , when Lord Lieutenant , presided at laying the foundation of ihe
College of Maynooth . Another act was passed in 1 S 00 , about thc time of the Union , confirmatory of the principle agreed to in 1780 ; and again in 1808 the united legislature confirmed the previous acts of the Irish parliament . The right hon . baronet here entered into a statement of the various sums of money granted tothe College of Maynooth under these acts at various times . Tlic principle therefore , he said , of supporting an instil ution for the education of the Irish priesthood , had a piecedent in its favour of more than fifty years' standing . The principle being settled , the amount waso secondary consideration . If it was right at . ill to make a giant it ought to be such a one as would make it efficient for the importan t 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 £ i _, ( j 00 , and the students were under the necessity of taking an extra vacation of two months , in order to relieve these embarrassments . It was to put mv end to this state of things , and to place the only College whieh the Roman Catholics of Ireland possessed for the education of their spiritual teachers on a respectable and efficient footing , that he brought forward the present motion . He then proceeded to state thc various sums he intended to apply to the purposes of Maynooth College , amounting in all to £ 80 , 000 for tlic current year , and concluded by moving that a hill be introduccd _' to amend the existing Acts relative to that academical institution .
Sir Kobekx Haiuu * Ixghs rose to object to the proposition of the right hon . baronet . He contended that the act of the 85 Geo . 3 rd , on which the right hon . 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 3 rd ? It van thus : — " "Whereas by law as now enforced , it is not lawful to endow any college or seminary for the education of Koman Catholic persons , it is therefore enacted , Sic " Did the house think it was to demand an annual grant from a Protestant country " to receive subscriptions to enable them to establish and endow an academy ? " Did this empower them to ask support for their college at the expense of the nation ? Most certainly not . The intention of the Act of Parliament of that time was never supposed to support thc principle that the CtitUolic 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 been fully redeemed . He was , therefore , opposed to any further concession on the subject ,
Captain Bernai . expressed himself favourable to thc motion , but was opposed to the amount ofthe 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 Govenmcnt should take the sum from that fund . Mr . Gregory could not reconcile himself to any of the arguments he had heaid that night in favour of the grant . He was opposed to . ' all measures that tended to encourage Romanism , and of course to this . Mr . "Wari * designated the proposition as a wise and liberal one , and well worthy the support of Parliament . Mr . Law contended that the income would advance Romanism , and degrade Protestantism , and of course he should oppose it , Mr . BELtEW _^ at considerable length , supported the proposed grant .
Mr . PLUMPTRE denounced the Roman Catholic religion as an idolatrous system , and a scheme of fraud and imposition , wliich a Protestant Government ought not to support . Lord Sandon * 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 thc instruction of the priesthood of Ireland . The people of that country were honest and conscientious in the support of their religious faith , and hence it was to thc interest of the empire that their spiritual teachers should bo better educated .
Col . Sibthorp £ , in a speech which kept the house ia one continued burst of laughter , denounced the Government proposition as disgraceful to a Christian legislature . Mr . Sheil , amidst cries of divide , adjourn , & c , rose to address the house . He entered into a long and eloquent vindication of thc Roman Catholics from the aspersions which had been cast upon them , and expressed himself strongly in favour of the proposed grant . Mr . T , _PptfcoaiBE opposed the motion from principle He was against all grants of public money for the support of any particular religious party , neopposedit on the grounds of permanency , on account of the sources from which it was derived , and the purpose to which it was to be applied .
• several other members having briefly spoken , the lions '** divided , when the numbers appeared—For tlle motion ... _, - >]() Against it TU Majority for it —Wi The house shortly afterwards adjourned at twoo ' _cloolf .
_ Leeds.--Chartist Churchwardens.—The Ch...
__ Leeds .--Chartist Churchwardens . —The Chartists of Leeds have earned the election of the following persons as Churchwardens for the enauing year :-Mr . John Sanderson , cloth dresser , Chatham-street ; Mr . William Scott , whitesmith , Scott-street , Woodw | , i . M * Clarkson , boot-maker , Central-market ; Mr . _klyah Lord , mechanic , Grantham-street ; Mr . lhomas Braithwaite , Lion-street , Newtown ; Mr . Joseph Saville , cloth dresser , Chatham-street ; Mr . ( jteorge Pullan , commercial traveller , Butt ' _s-coui't .
Printed By Dougal M'Gowan, Of 17, Great Windmill*
Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN , of 17 , Great Windmill *
°"«'"" . ».«-, , Me Viity Ox W , Av"** O...
° " _«'"" . _» . _« _-, , me _viity ox W , _av" _** Office in the same Street and Parish , for the Proprietor , FEARGUS 0 _'CON"MOIt _, Bsq ., aud published by "William Hewitt , of No . 18 , _Charles-street _, Braii'l * 0-street , Walworth , in the Parish of St . Mary , _Newington , in the County of Surrey , at the Office , No . 34 ' Strand in _^ thc Pari s o' St . _Mary-le-Stviui i ' City of Westminster Saturday , April *; , 1815 .
-
-
Citation
-
Northern Star (1837-1852), April 5, 1845, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns3_05041845/page/8/
-