But,

Viscount Melville said, the Corporation did not deny or withhold these accounts: they were willing to lay them before the committee, but they considered it rather a strange thing to be called on to lay the accounts relative to private estates before the House.

with respect to the measures pending be- not in a situation to redeem the pledge fore that House. He made the motion which they had given to the public. which led to this order, in consequence of Surely, under these circumstances, it was an application from the city for assistance, necessary to call for information. Was to enable them to go on with the ap- it asserted, on any side, that the Corpora proaches to the new London-bridge. The tion had the power of resisting the order applicants stated, that their estates were of this high branch of the legislature? not sufficient to enable them to fulfil the It might be said, that if such an order bargain they had made with the public, were directed to the court of Chancery, in 1823, for the completion of London that court need not obey it. bridge and the approaches thereto, and there was no similarity between the two they asked for a million of money. This cases. The proposition would be appliwas stated in the preamble of the bill, and cable, if he had asked for this information he had a right to ask for information with when the Corporation were not before parrespect to its correctness. For his own liament: but they had forced themselves part, he disbelieved that statement. He on the consideration of the House, and believed that the corporation had funds: asked for a grant of a million of money. and he was confident that that House This being the state of the case, if they would not refuse to him the information called themselves bankrupts let them which was necessary to enable them to shew that they were so. He should come to a just decision. But the ques- therefore move as an amendment, “ That tion now assumed another shape. Their the petitioners be heard by council on lordships' privileges were at stake. If Monday next." they were to be thus braved and bearded by the Corporation of London, when they applied for information, then their privileges were good for nothing. In the preamble of this bill, various acts were enumerated, in which the Corporation acknowledged that their estates and revenues were inadequate for carrying certain objects into effect. This was the case in the act of the 21st Geo. 3rd, and the same thing was repeated frequently since. Was it not fair, then, to presume, that the parliament of that day inquired, in order to ascertain whether the city funds were adequate or not? What did the Corporation now say? Why, that their funds were not sufficient; and in consequence, their lordships called for proof of the truth of that allegation. What was it to the House, that those individuals were willing to substantiate this fact before the committee? Their lordships ought to have the fullest information in that House. A distinction had been drawn before the committee, between public and private estates. What was meant by the private estate of a Corporation? As far as he knew, it was that which was left, either for general use or for particular purposes. Now it appeared to him, that the Corporation of London, having declared themselves, in point of fact, bankrupts, wished to retain those private estates for their own special purposes; while at the same time they stated, in this act of parliament, that they were

Lord Ellenborough said, their lordships must consider this as a private bill and deal with it as they would with any other private bill. The question was, whether, when they called for all this information, they were pursuing the most convenient mode of proceeding, or that which was in accordance with the practice of the House? He believed the invariable practice was, for the committee to require evidence of this nature. The speech of the noble baron would have been very properly made, after the petitioners had stated their case by their counsel at the bar; because it was explanatory of the nature of the information, and contained the reasons why it was necessary that the House should be put in possession of it.

Earl Grey said, the real question was, not relative to the production of papers, but whether their lordships would enforce the compliance of the city of London with the order made by that House. It was, in fact, a question of privilege. The noble lord had argued, as if there were something irregular in calling for these papers; but that position was contradicted by every day's practice. What was more common than for any noble lord who happened

to be interested in a bill which was going | was, that the frigate came into collision. to a committee, to move for such docu- The crew of the collier were blamed for ments connected with it as might appear mismanagement; but they were in reality to him to be necessary? Now, if their innocent. The proprietors of the collier lordships waited until after Monday, it applied to the lords of the Admiralty for would really be to leave this question to compensation, but received none. They be decided by the committee, instead of then instituted legal proceedings to recohaving it decided in the House. The ver damages, but lord Tenterden directed motion for the production of these accounts a verdict against them, on the ground, was, he thought, very properly made. Un- that the commanding officers, having given questionably, it would have been wrong to correct orders on the occasion were not move for the production of accounts by responsible for the helmsman's mistake. the city of London, if they had not been suitors to parliament. But when they came before the House, and asked for an act to enable them, for twenty-one years to collect a tax on coals-a tax on one of the first necessaries of life-in order that they might do that, which they ought to effect out of their own funds, if they were sufficient when they founded this appeal on an allegation, that their funds were insufficient, surely they should satisfy the House that they were not able to proceed without assistance? Therefore he thought the motion of his noble relative perfectly right.

Lord Goderich said, he thought it was right, when the Corporation came forward with this bill, that they should prove to the House that they really had no other funds. This call for information did not arise from a desire to pry into the affairs of the Corporation; but it was right that the House should know whether they possessed other funds, before they gave them the power to raise money by the imposition of a tax. With respect to the ques tion of privilege, it ought to be discussed as early as possible.

After some further conversation, the petition was ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, May 22.

Loss OF THE ROSAMOND BRIG.] Lord W. Powlett rose to present a petition from Messrs. Moon and Lonie, the owners of a vessel called the Rosamond which had been engaged in the coal trade, and had been run down by his majesty's frigate Sapphire. In bringing the matter forward the noble lord disclaimed any intention to throw blame upon any of the right hon. gentlemen opposite. The man at the helm was ordered to put the helm a starboard; but he mistook the order, and the result

Sir G. Cockburn said, that the principle on which the Admiralty refused compensation was, that they possessed no power to give away the public money for such purpose. When the Admiralty saw that the commanders of king's ships caused injury to other vessels by mismanagement, they obliged them to make good the repairs, or give a compensation to the injured parties. In the present case, the officers of the frigate had given generally proper orders; but the damage to the collier had arisen from the mutual collision caused by a mutual error. For that reason the Admiralty would give none of the public money, but let the applicants resort to a court of law for compensation. The proprietors of the collier had demanded 2,000l. as the value of the vessel and amount of the damage; while the carpenter of the frigate, who examined the injury suffered by the collier, declared that, if she had been anchored immediately after the accident, her damages might have been repaired for 150l. This statement was supported by the evidence of several other persons. Under these circumstances the Admiralty could have given no compensation.

Mr. Sykes said, that the shipowners had brought this case before parliament on public grounds. The petitioners' case had been proved only by the pilot of the frigate, and such a person was not likely to be an impartial witness; yet it appeared from him, that the frigate was in a situation in which she could have altered her course, but the collier could not, and that the accident arose from the helmsman's mistake on board the frigate in disobeying orders. This was a just ground for giving compensation to the proprietors of the collier for their loss. Unless a recompense was given in such cases to the injured, the good understanding between the king's ships and the merchant's service could not continue.

the views of the hon. member, respecting the expediency of avoiding a discussion upon that subject at that time. Under all circumstances, it could not but be obvious that much inconvenience would arise from provoking debate there or out of doors, without something like a matured plan.

Mr. Hume hoped, that whatever arrangement was made for the distribution of the money that was granted for the promotions of education in Ireland, government would consolidate the system; by which means the salaries, which now consumed so much, would be materially reduced. With respect to the distribution of bibles and prayer-books, by this time two must have been distributed for every one man that Ireland contained. He therefore felt assured, that the grant in that respect was not applied, to the use which the House had sanctioned.

Mr. Trant said, he must enter his protest against the report of the Education committee of last year, and was sorry that the noble lord was pledged to support the resolutions of that committee; especially as one of its recommendations was to discontinue the use of the Bible. He himself was satisfied with the progress of education in Ireland; and the more so, as the Roman Catholic bishops had petitioned against the distribution of Bibles, as sanctioned by that House. They appeared quite shocked at the idea of the general circulation of the Scriptures in Ireland; but that was the very reason why the course should be persisted in.

of that change? But, if that course were unwise, it would be still more so to discuss what could not be settled that session. He had not understood his noble friend to have given any opinion on the subject, and he trusted that he would, for the present, refrain from doing so. His advice to the House was, to take the votes this year as they stood; on the understanding that they pledged no one to any specific opinion on the question of education in Ireland.

Mr. Moore said, he was opposed to the report of the committee; but he thought that it would be better for Ireland, and for the empire at large, not to enter upon any partial discussion of the question.

The vote was agreed to. On the resolution, "That 8,9281. be granted to defray the expense of the Roman Catholic seminary at Maynooth, for the year 1829,"

Lord Mandeville said, he felt it necessary to protest against the grant. He thought that it would operate in direct opposition to the principles upon which the Catholic Relief Bill had been granted'; since, instead of keeping the Protestant state and the Catholic church distinct from each other, it would produce an amalgamation of both, which could not fail to be injurious to the Protestant part of the community. The Secretary of State for the Home department, had declared, when the Relief bill was proposed, that the object of government was to prevent any collision between the state and the Catholic church; but if this grant were Mr. F. Lewis said, that any imperfect dis- allowed, that principle of the bill would cussion like the present was to be depre- be at once infringed upon; since the cated. If the House was resolved to wait proposed grant was nothing more or less for the statement of the noble lord until than a grant from the state for the support next session, why should they now enter of a Catholic establishment. Another into a fifty-ninth part of a discussion on the principle of the Relief bill was to produce subject? The hon. member for Dover conciliation; but, if this grant were allowhad said, that the basis of the plan recom-ed, that object would not be obtained, for mended by the committee was formed on the exclusion of the Bible as a book of education. This he begged most distinctly to deny; and he might add, that even the Roman Catholic bishops had expressed themselves willing to have the Bible used as a book of education.

Mr. Secretary Peel said, he would seriously ask, whether it would be wise, a great change having lately taken place in the civil polity of Ireland, to follow up that change by laying down immediately a general plan of education, without first waiting to see what were the consequences

it would create an excess of excitation in every part of the kingdom. By such a grant we were giving money for the dissemination of principles which every member of that House, he was sure, must deprecate. Upon these grounds he should oppose the grant. On every future occasion on which such a grant might be proposed he should enter his most solemn protest against it. My feeling upon the subject, (continued the noble lord) is this, that if ministers wilfully persist in making this grant, against their own principles, and against the law of God, they will

draw down upon themselves and upon the whole kingdom the immediate wrath of Almighty God.

Mr. Perceval disapproved also of a vote to increase the power of the Catholic priesthood, and declared his determination never to give it his assent hereafter; although, under the peculiar circumstances, he should on this occasion support the government.

Mr. Secretary Peel said, that, whatever might be the objections of hon. members to the grant, he thought they would acquiesce in it on the ground of its justice. Under the sanction of the past proceed

Sir R. Inglis entirely concurred in the sentiments which the noble lord had ex-ings of parliament, the government of Irepressed upon this subject. He trusted that the government would not further identify the church of Rome with the Protestant establishment. He could not understand upon what principle it was that they proposed to pay a man for teaching that, in the name of God, which they did not believe themselves. He believed the church of Rome to be a gross error-he would use no harsher term-and he should therefore oppose the present grant.

Colonel Sibthorp thanked the noble lord for the able manner in which he had stated his objections to the vote. In those objections he entirely coincided. Government, by the course (which they pursued, were introducing a system for the encouragement and protection of beings who were little better than devils incarnate.

Mr. M. Fitzgerald thought it would be better to leave it to the discretion of the Irish government to deal with the question of education in that country. He deprecated the partial manner in which the question had been discussed. For his own part, he believed that the grant might be made without any danger to the Protestant church.

Mr. Maxwell said, he had five times protested against this grant, and he now did it for the sixth time, and would back his protest with his vote. He considered this an unchristian grant, and should look upon it as a disgrace to the House, if it granted a sum to support persons whose professed object was, to teach the Roman Catholic tenets with all their errors.

Mr. Spence said, he would vote against any grant that went to encourage the dissemination of Popish principles. He could not see why the Catholics should be thus favoured above all other dissenters. There was a large sum given to educate Catholic priests, and that in the very teeth of the law. The reason formerly as signed for this grant was, that the Catho

land called upon the individuals presiding in that college to furnish an estimate of the expenses for the ensuing year; which pledged the government, in a manner, to the present vote. It should be remembered, that the grant, which was originally proposed in 1795, had been continued ever since by various governments, as much interested in the maintenance of Protestant ascendancy, as any individual who now objected to the vote. Mr. Pitt had sanctioned it: and, in 1807, Mr. Perceval, finding the grant already established, did not think it wrong to continue it. Gentlemen had offered to withdraw their opposition if government pledged itself to discontinue the vote in future. That pledge he could not give.

Lord Mandeville said, he knew it to be the private opinion of lord Liverpool, that this was the most unchristian grant that a Christian country could make.

i

Mr. Pelham denied, that there was any injustice in objecting to this grant. The Catholics had themselves said, that they preferred having their clergymen educated abroad to having them educated at Maynooth.

Sir R. Inglis wished to enter his protest against being bound by any previous acts of the Irish government to continue this grant. If this were to be the case, the thing must go on for ever. He now gave notice, that he should oppose next year any further grant for this purpose.

Mr. Trant thought, that no new pupils should be admitted into Maynooth in future. If this course were adopted, the establishment might be allowed to dwindle away.

Mr. Estcourt said, he was not disposed to withhold the proposed grant this year. He, however, conceived it an objectionable one. In voting for it, he thought it right to give fair warning, that if a similar grant should be proposed next year, it would be opposed.