where the Episcopal Church was not, however, made the
established religion, entirely destroyed the force of such
an argument. Then it was argued that the Act of Union
must be maintained in all its integrity; and that the
establishment is part of the Act of Union; but if both
parties agreed to alter that act, he did not see that there
could be any objection to that course. It was said that
the Irish Reformation Society had made converts: was
it true, then, that the Establishment, with from £500,000
to £1,000,000 a year, had failed to do what the subscription
of a few thousands had effected? He wished "to
give Protestantism fair play, in order that it might meet
its great adversary before a free people; and then God
defend the right."—Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the
motion, with pain, as it was rash and imprudent to
approach the question at present. Such motions (he said)
damage the cause they are meant to serve.—Sir John
YOUNG characterised the motion as one really for the
total destruction of the Established Church in Ireland.
He warned the House against granting the committee.
—Mr. Murrough, Mr. Pollard Urquhart, Mr. Gardner,
Mr. J. Phillimore, Mr. Henry Drummond, and Mr.
Maguire, supported, while Sir Robert Inglis, Mr.
Newdegate, and Mr. Ross Moore, and Mr. Whiteside, opposed
the motion.—Mr. LUCAS  felt it difficult to speak upon a
motion which ought to be carried as a matter of course.
It was a motion for inquiry into all the ecclesiastical
revenues of Ireland—the Established Church, the
Regium Donum, the Maynooth grant. The question
was one of justice to all classes of the community; and
he and his triends were prepared to adopt any method
which would really establish religious equality in Ireland.
—Lord John RUSSELL said, that he did not agree that
the Roman Catholics are in a state of social and political
degradation; that they have any social inequalities to
complain of; and if Roman Catholics of former years
have expressed gratitude for concessions made in their
favour, they are extremely unlike some of the Roman
Catholics of the present day, who have met the largest
concessions of Parliament with reproaches and revilings,
—as if they wish to prove how much they differ from
their ancestors, and to make up for their exuberance of
loyalty and attachment to their country. He believed
that Mr. Lucas, and those who had spoken with him, did
not carry with them the great body of the Roman
Catholics. In discussing these subjects, he thought that
the oaths ought not to be a bar to debate, nor the argument
drawn from the Act of Union pushed too far;
because there is nothing in that act to prevent a change
if the great body of the people of Ireland desire a change.
Having said so much. Lord John came to the practical
question, and confessed that the experience of the last
few years has not been lost upon him. Some years ago,
he had proposed a compromise, but no one would consent
to it; and he had been compelled, therefore, to consider
what course Parliament should take—how it could
remedy that which was alleged as a grievance. "I am
sorry to think (said he) that while I cannot hold that
the present state of things is, in its apparent arrangement
satisfactory, I see the greatest difficulties—the
greatest objections—more than that, I see no small peril
in the alterations that have been proposed. There are
only two modes obviously in which ecclesiastical equality
—for that is the important question—can be attained.
The one is the total abolition of the revenues of the
Established Church of Ireland. I am not prepared to
take that course. I never shall be willing to consent to
the total abolition of the revenues of the Established
Church of Ireland. Putting aside the great change it
would make—the violation of engagements it would
make,—setting aside these matters, I cannot but think
that you could not abolish the revenues of the
Established Church of Ireland without striking at the root of
ecclesiastical endowments, and violating the great
principle upon which all our endowments are founded. That
may be a wrong principle—I mean the principle of
ecclesiastical endowments; but it is one I am in favour
of, which has been hitherto maintained by the Parliament
of this country, and I cannot believe that you
could abolish it in Ireland without leading in other parts
of the United Kingdom to a similar abolition. Then let
us consider whether we can at present make a new
distribution of the revenues of the Established Church
according to number. Dividing them according to
number, you would give by far the greater part of those
revenues to the Roman Catholic Church. In so doing,
you would be acting according to principle—according
to the principle you have adopted in other cases, as the
late Mr. O'Connell frequently put the contrast before us,
—as you have the Presbyterian religion in Scotland, so
you would have the Roman Catholic religion endowed
in Ireland. If the Roman Catholic Church resembled
the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, although it would
not be just that the Roman Catholics should have, as the
Presbyterians in Scotland have, a national church
entirely devoted to them, yet I can imagine that a large
endowment should be given to the Roman Catholic
Church: but, unfortunately, ecclesiastical equality would
not be thereby increased." Lord John Russell proceeded
to say, that it has been evident of late years, that the
Roman Catholic clergy have aimed at political power at
variance with the due attachment to the Crown, the
liberties of the subject, and the general cause of liberty.
"I am convinced (he said) that if the Roman Catholic
clergy had increased power given to them, and if they,
as ecclesiastics, were to exercise greater control and
greater political influence than they do now, that power
would not be exercised in accordance with the general
freedom that prevails in this country, and that neither
in respect to political power nor upon other subjects
would they favour that general freedom of discussion and
that activity and energy of the human mind which belong
to the spirit of the constitution of this country. I do not
think that in that respect they are upon a par with the
Presbyterians ot Scotland. The Presbyterians of Scotland,
the Wesleyans of this country, and the Established
Church of this country and of Scotland, all no doubt
exercise a certain influence over their congregations; but
that influence which they thus exercise over their
congregations must be compatible with a certain freedom of
the mind—must be compatible with a certain spirit of
inquiry, which the ministers of these churches do not
dare to overstep, and, if they did overstep it, that
influence would be destroyed. I am obliged, then, to conclude
—most unwillingly to conclude, but most decidedly—
that the endowment of the Roman Catholic religion in
Ireland in the place of the endowment of the Protestant
Church in that country, in connexion with the state, is
not an object which the Parliament of this country ought
to adopt or to sanction."—Mr. BRIGHT expressed the
sorrow with which he had heard Lord John Russell's
speech, and contrasted the past career of Lord John
Russell with the present. This contrast Mr. Bright
followed up with a long speech, urging, that in Irish
matters the opinion of the majority in Ireland ought to be
consulted more, as that of the Canadians had been in
yielding the Clergy Reserves.—Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD
also vindicated the constitutional demeanour of the Irish
members from the attacks of Lord John Russell.—Mr.
Moore having replied, the house divided.—For the
motion, 98; against it, 240; majority against, 162.

On Wednesday, June 1, Mr. Isaac BUTT moved the
second reading of a bill to establish a Tribunal for
New Trials in Criminal Cases. In civil cases every
plaintiff or defendant has the right of appeal. A person
criminally accused before the Court of Queen's Bench
has the right of appeal independently of the judge; but
a person tried for the very same offence at a borough
sessions has no right of appeal. Mr. Butt proposed in
the present bill to give an appeal on points of law,
either with or contrary to the opinion of the judge, and
also on points of fact; and in case of capital punishment
he proposed that a special tribunal should instantly be
convened to determine whether the punishment should
be carried into effect or not. He limited his bill to
Ireland, because he was well acquainted with the machinery
of the courts of law in Ireland, and not competent to
deal with the question in its bearing upon England. He
conceived it, however, to be an imperial question; and
if the house approved of the bill, it might be extended
to England when in committee.—Mr. EWART seconded
the motion; and it was supported by Mr. PHINN and
Mr. M'MAHON; opposed by Mr. J. PHILLIMORE, Lord
PALMERSTON, Mr. Joseph NAPIER, and Sir George
GREY.—Mr. BUTT declined to take a division on the
bill; and it was negatived without a division.