said, he had two petitions to present from St. Mary's, Newington, complaining of Church-rates. It appeared from the statement of the petitioners, that sixteen years ago an Act was passed for building two new churches in that parish, and they com- plained of the heavy expense that had been thereby incurred, and of the heavy amount of rate that had been imposed on the parish to meet that expense. The petition was signed by 3,000 persons. It was held out at the time the Act passed, that only 10,000l. would be charged on the parish, and that the remainder of the expense would be supplied by the Commissioners for building new churches. Since the Act was passed 34,000l. had been levied off the parish in the shape of Church-rates, for building and furnishing these two churches. The trustees were in debt, besides, 20,000l. and the Church Commissioners had paid 16,000l., making altogether 70,000l. for the building and outfit of these churches. So that, after deducting what had been paid by the Church Commissioners, an expense of 40,000l. had been incurred over and above what the inhabitants of the parish could be justly called upon to pay. At present, the maintenance of these churches cost the parish 1,000l a-year. He apprehended that there had been a misappropriation of the trust money on the part of the trustees. The only remedy the Act gave was an appeal to the Quarter Sessions, and that was no remedy at all. There was no knowing to what an extent this expenditure might go, if Parliament did not interfere. The trustees were self-elected, and they considered themselves irresponsible. Great distress had been occasioned in the parish by the heaviness of the rates, and no less than 2,000 distress warrants had been issued to enforce them. The affair had created in the parish such an alienation from the Church of England, that last week at a vestry, when there were 800 present, they came to a resolution not to pay any more Church-rates. In this parish, with a population of 50,000, there were not less than 30,000 Dissenters. The petitioners prayed for redress, and that the trustees should be made elective by, and responsible to, the parish.

rose to confirm the statement of his hon. Colleague. It was their intention, whenever the question of Church-rate was before the House, to bring this special case under its consideration.

apprehended that, if the parish had anything to complain of, it could obtain redress by an application to the King's Bench,

said, the Act gave only the power of appeal to the Quarter Sessions.

said, that many similar local Bills had been passed, of which the same complaint was now to be made. Ten times the amount of money contemplated by such Acts had been afterwards levied on the parishes, and they had no remedy but that most inefficient one—of an appeal to the Quarter Sessions.

rose to present a petition with which he had been intrusted from the Rev. Mr. Mulholland, a Roman Catholic clergyman in Ireland, who prayed the House to adopt some legislative enactment to cause the canon law of the Church of Rome to be fairly observed in Ireland. He hoped that the House would allow him to lay before it the statement contained in the petition, which he was the more anxious to do with as much accuracy as he could, as he differed in religious opinion from the rev. Gentleman from whom the petition emanated. The petitioner, after stating that a serious injury had been inflicted on him, in consequence of his having availed himself of a court of common law to obtain redress for an attack on his character, proceeded to state, that he was educated in the college of Maynooth, where he was ordained in 1815, that he afterwards went to Rome, where he studied for eight years, and made very creditable progress in his divinity studies, and that he returned to Ireland in 1826, when he was appointed by the Roman Catholic titular Bishop of Armagh to the parish of Termonfechin, in the county of Louth. He stated that that parish was in the nature of what was called, in the Protestant Church, a perpetual curacy, and that he had the same right to it that a clergyman had to his parish. He stated, that in the year 1833 there were disturbances in the county of Louth, and that a brother clergyman accused the petitioner of being an encourager of them. He stated, that his character was injured to such an extent by the accusation, that he felt it necessary to appeal to a court of law for redress. He did not do so, however, without having first applied to the Catholic Primate for that redress. Having waited six months, and having received no answer to his application to that quarter, he brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas, Dublin, where he got a verdict, and recovered damages, certainly to a small amount—namely, one farthing. In consequence of his having appealed to the laws of his country in this way, most unwarrantable proceedings had been adopted towards him. He states, that in the first place he was, on the 6th November, 1833, suspended by Dr. Kelly, who had, only four days previous to that date, declared that Dr. Mulholland was good-hearted, pious, and learned. The petitioner then submitted in person his case to the congregation for the propagation of the faith at Rome; and the letters which be received directed that he should be re-instated. He was not, however, re-instated.

rose to order. He had, yesterday, protested against the useless and most inconvenient practice of entertaining petitions with respect to which the House could neither investigate the alleged grounds of complaint, nor afford any practical relief. In the present instance, the petitioner complained, that he had been deprived of the income of his living, arising, as it appeared, out of funds which had not been provided by the state, over which, therefore, the Legislature could have no control; and that a titular archbishop of Ireland had not duly attended to letters from Rome. It was impossible for the House to receive such a petition; if they did, it would, of course, be necessary that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be allowed to make a counter-statement, although the House could pronounce no opinion whatever on the subject. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not lend the sanction of his example to a practice like this, which must be attended with the greatest possible inconvenience to the public business.

was glad upon all occasions to have the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman's experience respecting the laws and usages of that House; but he must take the liberty of submitting, that the present case differed essentially from that which was under consideration yesterday. The complaint in the latter instance was made to the House, the ordinary tribunals of the country where it should have been adjudicated having been passed over; but in this instance those tribunals could take no cognizance of the matter; and if the House did not interfere, no relief whatever could be administered. [Mr. O'Connell: What is the prayer?] He would read the prayer of the petition, if the House would give him leave. This was the prayer:—"Under these circumstances your petitioner most humbly submits that it may seem good to your hon. House, and to the Legislature, that some order be taken, either by a declaratory or an enacting law, to provide that the canon law of the Church of Rome be fairly observed as between the several orders of the clergy of that Church, and in so far as shall be compatible with the laws of the country. And your petitioner will ever pray." Here, then, was a man who declared that having by the law of his Church a goo right to the income arising from his living in the parish, he had been most unjustly deprived of it, merely for having appealed to the laws of his country on the subject of a civil injury which he had received. Would the House refuse in such a case—

rose to order. He did not see how the House could recognize the canon law of Rome, or take any means to compel others to conform to it.

submitted that the House of Commons was the proper place for taking such a petition into consideration, and if the law did not hold out any remedy for the grievance complained of, it was their duty to adopt the best means of providing a satisfactory one. He could see no objection in point of order to the reception of the petition, and investigating the cause of complaint; even although the individual appealing to the House were a Roman Catholic priest.

It appears to me quite evident that the petition which has been brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, has reference to a matter upon which this House can afford no redress to the party who complains of having been aggrieved; and if the House should think fit to sanction its reception, I cannot have any hesitation in declaring that the House will, in so doing, introduce a most inconvenient practice.

did not presume in any way to question the authority of the Chair, but a petition of a much less important character, and not at all within the jurisdiction of the House, having been received last night, he did wish to press upon the hon. Members opposite the necessity of abstaining from making that the arena for uttering calumnies against others who could never, perhaps, afterwards disabuse the public mind of the unfounded charges which had been circulated against them. He could not but express himself highly gratified that this particular case had at length directed general and serious attention to the acts of oppression and despotism practised in Ireland towards the inferior Roman Catholic clergy who refused to become the agents of political agitation for party purposes.

would not say one word more on the subject, if in the opinion of the House he was out of order; but if he were not actually transgressing the rules and regulations of the House, he hoped they would allow him, as an act of favour and indulgence, to state briefly the circumstances of this gentleman's complaint. It should be recollected that there was something very extraordinary in the features of the case. He could have no personal or party motive in view; his religious opinions were altogether different from those entertained by the petitioner; and the fact was, although it might appear singular to some unacquainted with the state of matters in Ireland, the petitioner had applied to two hon. and learned Gentlemen, both Members of that House, to present the petition, but was told by one that he would be denounced if he dared to do so. and was recommended by the other implicitly to submit without remonstrance to his ecclesiastical superiors, for the House could afford him no relief whatever. He spoke with great deference, but the petition was most respectfully worded: in his opinion it was quite competent for the House to entertain it.

I have merely to offer this suggestion to the consideration of all hon. Members. I have always understood that when any hon. Member presented a petition to the House, he first made himself responsible to the House that it contained no improper language, or such as ought not to be addressed to the House of Commons; and secondly, that he was supposed to exercise a becoming discretion as to the possibility or propriety of Parliament granting any relief in the matter. I am sure I need not indicate to the House the great inconvenience which must result from hon. Members pursuing a contrary practice, both in reference to the dignity of the proceedings of the House, and the progress of public business.

had carefully perused the petition, and he could confidently state that, from the beginning to the end of it, there occurred no improper expression whatever towards that House. It was throughout most respectful in its language. In that respect he trusted he should be considered as having done his duty; and, as to the second point, he must be allowed to observe, that a petition precisely similar to this had been presented and received in the other House without the slightest objection. He hoped that would be sufficient to explain and vindicate the course he had pursued. He felt on all occasions the utmost pleasure in presenting the petitions of those who had grievances to complain of, provided they were respectfully worded, and not inconsistent with the rules of Parliament. He trusted, therefore, he should still be allowed in this case—

Order! Order! I can have no personal feeling in this matter; and having already stated what I conceive to be the general rule of the House, and which public convenience requires should be closely adhered to, I must leave the hon. and learned Gentleman to the exercise of his own discretion, as to the propriety of proceeding further in this matter.

said, he had merely stated the whole material facts of the case. The petitioner complained that he had been deprived of all means of subsistence by his spiritual superiors, for no other offence than that he had brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, to vindicate his character from certain slanders which had been propagated against him. He had applied again and again to his ecclesiastical superiors for redress, but without any chance of obtaining it; and if the House did not interpose he must be left pennyless. Under these circumstances he should move that the petition be brought up.

contended hat the House could take no cognizance of the matter. The Church of Rome must be considered in Ireland as a voluntary association, and the State had no control whatever over the funds attached to its livings. No relief, therefore, could be administered in such a case. If the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church had been provided for by the State, the House might have had some jurisdiction; but that not being the case, it was impossible for the House to entertain the petition.

was disposed to receive the petition, because, however absurd it might be, it prayed that the law should be altered, and in that view it certainly came within the jurisdiction of the House. He had no doubt if a Bill were introduced for the purpose of making the canon law of Rome the law of this country, the unanimous opinion of the nation would be found to be against it. However, absurd, the prayer being practicable, the petition should be received.

denied that any hon. Member could be denounced in Ireland for discharging his duties in that House. With respect to the merits of this petition, he assured hon. Members opposite, that a decided case had been made out against this unfortunate, but ill-advised gentleman.

said, he had received a statement from the rev. Dr. Crolly, in which he denied all the allegations of the petition.

hoped, that the Roman Catholic priesthood would not for ever remain alien to the law. It was impossible the Roman Catholic religion should continue to be propagated without the pale of the law. A majority of those who professed it felt, he believed, well affected to the state; a very large body of the priests, as he was informed, who refused to countenance agitation, were persecuted and oppressed, as the petitioner in the present instance had undoubtedly been, If the House on inquiry should find such to be the case, it would become the duty of the Legislature to consider what means could be adopted best calculated to cure the evil.

had no wish to conceal from the House that he had recommended Dr. Mulholland to submit to his spiritual superiors, because in fact, no relief could otherwise be afforded him. The petition was an absurdity on the face of it; and an opportunity of presenting it was only required, in order that statements might be made towards his superiors, which they denied, and said they were wholly destitute of truth. He thought that Dr. Mulholland had already given scandal enough, and therefore he recommended that gentleman not to press the matter further. He had no remedy, and, in his opinion, he ought to have none. If he preferred a church supported by the State, he might leave the Catholic Church—he was in a fair way for it. The Catholics did not want him to remain with them, if he went into a church supported and regulated by the law—if he left that church for which the law did nothing, and which was only the better supported on that very account, and if he attached himself to the law church, to which the law assigned emoluments, he might have his legal remedy, but while he continued connected with the Church of Rome, he had no such resort. In his (Mr. O'Connell's) opinion, Dr. Crolly had conducted himself in the kindest and most humane manner towards the petitioner, and had recommended him to three curacies, but none of them would have him.

maintained that the charges in the petition were without foundation, and read an extract from the printed resolutions passed at a meeting of the Roman Catholic clergy of the diocese, complimenting Dr. Kelly for having dismissed the petitioner. From the discussion which had taken place elsewhere upon this subject, the Roman Catholic clergy had more reason than ever to congratulate themselves that they had no connexion whatever with the Sate; otherwise they would see their independence completely destroyed. He trusted that they would for ever remain separated from the State.

moved Resolutions for carrying into effect the recommendations of the Committee,, whose anxious desire had been to do all in their power to render justice to every individual. The following Resolutions were then agreed to: —

"That this House agree with the recommendations of the Select Committee, that the annual sum of 911l. be allowed to Mr. John Pratt, the head doorkeeper, during the time he shall continue to perform the duties of his office, in lieu of all salary, fees, gratuities, and emoluments whatsoever,

"That the annual sum of 874l. be allowed to Mr. F. Williams, the under doorkeeper, during the time he shall continue to perform the duties of his office, in lieu of all salary, fees, gratuities, and emoluments whatsoever.

"That the annual salary of each of the door-keepers, after Mr. Pratt and Mr. Williams shall retire, be 400l., in lieu of all fees, gratuities, and emoluments whatsoever."

"That the recommendation of the Committee as to the future establishment of the Members' waiting-room, be approved,"

said, that he thought that in comparison with the salaries provided for some of the officers of the House, and which he did not consider too much, the allowance of one individual who had very arduous duties to perform was exceedingly disproportionate. He alluded to the individual who attended in the Members' lower waiting-room. At present the income of that individual amounted to upwards of 600l, per annum; from guinea fees alone he received 560l., but of this he paid 200/. per annum, and he had also to pay an assistant and porter. That individual had filled that situation for fifteen years, which included seventeen Sessions, and during that time he had never been absent from his post a single day. His room was opened at eleven in the morning, and he remained there until the House rose at night, and more need not be said to show the arduous nature of the duties he had to perform. The hon. Member concluded by proposing as an amendment, "That the salary of Thomas Collett be 400l. a-year, instead of 200l. a-year, as recommended by the Committee."

said, it was difficult for the Committee to satisfy all parties. However, if the hon. Member had attended to the proceedings of the Committee he would find that this individual had no reason to complain. He had been examined before the Committee of 1833, and he stated, that he was not on the establishment, but that he had been put into his situation by Mrs. Rawlinson, with the permission of Mr. Seymour. That his whole receipts did not exceed above 425l. a-year, out of which he paid to Mrs. Rawlinson 300l. a-year, so that the amount he received himself did not exceed 125l. a-year. The Committee thought that, on the whole, they had dealt liberally with him, for, instead of holding his situation at the will of Mrs. Rawlinson, he now held his appointment from the House, and had the chance hereafter of being promoted to a higher salary. He (Mr. Hume) had no doubt that if Mr. Collet chose to retire tomorrow the Serjeant-at-Arms would get as good a man to perform the duties for 100l. a-year.

said, that in the amendment he had proposed he had no intention to cast any imputation on the Committee. If the sense of the House was against him he would not press his motion.

moved, "That the annual sum of 778l. be allowed to Mr. John Bellamy, the deputy house-keeper, during the time he shall continue to perform the duties of his office, in lieu of all salary, fees, gratuities, and emoluments, whatsoever; and that the annual sum of 300l. be allowed to him for the servants requisite to keep the House, the Committee, and other rooms, passages, &c, clean."

said, the resolutions of the Select Committee were in his opinion the best rule for the guidance of the House. It lay, however, with the House to adopt or depart from them, and to say, whether one rule should be laid down for the remuneration of the housekeeper and another for the messengers.

thought it right to abide by the resolutions of the Committee, and suggested that the salaries, when fixed should commence on the 1st of January.

in moving that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and the House go into Committee upon the Sale of Spirituous Liquors' Bill, stated it to be his wish, that the law should be carried into operation as to spirits sold on the premises.

considered that the present Bill would only have the effect of inducing persons to spend more money in the purchase of spirits than at the time of using them they were able to pay for. The supporters of this Bill had, in his opinion, made out no case for the alteration. He moved as an amendment, that the Bill be committed that day six months.

felt great pleasure in seconding that motion. If they legislated at all, let them do this at least, to make it more difficult for men to get intoxicated, and not to increase the facilities for doing so.

thought it was vain for men to suppose that they could keep persons sober by means of legislation.

regarded this as a Bill to enable fraudulent publicans to take advantage of intoxicated customers, to the utter ruin of the families of the latter.

was disposed to adopt an amendment, which would exempt from the operation of the Bill, all liquors drunk upon the premises.

was in favour of the Bill going into Committee, in order that it might then receive such alterations as would be considered desirable. He was most willing to admit the inefficacy of the law on this subject, both in this country and in Scotland.

did not consider that an alteration as to the consumption of spirits upon the premises, and giving a liberty upon that subject, was at all an improvement in the existing law. The question was, whether, by sanctioning this Bill, they would afford a temptation to the poor man to ruin his family?

stated, that no application had been made to him from a single publican to support this Bill. If they had the means of preventing the use of spirituous liquors, they certainly should not relax those means, particularly when they saw the pernicious consequences of the use of those liquors. As to liquors not being drunk upon the premises, as proposed by his hon. Friend, it was, in his opinion, anything but an improvement; as, instead of the man consuming the stuff himself, he would infuse the poison amongst the families of cottagers.

observed, that whenever the people attempted to amuse themselves, they were interfered with, and their only resource, therefore, was going to the gin shop.

desired to state, as a contrast to the experience of the Member for Finsbury, that he had presented a petition, numerously signed, from publicans, praying for the removal of the present law. He should be glad to accede to the wishes of Gentlemen opposite, if he thought they intended there should be an equality in the legislation for different classes of society. The rich, surely did not mean to say they had any exclusive claim to lecture the poor upon sobriety. For his own part, he would take an assembly of rich men, chosen by any test or qualification that might be fixed upon, and he would venture to say, there would be found among them more instances of disgraceful disorder from excessive use of strong liquors, whether drunk upon the premises or not, he did not feel competent to say, than in any assembly of operatives he ever attended in his life. If hon. Gentlemen doubted this, he would invite them to accompany him to an assembly of operatives, and see. If hon. Gentlemen desired it, he would in six weeks produce a committee of operatives, class-leaders among the people called Methodists, if that would be a recommendation, who should take charge of all that hon. Gentlemen should drink, determine when they should pay their wine bills, and put a stop to the complaints of those desolate ladies and forsaken children who were sorrowing at home, while the Gentleman was indulging at a fashionable tavern. But would the rich submit to this; if not, why did they impose it on the poor? He could point out much better ways of promoting sobriety among the poor, than legislating for their drink. Allow them to get knowledge; take off the taxes upon their press; remove the imposts which prevented any man of the richer classes, who desired to improve them, from reaching or getting at them;—he was rather sore upon this subject, because, as was well known, he had the prospect of a red cap and prison dress;— but do this, and there would be effected what would never be reached by regulating drinks. There should be some fairness upon these points; and if the rich refused to deal fairly with the poor now, they would be obliged to do it in that state of things to which the world was tending.

did not know what company the hon. Member for Hull kept, but in the company he kept, he never saw any instances of the intoxication spoken of by that hon. Member.

supported the amendment. The hon. Member for Hull had himself shown, that education could not prevent drunkenness. He thought the House should not remove any of the restraints upon it. The law, perhaps, could not make men sober, nor honest either, but if they wished to preserve the fruit in a garden untouched by thieves; the worst thing they could do, was to break down the hedge.