The Sun. — London, England, 1845-04-12 00:00:00

*f - - -.T?"rifrA -.;c, Ai; it t 1 • The Lour) CHANCELLOR rook his seat on the Woclsack at Five o'Clock. Petitions were :presented: against the union of the secs of Bangor and St. Asaph. The Bishop of LICHFIELD presented several peti tions, none of which were worthy of notice. MAYNOOTII. r; . A number of petitions were also presented against the grant to Mavnooth. by the Earl of Eglinton, the Bishop of London, and the Duke of Hamilton. Those presented by the Duke of Hamilton referred to the feelings of the people of Scotland, who he stated were against the grant. 'the Biehep of Chester, the Bishop of Bangor. the Bishop of Lichfield, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Denman, and several other Noble Lords, presented petitions against any ad ditional grant to Mayroeth. The Earl of MIDDLETON presented a petition from the board of guardians of Bromley, in the county of Worcester, prayirg that the owners of small tenements should be made liable for poor-rates instead of the ore upiers. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition praying their Lordship, to take steps to ameliorate the condition of Scotch schoolmaeters Lord CAMPBELL gave notice that on Monday he intended to present to their Lordships a petition of some importance respecting the custody of Lunatics in`collard THE GAME-LAW-. The Earl of H A DDINGTON presented petitions from the tenant -farmers of Essex, complaining rf the great i vent to which game was I ow i reserved in this country. CUSTODY OF SUSPECTED CRINIIN ALS—MR. WAKLEY AND '1 HE POLIcE. The Marquis of NORMAN BY sai ' he had intended to put 4 question to a Noble Load connected with the Govern !went concerning a seteewhat unseemly cordless which had lately taken place between two authorities as to the cus tedy of persons suspected of having committed the crime of murder. Since he had intimated this intention the opinion of the Home Secretary on the subject bad been com municated to the public in a letter to the Co. tuner fur Middlesex. A decision involving one particular Part of the question had also been gone into before a judge at c hambers, and he also further understood, that it was the in tention of the C orone r to make a further appeal to the Court o f_ o Queen's Ben c h. Under these circumstancee, reserving altogether any expression of opinion on his part , he thoug ht was desir a bl e that he should postpone for the pre sent any question relating to this subject. IRIsH RAILWAYS. ten Th ti e Mar qu i s o f CLANRICAR• E gave notice of his in - R edn 4 wr on Monday, to put a question to the President of the the / 2 Department of the Board of . Trade, on the subject of sh ailways. It was to ascertain if the promoters of the . pres e nt l i nn Irish railway schemes had all complied with the proto ns of the Registration Act. The Bastardy Bill then went through Committee. THE SUGAR DUTIES BILL. ti e of MONTEAGL fe presented a petition from the Chain tie.° Commerce of Manchester against the Sugar Duties _J.,• The petition was one of coreiderable importance, and . 5 their Lordships were not in the habit of erinting petitions, n! would ta k e the liberty of suggest i ng t h at th e Noble Lord o had the care of the suger Duties Bill in that House, should carefully peruse its contents. ; The Earl of DA L HOUNIE roes to move the third - read flC of the Sugar Duties Pill. He said he would on that o ccasion confine himself simply to a statement of the v i ews of her Majesty's er Government in bringing forward the pre :eh" measure. It would be probably in the recol lection of tt . ei e .introducing House, th a t i n the Bill of last yea r bef o re their Lordships' attention, he had referred to the Lecessits 43 -adopting some alteratims with respect to the supply of l a t i tear fee the e :nsumprion of the cnuetry. He had sed that t hough the preduce of thn t. as. Indies and the Mauritius had r considerably increased, it was net yet sufficient to mee 2e y deficiencies of the supply from their other colonies, and he th enstated th e general result. of the tailing off that h ad take n P l ace in th e whole supply available for the consumption of the country in late years. During the year 1813 th e supply w as ton s; tons, whilst the consumption had reached 302e , 00 e SI : th e d emand, t h ere f ore , was greater than the supply. istt hough there was no p ro bability of a falling off in the coming Year, it appeared to the Government to be desirable , in case there Should be a recurrence of so disastrous a contingency, n o introduce th e p resent Bill for the purpose of meeting it, by wing the introduction of sugar at a lower rate of duty from,.._.certain count r i es na m e d i t , the Bill, being countries in nleh sugar was raised entirely by free labour. The Noble Lord then entered into a statement of the provisions beethe Pill, and proceeded to say that it would be right, .re third - asking their Lordships to give their assent to its been urged reading, to advert to one or two objections which had parliament. urged against the measure during its progress through ` - s 'lament. It had been stated that in order to justify the _sacrifice of so large an amount of duty, they ..were bound to show that stubstantial good would accrue to the consumer. The Ss ble Lord entered into a statement to show that the con• !Inter would benefit to a considerable extent by the reduc tion of the duty on sugar—that such benefit would be felt more especially by the middle and lower classes ; and, moreover, that the consumption of the article would be so greatly increased by the diminution of the price, that the sacrifice would, in a great measure, be retrieved. As to the objections which had been made to the classification of S ugars, he could r nly say, that such a practice existed in France, in the Visited State, of America, and in Swede,., and that in Java there were no lest than eighteen different classifications. The system of classification worked well in each of these countries, and he could not see any reason why it should not answer the expectations of the British teo• vernment. As to the objection that-foreign slave-grown sugar would be smuggled into this country, it appeared to him that the certificates of origin would afford sufficient pro tection against such a practice ; besides which, it ap peared, from returns for the last ten years, that the Price of sugar at New Orleans and New York had been such that it would not be the interest of the Americans to send their sugars to this market. It was clear that the rgar of L ou i s i ana could not be imported at a price sufficien t ly ire to come into competition with the sugars o f this countr y . Pun the general question of the admission of the sugar of all c ountries at the same rate of duty, he contended that such a t h e e a nre would be most unjust to the British colonies, which was Government was bound to protect, and that, therefore, it L not merely a question of sound commercial and financial l' on lief. neither had it been so treated. After all that had been su b many years ago for the abolition of the slave trade, and B.2.eSuently for the abolition of slavery, at the most costly kZ e nce--after the innumerable treaties into which this country yh e e ntered—gfter the enormous force employed in all parts of colt world—h e as k e d h ow it w as pos s ible to adopt a 80duel's of legislation w hich must have the effect of intro a the staple produce of slave-labour into this country? of t h ug as it was the declared opinion of Parliament—the echo pniiedeclared opinion of the nation, that it ought to be the toi ,,y of Great Britain to discountenance slavery, it icemen wireuu.that Government was no - allowed a choice, even if ii , ev er gllosed to make one. In such a case, what appeal could tb een e r be wade to foreign countries, or what pretence could Ou ter to enforce the regulations under existing treaties? Great Britain would have a right to say that the practice of tem.. ratan gave the lie to her professions, and she would he d a z t o o t only that she had deserted her principles, but that she she i m Pted a shuffling evasion of the consequences of i he policy give 1 thlir"ied. He, therefore. requested their Lordships to T he el reading to the Bill upon the table. 11 ,1)0n Earl es e e ef CLARENDOss wished to make a few remarks !Ilea:tart he conceived would be the practical operation iii it w ei ' aS well as upon the principle it involved. The morn It.ct the obects in view • and it would introduce new -.ci es s Itch y , into our fiscal system, instead of that siro eharawegY which it was important that it eheuld be which e• her Not a cargo of sugar would arrive, in ne• t. n urr the merchant would not unintentionally defrau R enes reen tie officers, or the revenue officers the merchant. With d i e : well satisfied the West India interest might be t his eat protection, they would not be satisfied with fertseq uell tuld mainly because they saw that the inevitable tutrito d ee must be a further change. Confusion must Pendi ng Y arise out of the enforcement of the distinctions de- Itifoi llit il Y"'n colour s grain, and saccharine matter, and no geattj a could be expected in the practice of the outports s nef e einr Ater' classification must be a failure, and ere Ling an Illssifj e , t . ll4 duty, as in the case of tea, must be adopted. If nets to j,° e n had been possible, it might have been cairied into "S trad wh it e the East India Company had the monopoly of the the e ; but even then it was soon discovered to be out of Wis . h ci ed ilee . ti ctn, and the general duty of 2s. Id. per lb. was esta tried ~e The experiment now once mare to be made had been ; 14 nit re - a r t a ' l over again, and it had always been followed by eh:atage in !,of crime, and of loss to the revenue. Another 1 4 0 _ the law must, ere long, be made. The market would 'Noted 1' , 4 into confusion, and great individual hardships Vigo, int e r inflicted . By the treatir s of reciprocity, the ry fr ee I _, W , introduced from other countries where it was cultivated Zei t . the soour, was to be imported into this country were to 13 Y the same duty as those from China . Java, and Manilla 48 19th b ed _ Clause of this Act, it was decreed that the duty on es, g ti sugar from foreign possessions, which had hitherto been the ' lt " , should be reduced to ls. Id. ; and that on sugar of he ee kt u tor e quality from British Colonial possessions, which had e ltdo er ‘ e been 253. 9d was reduced to 14s ; that on Muse°. the C r LAeh had been 35 " 5. 9d. was reduced to 235. 4d. Since e t sd euurition of the difference made between iefined sugar to Muscovado, a third class had been introduced, 'il this mud white clayed sugar. The duty laid Sin Colt I Col wa s s which whil e th a t i m p or t e d f ro m the British , watch had been 163, 4d. was reduced to 14s. ses s P l C_ared that the whole of the produce of the British ro•- tte 4 7and Mauritius w o uld vary from 250,000 t o 250.000 at 2 Z, that fro.n Manilla and Java, and China, was estimated tn i k i ,:° o o tons, the stock in hand at about 45,000 tons. $1,6_,1 the total available for consumption an aggregate of es it i 3 7 o tons. The reduction of duty was shown by the cir -3,9167,,,5ea. that for 1845.6 the whole amount estimated was of I 3 'ri., that for 1844 was 5,216e500/., showing a decrease fbre e : en " le t o ° oo f L . It was known that a decrease of duty led to a es eale price, and an increase of consumption. The quantity e unn y consumed was at the rate of IMs per individual per fil m' tricking eking a proportionate consumption . of one-third of a • , hs _yer week, and causing a saving to a labouring man of rd oi az !eek per family. Thie, though small, was equal to one tse!' al the whole expense. The Noble Lord then went into • th nee of returns e ~e , for the years 1830 to 1844. to prove that Wi th " l ee affected the consumption in an invariable proportion. kuevoreaPe ... t to the cla•sification and the difficulty that had been teunemtqassitukely to attend on the distinguishing qualities in this s ues , _ was said were not felt at Gratz in Sweden, or it, the 4rs islisuTl:ltaidtieths' It aava w where this mode of classification was adopted, here the classification extended to 18 qualities. at it was impossible to make a distinction in this ir tin t ,.. l 7,b . e . tween slave and free-grown sugar, but, at all events, ~..2 old make the distinction, it would be totally inoperative, hi-4,7_41e Americans would manage to import Louisiana. But rah, the f L l 7, s practicability of this, and, besides, the Ameri !l/2-iy " t r e (,t ve a better market for their produce than in Europe. I s e e tt ient t 1 errn Years ago, the term property i an was a con , and he believed that other countyies would not h ie gu s inlde;ds.by our schemes of morality. Biazil and other coun -44 of ,Sant . say—er we have read 'Blue-books, and while you hith... al adhne33 and chatety, we ere aware of the excess of ran' to which ()N it your artizans are exposed ; we knew the im . tlien a Y nci to_Which your people are subjected in consequence of • ;,_ _reeie e ~,n , „'unen working together in mines, and we will not • slsSie etl_ Lour manufactures unless you repeal the laws by which hi t ormittes are authorised." "I hey would to a certainty let,,, m, l i t or, indirectly carry this into effect. The whole of the slave trade was perfectly useless. fi r it !..11411•11:reerliel:epeuePress the was that the attempt to obliterate it from hums, Z tabe that al perfectly futile. If they said to the people of hi, ~_ they would take none of their Incur canker ' o ne} were quite ready to receive their n u ll ti mes n 7 07( Hear)—the extraction of which was d . l ti m es of se ' dead) } and onerous to the slave that. the pro _..: i„..„. _,:igar• . The very same thing held with regard to toleacce ' iad ", ve a bo ::: America. They objected to receive the sugar of , yet they weie quite ready to receive the . Bl eed bandthet h ewas ,cultivation of a set of slaves, who from their sl ee f e sen , t e end . their . after experience, had a far more acute s . 1. ! tu evils which they had to endure, than the slaves taitsinßicaer or of o f f sin . y other slave country. They refused also oiisiana when they were ready to encourage s : euelar of ne t: 142.31c Itotherwas indeedplaces precisely in the same condition as ' bill -- -•very evident, that the only object in siZsdia honest the protee!ion of our West India Colonies, and ~ ..4 ineo.hat before the time arrived for the conclusion of Iblitit ute W e talt that they would propose some other the would notfor any l onger most odious impost, and that longer hare the country to suppose that srx LOWDON; SATURDAY - MORNINGL ollas7fet,"'etild nidaled I:vihspretessees. which we t ee held tita th.•,i) by the Iltitish Geverurre-nt. Lod l3i OLIG Ft AM. felt corn. elled to differ from his Noble Friend on one or two points. The object of this Bill, was not' to make out a difference between countries tahich used slave labour and free labonr, but the restriction really intended was. that between those countries which had refused and which had not refused to abolish slave labour. He was not one of those Phara , aical pretenders who said " we are purer than you are," as was the case with those enthusiastic, but, it might be, very well 'intentioned persons, whose zeal was much more conspi cuous than their knowledge, and whose enthusiasm was far mee influential than their judgment. Complaint had been made that America had not followed the example of England ; hut it should be recollected that the example was not of Mid dlesex and Yorkshire, but of Barbadoes and Jamaica, and it was n-e because they did not follow our example, but because they followed it. a great deal too closely that they were to be cried down. The fault was not that slavery existed there, and that they had not extinguished slavery so soon as we did, but that they cried up alas ery as a good ard advisable thing, in stead of decrying it, as they ought to do, as the pest and the infection of their society. It was for their gross injustice and inhumanity in keeping up the system of holding in bondaxe so great a number of their fellow creatures, and from their wish to introdue_. in the valleys of neighbouring countries the blessings of domestic la bour. It was for this inconsistency that he blamed them. It was not the whole of she United States, but a portion of its population that he blamed tor this. By the encourage -tient of the sugar of these slave-growing countries he gave to those countries an inducement to introduce more slaves from Africa, just in proportion to the number of hogsheads of sugar which he camed to he introduced, and if these 17 lbs. o f sugar 3er head was to be doubled or tripled, and that that ins-ease was to be met by better agriculture, or better treatment of the slaves, then he could not tells it, and he was bound to increase the comforts of his own people. But was that the case with Cube ? No ; it was a sudden increase, and that was only to be met with a sudden, a rapid. and a miserable increase of the slave trade; and that, so far from making a similar argument. was a precisely contrary effect to that which the Noble Lord had assumed. God forbid that any man should consider the horrors of the middle passage, or trepanning their fe4low-crea tures, was to be esteemed other than a horror and a crime, and a crime of the deepest dye. They made' a difference in the slaves employed in the culture of coffee, and other tropical pro duce, but really to those there was comparatively little objec tion. The culture of rice was unwholesome wherever carried on, but that of sugar was decidedly the worst.'—(Hear.) In 1807 we abolished the slave trade, and cut off 20,0001. a year ; but that was only the letter of the law, for a man would run the risk of losing four or five cargoes for the sake of saving one. But by his Bill the act of carrying on the slave trade was made criminal ; and by the 51st of George the Act of 1811, they made the slave trade felony, but the at tempt to make it piracy was ineffectual. He could not at all agree that the internal slave trade of America ought to he placed on a looting with the African slave trade, to abolish which it ought to be, and he believed was, countenanced by this country. He did not think they could consistently object to receive sugar the produce of slave labour, but he entertained no doubt whatever that they ought to object to receive produce coming from slave trading countries, because such a step would only tend to increase the horrors of the African slave trade. Lord MONTI'. GLE reminded his Noble and Learned Friend that the Bill they were di•cussing not only prneibited the intr. duction of sugar, the produce of slave-trading eoun t ries. but sugar the produce of slave-labour as well. —( Hear.) Noble and Learned Lord had made a most powerful speech against the save-trade, and expressed his acknowledgments to the Government for bringing forward a measure which directly discountenanced this traffic. Now, was this so? Certainly not. The Bill had nothing to do with the slave trade. nor was it reticulated to put an end to that trade. Then again the Noble enit Learned Lord had told them, that they had no right to in terfere wt•h the internal and municipal legislations of foreign countries; but let him tell the Noble and Learned Lord that his principal objection to the measure was its medley tendency, and its interference with the internal concerns of an independent county. But it was utterly impossible that the Government could carry out the principle of this measure for Brazil or Cuba might change their system of slavery in name but not in fact, and then they would have a right to import their slave-grown sugar into this country at the same rates of duty as those paid by the colony or by States where there were none but free labourers. He admitted that the opening speech of the Noble Lord who brought in this Bill was marked with a spirit of moderation and temperance that did him great credit, but still he could not conceal from himself the fact that the Noble Lord had over and over again indulged in a course of reasoning on this subject that was based on erroneous premises. There could not be a shadow of a doubt that the measure was one of great commercial and financial importance. It affected an enormous amount of revenue, and he se ry much feared the Government would be grievously disappointed in its mulls. The remit 'ion of the duty in some respects was too large, and under those circumstances he thought it would have been much better to equalise the sugar duties generally. The present measure, to a certain extent, would restrict the trade in sugar; and, therefore, instead of reducing its price, it would tend to increase it, because it produced a scarcity of the commodity. But how could Government support the measure on the ground that it was to discontinue the slave trade? This principle of protection was not 'our of recent establishment. It existed anterior to the abolition of the slave trade, and they ould find some difficulty in making foreigners believe they continued it, because it would ultimately lead to a totalabandon ment of the traffic. He believed that foreigners would think hit Parliament had not done its duty, unless it interfered upon the question. He believed that what had hitherto been done was but a faint promise of what was to take place in future. No sacrifice would be too great to put an end to the slave trade. Lord STANLEY begged to draw the attention of the House to the admissions of the Noble Lord who bad just sat down. he must, in reference to the statements from the Noble Lord. draw the attention of their Lordships to the different state in which the country stood under the late Government, and that in which it s:ood now. Then there was a great deficiency, while now there was a surplus. Now the Noble Lord admits that it the Bill should effect a discouragement of the slave trade, the sacrifice in the price of sugar would be a price which he was quite satisfied to pay. He admitted the principle of pro• section, because they had substituted free-labour for slave labour in the West Indies. With regard to the deficiency of tree-labour, he would say that it was quite impossible to insti tute any comparison between the amount of slave-labour and frecelabour. In a country where the population was ex cessive, he was free to confess that free-labour might success fully compete with slave-labour. But in a colony like the West India colonies this was impossible, for the effect of slave-labour was to concentrate the labour into one spot, which would otherwise be spread over a wider surface, and it was this principle which would always make free labour cheap, and slave labour dear. His Noble Friend bad acknowledged that they could make no distinction between tire East and West Indies. Now, the o: jest of the Bill was to give protection to our own colonies, whether the East or West Indies. There was no country, whether from policy, humanity, or justice, more entitled to protection than that immense district which comprised the East Indies. They had destroyed the commerce and manufactures of the East Indies. and introduced their own manufactures in place of them, and bil e they were thus encouraging free labour, and dis countenancing slave labour, they were doing their best to pro mote the peculiar produce of the East Indies. With respect to sugar, he did not think it was possible, in this country, to sacrifice the manufacturing interests for the sake of repressing the slave trade. But were they call, d upon to make this sacri fice, were they to be told that they were guilty of hypocrisy, because they did submit to a temporary sacrifice, for the object of reducing the horrid evils of the slave trade? Practically. the effect of this Bill was to discourage the importation of those y exists, but to proh i bit cthoeunitiraireods introduction of a sug mitigated arfruin those e slaver countries in whi c h t h e er produce was obtained by slave labour with all its evils, and for the sake of which the system of introducing slaves from Africa was kept up. The auger of Cuba and Brazil was produced by these very means. They were accused of encouraging the introduction of refined sugar from C u b a an d Brasil ; but by this introduction they did not increase the con sumpiion of sugar by one single pound. But then it was said, you do indirectly encourage the slave trade by taking free-labour sugar into the market, because they have made an opening for the slave-grown sugar. The supposition that giving thecustom of consumption to free growers was an indirect encouragement of slave-grown sugar was a perfect fallacy. If there was not an encouragement to free-labour sugar over slave-grown sugar, why was it that Noble Lords opposite complsined so much of their ill-treatment of Cuba and Brazil? But the fact was, they vie re throwing a real substantial discouragement to the slave trade, and just in proportion as they gave an encouragement to the growth of cotton and coffee, they caused a subsidence in the culture of sugar. The Noble Lord objected to the Bill, because they were binding themselves by foreign legislation; but there was a principle in this Bill, although the Bill was of a tempo rary nature, and that principle was protection for British sugar against foreign sugar, and protection for free-labour sugar against slave grown sugar. The Nubte Lord feared the intro duction of apprenticeship into Brazil, but if Brazil gave a bona fide assurance that they would suppress slavery by the sup pression of domestic s.avery, why then it would be fur her Ma jesty's Government to take generously and candidly into con sideration the encouragement which they should give to the sugar of Brazil. He must remark further on one or two other points of .his Noble Friend. He said that they intro duced 17 or lb different classes of sugar, whi n, in fact, there was only one in addition. His Noble Friend had stated that he was favourable to an ad valorem duty, and that there was a difficulty in distinguishing the qualities. Now, he would venture to assert that there was not one hogshead in ten thousand introduced into this country on which the smallest difficulty would arise.—( Hear hear.) A small quantity of sugar might be liable to fluctuations of duty, but there could be no doubt whatever the great bulk of the sugar to be introduced into this country would not in the least be Haile to duubt or speculation. the objections were raised not against the Bill, but against certain proposi tions which had lately been entertained by the Government. Noble Lords, however, seemed to forget that an important alteration had lately been introduced into the proposition, and therefore their present objections were almost entirely un founded. It was admitted that they had properly selected an article for reduction, and for encouraging the industry of the country ; but it would appear the Noble Lord who last spoke, although he agreed in their prin ciple, telt there were difficulties in the way of its realization which certainly were not entertained by Custom-house officers. The measure would greatly improve the condition of the country, and he, therefore, called upon the House not to sacri fice the interests of humanity by stultifying the exertions Parliament was making for totally and effectively abolishing the slave trade. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. The Lands' Clauses Consolidation Bill was read a second time and ordered to be coinuaitted on Monday next. The Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed on Monday. The Railway Clauses (Scotland) Bill was also read a second time and ordered to be committed on Monday, as was also Cie Lands Clauses Censolidation Bill for Scotland. Their Lordships then adjourned. - CALF.DOMAN RAILWAY. Mr. PDX :11A ULE presented petitions. numerously signed, irom the city of Perth, the diitrict of Blairgowrie, Coupar- Angus, Kirriemuir, and Nairn, in favour of the Caledonian Railway Bill. Mr. RUTHERFORD presented a petition from the mer chants of Leith to the same effect. _ Mr. P. M. STEWART presented a petition from mer chants, bankers, &c., of Greenock, in favour of the Bill. Mr. LOCKHART presented petitions from West Calder and Kirkn - lichael in favour of the measure. MAYNOUTH. Petitions against the grant to Maynooth were presented by Sir E. Filmer, Air. Codrington, Mr. Fellowes, from Hunting don ; Mr. F. Maule, Mr. H. Stuart, from places in Ireland ; Mr. W. Patten, from places in Lancashire; Alr. Busfeild, Alr. Hawes, from Lambeth and other places; Mr. Montague Gore, Mr. Thornely, from Wolverhampton; and Col. Acton, from Wexford. _ Sir ANDREW ARMSTRONG presented a petiticn from the inhabitants of Tullamore and its vicinity in fornur of tEe Irish Great Western Railway to Galway vid Tullamore, and also a petition signed by the High Sheriff and a majority of the grand jury of tlle King's county to the same effect. The Hon. Baronet declared that the prayer of the petition had his concurrence. Mr. Hamilton, Lord Lowther, Lord Bernard, Sir William James, Lord Duncan, Mr. Plomptre, and another Hon. Member presented petitions against any additional grant to Mavnooth. Mr. BLEWITT" presented a petition from Newport, against the Bridgwater Navigation Railway. A great number of petitions against the grant to Maynooth were pre.sei ted by Lord CHARLES MANNERS. Col. SIbTHORP, and other Members ; some of those presented by Col. Sibthorp stating that the petitioners feared thit some of the members of the Government intended to fnutal another establishment than that the Church of England, which, for its tyranny and cruelty, was not acceptable to the people of England. Sir ROBERT INGLIS also presented several petitions on the same subject, most of them not ajecting to the grant, but any increase of it, and others praying for the entire withdrawal of the grant. Mr. SHERIDAN presented a petition against the Parochial Settlement Bill. Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Plumptre, Sir J. Hanmer, Colonel Verner, and Mr. Mitchell, presented petitions against the May nooth Bill. . . Mr. S. O'BRIEN presented a petition from some place in Northamptonshire, praying that the second reading of the May nooth Bill might be postponed for a fortnight. 31r. R. PALM ER presented several petitions from places in Berkshire, against the Maynooth College Bill. Mr. SPOUNER presented twenty-two petitions, nine of which were from the clergy, churchwardens, and inhabitants of various congregations of Birmingham, and the others from various Dissenting congregations, against the Maynooth grant. The latter class of petitioners objected to any grant of public money in support of any particular religion, but, above all, to a grant in support of the Roman Catholic religion. Mr. BR AMSTON presented a petition from Essex, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. CHARLES HOWARD presented a petition from Cumberland against the proposed Maynooth grant. Petitions from Lancashire and Plymouth were also presented against the Maynooth grant. Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from the young men of the City of London—(Laughter) —against the grant to May -I,ooth College. Mr. GREENE presented a petition from the Wesleyan con gregation of Lancaster against the grant to Maynooth. The SPEAKER said that, though it was five o'clock, he thought he would be consulting the convenience of the House, 1)3 permitting the presentation of petitions to continue. Mr. WA.r.D presented five petitions from Sheffield and other places asminst the grant to Maynooth. Mr. ST A N SFIELD presented petitions against the grant. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented two petitions from St. Mar tin's-in-the-Fields and from Devon against the grant. Dr. BOWRING presented seventeen petitions from Wes leyan congregations in and near Bolton, against the grant; also a petition from Bible Christians against the grant. Mr. WA WN presented a petition to the same effect. Mr. TURNER presented petitions from Truro to the same effect. Captain M. F. BERKELEY presented two petitions from Bristol ; and six l etitions from Somerset, to the same effect. Mr. FORSTER presented petitions to the same effect. GRINISTONE presented petitions to the same effect. General LYGON presented a petition to the same effect. The Earl of HILSROROUGH presented petitions to the same effect. Mr. ANTROBUS presented a petition from Surrey to the same effect. Mr. HURST presented four petitions against the grant. Alderman HUMPHERY presented five petitions against ihe grant. , Mr. 'WODEHOUSE presented three petitions to a similar effect. Lord HENIKER presented two petitions to the same effect. Lord WORSLEY presented a pile of petitions against the grant to Maynooth, from places in the north of England, and various other places, the names of which occupied at least three minutes in reading. Mr. FORSTER presented petitions from Walsall and other place; against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. MUNDY ; presented a petition, signed by 129 clergy men of Derbyshire, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. ROSS presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of Belfast against the Bequests Bill of last year. Mr. GEORGE BANKES presented petitions from the Wesleyan congregations of Bristol arrd several places in Dor setshire, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. Labouchere presented numerous petitions to the same effect from the inhabitants of Taunton ; Mr. Newdigate, from Warwickshire; Mr. Macaulay, from Edinburgh ; Sir G. Staunton, from Portsmouth ; Mr. R. Trevor, from Bangor, and several other places in Wales; Lord Shelbeurne, from Caine ; Mr. Matheson, from Ashburton. Mr. FERRAND'S PETITION. Mr. FERR AND said he had to present a petition, signed by nearly 2,000 members of the Dublin Protestant Association. The petitioners stated that they regarded the Legislature as the source from which laws should emanate; and the laws which had hitherto emanated since the Reformation from the Legislature of the United Kingdom had been the means of elevating Britain to the highest point amongst nations. The petitioners went on to state that if the Legisla ture should allow itself to sanction, by any of its Acts, heresy or religious error, instead of a national blessing it would become a national curse. They stated that they had heard with great pain that the bead of the Government had intended to intro duce a principle which was in itself diabolical and anti-christian —that he intended to largely increase the annual grant which had been most improperly and inconsistently made to the Popish College of Maynooth, and they looked on this proceeding as cal culated to subvert national liberty, and to involve the Parliament, the Throne, and the Constitution. The Hon. Member was pro ceeding to read a part of the petition, in which a portion of the Act of William and Mary, commonly called the Act of Settle ment, was introduced, when he was interrupted by Mr. ROEBUCK, who rose to order, said he understood it was the rule of the House that no word should be spoken on the presentation of a petition, and that Members presenting petitions should not be permitted to read them, but should confine themselves to stat ing their substance and their prayer. Now he held in his hand, in extenso, the petition which the Hon. Member was about to present, and instead of confining himself to a statement of the substance, the Hon. Member was, by the merest sleight of hand, getting rid of the rule of the House, and reading the petition. The SPEAKER.—The 11 , .n. and Learned Gentleman is perfectly correct in his idea as to what is the rule of the House ; and if the Hen. Member is reading the petition he is out of order, for he should clearly understand that he is merely at liberty to state the substance of it. Mr. ROBB! CK said that the Hon. Member for Knares borough was reading the petition. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for Knaresbirough must confine himself to state the substance of the petition He might take notes of the substance of it and read those notes to the House, but he must not read the petition itself. Mr. FERR AND—I can assure the House that I have left out every word of the petition except the substance of it, for the purpose of being enabled to state it to the House.—( A laugh.) The petition says that all persons reconciled to the Church of Rome— _ _ _ Mr. ROEBUCK—I agaiP rise to order.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member is now reading an Act of Parliament quoted in the petition.—( Cheers. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member is clearly out of order in reading the petition. Mr. FERRAND was only reading what was stated in the substance of the petition. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member is at liberty to state the substance cf the petition, and the substance of the mate rial allegations made in it, but he must state then as briefly as possible, and must not read them at length.—(Cheers.) Mr. FERRAND—The petition went on to state, by the Act which he had quoted any person becoming reconciled to the Church of Rome was declared incapable of succeeding to the throne of these realms, and if the Sovereign was reconciled to the Court of Rome the subjects were absolved from their allegiance and the throne would go to the next Protestant heir in succession. The petitioners stated that they had read in the Dublin Gazette of December last an order of the Sovereign, countersigned by the Minister of State, making certain appointments of Commissioners of Cha ritable Bequests in Ireland, and among the list were found the names of certain Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops, as well as of certain Protestant Bishops and Archbishops. Now, the petition stated that the petitioners considered this as are cognition of, and a reconciliation with the Church of Rome, and---- Mr. ROEBUCK—I again rise to order.—(Cheers and laughter.) This is reading word for word the statements of the petition which I hold in my hand. It is a breach of the orders of the House—(Cheers)—and a most unworthy breach of those orders.—(Loud cheers.) Sir, I move that the Hon. Member be commanded to bring his petition up at once. The SPEAKER—I have already stated the rule of the House, and I hope the Hon. Member will confine himself within the limits of that rule. if he does not do so, he will be guilty of conduct that is most disorderly.--(Loud cheers.) Mr. FERRAND—I do not wish to do anything that is dis disorderly or disrespectful to the House ; but I have a duty to the petitioners to perform, and I will do my best to perform it.--( Hear, hear.) I knew not why I should be called to order for acting as I am doing. The Hon. Member for Gateshead did the same thing last night, and he was not called to order. Mr. Roebuck and Sir Robert Peel rose at the same time, and Mr. Roebuck immediately gave way to the Premier. Sir R. PEEL said that under the circumstances, if it was not inconvenient to the House, the Hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to state the objects of the petition. Mr. ROEBUCK objected to that, saying that it was right to enforce the orders of the House. _Fie objected himself to the making of that order, as also did his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. If the Hon. Gentleman wished to bring this forw,rd, it ought not to be brought forward without the possibility of a reply. There ought to have been a substantive notice given, and the Honourable Gentleman should read the petition for the purpose of submitting a motion thereon, but he objected to the petition being read when no person could get up in answer to it. Mr. M. MILNES—WouId it not be better to have the pe titian read at the table by the clerk ? Mr. FERRAND said he would consider it his duty to call upon the clerk to read the petition at the table of the House, if he did not thit.k that he was taking up less of the time of the House by reading the substance of it himself. It went on to state that the orders of the Roman Catholic priests were solely of foreign origin, and it submitted that the grant to Maynooth was a flagrant attempt to subvert the Bill of Rights, and directly to contra vene the oath of supremacy, which retrired that no foreign Prelate should have any power, spiritual or ecclesiastical, in this realm. The SPEAKER said that nothing was more common than giving notice to present a petition, but that notice did not re quire that the petition should be read. If the Hon. Gentleman wished it to be read at length he should move it be read by the Clerk. The Hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the player of the petition. Mr. FERRAND—The prayer was this, that the humble petitioners prayed that the House should retract all grants for the support of Popish establishments in this realm, and deprive all foreigners in this realm of power ; and that they should inquire into the conduct of Sir Robert Peel, and, if they discovered it to be improper, ithey should impeach, and if he had been Lund guilty that they should inflict him with condign punishment.-w(Roars of laugh ter on both sides of the. House, in which Sir Mbert joined.) The petitioners stated that all classes of her Majesty's subjects were disgusted with the conduct pursued by the Right Hon. Gentleman—( Loud laughter)—that he ousted other men from their places to adopt their poliey—( Laughtcr)— that if he was successful in his financial policy it was owing to a series of measures calculated to draw down the wrath of Heaven— (Continued laughter)—and they earnestly prayed that Almighty God would in his mercy avert the scourge which such conduct was calculated to draw down upon the realm. —( Increased laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded, amidst repeated bursts of laughter, that the clerk at the table read the petition. The Clerk commenced to read the petition. but the Hen. Gentleman, who had resnmed his seat, and obtained the advice of several Hon. Gentlemen near him, again rose, and said that he was requested by several Members not to press his motion for having the petition read at the table, as they did not think it would be becoming to the House; lie would there fore merely move that the petition be !aid on the table. The petition was accordingly ordered to lie on the table. Mr. WYNNE said he certainly felt that there were reasons why oljections should not be urged against the peti tion lying upon the table, but as it might he called into a precedent for calling a Member of Par liament to account for his Parliamentary conduct. in that House, he certainly thought it would not be consis tent a ith the honour of the House, or the advantage of the country, that the petition should be received. If a vote were to be given, he should therefore rote for the negative. for he did not think that charges against a Member of Par liament by name should be received under the guise of a peti tion.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and " store.") Mr. WYNNE—I would certainly, therefore, negative the motion that the petition lie on the table. Sir R. PEEL said he did nut see any reasons why they should refuse the petition. It was true that • the charges referred to Parliamentary proceedings, but as it contained charges against the Executive Government he thought that it ought to be received. He, therefore, hoped that his Right Hon Friend would net object to the petition lying on the table. Mr. ROEBUCK said he only rose for the purpose of re minding the House that there was a debate on the presenta tion of a petition. The SPEAKER said that it was upon a point of order.— ( Hear, hear.) He understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to have risen on a Point of order.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. WYNNE said he conceived he was right in voting that the petition should not be allowed to remain on the table. Mr. ROEBUCK—It appears lam not in order, although the Right Hon. Gentleman distinctly proposed a motion, and the Right lion. Gentleman at the head of the Government spoke to it. —( Cries of " Order, order," amidst which Mr. Roebuck sat down. ) The SPEAKER—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman is not in order. 1 will read the standing order of the House. The Right Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read the stand ing order, to the effect that no Hon. Member, upon the pre sentation of a petition, could speak upon it ; but he might move that the petition be read by the clerk at the table, and it would be read aceordingly.—( Hear, hear.) The rule of the House is, that no debate can take place on the presenta tion of a petition, unless it has reference to a breach of privi lege of the House.—( Renewed cries of " Hear.") Mr. HUME—The Right Hon. Gentleman said— The SPEAKER—Order, order. The Hon. Gentleman then sat down. The SPEAKER then put the question that the petition do lie upon the table, which was agreed to. Mr. MACLEAN presented several petitions against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented numerous petitions from several places in Yorkshire against the grant. Lord SANDON presented a petition from Liverpool, signed by 15,C00 persons, against the grant to Maynoo.h. The Noble Lord said he did not concur in the prayer of the petition. Alderman COPELAND presented a petition to a similar effect. Lord H. VANE presented petitions to a similar effect. Lord CLIVE presented several petitions also against the grant to Maynooth from Ludlow, and various places in Wales. Sir W. CLAY presented similar petitions from places in East Middlesex. Mr. WAKLEY presented petitions from the inhabitants of Finsbury, end from the congregation of Dissenters of Bedford row, against the grant to Maynooth. Petitions were also presented by Lord Ingestre from several places in Shropshire; Sir Arthur Brooke, Mr. Raikes from Downshir e ; an d Lord Currie ; Mr. Gisborne, from places in Nottinghamshire ; Mr. Dickenson, from Somersetshire; l4 ; lr A . ißr.leTwaitnd, from te,rferom Ban buryNewport; Mr ; LordShrewsbury.D'lsraelci,asfrooemreao, Dun cannon, from Derby, against the grant to Mavnooth. Mr. SHELL presented a petition from the Wesleyans of Barnstaple, who stated that they were against grants to any University ; but as grants were made to the English Universi ties, they prayed that the proposed grant might be given to Maynooth. Mr. HINDLEY presented 350 petitions against the May nooth grant, from the following places : —the inhabitants of Westbourne, Sussex ; Wathesfield, Suffolk ; Cannock, Staf fordshire ; Wickhambroek , S uffolk ; Independents, Zion Chapel, Dovor; New Connexion Methodists, Ashton-under- Chapel, Middlesex ; ; S E al a e l m ing Chapel, Burton-on- Trent; Sandbach, Che - hire ; Southampton, Binkley, Lanca shire;el3Lroßmrleeny f K er e d n ; t L B 3 u m r t e en - D r o i e n C te h r a s Providence Chapel, !Marsden, near Burnley ; Baptists, Emsworth, Hants; Hinckley, Leicestershire; Briercliff, near Burnley ; Wheatley-lane Chapel, near Burnley ; Ebenezer Chapel, Burnle ll e ggate, New Burnley ; Abi ng d on , B er k s ; Primitive Methodists, Burnley; Heyhead, Ma rs d en , near Burnley ; Teachers of Zion Sunday-school, Emsworth. Hants ; the Inhabitants of Welwyn and its vicinity; Framlingbam, Suffolk ; Halesvvorth, Suffolk ; Tottenham and Edmonton ; the Independents of Craven Chapel, Golden-square, London ; St. Albans, Herts ' • Beaconfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk ; Andover, Hants • Langham, Essex ; Leek ; the Inde pendents of Craven Chapel, Golden-square, London ; St. Albans, Herts; Beaconsfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk; An dover, Hants ; Langham, Essex ; Leek, Staffordshire ; Den ton, eincashire; Greengate, Salford; Great Harwod, Bucks; Debenham, Suffolk; Headgate Chapel, Colchester; Heywood, Lancashire ; Ettery, St. Mary's, Devon ; Union Chapel. Lu ton, Beds ; Staleybridge, Lancashire ; Tottenham and Edmon ton ; Salem Chapel, Barnsley ; Newport Chapel, Swindon, Wilts; Albion-street Chapel, Ashton-under-Lyne; Baptists, Ilford, Essex; Sible Hedingham ; Yarmouth, Isle of Wight; Niton, Isle of Wight; Brentford, Middlesex ; Heywood, Lan cashire; Andover, Hants; Ashton under-Lyne ; Primitive Methodists, Leek, Staffordshire; Luton, Beds; Wesleyan Me thodists, Southwell, Surrey ; liersham and Walton-on-Thames, Surrey ; Middleham, York ; Hornsey-road , Middlesex Me thodist Association, Heywood, Lancashire; Teachers at Union Chapel Sunday School, Luton, Beds ; Langham, Essex • In dependent Sunday School, Staleybridge, Lancashire ; the In habitants of Wycken ' • Belper, Lancashire; Chester - le-street, Durham ; Throope Ling, Buckby, Northampton ; Ducie Chapel, Manchestr r' • East Dereham, Norfolk ; Chishill , Es sex ; Soreby-street Chapel, Chesterfield; Huntingdon and Godmanchester ; Kettering, Northampton,. Stafford ; North walahen, Norfolk ; Newport ; Essex ; Stubbing Hoyland, York ; Clavering, Essex ; Tenterden, Kent ; Walpole, Suf folk ; West-street Chapel, Wareham, Dorset; Warwick, Essex ; Weatherfield, Essex ; Philip-street Chapel, Kings land-road, Shoreditch; Worster, Norfolk; Towcester, Nor thampton; Sandwich, Kent ; Zion Chapel, Whitstable, Kent ; Thrapstone, Northampton; Rounds, Northampton; Grantham, Lincolnshire ; Eynsford, Kent ; Mere, Wilts ; Whitstable, Kent; Brecon Ilannington, Essex; Hinckley, Leicestershire; Highgate, Middlesex ; Marsh Chapel, Newcastle-under-Lyne ; Hanwell Chapel, Middlesex ; Wihnore ' • St. Andrew's Chapel, Tynemouth, Northumberland; I s uitlingham, Nor folk; Old Mee.ing House, St. Clement's, Norwich; Wood ford, Northampton ; Kingstead, Northampton ; Wesleyan Methodists, Walsingham, Norfolk; Islip , Ox ford ; Hedin g ton, Oxford ; Tatchley, Oxford ; Burton, Norfolk ; Dunstable, Beds; Houghton Regis, Beds ; Harlington, Beds ; Deynall, Bucks; Tetworth, Beds ; Takenham, .Norfolk ; New Con nexion Methodists, Armley, Walsingham, Norfolk ; Islip, Oxford; Hedington. Oxford; Tatchley , Oxford; Kirtliagton, Oxford; Burton, Norfolk; Dunstable, Beds; Houghton Regis, Beds ; Harlington, Beds : Deynall, Bucks ; Tetworth, Beds ; Fakenham, Norfolk; New Con nexion Methodists, Armley, Leeds ; Bethel Chapel, Hanslett, Leeds ; Countess of Huntingdon Chapel, Dover; Baptists, Cowland Chapel, Coventry ; Sharnbrnok, Beds ; Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk ; Coventry ; Wirksworth. D e rby ; Teachers i n St. James's Sunday School, °rye ich ; Biddenden ; Takenham, Nor folk ; Cow-lane Chapel Sunday School, Coventry ; Baptist Sunday School, St. Ivey, Huntingdonshire; inhabitants of Waltham Abbey, over Darwen, Lancashire ; Opping, Essex; Farnham, Surrey; Atherston, Bolton, and its vieinity; Aylesbury, Reading; Harting, Sussex; Drayton, Norfolk ; Foulhourne, Cambridgeshire; Teigemouth, Devon ; Broad Winsor, Dorset; Wymundham, Norfolk; Unston Abbot, Devon ; Westerham, Kent ; Wotton-under-Edge, Worksop ; Titchfield, Hants; Prescott, Lancashire; Printers and Book binders in Norwich; Stoke Row, Oxon; Wellington, Somer set; Titchfield, Hants; New Alresford, Rants; Melton Mowbray, Leicester ; Coney, Norf olk ; Withedge Hill, Oxon • Kidmore End, Oxon ; R edenhill with Harleston, Norfolk ; Hempton Fakenhain, Norfolk ; Woolley, Berks ; inhabitants of No. 2, Gloucester -terrace, New-road, Middle sex; Asten Tirrold, Berks; Independents—Abbey Chapel, Romsey, Hants ; Bethesda Chapel , S t. Colurnb, Cornwall ; Stoney Stratford, Bucks ; Great Yarmouth Old Meeting Huntingdonshire ; House ; St. Neots, Killworth, Leicestershire ; Masbro Chapel, York ; Hayes End, Middlesex ; Thorne, York ; Berkhatnpstead, Herts ; St. James-street Chapel, Nottingham ; Hamstead Keigh ley, York ; Eadmon and Brookfield, Hants; Reigate ; Lavenham, Suffolk ; Luttleworth, Leicestershire ; Ship ham, Norfolk ; Ryde, Isle of Wight ; Ware, Herts ; Croft Chapel, Hastings ; Southwold, Suffolk ; Church Street Chapel, Buckingham ; Biggleswade ; Upton-upon-Severn, Worcester • Ebenezer Chapel, Shoreditch ; Zion Chapel, Churtsy Isle, Ely ; Darlington; Providence Chapel, Rochdale ; Protestant Dissenting Ministers of Exeter ; King Street Chapel, Dudley ; Wendover, Bucks ; Colebrook Chapel, Rochdale ; Hope Chapel, Rochdale ; Llanfyllan, Montgomeryshire ; Whittlesea, C am bridgeshire ; M ardeen ; Newton ; Dorset ; Chepstow, Monmouth ; North Elmham ' Norfolk ; Totten, Hants; Puckeridg e, Herts ; Bethesda Chapel, Shrewton, Wilts ; Chippenhate, WiltsCh Shrwton, Wilts ; Poole, Dorset ; Womiford, Essex ; Winchester ; e Zion Chapel, Deptford ; Smart's Hill Chapel, Penshuret : Charnmouth, Dorset ; Wokinghatn, Bolts ; Bicester, Oxen ; Castle Gate Meeting House, Wilts; Hurley, Norfolk; Little Shetford, Cambridgeshire ; Ebenezer Chapel, Edenbridge, Kent ; West Merton, Essex ; Tabernacle Chapel,Holywell, Flint ; Lyming ton ; Church Street Chapel, Hackney; Burton-on- Trent, Staffordshire ; Tunbridge, Kent ; John Street Chapel, Royston ; Olney, Bucks ; Exeter (Females) ; Acton, Middlesex ; Asherne, Warwickshire ; Brook street Chapel, Warwick ; Allerton, Salop; Mar- Ifet Drayton, S alo p ; Harlington and Hayes, Middlesex; Wit ney, Oxon; Salem Chapel, Brixton-hill, Surrey; Broughton, Hants • inha bi tan ts of March, Cambrid ge ; A sten C l i nton, and Weston Turvill, Berks ; Sicklade, Gloucester ; Longford, Berks; Teddington, Beds; Wesleya n M et h o di st Association, Upper Brook-street, Ay inch ; Upsombourne, T roy f or d ; Di ssen ters at Acton, Middlesex ; Baptists of Halifax ' Tutor and Students at Homerton College ; Inhabitants of No. 2, Gloucester -terrace, New-road, Middlesex ; Dissenters of Asherne, Warwickshire; inhabitants of Ashton Timold, Berks ; Independents of Brook-street Chapel ; Baptists, Matfield, Kent ; Warw i c k ; Union-street Chapel, Rochdale ; Haywood, Lancashire ; Bogslatt, Longsdale ; Barnford, Rochdale ; Miln-row, Rochdale ; Somerplace, Lancashire Broad Lime, Lancashire ; Temple, Rochdale ; Littleborough, Lancashire ; Illingworth, and Rakewood, Lancashire ; Newton, Devon • West Parade Cha p el, Wakefield ; St. Sidwell, Exeter ; Saf. fron Walden, Essex; Mint-lane Chapel, Exeter • Upper Brook-street , Winchester; Upsurabourne, Troyford ; Sun day School Teachers, Independents, Launton, Ox fsed ; Church -street Chapel, Hackney, Middlesex ; Abbey Chapel, Ramsay, Hants ; Harvey-lane Suntlay School, Leicester ; Various Schools, Herefo-d, Bicester, Ox ford ; Tutor and Students at Homerton College ; Methodist New Connexion, Ripon ; Parliament-street Chapel, Notting ham ; Primitive Methodists, Rochdale, Graveston, Whisburgh, Tendenham, andWorkering, Norfolk, East Dereham ; Inhabit ants of Bedminton Church, and Congregation at Bethnal green • Protestant Association, Bethnal-green ; Wesleyan Methodist Association, Oldham -road Chapel, Manchester; Chatwood, Manchester; aloston, near Manchester • Blackley, Molineux, Mills , Sun-street, Keighley ; Crumpsall, Toman street, Hayfield, Derbyshire ; New Mills, York-street, Cheet ham, Macclesfield, Cheshire ; Mount Pisgah Sloops, Camel ford, Cornwall, Ellesmere, Salop; Seven -street, Manchester; Duddleston, Port Isaac ; Mount Pleasant, Burnley, Bolling ton Cheshire, Carlisle, Wrexham, Derbyshire, Readitch, Lis keard, Cornwall, Revrush, Ellesmere, Croplanes, Hebden, PRIL 12, IA46. York, Todm:,rdeat, Yorkshire, Coanholwie, Lisovati,isol Wil low, walk, St. Luke's, Middlesex ; Castle-street, Maryielaone, Middlesex ; Frith, Kent ; Charlotte-street, Islington ; Gee street, Gosikell-street, MiddieFex ; Woolwich, Kent ; King's road, Chelsea; William-street, Portland-town ; Gosport, Bromin, Cornwall, Stockport. Borough of Droit witch ; Park street, Worcester ; Glossop, Derby - shire, Mullion. Cornwall, Ashton, Cornwall, Lustvi,hin, Bradford, (iunwallee, Eccles hill, Yorkshire; Brompton, Kent ; Gildingwells and Woodcells, York ; Whitewell and Creswell, Derby ; Austen, West Riding, Yorkshire ; Worksop, Nottinghamshire ; Tregather man, Cornwall, Helston, Rinsey, Curt', Cornwall, Devonport ; Bermondsey, Surrey; Earl-street, London-road, Surrey. Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition from the Re monstrant Synod of Ulster, specially convened. The peti tioners stated that they had long enjoyed a generous pro vision for their Ministers, as well as a liberal grant towards the education of their theological students. They were con vinced that the prop sed measure for the grant and endowment of the College of Maynooth would confer a c leat and lastir,g benefit on the population of Ireland.—(Loud cheer. ) Mr. MANNERS SUTTON presented a petition from the Wesleya:, Methodists of Cambridge, against the grant to the College of Mavnooth. Mr. numE presented similar petitions from Scotland. Lord ASHLEY pesented poitioos to the same effect, from Dors,tshire. Sir GEORGE CLERK presented simi ar petitions from the borough of Stamford. DIPEACIIAIENT OF SIR ROBERT PEEL. Mr. FER RAND gave notice that he would. on Monday, move that the petition which he had presented from the Pro testant Operative Conservative Association, against the con duct of Sir Robert Peel, should be printed with the votes. IP USE Ci LiIMONS, April 11. The House eat at Four o'clock. There w..s a very thronged attendance of Members, and the seats were literally obscured with bundles of petitions, almost every other Member who entered the House bringing with him a lerge pared. RAILWAYS.—BRISTOL AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE. Mr. sPOONER presented a petition, praying that the Bristol and Gloucester Railway Bill might be amended. SOUTH WALES RAILWAY. Dr. BOWRING presented a petition against the South Wales Railway. SUGAR DUTIES. N, Ir . COBDEN presented a petition, praying that sugar from all parts of the world might be admitted at the same rate o" duty. THE AIAYNOOTH GRANT. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition, praying that the Go vernment should not pay the clergy of any religious denomina tion whatever out of the public money.—(Cheers and laughter. ) Sir J. DUKE presented a petition from the mayor. alder men, and burgesses of Boston, to repeal an Act passed last sea-ion, amending the law of bankruptcy ; also seven petitions from Dissenting congregations in Boston, Sibsey, Frieston, New Bolinflbroke, and Stickney, against the proposed grant to Maynooth ; and a petition from the inhabitants of Boston to postpone the second reading of that measure. AIR. WARD'S MOTION. Mr. WARD said he had to thank the Speaker for the kind intimation which he had given him in the course of the morn ing, as to the form in which he might bring forward his motion without inconvenience or irregularity. He should. therefore, in accordance with that intimation, move, upon the question that the House go into Committre upri the Bill, that it be an instruction to the Committee, that any provision for the par po-es of the Bill should be supplied out of the fowls already applicable to ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland. THE LATE ACCIDENT AT BOX TUNNELL. Lord DUNCAN wished to ask a question from the lion. Member for Reading (Mr. Russell) as to the late accident at the Box Tunnell, on the Great Western Railway. It was stated in the public press tat a quantity of earth and stone had fallen in and obstructed the passage of the mail. Ile wished to ask whether any measures had been taken to pre vent the recurrence of such an accident in future ? Mr. lIUStELL said that the best answer to a question of so much importance to the public and to the Company would be to read the report of the Company's engineer. (The Hon. Gentleman then read the report, but in so low and indistinct a tone, that we could not catch the leading points.) The acci dent on the Bo: Tunnel Wiis owing to the severe frost and such occurrences were more unfrequent in tunnels than in any other places. He hoped the statement he had made would be satisfactory. He could assure the Noble Lord that every c a.e and attention was paid to the Tunnel, which was as safe as the roof of that House.--(Great laughter. ) NEW ZEALAND. On the motion that the order of the day for the second read ing of the Ma'nooth Colleg? Grant be read, Mr. C. BULLER asked if the Government were prepared to lay en the table of the House the papers relating to New Zealand of which he had given notice. Mr. HOPE said the documents in question or extracts from there, as the Hon. and Learned Member wished, would be printed and laid on the table in a few days. THE GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill being read, Mr. COLQUHOUN said he wished to ask a question of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell). That Noble Lord was one of these Members of the Opposition who pos sessed great influence in the House, particularly when he rose to express his opinions upon Irish subjects. When the Noble Lord held office and occupied a place on the Treasury benches, he advocated many measures which were invariably neutra lised by the weight of opinion on the other side, but when a question in reference to the Irish Church was introduced by the Noble Lord, the Honourable Member for Sheffield accused him of deserting his principles ; yet, strange to say, that in all discussions upon such questions—no matter what party were in office—the Oppositien always appeared to have the power of deciding. When the Hon. Member for Sheffield occupied a seat on that side of the House, he was remarkably inert in expressing his opinions upon the question of academical education. It seemed to be the law of their political existence, since the passing of the Reform Act, that it was not the Government with their large majority that carried their measures, but those who were opposed to them. He besought the Noble Lord opposite to consider well the responsi bility under which he was acting. He besought that Noble Lord to reflect well upon the advice he was about to give upon the subject of the Irish Church ' • to reflect upon it as it he were sitting in the C a bi net , with all the responsibility not :of office, but of opposition. Agreeing generally in the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government, he entirely agreed with what the Noble Lord had said on the Oregon question, but he disagreed with him entirely on this question of the Irish Church. He also wished to make an earnest appeal to the Hon. Member for Montrose and to the Hon. Member for Sheffield. Those Hon. Members entertained opinions on the Irish Church which were perfectly different from those which he entertained, but it was evident they could not agree with the Noble Lord. He entreated the Hon. Member for Mon trose to return to the seat which he formerly occupied on his ( Mr. Colquhoun's) side of thee House; and he besought the Hon. Member for Sheffield to join him. Let them not be alarmed by the name of Conservative—there was nothing to occasion alarm in it.—( Cheers.) It was a name without a notion.—(Opposition cheers.) Not only was it treading on the heels of Radicalism—it was treading on the very toes of Radicalism.—( Cheers.) Nay, in many instances, it was going further than Radicalism—( Renewed Opposition cheering)— and in all eases it was gaining on Radicalism at a very rapid pace.—(Continued Opposition cheering.) He should certainly resort to every means in his power to oppose the progress of this Bill.—(dear, hear.) He would appeal to the House whether he had, ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, been guilty of anything like a factious opposi tion, but when a measure of such importance as this was pressed forward in such a hasty manner, without giving time for its consideration, lee felt himself called upon as a member of the minor its', to exercise those rights with which a minority was inveved, and which never could be exercised with greater temperance than they had been by him.—( Hear.) he character of the measure brought forward on the subject of Maynooth was of such a nature that he could not help thinking a more inadequate and injurious measure could not be brought forward. With regard to endowment, he thought there was great good sense in what had fallen from the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool the other night, that they ought to take care not to stretch the principle of the majority binding the minority too far; for, in that case, they would not endow the Roman Catholic religion in Canada and Malta, though it would not be possible for them to retain those colonies if they carried out that principle.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) Yes ; be fully admitted that ; but there was another principle that they ought rot to carry out—that doctrine where it militated against the broad and fundamental principles of morality and the Christian religion, otherwise they would have no right to interfere with the Suttees of India, or the practices of the inhabitants of New Zealand. It was once remarked of Napoleon that he was an honorary member of all religions ; that he was a Mahomedan in Egypt, and a Jew arid Roman Catholic whenever it suited his purpose; but that was not a principle on which a Christian state ought to act. He thus disposed of the question of conscience with regard to the question of compact, he thought the Right Hon. Gentlemen had entirely misapprehended it. It was true that the Irish Parliament left to the Roman Catholics the power of endowing a college of their cwn, and if they refused them that liberty, he should think worse of the Irish Parlia ment than ever he did. But when it was proposed to make the grant to Maynooth a permanent instead of an annual grant, the Irish Parliament refused to do so by a vast majority. It could not, therefore, be successfully maintained that there was any compact. But to go from the high vantage ground which he might take, and to look upon this question as a merely political one, he would refer to the objects of Mr. Pitt, who founded Maynooth. Lord Castlereagh, who carriedt sa Union, and who was well acquainted with the object of Mr. Pitt, said, in 1810, that it was not his wish that there should not be Roman Catholics—that they might continue to be sincere ; but that his wish was to make them liberal Roman Catholics, connecting themselves with their own Government for the benefit and the mutual advantage of all, to the exclusion of all foreign influence. Well, what was the effect now that Maynooth had been in existence fifty years? It was a remarkable fact that when the repeal was agitated, a few years ago, almost all the ecclesi astics educated at Maynooth, with scarcely a single exception, were violent agitators of that measure. The Honourable Member for Waterford, in speaking of the Roman Catholic Association, said that Maynooth began to be felt, and from the exclusive rature of the education in Maynooth it could scarcely be otherwise. If a college were established on the banks of the Isis, in which ari exclusive sys tem of education was pursued, from which the entrance of pub lic opinion was repelled, where there was no intercourse with persons who were to occupy stations in the general relations of society, where there were no young men educated for the law or other learned professions, he was sure that the result of such a system would be that it would be impossible to maintain the connexion between Church and State for six years. Then when they came out into the world, they were in a great degree cut off from society by the system of celibacy ; they were men who were filled with arrogant and intolerant views of their own importance, and they thought that all others were bound to obey their behests. That was the natural consequence that might be expected from the education pursued at INlaynooth.— ( Hear, hear.) Allusion had been made to the difference in the character of the priests who were educated abroad and those who were educated at Maynooth. He had lately received a letter from a gentleman who held office under the present Government in the constabulary force. He said that he never heard the subject of the priesthood mentioned, without its being universally considered of the priesthood edu cated abroad and those educated at Maynooth—that the former were well disposed and peaceable, the latter turbulent, assum ing a political character hostile to English connexion. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted a leter which appeared in the Morning Chronicle, signed " Phililathes," in which the writer said that the Rorr an Catholic priesthood had entered into the repeal movement in the worst—that was to say, the rebellious spirit. When the subject of education in Prussia was mentioned, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon and the Right Hon. Member for Waterford cheered ; but those Right Hon. Gentlemen ought to know that the system of education pursued in Prussia was very different from that which was pursued at Rome. His Hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, the same night, advocated the Roman Catholic system of education ; but he had the highest authority—that of the Prussian Minister now in this country, respecting the dif ference which existed in the Roman and Prussian systems. He said the system which prevailed in Rome was this :—A person was taken at seven years of age and placed in an ecclesiastical seminary, where he he was educated apart from the society of others of the ecclesiastical profession. The consequence was that they came out into the world very illiterate and extremely intolerant; and however such a sys tem mi g ht be suited to Italy, he hoped it would never find favour in this country. On the other hand, under the Germanic system, the State took the boy at the age of seven years, when he was brought up with others intended for wordly pursuits, by which his ma nners were refined and his opinion s moderated. He con tinued there till the age of twenty-one, when lie was placed in an ecclesiastical seminary, where he was educated precisely as they were educated at Maynooth. Prussia was a country composed of Catholics and Protestants, but it was well known that the Germanic character pervaded the whole, and what w as the consequence? Why, this, that when t when the Archbishop of Colo g ne attempted to enforce n Prussia some of those intolerant measures which were ad mitted to exist in Ireland, lie was met. by the most strenuous and determined opposition. In Ireland it was well known that the Roman Catholic priests were the most assiduous fomentors and promoters of the repeal agitation. Yet, strange to say, the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go vernment had proposed to the House a measure, by which would be kept up the system of education that those priests re ceived. Now, he would adduce a stronger argument in favour of his position than the evidence of a Roman Catholic, a Mr. M'Kenna, who had declared that the system of education at Maynooth; was a highly vicious system. The reason that none but men of the lower classes of society entered that Col lege as candidates for any of the professorships was, because of the smallness of the salaries; yet the Right Honourable Baronet's proposition did not propose to remedy that Al:.! ibiA WSi aL.ichoi , idtr; A.if.ctlz'allY ut the Prussian Cathilie Colleges, because men of the highest classes of society received their education there. Let him ask what Catholic gentleman in Ireland would end his son to Maynooth to receive his education? Such a thing was un heard of. Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hop. Member had better stick to facts. coLQUTHOUN—WcII, let him remind the Right lion. liarenet that the Professor of Mathematics in May /meth College, when he %vas examined before a Committee of that House, declared, in answer to a 'tees:tit/In that he did not know that there was a sixtli book of Etrelirl.—( Laughter. ) Ilobourable Members argued that by paying; professors well in Maynooth good professors would be had, and others had stated that the reason they were called upon to grant this additional sum of 23,0 01. gas for this purpose; but he begged to tell them that they would pay the meney for no other certainty than the certainty of not getting such persons.—( Laughter. ) The only men on whom they could calculate were those who had promulgated the asceticism and se verity of the Roman Catholic priests, and who would send forth men who would foster no other doctrines in the country. On these grounds he begged to say he would give the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet his most strenuous opposition. Before he sat down he beeeetl to re turn thanks to tin , Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mm. Ward) for having had the courtesy to send him notice yesterday of his intention not to bring on his motion to-day. Mr. GROGAN said he intended to give the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet his strongest opposition. A great number of petitions had been presented from the city he repre sented, and that city, from its contiguity to Mayno o th, might be said to know something of the results of the system of educa tion pursued at Maynooth. lie did not think the Right Hon. Baronet had made out any ease whatever calculated to con vince this House or the country that he was warranted in bringing forward such a proposition, for he had not shown that it was based either on compact or ex pediency. In the year 1795, when this grant ori ginated, it was riot intended to ha continued, because in the Act of Union there was a stipulation, providing for the continuation for tv enty years subsequently of grants made to charitable institutions then in existence, or that had been in existence for six years previously, and therefore it was clear that it was intended to exclude Maynooth, because May 'tooth had been in existence five years previously. Then there was the evidence of Dr. Crolly, before a Committee of the House, who stated that he believed that the increased grant of 13,006/. made in the year 1810, was not, in his opinion, a grant for the establishing, but in order to meet expenses in curred by additional buildings. He did not mean to speak disparagingly of the Roman Catholic priests ; on the con trary, he was willing to extend to' them the highest praise for the manner in which they had exerted themselves for the preservation of life and property during the agitation that convulsed Ireland two years ago.—( Hear. ) (The Hon. Gentleman then read extracts from a speech of Mr O'Connell's, showing the difference between the education of foreign priests and the priests of Ireland ; and that the great Anti-Protestant feeling in Ireland was fostered by the education which was bestowed on the students at Maynooth. He also referred to a statement in an article written by Mr. Inglis, a foreigner, who stated that the priests of Ireland were agitating priests.) And now they were going to increase the power and the circulation of those doctrines which led the country so near its destruction some time ago, and were now about to give facility to, and extend the prevalence of their opinions. The Protestants of Ireland all disapproved of the system of education which was pursued at Maynooth, and the ascetic seclusion which was impozed on the students. Any body of men would, under the same system of training, turn out into the world such men as the priests of Ireland. A young man, early in life, put into the college with a view to a provision for his after life, would, under the influence of the doctrines and tenets inculcated at Maynooth, become one of flint class to which they objected. The power of the Homan Catholic priesthood in Ireland was absolute, and the Protestants had strong doubts whether that power did not extend to temporal as well as spiritual matters. It was to be remembered that the Pope had no controul over them what ever ; they had a greater degeee of liberty, and were less re stricted by the Pope than the priests in any other Catholic country in Europe, so that their power was almost absolute. He objected to the version of the Bible with notes and com ments, as printed by the College printer, and read in Maynooth as a class book. lie then instanced a note to the 13th chapter of Matthew, to show the false intepretation which was given In their Bible. Under these circumstances he did not think it uncharitable, unjust, or ungenerous on the part of the Pro testants of Ireland, to object to the doctrines which were taught in that place. Before they passed that Act they ought to take very great care lest they were about to found a college for the education of a set of men publishing the doc• trines of those who were banished from nearly every country in Europe. He meant the Jesuits, who, though re workable for their great knowledge and talents, were suppressed by every country in Europe in consequence of their extreme desire to obtain power. Dr. Kenny, who was the principal of the Jesuits in Ireland, stated, on an examination as to the opinions which pervaded Alaynoeth, that what they were taught was exactly the same as in the Jesuit Colleges abroad, where he was educated. He would net say that it was a Je suit college, but they had no reason to know that it was not ; and they ought, at least, before passing the Act, to institute a Committee to inquire into the system of education adopted there, that they might be assured that they were not giving mo ney to a body who were proscribed by every power in Europe. The Bill purposed to endow, permanently and for ever, without the controul of the Crown, the College for the education of Roman Catholic priests. We profess to be Protestants and Dissenters from the Romish Church, and yet we attempted to make the priests of that Church better controversialists and more able opponents of the religion which we believe to be true. lie asked could a Protestant Parliament consent to en dow a college for such purposes ?—( Hear, hear. ) The lsader of the Opposition—or rather of that portion of it which sits upon the other side of the House—was a supporter of the Bill. But he did not disavow that he had more at heart the concilia. Sion of the Romish Church—( Hear )—than the preservation I of the Protestant religion. The leader of the Catholic party in Ireland had expressed himself in strong terms of approba tion of the measure, and had stated that he would so far abate disaffection in Ireland as to give the Government the full value of its money. Two years ago that country was on the verge of rebellion, and if the concession now proposed %i ere made, what good ground had the House for supposing that a fresh tht eat of a civil war would not lead to further concessions to the de mands of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Some time since, in the north of Ireland, a large number of Roman Catholics were converted to the Protestant faith, and they were refused provisions at any price, and they were obliged to be supplied by the Protestants of other parts of the country. The cheek to conversion would be increased by the proposed grant. The Roman Catholic clergy were trained in doctrines the mos' anti social and the most repugnant to the Protestant population of the country. No petition had been presented in support of the Bill which was indicative of a great deal, and he thought many of the Roman Catholic aristocracy did not approve of this measure. They might approve of the endowment of a Roman Catholic College and feel proud of it, but it was clear they did not feel anxious about it, for they did not present a single petition in favour of it. He :had trespassed too long on the attention of the House, but he felt it to be his duty to enter his protest against the Bill—he objected to it on principle, because it would tend to endanger the existence of the Protestant Church in Ireland—because no necessity existed for it, because neither expediency nor even compact, upon which so much had been relied, required it, and be cause the Bible was withheld by those who were educated in Maynooth from the Roman Catholic people. He had endea voured as far as he could to express his opinions without con demning the opinions of any sect, but he felt it his duty thus fairly to protest against the measure. The question having been put by the SPEAKER, Several HON. MEMBERS rose to address the House, but all gave way to Mr. GLADSTONE, who spoke as follows :—Sir, I am sure the House will excuse me if I profess my anxiety to take the earliest opportunity of delivering my sentiments in the debate. I feel it my duty to apologise to the House for having suffered one occasion in which this measure was discussed to pass by without expressing an opinion upon it, or having given a vote. The truth is that I did not think I could vote on the division of last week, without stating to the House the reasons on which that vote was founded, and I did not on the other hand feel that I could put the House in possession of my views of the entire case until the Bill was printed, and until I was enabled to take a view of all its provisions. It was on that account, and not from any desire to avoid the responsibility in cumbent on me, its common with every Member of this House, and incumbent on me, for some special reasons, frankly to disclose all the sentiments I entertain on this ques tion. I have no reason whatever to complain of the course taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, who felt it his duty to call for an ex pression of this House. Representing, as he did, a very powerful and wide-spread sentiment among the people of this country, and entertaining sentiments the dictates of a con scientious conviction, I could not be surprised at the course pursued by my Hon. Friend. I fully admit that the minority of last week did represent the general and prevailing sense of the people of England and Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) But, making that admission, I must state, for my own part, that after the most full and mature consideration of the question in the position in which it stands, I am prepared, in opposition to what I believe to be the prevailing opinion of the people of England and Scotland—of my own constituents, from whom I deeply regret to differ, and to my own deeply-cherished predi ' lections—l am, I say, prepared to give my deliberate and anxious support to the measure before the House.—('This an nouncement was received with loud and prolonged cheering from the Opposition.) I will advert to some reasons which have been advanced in support of the measure, and which, I confess, appear to me inadequate to its support. My Right Hon. Friend, in the closing part of his address, observed that the grant he proposed amounted to no more than a liberal and honourable construction of that compact. My Right Hon. Friend remarked, that that compact, the Act of Union, he did not interpret in a literal sense, but in that spirit of equity which ought to subsist between the English and Irish people. I confess that doctrine greatly facilitates my approach to the consideration of this question. I believe, with the Right Hon. Oentleman, the Member for Dungarvon, that there is some thing like a compact in this case. I do not mean with instru ments binding the parties to all eternity ; but I me th an e a state of circumstances and relations between . Parliament and the people of Ireland , which prec l udes it has the question from being considered as a new e one, ral e for degree in been a matter of discussion in a very considerable previous debates upon the annual vote to Maynooth. But, Sir, I do not think that argument is altogether measure m on other ap plicable to the present question. have to considerthe grounds—to consider it in the circumstances of a new measure. With respect to the contract , I will quote a few words of Mr. Percival, which have not b een y et mentioned in these discus sions. Mr. Percival said, in 1812, that he supported th e grant as it stood, because it was one of those which the Parliament of Ireland thought they should preserve at the union ; because he found it in fact given over to Eng land as a part of the union. If the grant were fairly open to opposition after the union, he should certainly be disposed to resist it, became he thought it in principle wrong for a State endeavouring to establish a particular system of reli gion, to provide for the maintenance, ecclesiastical endowment. propagation, and encouragement of another religion. He (Mr. Percival) found, that a Parliament composed of Irish men, possessing the whole religious endowments of the country, altering the law fur the purpose of enabling parties to establish colleges, and m a ki ng, i n the first instance, con tributions in support of a college, which was continued from year to year. Afte r quo ti ng some further observations of Mr. Percival, the Right Honourable Gentleman read the following extract from the same speech. " Under these circumstances, I say it would be most ungenerous in you (the English Parliament) to avail yourselves of that numerical superiority and strength for the purpose of withdrawing the grant that has been conferred by the Irish Parliament,and which, I am confident, thelrishParliament never would have withdrawn." But he found that in the declaration of Mr. Perceval, whose whole conscientious convictions were opposed to the grant,whose Government was founded upon prin. ciples of resistance to every concession, great or small, to Ro man Catholics, but a man whose native honesty and candour led him to recognise the obligations of good faith and which led him to make the declaration to which he had alluded. When he looked at the fixity of the grant for so many years, he could not think that at this moment there could be any doubt with respect to the recognition of the grant by Parliament, but he felt that the changes which were now proposed to be made were so material with respect to the foundation of the College, as to make the question almost al together a new one. He would not at all have referred to the question of contract, had not to many petitions which had been "rll' itirA6ll6 ' 4 "l t ' .111416 """- -110-011 ". 14 0- i e esseteil .hes !Lite seterea "ti. 40 steels,/ AP tit eV: isted, or that Parliament was bound by it. But what belied to consider was, the proposal of the Right lion. Gentleman at the head of the Government, which effected most important alter ations in the foundation of the College itself. He was not merely going to chance the grant frorn being an annual into a permanent cue, but lie was going to piece the building under the immediate control of Government, thereby establishing a eonnexion with it set clo.e as it (mild well be. The increase of money appeared to him most nepurtant , tot. simply because it was an increase of so many thousands, but because it altered the ehera e t,- of the State in relatien to the College. Originally it certainly was not ititeieltel that, the State should entirely maintain this college; and the Dnke of Wellington declared that the institution m's not to be entirely supported by the State. In fact the eight or nine thousand a rear voted to Maynooth was only understood as the part of a collection made for its support- The State was only one of its contributors. But it was clear they were now going to depart from that system. The whole plan was about to be reconstructed. The professors who had but scanty salaries, were now about to be liberally rewarded, and the aliment, education, and care of the pupils there was to be taken under the consideration of the State. The basis of the College was about to be changed a me" material change, but that change he had made up his mind to support.—( Hear, hear.) He entirely re pudiated one argument that had been employed in support of the lei-Teased grant—that of restitution. He disclaimed it in every point of view—in point of law and constitution, and on the ground of its being contrary to everything he knew of history. lie would not now go into the details on that argument, but if that was to be done as an act of restitution, it was one of the most shameful confessions that could be made by the Legislae tore. —( Hear, hear.) The Government made a gift of a shilling or a sixpence in the pound. If this were made a ease of restitution, nith' it not be most shabby, worse than shabby —iebituous and disgraceful to offer such terms ?—( Hear.) It had been sussed in favour of the g rant that great results would follow front it , it. consequence o f the good feeling which it would excite and the system which would be adopted. He would net entertain extravagant expectations on this head ; and regarding the argument, which had been used with some plausibility, that now a higher class of men would be reared for the priesthood, he thought that the members of the priest hood were among those classes which could supply the number requisite for the discharge of those duties. Reference had been made to Germany by the Hon. Member for Newcastle, and it was said that there the sons of the Roman Catholic aristo cracy entered the Church. But how different was the case between the two countries. The Catholic Church in Ger many was recognised by the State. It was in possession of its ancient endowments, and enjoyed all the privileges which tra dition had handed down to it. The Catholic Church of Ger many had much the same reference to the State as the Pro testant Church in England. The grant might certainly give dignity to the professors at Maynooth, and improve the tone of feeling. The professors at present were very scantily paid; and the consequence was that in most instances they vacated the professor's chair, and sought parochial charges.— ( Hear.) N‘ hen larger salaries were given, there was little doubt that a higher order of men would be obtained—men of greater learning. The pupils would, in the first instance, derive the advantage of this, and they would in turn impart the benefits of it to their flocks. It had been urged, in favour of this measure, that it would extend Protestantism in Ireland. He did not know how it struck other minds, but he declared, in sincerity, that he thought it would just be as reasonable to say that the discovery of printing had made books scarce and dear, and the application, of locomotive power to railroads had retarded the facility of communication. He did not know what expecta tions could be formed of converting men by furnishing them with ease and leisure, giving them a comfortable means of sub sistence, particularly to members of a people abounding in national talent, to a people equal to any other on the face of the earth. It was, he repeated, most extraordinary that such concessions should weaken men's faith. He had no credit for placing the measure in the position which it now occupied ; neither had he the responsibility of placing it in that position. Ox the contrary, it was clear that if he had been an agent in any way, it was rather in retarding than promoting the measure. lie must now revert to the argu ments in favour of the measure. It was urged that the Catholic paupers of Ireland were very numerous; that they were in great poverty, and that they had great diffi culty, nut only in supporting their own clergy. but in supplying themselves with the necessaries of life. His Hon. Friend had grounded his opposition to the measure upon the opinions of Mr. Pitt. Now what was the object of Mr. Pitt with respect to this matter. 'Was the object of Mr. Pitt to found the College, and nothing more ?—(Cheers.) He was not now discussing the question whether Mr. Pitt was right or wrong. The object of Mr. Pitt was to found an esta blishment. to train the Roman Catholic priesthood, and that provision should be made for their subsequent support. They had been trained to a considerable extent, but no provision had been made for their subsequent support. That might be right or wrong, but surely it was unfair in argument, when only • small portion of the views of Mr. Pitt had been carried into execution, when only a limited period had expired, to condemn the whole experiment. If the experiment was tot e tried at all, it ought to be tried completely. His Hon. Friend the Mem ber for Newcastle hail spoken much on the defective state of the College of Maynooth with regard to literature. Now could any man look to the state of Ireland, could he look to the discus sions in Ireland with regard to religion—could any man reflect on the position of Ireland, especially during the last century, and haying duly weighed those considerations, could he sup pose, that if it were true this literature was defectively incul cated in the College of Maynooth, it would form a ground for Parliament refusing to support it. That was matter for amend ment in detail. lie confessed, after entering into these consi derations, he could nut deny that the burden of proof lay with these who were the opponents of the Bill. lie would ask him self whether there were grounds in our law or Constituti on _ and not only in our law and Constitution, but also in th e con viction of the people, which formed the living basis of th e Constitution, any great principle on whic he could steadily refuse or reject this Bill? Was there such a principle? He could see no ground on which the opponents of this Bill could permanently and securely stand. He believed that con ciliatory measures had a natural force in wittning the affection of men. On one side it was said that to withhold this grant would, under all the circumstances, he contrary to justice ; and, on the other side, it was said that, under all the circum stances, the grant was contrary to religion and duty. Ile could not adopt either the one or the other. Now, he would look for a moment to the material of which the opposition to this measure was composed. A large portion of the petitions presented against this Bill had pro ceeded from persons who objected to any grant be ing made for the support of any religion. It was a very common thing to find persons opposed to each other combining toge ther to oppose that which they mutually opposed. Those parties might on other subjects he diametrically opposed to each other. What would be the position of his lion. Friend the Member for Newcastle if lie should succeed in rejecting this Bill ? One-half of those who would support him were against religious endowments of any kind, and against all reli gion connected with the State. Nor was this the only diffi culty which his Ilonourabie Friend would have to deal with. There were others equally great. Some of his supporters had a conscientious objection to the R:.man Catholic religion, but were prepared to support all forms of the Protestant religion. As he had said before, it was easy to get a combination against a certain measure or principle, but it was not so easy to induce the same parties to combine for another object. He said that if they rejected this Bill, they were bound to state to the people of Ireland the distinct and intelligible principle on which they had acted. Now what was the constitutional ground on which they stood ? Many persons said, 't Let us recognise the different forms of the Protestant religion as being entitled to the support of the State ; but let us not go further ; let us exclude from the support of the State, whoever has any community with the Church of Rome." He could not recognise that principle, either in a constitutional point of view, or in a religious point of view. Ile could not understand the alliance between the Constitution and the law of the country and an undefined principle such as was, indicated by the term Protestant. He knew that it was pro vided by law, that the Sovereign of the country should be a Protestant. But that became defined by Act of Parliament, the Sovereign must be a communicant of the Church of Eng. land. lie was not speaking of the merits of the different forms of religion, but the general term Protestant might lie applied to that which might vary from day to day. There was no ground for the refusal of the Btll of his Hon. Friend. He believed that the boon that had been offered would be received and considered as a great one.—(Hear.) He looked upon the present case as one of great importance. He considered the measure of great importance and one that was giving a great boon. lie trusted the house would adopt it, and he called upon the people to do so notwithstanding their preconceived opinions. The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY supported the motion, believing the intentions of the Right. Hon. Baronet to be sincere. lie had the greatest respect for the Hon. Member fur Oxford ; he would go even further, and express a hope that the lion. Member would permit him to say that he enter tertaincd for him the highest esteem—( Hear, hear)—yet he ( Lord Arundel) could not avoid saying that the Honourable Member appeared to him to be admirably fitted for the situation of high priest of the Jews.—(" Hear, and laughter. ) He ( Lord Arundel) was a member of the Roman Catholic faith, by conviction ; and, from the fact that that conviction was the result of tis having read those scriptures that it had been said Heinen Catholics were not allowed to read.— ( Laughter and cheers.) But, at the same time, he should say that lie was the enemy of religious persecution, no matter in what part of the world it was practised.—( Cheers.) He did not mean to delay the House by any further observations ; but he could not sit down w ithout expressing his most unqualified admiration of the course the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the Government had pursued on this question.—(Cheers.) IWith a large and determined minority against him, yet he had persevered 'll it , and surveyed with his wonted calmness the progress of the storm lie had raised around him.—(Cheers.) Mr. D'ISRAELI said be should apologise to the Noble Lord opposite for having persevered, when they both stood up together; but he begged to assure the Noble Lord, that be would not for a moment have persevered, had he not beli eve d that he, and not the Noble L o rd , h a d caught the Speaker's eye.—(Hear, hear.) lie was extremely glad th at t h e Noble Lord had expressed his opinions upon this question ; and he begged to assure the Noble Lord that, in the observations he was about to make, he did not mean to say anything calculated. to annoy the feelings of the Noble Lord, for he deeply sym pathised with, and had the most profound respect tor; his creed.—(Hear, hear.) lie now came to the speech of the Right lion. Gentleman the Member for Newark. That was an extremely able harangue, and one which the Right Hon. Gentleman appeared to have thought it necessary to pass the gangway to deliver.—((sheers and laughter.) 'the Right Hon. Gentleman had informed the House that lie supported the proposition o f hi s c hi ef for certain reasons which he deemed unanswerable, and n o t b ecause of any other causes which might have bee n suppoeed.—( " Hear," and laughter.) But be (Mr. D'lsraeli) would ask, why need the Right Hun. Gentle man have passed the gangway to deliver this speech, or, in fact, why need he have crossed the House to do so ? (" Hear," and laughter.) How could so subtle a casuist have deemed it necessary to have gone into such a lengthy explanation of his arguments?--(" Hear," and laughter.) But the fact was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman was aware that the present position of the Government was this, that the principle on which they acted was now worn out, and that they should the. efore discover some new principle on which to act; and he (Mr. D'lsraeli) believed they had found it —( Cheers and laughter.) But what was it ? He was willing to acknowledge that the reasons of the Right lion. Baronet had been fairly and plainly laid down ; but if so, let him ask had no attempt been made to adumbrate this new prin. ciple ? %% as not this principle, or rather were not those new principles, the very same that had been the principles on which Governments had acted that now no longer existed ?—( Hear, hear)—and was not the opposition to them the very foundation of the Conservative theory ?—(Cheers.) lie (Mr. D'lsraeli) was quite ready to agree with the Right lion. Gentleman ire much that ho had said, and to declare that the relation between Church and State, at the present time, was:extremely unsatis factory.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. D'lsraeli) had now been some nine or ten sessions in Parliament, and therefore he had had some occasion to observe the to m pestuous manner in which the subject had been met here. The Right Hon. Gentleman had made the grave assertion that the Government had endowed the English Church, that they had endowed the Anglican Church, and could they, therefore, refuse the endowment now proposed?... ( Ilear, hear.) Now he (Mr. D'israeli) would ask, _ e had they H endowed the Anglican Church 9— ( Hear, hear.) Hon en tleman, with all his casuistry , to the contrary. The ,s 11"e to it con tended they had not; and he would defy the Right • G Church, no doubt, had large estates atta c he d but then new question Igen 4nd if so, he would like to know what when the Government talked of endowing a new Church, I ) 11°, .iiV e l , i 1,, * O i e., t ifo