The Sun. — London, England, 1845-05-03 00:00:00

station, had had the benefit of such able counsel as defended him, and had been tried before so excellent a judge, and so impartial a jury, that his confession of guilt under such cir cumstances was a matter of much consequence, as it could not in the least add to the satisfaction on the mind of every one that he was guilty of the crime laid to his charge.—(Hear, hear.) He must confess that he did not see how the magis trates, more than any one else who might take an interest in the matter, had any right to call for the production of any communication made to the chaplain.—( Hear, hear.) The Duke of BUCKINGHAM thought the question was, whetherior not the chaplain was justified in withholding a statement made to him under such circumstances. Lord STANLEY said he would make inquiry of the Home Secretary into the circumstances, and would take an early opportunity of communicating the result to their Lordships. BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH. Earl POWIS presented several petitions fro n places in Wales against the union of the sees of Asaph and Bangor. In moving the second reading of the Bill it became necessary for him now to state the result of the communications he had with the public on the subject of disuniting the two sees. He had lately received petitions in favour of his measure from nearly every county in England and Wales, and all of them complained of the difficulties and inconveni ence which had arisen from the union of the two sees. There was a numerous population in both sees, and their Lordships must be fully aware of the difficulties the present Right Rev. Prelate had to contend against, owing to the dissimilitude which existed between the two languages. That Right Rev. Prelate was distinguishe.l for his learning and piety, and although he had the love and confidence of his fleck, he confessed that he found it extremely difficult to pay due and sufficient attention to improving the state and . ondition of the numerous flock under his charge. And if the Right Rev. Prelate experienced difficulties of this kind, how would his successor, who might happen to have less experience and be less distinguished for his talents, be able to contend against them ? Then, if they wanted any additional evidence of the inconvenience resulting from the union of two dioceses, they had it. in the case of the dioceses of Gloucester and Bristol, the union of which had given rise to extraordinary inconvenience and difficulty. Many persons had petitioned their Lordships whose interests were directly advanced by the union of the two sees ; but the petitioners (for instance, the clergy and inhabitants of Manchester) had petitioned against the union, declaring their conscientious ob jection to receiving benefit from an Act which inflicted in jury on another part of the country. He regretted that a Noble Lord who took a deep interest in this matter last year was unable to attend on that occasion, but he had the satisfac tion of assuring the House that that Noble Lord's (Harrowby's) apinion on this matter remained unchanged. As regarded the appointment of a Bishop of Manchester, he thought the enormous and increasing population of Lancashire, as shown in the last census returns, was a sufficient inducement, or at all events it would be an ample justification for them agreeing to this part of his measure. The next topic to which he would allude was an amendment which had been introduced by hi‘ Noble Friend, on the Act of 6th and 7th William IV., which had been the foundation of the Church Commission. He only wished that his Noble Friend had been of the same opinion now that he was when this Commission was issued ; and that he and the inhabitants of North Wales could have the advantage of the area:merits which he bad then used, for he was sure that then her Majesty's Government and the sereral members of the Ecclesiastical Commission would act with him. The report of that Commission was made on the 17th of March, 1835, and in the year following, on the 4th of March, a great alteration had been made in the view taken by the Ecclesiastical Commission of the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and on the increase of the incomes of those dioceses. Their object at the latter time appeared to be to alter those sees, and to apply the sums to other purposes than those contemplated by the Ecclesiastical Commission when first this reduction was mooted. The income of the diocese of St. Asaph was 5,200/. a-year, and that of Bangor, 3,8001. It was proposed to take from these the sums of 2,3001., and, with the 28,000/. already appropriated from other sources, to create a sum of upwards of 30,000/., which was to increase the incomes of the thirteen Bishops, to the amount of 3,0001. a year. This report, however, did not bear the signature of Sir R. Inglis, but of Thomas Spring Rice. At the time it was first proposed to take anything from the 3,800/. of the diocese of Bangor, the money was to be appropriated to the improvement of the poorer livings. During the long time in which he had had to fulfil his duty to the principality, he had frequently had occa sion to see persons high in the confidence of her Majesty's Go vernment ; but during the whole of his experience he had never received a more explicit reply than had been made to a deputation, which had, on this subject, waited on Lord John Russell and Mr. Spring Rice, at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, from the words which fell from Lord John Russell, it was certainly the impression of the deputation thst it was the intention of the Government to pla ce the bishoprics in Wales on precisely the same footing as other bishoprics. They conceived at that time that no portion ought to be taken from the revenues of the Welsh benefices, as they were at that time only sufficient, and barely sufficient, for the wants of the people, and that if they did so they would reduce the revenues below the requirement of the country for spiritual instruction. That deputation had been composed of men of the highest position, and of all par ties. After the interview, however, he was free to confess that the hope of the deputation had gone be. Yet Lord John Rus sell had admitted that there was no opportunity of taking any thing from the amount of the incomes of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor ; although he had stated the intention of the Go vernment to modify those bishoprics. Since 1836, con siderable attention had been paid to the interests of North Wales, but still not that degree of attention which its interests were entitled to. In South Wales the cases were somewhat different, yet to both portions of the country the same prin ciple applied. There were in the whole of Wales deaneries, and to each see there were two canonries attached. Not withstanding the declaration of the Government, that it was intended to place the Church in England and Wales on the same footing, and to assimilate the number of the canonries to those belonging to the chapters in England, the number re mained unaltered, and while the deaneries in England were 1,000/. each, while those in Wales were only 7001. each ; and while the canonries in England were 500/. a-year, those in Wales were only 300/. a-year. There was another source from whence the sums required might be drawn and applied to North Wales. This was the revenues of what were called the sinecure vicarages, to which no duty was attached, and no in jury would therefore be done by applying their incomes to active and useful purposes. if it was not taking too great a liberty, he would address their Lordships on two other points. 't hey were illustrative of the sense of two important bodies on this question. It would be recollected by their Lordships that last year the University cf Oxford had conferred a degree upon him. At the time when this great honour was conferred he was unknown to that uni versity, except through his connexion with the question of the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. His conduct on that question had found favour in their eyes, and hence it was that they conferred on bins that which he looked upon as the greatest compliment ever paid him since his entry into publie life. His only passport to their favour had been the conscien tious discharge of his duty. And this he would say, that his reception for the part he had taken, and the proceedings con nected with that reception, coming from the young blood and education of England, supported by the learning and ability that presided over it, was not to be slighted or lightly passed over. In this country public opinion virtually reigned, and their Lordships would do well to consider it. This was not a demonstration gotup by public excitement, and by ignorant men, but of a body who perfectly understood the subject and the con sequences which would result from it. The next point to which he would revert, as illustrating public opinion on this subject, was a vote of thanks given him by the clergy of the diocese of Bangor, for the part he had taken in endeavouring to prevent the onion of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. The Noble Lord here read the vote of thanks, and concluded by moving the second reading of the Bangor and St. Asaph and Man cheater Dioceses Bill. - The Duke of WELLINGTON said he could not give his assent to what the Noble Lord who had just sat down proposed. With respect to the petitions which had been presented, he must express his admiration of those who had signed them for their attachment to the Church. Still they should not be led away by these petitions. He had looked into the petitions presented against the union of Bangor and St. Asaph, up to the close of last session, and out of 312 presented, only one third, or about 100, were presented from the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. The others were from all other parts of England.— (Hear, hear.) He would make some observations on these petitions presently. But what he wished to call their attention at present to was the particular provisions of this Bill. It was a Bill neither more or less than to repeal the Act 5 and 6 William IV., which Act was intended to carry into effect the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He would state the object sought to be obtained by that Com mission. It was desired to remove many anomalies from out of the Church—to render it, in the exercise of its duties, more efficient and more general—to extend its influence into parts of the country where its superintendence was muc h requ i re d, and to render it an object of attachment and affection i n a ll p ar t s of the nation, but more especially in populous districts. The great object was to review and revise the whole system, and to render it more useful for the wants of the people. This it was desirable to do by the means already at the disposal of the Church, and hence, in 1835, the Government recommended the issuing of the Commission. In the report drawn up by that Commission certain recommendations were made, and it was well known that the arrangements proposed to be carried out, founded OR that report, involved a great sacrifice of patronage, not only on the part of the country, but by the Ministry, the Right Reverend Prelates and Noble Lords of both sides of the House. All this sacrifice was made with the single object of rendering the Church more efficient in its ministrations, and better adapted to the wants of the people. For he did not see why the public should be made to incur greater expense than was absolutely necessary, and he was quite confident that if this union took place, all that could be desired for the efficient maintenance of the Church would be fully secured. He could easily account for the number of petitions that had been pre sented by Noble Lords against the union of the sees, by a feel ing on the part of the petitioners that by the proposed arrange ment the temporal interests of the Church would not be suffi ciently atended to. No one felt more than he did the neces sity of making proper provision for the interests of the Church, and he considered it one of the greatest advantages which th s country possessed—the having men of great attainments, and with moral worth, tilling the highest offices in the Church— which he contended was to a certain extent to be attributed to the circumstance of the having an adequate remuneration for the discharge of the important duties which devolved upon them. Associating as he did there and elsewhere with them, he was enabled to say that a more worthy or more excellent body of men did cot exist, and the public could not secure the services of such men unless they were properly recom pensed for their services. Many, as he had already remarked, had thought that the proposed arrangement would not effect this, and that cause he attributed two-thirds of the peti tions that had been presented against the union of the sees, but lie could assure the Noble Lords that such would not be the case. That union was certainly the foundation of part o the system in relation to tithe, end it appeared to him that they would not be able to maintain the other parts of the system if they adopted this measure.—( Hear, hear. ) It would immediately be supposed by their assenting to it that it was their intention to withdraw from the system altogether.— (Hear, hear.) He begged their attention for a few minutes, and he thought he would be able to show them that the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor had no reason whatever to complain of the whole arrangement. A sum had been already given to augment the amount enjoyed by the small livings, but he was not aware that any portion of that came from the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. He then came to consider what the sacrifice would be to the diocese of Bangor when this Act came into operation, and also what the gain would be. The sacrifice which would be made by the diocese of St. Asaph and Bangor would be altogether the t e e n d n d sinecure tha r t e t c h t n o r s i r w a h l which t w o o r i u e l s d a a l l m n o v u e n r t E t o n but, on the other hand, they wou ld acqu i re thj a d van t ages o f g 3 lre la.ndlltyawleass should be reformed, and the revenues applied to the parochial service of the dioceses in which they exist. But th a t A c t went further, for one clause of it enabled, the Commissioners not to wait till the demise of the present incumbents, but to purchase the advowsons at any time, so that the proceeds might be ap plied by the Act for the purposes of parochial service. A not h er advantage would be the gain of three archdeacons and an increase of deans, chapters, and canons, all of whom would be properly provided for ; and they would also gain by the parochial services being more efficiently attended to. He would now come to the inconveniences of the proposedarrangement. The two dioceses, when united, were not so large, nor did it con tain so many livings as many other dioceses, and he could not understand why one Right Rev. Prelate could not perform without difficulty or inconvenience the same duties as another Right Rev. Prelate, whose diocese happened to be in another :\ i'. TILE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, MAY 3, 1845. part of the country. He could not, either, see how any coin plaint could be made to the taking away of of u Bishop, when there were other persons appointed to perfeeter.his duties. On the whole, he thought he had said suffi,Vent a convince their Lordships that there was no necessicy for tt.he measure of the Noble Earl, and he should, therefore, move as an amendment that it be read a second time that day six months. The Bishop of BANGOR implored the House to listen to the petition of the people of Wales, and the majority of the people of England, and not to create a union of the two sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. It would greatly inconvenience him self and his Right Rev. Friend the Bishop of St. Asaph, with out either benefiting the clergy or the population of the two dioceses. The Noble Duke, in treating this question, seemed to consider it a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, and dwelt upon the money-saving which would result to the two dioceses if a union were effected; but the question, in his opi nion, and in the opinion of the clergy and people of Wales, assumed a higher and more important character. It was cer tainly with them riot a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, but a question bearing upon the spiritual wants of the princi pality. The people of Wales looked upon the union as a step towards reducing the means afforded them of spiritual instruction, and it was upon that ground, and that ground alone, that they supported the measure which the Noble Earl had submitted to their Lordships. The office he filled, he could assure their Lord hips, was antthing but a sinecure. He believed there were no sinecure tithes or livings in the diocese of St. Asaph, from which his F. ight Rs verend Frieetl, who was not then present, derived any he.,efit. With regard to the see of Man chester, he could - see no difficulty in providing funds for its. support. Whether well or ill endowed, whether rectories, vicarages, or curacies, it was the desire of the people that the sees should remain as they are; and as long as they entertain a hope that they shall not be amalgamated, they will persevere in every exertion to prevent what they conceive to be a mis fortune. Whatever might be the opinions of their Lordships, he hoped that they would not be drawn away by the eloquence and the arguments with which the Noble Lord on the Wool• sack was accustomed to delight their Lordships. He would now conclude by recommending the petitions and the feelings and the inserests of these people to their consideration. The Earl of WINCHILSEA felt that it was necessary to call the emphatic attention of their Lordships to the course which they were now pursuing. There was no axiom more true or which, as Christian legislators, they were called upon to attend to, than that they should not follow any course whirls was in itself evil, in order to produce what was in itself good, for he was confident that if any good did apparently arise, it would in the end turn to mischief. What was the case ? Why. regard to the distance of the bishop from his fleck the fact was, there was a railroad absolutely now forming which would pass through both the towns of St. Asaph and Bangor, and would bring them as near to each other as Liverpool and Manchester. He felt deeply the indul• genes of the House for his long trespass upon its patience at that late hour of the night, but he did feel this to be a great and an important question, and that it was absolutely necessary for the equalisation of the spiritual duties of the country, that it should be carried. If they would allow this business to be worked by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If they would allow them to undo the evils of former days, if they vreuld allow the Church to assert its own rights, and not raise the question ' of the spiritual ur political superintendence of the Church, they would be best serving the interests of that Church. He felt that this was a question purely of principle, and, if it were not, he would with pleasure have voted for the Bill of the Noble Lord ( Earl Powis), but he felt bound to give it his most de ; 1 cided, but most conscientious, opposition. The Bishop of St• DAVID'S would have felt considerable reluctance to rise on any ordinary occasion, bat he was anxious to clear up some little difficulty which had been thrown on the question, and the more so as he thought the vestion had assumed a new phase since he last addressed them. The Noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed that any one advocated this question on any other grounds than those which it could prefer a, being a part of the Church of England. No such idea as that had ever existed in the mind of arty individual. But yet the Church of Wales heti its rights and its privile -- es, and if the Calves Martins of Perth aria the Curragh of KiPare could put in their claims to consideration, the Church of Wales had alto an equal right to the protection of the Government. The Constitution did not recognise that any one individual of the community should be sacrificed, much less such important interests as these under consideratien. The inhabitants of Wales in this matter, as in many others, considered they had been overlooked and neglected. This was a strong reason why their Lordships ought to be case ions in dealing with such a question. He did conceive .t his duty, knee nig these feelings, to call upon their Lordships to give their assent to the Bill be fore the House. He admitted that in the measures founded on the first report of the Ecclesiastical Cammissioners, it might be supposed that a benefit was proposed to be conferred on the Church of Wales; but chat could they think of this Commis sion, in their second report, which deprived _ North Wales of one of her dioceses, and took its revenues and applied them to support the general chusch funds ? Since he last ad dressed the House the s t ate of the question was much changed, as it was admitted, on the other side of the House, that the law needed amendment, and that there was an injus tice which required to be redressed. He d i d admit the great want of spiritual instruction in North Wales, and that if the surplus funds to be disposed of were applied to improve that spiritual instruction, great good.might result from the mode in which it was to be effected. Ile considered the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley ), consummate as it was in ability, a tissue of falsehoods from. beginning to end, having no other intention than to divert the attention of their Lordships from the real merits of the ,piestinn. That Noble Lord had endea voured to impress on their Lordships' minds that in consenting to the Noble Lord's (Lord Powis's) Bill they would be up setting ail that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had done. He (the Bishop of St. David's) admitted the great good that that Commission had done, but so far from the present Bill frustrating the labours of that Commission it would carry them out in the most efficient manner. The measure of the Noble Lord, so far from running counter to the report of the Commission, carried out and confirmed that report in its most material spirit and recommendations lie sincerely believed that all that had been said respecting the revenues and super fieies of North Wales would not bear cut the Noble Lord ( Stanley) in the general statements lie had made respecting the resources of the church in that district. This was not a question whether it was more to the benefit of the Church that she should retain her surplus revenues for the use of the dioceses in North Wales, or apply those sur plus revenues to the spiritual instruction of populous districts in other parts of tho kingdom.—( Hear. ) He would beg to draw their attention to two or three points, which he thought likely to make their Lordships think less of the evils which tne Noble Lord had pointed out as likely to re sult from the adoption of this Bill. First, he would ask them, if the principle which they proposed to carry out with respect to the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor, had worked well when reduced to practice on other occasions. He denied that it did, but on the contrary had proved most pernicisus to the interests of the Church.—(Loud cries of " Question, ques tion," amid which the Right Rev. Prelate sat down. ) The Bishop of LONDON felt a deeply-rooted conviction, which the experience of every year strengthened, that they were bound to increase the number of bishoprics, and he thought that if he had the Noble Isere: ( Stanley) as his coad jutor for one mouth, he had no doubt of being able to convince him not only of the desirableness, but of the necessity of in creasing the number of bishops.—( Hear, hear.) He should not have touched upon that part of the subject had nut the line of argument used by the Noble Lord imposed upon him the necessity of doing so. He could not consistently with the opinions he entertained object to the Noble Earl's motion, but, from the peculiar position in which he stood, he would abstain from voting altogether. The Earl of FITZ WILLIAM hoped that the language in which the Noble Lord had so beautifully clothed his sentiments, would not dazzle their Lordships, or induce them to lose sight of the argument which formed the burden of his speech. The Noble Lord says you must not add to the number of bishops ; but if the Noble Lord had been a short time in the position which the Bishop had desired—coadjutor over a population of I,Boo,ooo—he did not consider that the Noble Lord would talk of any reduction in the number of 131shmes.—( Hear, heal - . ) Lord LYTTELTON thonght that, with the number of souls over which the Bishops had superintendence, instead of a reduction in their number, that snore of them were re quired.—( Hear, hear.) The Earl of CA RNA RYON said that after what had fallen from the Noble Lord (Earl Fitzwilliarn) and the Right Rev. Prelates (the Bishops of St. David's and London) he could see no sufficient reason why they should resist the strong cur rent of public opinion which had set in in favour of this mea sure. The almost universal feeling of the clergy of Wales, and the all but unanimous sympathy of the laity, afforded a great reason for carrying nut the measure before the House ; and he did not see any reason to apprehend any of that dor mant hostility to the Church which was threatened on the in troduction of a new Bishop into that House. When he recol lected the great disparity which hart arisen between the temporal and the spiritual Peers, since the re volution, he could not but think that the crea tion of new Bishops would shortly be a necessity. At the time the Ecclesiastical Commissioners made their report and recommended the abolition of one of the Welsh sees, it was apprehended that no funds could be raised for endowing the new see of Manchester, but he was glad to find now, from every side of the House, that there was no similar ground of fear on that account, and he therefore felt assured that had the Commissioners been acquainted with the state of things as they are at present, they never would advise that to which so much allusion had been made. If the measure was not passed it was his impression it would l eaveau impression of wrong on thethe nmuimndhserofefthteheppeeotpitlewtoifs Wales; and when he recollected presented on this subject, and the spirit by which the petioners were a c t ua t e d, h e cou ld no t urn a deaf ear to their prayer. The House then divided, when there appeared : Contents present 63 Proxies Non-Content% Pr0xie5........ that they were called upon to sacrifice the spiritual interests of thousands for the sake of a paltry saving of 15,000/. a year. The Ecclesiastical Commission might perhaps have had no other course than that of recommending the union of these sees at the time their report was made. But now the case Wa widely different. England was gorged with wealth, and it WAS going out with its millions in what he could not but term the most shameful gambling speculation. His Noble Friend had earned to himself that which was beyond all price in these (Ia) a of liberal, or rather he would say, of impious opinions , by stand ing up for those principles on which the greatness of this coun try had been built, and through which alone the spiritual wel fare of the country could he secured. He called upon their Lordships to support his Noble Friend in this Bill, and to dis regard all private opinions, and if it was necessary to stand between the Ministers and the Crown, not to hesitate to show the Crown what was the opinion of the hereditary le gislators on this important Bill. There was no vote which would give him more hearty satisfaction than that which he should give on this occasion, and he earnestly thanked his Noble Friend for his manly and steadfast perseverance in the conduct of this measure. Lord MONTE A GLE felt that he might be considered as deficient in his duty if he did not express his opinion on this measure. The Howe was called upon to look at this question in reference to its efficiency, and in doing so he was bound to inquire into the efficiency of the episcopal superintendence of those sees. In 1805 there had been only 520 dissenting chapels in Wales; in 1810 there were 954, and in 18.32 these were 1,428. This proved that the members of the Church of England was not a majority, as it ought tobe, but a small minoroe Such was the truth, and he was i n d uced to ascribe this inef ficiency to the fact, that the parochial system had been sacrificed to the episcopal system, and the funds had been taken from the parochial clergy to support the bishoprics. If the endowment of these sees could claim, as it was represented, high an tiquity, he should be quite ready to assent to that claim ; but such was not the case, for a great portion of the endowment was altogether of modern date. The four archdeaconries of Anelesea were founded in 1685. The three archdeaconries of Bangor were endowed at the same time ; and others in different parts of the country were endowed in 1710, and others as late as 1813. The endowments of these bishopri c s stood on diffe r ent grounds from those of many of the bishoprics of England. There was now no surplus fund in the Ecclesiastical Commission ; and the question was, not whether they should destroy one of these sees in order to endow the bishopric of Manchester, but what were they to do with the surplus. The Commission who recnin • mended this amalgamation of the two sees had been signed by the metropolitan of all England, by all the Ecclesiastical mem bers of the commission, by the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, by Sir Robert Peel, and by Mr. Watkins W. Wynne.— (" Hear, hear," from Earl Powys.) His Noble Friend cheered at the name of Mr. W. Wynne, but he (Lord Monteagle) attached the greatest weight to the name of Mr. Wynne, not only from his personal weight, but from the great connexion which he had with the principality. He wished to bring under their notice the parochial condition of North Wales, in order to lay its state before their Lordships' consideration. The Noble Lord then read several extracts from documents which he held in his hand, illustrative of the parochial state of North Wales, and showing the necessity of an improvement in the classification and distribution of livings. It had been said that the Noble Duke on the other side (the Duke of Wellington) argued the question as one of pounds, shillings, and pence, hut whether it was so argued or riot, it was the duty of the Government to make the clergymen efficient in the discharge of their duties, by adapt ing their circumstances to the important duties they had to discharge. He looked upon the religious insti•u tions of the country with as much veneration as any of their Lordships could do, but it was one thing to love and respect them, and another to look up to them with superstitious awe and veneration. It was a matter of indifference whether the seat of episcopacy was at Bangor or at St. Asaph, so long as the spiritual interests of the people were properly attended to. If they were to give way to such petitions as these, there would be no calculating the difficulties to which it would lead. Lord BROUGHAM said he was not going to debate the Fill, for he gave his support to it, on the grounds which his Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) had stated, and on the re commendations contained in the Commissioners' Report. The whole question at present was the second reading of the Bill, which he would decidedly oppose, and would vote for the amendment of his Noble Friend. The Bishop of SALISBURY said the Government mea sure for the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph was founded on the Report of 1835 ; but it ought to be recollected that the Commissioners afterwards changed their opinion on the subject, and admitted they had not sufficiently considered the difficulties of the case before making their report. The dean and chapter of Christchurch, Oxford, for instance, possessed the impropriate tithes of seventy parishes, and if the parochial wants of the diocese were great, he did not see why they should not call upon the Legislature to pass an Act to transfer these funds to the wants of the destitute clergy who might happen to be in the diocese. The principle was the same. If they interfered with the arrangements and appro priation of ecclesiastical revenues in Wales, he did not see ivh) any other diocese in England should be exempt from such in terference.—( Hear, hear.) The number of petitions of those who opposed the union of those sees were to be accounted for under the influence of the feeling that if one member of the household suffered all the rest suffered with it.—(llear, hear. ) It was gratifying to see how the Church had under the greatest discouragement from princes and statesmen risen to its present flourishing state. It now numbered twenty-two bishops, and 1,200 clergy, but if this system of interference were tolerated. he could not indulge in the anticipation that this state of things would long continue.—( Hear, hear.) Lord STANLEY opposed the Bill, notwithstanding the re spect he had for the Noble Earl who introduced it.—the high character of the Right Rev. Prelate who had just sat down— and the public support which it had received out of doors. It was not a question to be looked to on local grounds, nor on its temporal bearings, but one which must be regarded as it affected the spiritual interests of the Establishment.—( Hear, hear.) Ile would throw aside all the arguments that might be drawn from the exercise of the Royal prerogative on the subject, and he contended that it was for the good of the sees themselves that this union should take place.---( Hear. ) What were the circumstances under which the Commission of 1834 was appointed ? Previous to that time there was through out a large portion of the community a growing hostility to wards the Church, arising out of a belief that the Church did not properly peform the spiritual duties attached to it, while on the other hand, its enemies were exciting some alarm by pointing to the revenues which the Church received. Now. these were the circumstances under which the Commission of 1834, was appointed. It was made up of venerable and learned men, and after due and deliberate investigation it came to the conclusion that it was advisable that the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph should be made. Now, he begged their Lordships 'to remember that this Commission was appointed by no Government hostile to the Church. The objects of that commission was to make inquiry into the dioceses of England, arid to ascertain the amount of the church revenues. There were other inquiries also, such as cathedral dues, &c., but on that part of the question he would not enter. The object, be it observed, was the equalisation of the revenues en the one hand, and of the duties on the other. How then could it be said that the principle which actuated the commis sion was placed upon an erroneous basis? Well, then, it left only three dioceses untouched, and the commission remo delled or recognized all the other dioceses of the kingdom. The commission certainly recommended the establishment of two new sees, but the funds saved by the union of the two sees of Bangor and St. Asaph were not applied to the establishment of either of them, but to the augmentation of two other Welch bishoprics, namely, Landaff and another. But how could the House complain of the union of those two sees? Did not the Commission alter and disturb the see of Rochester in a similar manner? And were not the sees of Bristol and Gloucester consolidated ? True, they were, and, notwithstanding what had been stated by some Right Rev. Prelates, he could assure their Lordships that the result had proved most satisfactory to the country. Was it wise, then, after these experiments, which had given so much satisfaction, to irritate or unsettle the public mind on this subject ? It was admitted that the alteration u ould not stop here. It was intended hereafter if this measure were carried to make a gradual increase to the number of bishops who occupied seats in that House.—y' no.") Noble Lords might say no, but he told them that such was the opinion out of doors, and he warned their Lordships not to excite an hostility in the country towards the Church, which, if it did not eventually destroy, must moot assuredly prove a very serious injury to the Church. Was it wise then at the present moment to press this measure? Would it not endanger the seats of all the Right Rev. Prelates who held seats in that House? Let them pause then before they took a step which was likely to lead to a result so disastrous, granting that there was a necessity at the present time for augmenting the number of Bishops , which he was not prepared . to do, he should still be inclined to think that the consolidation of the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph ought not to be disturbed. The two united together were 369,450, being very little more than half the average of the whole of the dioceses, which was 558,000 souls. The number of benefices was 262, but this was not a fair average, because the poolation in these two benefices was not all equal to the population of benefices of other dioceses. One half of the population, too, of these benefices, it should be remembered, were Dissenters from the Established Church. He should like, then, to see any Noble Lord arguing for the division of the two sees, and the retention of Exeter or of Lin coln as one diocese. Whether it was from the want of suffi cient episcopal superintendence, or other causes, the labours of the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor were lighter than those of almost all the other dioceses in the coentry. He quite agreed in what fell from a Noble Lord the other night, that they could not separate Wales from England, but that they must consider the two countries as identical; and he should conceive that the best mode of distributing the whole of the episcopal staff of the whole country, so as to equalise the d ir i h i a t a i nl e e s si a .t nd the revenues of all the sees. If the principle were to be ad og o u p oid t t e . d losl o et f considering the two countries as separate, i,4sfund,Throwingthat mthinoetrroee appeared,th f r i o t m thegained, statements t f e o m r e N n Ar t a s l Wales gavet,he eccle siastical more th w i a s s th in c rec tories, which gave 4,0001., into , i t nt 7 o s t 6 h o e i c . om a zo t n he fund, there would favour r ue o s f of W t a h l e es si a ne b c a u la r n e ceof be a gain of 8,`.1801. an application to the public fund ' for '3,ooo'rnasoree.venW7h Majority against the Bill ....... ; .. 32 Their Lordships then adjourned. (HOUSE OF COMMONS. May 2. The SPEAKER , took the chair at Four o'clock. THE DUDDESTON A'D NECHELLS IMPROVE- AIENT (No. 2) BILL. This Bill, on the motion of Alr. SPOONER, was read a second time, after a few words of opposition from Mr. Muntz. RAILWAY COMMITTEES. During the time of private business, Mr. APGEACHY, who formed one of the Committee on Group X, stated that since the morning he had ascertained that he had a pecuniary interest in one of the railways of the group on which he sat, and he therefore beggt d to be excused any further attendance on the Comm i ttee . The Hon. Gentleman was accordingly dis chag RAILWAY.sri; Sir G. GREY ed a considerable C and r ß t: No e r r ‘dv a Ac t LL e n EL d m a r NceTs presented numberred from of petitions an CORNWALL in favour of the Corn wa ll an d D evon Railway Bill. BRISTOL AND DORCHESTER RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. AIU.NDY, this Bill was read a first time. HARROGATE RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. BOWES, thib Bill was read a second ime. potitiona ag a i ns t t hi s Bill. NEILSTON DIRECT DEP TFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL . GL M A r. RAILIk AY. s G B A O R W N , E B B A Y R p R t• H e n A t eDa This Bill was read a second time. BRIS TOL AND EXETER RAILWAY. On the motion that this Bill be read a second time, Mr. G. BAN KES said that he would take that opportunity of presenting a petition from Lady Georgiana Fane, and others, arid from several of her tenants, against the passing of this Bill. He believed that this Bill was iu a peculiar po sition. It had been taken into consideration by the Com mittee previous to the second reading. It was certainly an anomaly in the proceedings of Parliament, that the principle in the details of a Bill should be decided upon before it had been approved upon by the House at large. He should there fore beg the especial consideration of the House to the petition which he had now to present, which prayed that the petitoner might be heard before the Committee personally of by counsel. The SPEAKER said that the plan which the Hon. Mem ber ought to adopt would be to move for the reference of the petitions to the Select Committee. There would be three clear days before the Ist of June, between the decision of the Committee and the consideration of the Bill in the House. Mr. BAN KES acted on this suggestion, and the petitions were referred to the Select Committee. —{ It will be recollected by our readers, that in our report of the proceedings tf the Se lect Committee on the Bristol and Exeter Railway Bill it was stated by Mr. Merrewether, Counsel for some of the petitioners against the Bill, that the Bill had not been read a second time in the House of Commons, and that the Committee were competent to take evidence in favour or against the Bill, though they were un able to exclude the prayer of any petitioner, and of course to decide on the preamble. The Cha irman, the Ho nourable J. 11. Liddell, and the Committee, taking this view of the matter, the further consideration of the preamble was deferred in order that the Bill might be read a second time in the Commons, and that they might proceed legitimately to the consideration of its'merits AIAYNOOTH. Colonel Conolly, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Broadley, Lord North land, and other Hon. Members, presented petitions against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY presented a petition from the parish of St. George's, Southwark, signed by 600 persons, against the Maynooth grant. Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions against the proposed, or any grant to Maynooth, from places in the counties of Cum. berland, Essex, Gloucester, and from the counties of Down, Gott, and Done al, in Ireland. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. Sir It. INGLIS presented a petition from a large number of persons in Shropshire against the Jewish Disabilities Bill. UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition f rom the Chancellor and Member s o f th e University of Oxford, praying that no alteration might he made in their Act. Sir J. TROLLOPE prose , ted a petition from Holbeach, in Lincolnshire, p r ayi n g for a change in the Insolvent Debtors' Bill, with a view to the better recovery of debts under 2 1.; also several petitions against the grant to Maynooth. Colonel ACTON presented a petition from the parish of Shillelagh—(Laughter)—in the county of Wicklow, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. FERRAND presented petitions from vari o us parts of England and Ireland against the grant. Mr. HAMILTON presented twenty petitions from various places in Ireland against the grant. Mr. DIVETT presented similar petitions from Exeter. Mr. BRIGHT presented thirteen petitions against the grant. Lord RENDLESHAM presented similar petitions from Suffolk. Colonel SIBTHORP presented a number of petitions from Wales to the same effect. t ac t i t n against t i3 h g h r ad a n t be t to nMayn forcedo o t Mr. DUNCOAIBE presented a petition from Carlisle ill tpheeti House e s complained against the h th • relughe voice of the country ; also several petitions, praying that the semination of error. That was not a temporary excitement, it arrestment of wages should be done away with. was a deep-seated feeling, likely to last for some considerable Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition from Ferfarshire I time. He would vent tire to say tort that feeling would not be against the grant to Maynooth, extinct at the period of the text election ; and his own opinion Mr. GODSON presented a petition from eeriain turnpike was, that if the Hou-e forced through this measure now, and road trustees, praying to be heard by counsel against the Berks made it law, it would be swept out of the statute-book before and Hampshire Railway. the ne w Parliament had long commence:l its labour.--(" Hear, NEW ZEALAND. hear," and ironical cheering.) What was the language of the Sir R. INGLIS said, that notwithstanding that he had Irish hierarchy? They thought the boon a centemottble one, seen that certain communications had taken p lace between and he would q uote the language of Mr. t t'thinnell to thew her Majesty's Government and the authorities of New Zea- the estimation in which he hole: it. ( The Hon. Gentleman land upon the subject of a notice that an Hon. Member had then read the letter of .11r. hinnell, dated the loth of upon the paper, which bad induced that Hon. Member to , April, accepting the ievitetimi to a public dinner at Cork. ) withdraw that notice, still, seeing that Right lion. Gentleman It was evident fmu that letter that the Finn. and Learned the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, he would Member for Cork st as d termined on seeking for repeal, and put to him, now in public, a question he had preeieusly asked would make use of every concession that that House might him in private, namely, whether the communiemit re that had ; make to further his ate-es. Ile ri .:rated being obliged taken place were of such a nature as to alter the posittorr pose the Right Hen. Gentlemen below him, but he felt it a the missionaries of that colony with this country; and also duty to do so. He opposed the measure before, he opposed it the position of the natives of the colony and the New Zealand 1 that night, end he would o f pose it to the end. He felt it a duty Company with this country, and that of those parties with each which he owed to the Protestants of that count' y, meet solemnly other? and earnestly to protest r.gaiost the tneasure.—(‘• Hear, Lear,' Mr. HOPE said he felt it necess ar y to g ive some explana- and cries of " Divide, divitie.") Con with respect to what had passed last night. He d d not I The SPEAKER asked the Hon. 'Member for Ashton-under pretend to say what had passed between the Noble Lord under Lyue what were the terms of les motion ? whom he served and the Hon. Member for Liskeard. In the Mr. HINDL EY —I :nom- that you, Sir, do leave the chair first place, the withdrawal of the notice of the Honourable this dry six month.—( Nhouts of laughter ) Member was wholly unsolicited on the yea of her Celouel BT ORP secended the motion. Majesty's Goternment, who were about to justify their Colonel VERNER rose, amidst li.ud cries of "Divi'!e, conduct with respect to the missionaries. Freon the manner in divide." He said he regretted that the Right Hon. Gentle which it reached the press, it would appear that the measure man had not taken time to collect the opinion of the Prwestiirits was more fully before the Government than was the case. lof this c-un'ry before he pr Reed the present measuni. Ile The fact was this, that the Noble Lord at the head of the Moto, hoped the Right lion. Baron , t would give the country an op nial Department heard from the New Zealand Company that- port undy expreeing their real sentiments upon this measure. an arrangement would he submitted to lion for Mr. It DDIN GT( Ohl solid titan as the Gallant :eel had his consideration. He answered that whenever auch an chosen to speak for the Protestants ef Inland, he (Mr. Red arrangement should be teoposed in a proper manner, he dingtnit). although a Roman Catiitle, must erotest against his world give it his consideration. No such alteration had yet been deelatatien as exer song the "pinion of the people ' -f Ireland. made or decided on with respect to the New Zealand Come In the die net in which he resided, there were several Con pany. He Fhoul(!, however, state that there was no compru- servatives who were in fsvour of and petitioned for the mea mise whatever on the part of her Majesty's Government. sure—( Hear, hear)—and the wish of these gentlemen was that In answer to a question put by Lord DUNCAN, further remedial measures might he introduced. Sir R. PEEL said that his Noble Friend at the head of the Sir R. PEEL said that whatever the opinions of individual Commisston of the Woods and Forests had a Bill in prepare- Members might be, he did not thick it was the wish of any tion containing certain salutary regulations. He wished the party to divide on this occasion —(Cries of " Hear, Noble Lord would postpone his question until the resuming of hear.") The general understanding was that they would go business after Whitsuntide. into Committee ri the Bill to-night and report progress. He THE BRAZILS. hoped flea the lion. Member for Kent would not thirds Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he saw in the public papers he was guilty of any disrespect in declining to accede to his a statement that the Brazilian Government had recommended proposition.—( Hear.) He felt bound to say that, with great the Brazilian merchants to impose 20 per cent. on cotton goods, respect to the Hon Member, he was firmly determined to as long as their sugar was distinguished in duty from other persevere with his Bill.—(Bear. ) He had postponed the de colonial sugars. His question to the Right Hon. Gentleman bate on the Bill until Friday, because the Right Hon. Gen was, whether the Government had received any communica- denten the Member for Oxford, and other Hon. Members, tion on this subject, asd whether such information affirmed thought that the measure could not be properly discussed or denied the statement? if it had net been postponed to that day. The Protestants of Sir R. PEEL raid he felt confident that no efficial information Ireland were, he believed, in favour of the measure, and he had been received on the subject to which the bight Hon. Gen- was justified in saying that it would engender kindly tleman referred. 'lf the Right Hon. Gentleman had given him Hear, he.-,r.) He did not say that the notice of the question, he would have been prepared to answer whole Protestant body were in favour of the measure. it ; but, as far as he knew, no such official information had been He held in his hand a declaration signed by the Protestant and received. Roman Catholic inhabitants of the county of Galway—that HOLYHEAD HARBOUR AND RAILWAY. declaration stated that the undei signed had heard with greet Mr. HUME put a question (as we understood it) relative satisfaction of the proposition of her Majesty's Government, to the sale of Holyhead Harbour for railway purposes. Folk- for increasing the annual grant voted by Parliament to the stone Harbour had been sold, and he feared that all the liar- Royal College of Maynooth, and that they felt the measure hours would eventually rivet the same fate. was calculated to improve the social condition of the Reman Mr. YORKE replied that he thought the question a proper Catholic clergy in Ireland, and therefore to improve the soeial one, and would have the informality erased from th e Bill. condition of the country. This declaration was signed by Mr. COLLETT wished to ask the Right lion. Gentleman, thirty-four magistrates, Protestaat and Roman Catholic, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting a motion which several of the clergy , Vea4ed by the Roman Catholic Bishop— stood on the book for that day. The Right Honourable Gen- it was signed by Mr. Daly, and by several Protestant pro tleman intended to add the name of Mr. Milues Gaskell to the prietors—in fact, by the principal Protestant proprietors of the five members already named, as a Committee on the Chester county. In fact, among the proprietors, who were chiefly Pro and Holyhead Railway ; did he mean that the Committee testants, there existed, he would not say an universal, but should consist of six members, or that Mr. Gaskell should be certainly a very general sentiment of approval of the measure substituted for another Honourable Member ? which had been proposed by her Majesty's Government. He The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said lie did was perfectly justified in saying that in treland there was not intend to persevere in the motion. much less opposition manifested on the part of the Church and SCOTCH BANKING, AND SCOTCH POOR-LAWS. the Presbyterians of than country than in Fngland. He Mr. FOX MAULE wished to know when the second would not set the example of entering into a discussion of reading would take place of the Scottish Banking Bill , and the princip l e s of the Bill, bat he would still retain the o p inion the Scottish Poor-law Bill ? which he had already expressed. Sir ROBERT PEEL said it would be necessary to take Lord J. RUSSELL asked if it was the intention of his some votes of supply on Monday, but he hoped to move the Hon. Friend. and these who acted with him, to take a division second reading of those Bills before the holidays. on every part of the Bill in Committee; and, if so, he would SCHISM IN THE CHURCH. be glad if he stated what parts of the Bill they were? Mr. MANGLES said be had a petition to present respecting Sir R. INGLIS said that he was not aware of any intention the difference which had lately occurred amongst the clergy of on the part of any Members to take the sense of the House on the Church of England. He understood that it was Lot any other clauses than those to which amendments were con competent for him to present this petition, but he wished to templated by his Hon. Friend (Mr O'Brien) and the Hon. found aquestion upon it. The petitioners deeply regretted the Member for Hull (Mr. Hemmer ). He felt that having been strife ants discord which at present existed in the Church of indulged by the House for a considerable length of time, n England, in consequence of an attempt to revive obso- former occasions, on the pi inciples of the 4111, it would nut be lute ceremonies. They stated that the di-putea had right for him to take up their attention a third time. arisen in consequence of conscientious scruples entertained by Sir ABR 10K E that though he should be sorry to both parties. Many of the clergy of the country considered intrude himself on the House, yet he wished to say that, in the it their duty to revive certain ceremonies, and wear certain north of Engiand, there was no distinction between the Roman dresses which had not been in use in those parts of sae country Catholics and Protestants. Piey enjoyed one advantage On the other hand, the parishioners said that neither she other parts of Ireland could not boast of, for they were not nor their fathers were accustomed to these ceremonies, and cursed with th agitation which the south of Ireland had been they strongly and strenuously objected to their introduction. convulsed with ; and as keg as they continued so, the same The result had been that a great deal of bad feeling had been kind foaling would exist bet ween the Roman Catholics and Pro created. • 'lhe petitioners prayed that some measure testants in the north of England. It was his anxious wish that might be introduced to restore harmony. The question a sound and liberal education should be extended to all classes, he wished to put was, whether it was the intention of her but as the constitution of this country was founded on Protes- Majesty's Government, either by Act of Parliament, or by tent principles, he did not see how the Government could con means of the dignitaries of the Church, to take any measures sistently with those principles maintain an establishment at to set these disputed points at rest? Maynooth for the purl tne of propagating the Roman Ca.holic Sir ROBERT PEEL—I do recollect, Sir, that the Hon. religion, The education there must have a tendency to narrow Gentleman, several days since, mentioned this subject. I and contract the mind, and to cultivate the 'nest intolerant am not prepared to give an assurance with respect to any in- notions of the infallibility of the Roman Catholic doctrines. terference on the part of the Executive Government with re- Upon these grounds he opposed the measure. spect to the matter to which the Hon. Gentleman has referred. The House then divided : In answer to a question from an Hon. MEMBER on the For going into Committee l6O Opposition side of the House, For Mr. Hindley's amendment 52 Mr. MACKINNON said that in answer to the question Majority for going into Committee put by the Hen. Member, as to whether he i ntended to brine The House then went into on the Bill. forward his measure relative to interment in towns, he had Co On the proposal of the first clause, say that, after the assurance given him by the Right Hon. Sir R. INGLIS submitted as an amendment to the first Baronet at the head of the Government, that a similar men- clause, which created the perpetual incorporation of thetrustees sure would be brought. forward at an after period, he should of the College of Maynooth, that the power vested in the postpone it: He would rather that the Bill were brought in trustees might be placed in the hands tif that body which had by the Government than by a private individual, and under been created by the Act of last session, namely, the Charitable these circumstances he should postpone the bringing forward of Bequests Act. He would leave it to her Majesty's Govern his measure. ment to consider whether they would accede to that amend ment, but he would not give the House the trouble of dividing on it. Sir R. FEEL said that he should inform his Right Hon. Friend that he could not acquiesce with his propesition, for he (Sir R. Inglis) did not propose that the endowment should less, but merely proposed that those employed to regulate Cat endowment should be the parsons who were lately employed under the Charitable Bequests Act. The reason he differed from his Right Hon Friend was, because he apprehended that the duties of the trustees of the Charitable Bequests Bill, and those under the Maynooth Bill were not such as would war rant their identification. His great arid principal objection to the adoption of this course was, that the adoption of sueh a measure would be an unworthy and underhand implication of suspicion.—( Hear, hear ) He found, upon reference to cer tain documents, that the trustees of the College of Maynooth, appointed by the Irish Parliament, had been confirmed by the Imperial Legislature.—( Hear, hear.) Nay, more, he found that the Irish Lord Chancellor, and the Master of the Hells, who, under the Irish Act, held the offices of Directors of the College, were removed by the English Parliament, and placed in the position of Visitors merely, and the board of superin tendenet made exclusively Catholic, On those grounds, then, he should say, that he could not be induced to assent to this amendment. The question was then put oe the amendment, and negae Lived without a division. Two other clauses were then agreed to without opposition. Upon reading the next clause, that in reference to the mort main laws, Sir JOHN HANMER rose to move the omission of the words which limit the trustees of Maynooth College in taking any real property with which it may be desired voluntarily to endow them. The reason he moved this amendment was because he was unwilling to see the Government burthening itself with those troublesome obsolete ecclesiastical laws. ( Hear, hear.) He could see no reason why the Roman Ca tholics should be deterred from pursuing their own system of education, by those shadows of old feudal laws, known by the name of the laws of inert:nein. The Hon. Baronet then re ferred to the statutes of mortmain, passed in the reigns of Richard 11., Henry VIII . Charles 1., and George 11., and contended that none of the provisions of those statutes ap plied to Ireland, and said he could not concur in the pro visions of the clause retaining those of mortmain. He had promised that he would not detain the House by entering on the general policy of the Bill; but he thought till. was such an important question that it warranted his calling the at tention of the House to it Mr. T. B. C. n; MITH said. that the Honourable Member for Hull had ennewhat misrepresented the sta tute as it at present stottd, for by the Ist and 2d of Geo. 111. the Government were empowered to dispense with the law of mortmein. He admitted the fact as stated by his Honourable Friend ( Sir J. Hanmer ) that a men might sell a whole town ship and bequeath the ineney to the College of Maynoo h. It might be so, but the Hon. Member must he aware that property in land and sums in money were very different things. The cases did not afford a parallel. If a particular circum stanee required the setting aside of that writ, all that was re quired of the Roman Catholic College, was to make out a case to the Government, which would exercise its discretion as to whether they would be allowed to exceed the limitations fixed by statute. By sueh means they might be allowed to obtain arid to hold an unlimited amount of property. On these grounds, and seeing no necessity for the amendment of the Honourable Member, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. Mr. HINDLEY hoped that the Hoe, Member would not divide the House upon it. Lord J. MANNERS could have wished that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland had given some reason for limiting the amount of landed property to the College of Maynooth to 3,004. lie could not see the prin ciple on which this restriction was based, neithsr could h • un derstand why there should be a fixed standard at all. He thought that as Oxford and Cambridge were unfettered by this law, Maynooth should be just as liberally dealt with. He would give his willing support to the amendment of his Hon. Friend. Mr. ROEBUCK, in a few words, which were almost in audible, opposed the amendment. Sir R. H. ISGLIS was of opinion that the existing ad vantage of the Church of Ireland should not be interfered with. In this opinion he was opposed by his Hon. Friend, who hail no desire to exclude his Catholic fellow-subjects from those ad vantages. The universities of England were surely entitled to the preference, they being the nurseries of Protestantism. He did net hold maintaining the Church in the same sense as the Right Hon. Baronet, for he ( Sir R. H. Inglis) held that maintaining the United Church of England and Ireland meant mintainitig it in all its endowments, and in all its privileges. He should oppose the amendment. Sir R. PEEL hoped that he would be allowed to trouble the House with one or two words on this subject. An Hon. Mem ber had asked him whether he should prefer that the College of Maynooth should be gifted with land or motley. As a mere matter of policy he (Sir H. Peel) should considerably prefer the latter. He thought that as there must be some limit 3,0(101. a year was a fair one. He did not propose 3,000/. because of any jealousy to Maynooth, but he thought it right to see how that sum should be managed, and if that sum were well-managed, the Crown could extend the power of holding more. He thought that the question relating to the statute of mortmain would be more conveniently dealt with at a future period. Mr. REDINGTON said he would oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Hull, not because he was riot of opinion that Roman Catholics should be left unfettered to leave landed property to Maynooth, if they thought fit, but because those who were most interested in the present grant did not wish that question to he introduced incidentally. • Lord POLLINGTON said he voted against the measure, but he would vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Hull, on the ground of leaving the Roman Catholics at perfect liberty to endow a College for themselves. After a few words from Sir R INGLIS, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said that he would vote for the Hon. Member for Hull, on the ground that there should be no obstacle to endowments upon the voluntary principle. Sir J. HANMER replied. He could not well see the reason of the Right Hon Baronet objecting to his proposal, after hav ing voted for and carried the Charitable Bequests Act last year. No great evils had befallen the State by reason of the endow ments of Cambridge and Oxford, which had risen to their pre sent greatness in consequence of voluntary endowments. Any person who travelled through the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, or in the Peninsula, must be aware that the lands in the hands of the monasteries were much better culti vated than the lands which were held by lay persons. Lord CLIVE would support the motion of t he Hon. Nlein" 'm oth ber for Hull. He thought that as the Co lle g e of Alay could hold land imlir.Jctly, by means of the inte rvention of trustees, it would be much better if it were allowed to hold it direeCy.—( H, hear. The gallery ear ) was then cleared for a division, but none took place, the amendment having h-en withdrawn. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN moved the sutstitution of the word " thirty" for the w. th r e e " clause. He thought that his tont-ton was different f, om that of the tins. Mernh.r for Hull. He wished to give the Rom an Catholics of I eland an opportunity of acting on the vttlore ar Y principle, which they seemed to approve of. He did not agree tv;th the Hon. Member for Montrese, that his motion, a.detd. •• !rad ,r-ie . ff - .n mit of don'ts. Mr. HUME recommended the withdrawal in th e 31d line of the 2d mrnt, because it would excite unnecessary alarm. Beth ought thepuhlic had ~.lroarly g r ea tly the nature a he Rill. Sir R. INGLIS' thought the Hon. Member was nutidd : in g oven the Government, an ' would not there ore soPlvr t ban. He th,tight the Hon. Member would at once withdrew the the clause and allow them to proceed to the consideration of of the areenfi ot'rer claus e . SMYTFIE thnueht it. was very absurd in a State to tolerate and even to rocegni. , e rebgion, and yet proscribe gioos munifi , eneo and lim.t its extent. —( Hear.) fter a few words from fir. I) NI: BY, Mr. HUME said he had been quite misunderst,,od. If Hoe. Gentiem, , ,, asked him what he would do if lie had the poWekti of remodelling the three k•ngdorn. s, he did not think he %gl u t he hound to tell thero—( A laugh )—they v ‘'re there toleg is : a upon a particular subi , ct. Some we-e ro,-re alarmed t h e , Pretended increase of Po-ery—he e,e , tessed he tit no of at nil on the subject. Some Hon Members had spa" °C wan of gratitud, .be the part 6f the Irish t,;(c he did no. think the Irish people could be expected to go down erm A th h e ti l knees and thank 'hem 'or so small a fa , our. they ha " lie little reason to express grattode for what. had been lollet ithy regretted that more Christian feeling and Ch ristian syra for our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen h ad not been to generally shown. Mr. 110ERUCK wished to know whether the goo. ADM. ber for Nortlrimptoushire would divide the M ll‘use. 'd by r. S. O'BRIN sai, hat atter wht had b e en Sal the Hon. Memb e r d for the t University of a Oxford, he did 11 t think he would. The Hon. Gentleman seeme d to have grea anxiety to 1%-oceed with the Bill. l e gs' Sir R. IT , IGLI a id he intended to give every fair an timate opposition to the measure, but none other.—( n" Mr. P d reminded the House that e ° to Member—that no one or: his side of the House asked hi° withdraw tip amendment. MeW Mr. S. O'BRIEN said he understood what the Hon• the her for Dundalk meant, and would divide t he House 0 0 amendment. Tha ficuse then divided, when there uppeared — For the amendment ............... 33 Against, it Mr. against the amendment Mr. LAW, who had a motion on the paper for OP, t o ,bleo MAYNOOTH. Sir R. PEEL presented petitions from Rochdale, and places n Bedfordshire, in favour of the grant to Maynooth. Mr. H UNIE presented two petitions from Arbroath against the grant to Maynooth. The petitioners regarded all State assistance to religious denominations as unjust, unnecessary, and impolitic, and on that ground they prayed the House not to pass this measure. Mr. Ewart, Mr. Lawson, and Mr. Srnollet presented peti tions against the Bill. Petitions against the grant were presented by Lord Claude Hamilton, by Mr. D'lsraeli, by Mr. Hastie, Captain Pechell, Mr. S. Crawford, Mr. C. Bruce, Colonel Fox, Lord Ebring ton, Mr. Forbes, Sir C. Lemon, and Mr. Denison (Surrey). On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, Mr. HINDLEY said that in rising to object to the Speaker leaving the chair, he was only discharging a painful duty, and one which he undertook individually, without concert with any other Member of that House. He felt great regret that the Government thought it consistent with their duty to go n with the present measure. What was it doing in England ? It was throwing the whole country into convulsions. It would raise the fires of religion, which would not easily be destroyed. —(Laughter.) It would make the next election a polemical arena, where the religion of every man would be taken into consideration. The Right Hon. Baronet must be aware that this measure had excited such dissatisfaction that at least 1,200 individuals had been induced to come up from the coun try, and spend several days in the metropolis, to protest against the measure. As the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Newaik said, the country was against the measure. Let not the House imagine that they were wiser than all Eng land—(Laughter)—or that, because they happened to have secured their seats in Parliament, they were to act in contra diction to the feelings of the people of the whole country. He would repeat it, that nothing could be more opposed to the feelings—or the prejudices, if they would—of the Protestants of England than this measure. He would ask, if this measure had created so much ill-feeling and confusion in England, did it at the same time effect any good in Ireland ? ( Laughter.) He had heard it said that a great deal should be done to conciliate Ireland. He would admit it, and he would be ready to sacrifice everything but principle to do so. But can it be believed that this measure would have that effect ? He denied that it would, and in order to prove his assertion, let him read a letter which had recently appeared in the public prints, from the pen of the Right Reverend Dr. Higgins, a Rcman Ca tholic Bishop in Ireland.—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh," order and laughter, amidst which the Hen. Member attempted to persevere, but he would not be permitted. He then pro ceeded to read extracts from the letter as if he were continuing his speech.) He then went on to say that he did believe that the last week had created a feeling in favour of the repeal of the union in England, and he felt convinced th.t the I iisseetere would rather consent to that measure than that ireired shontd be made prosperous at the expense of England. 11.. wield not trespass further upon the time of the House ; but if any lie... Member would second his proposition, that the Speaker do not leave the Chair for the purpose of going on with this Bill in Committee—(Great laughter)—he would divide the House upon it.—(Hear, hear.) Colonel SIBTHORP said if he could conceive that there would be the least chance of the Hon. Member opposite suc ceeding in his motion he would second it, but he did not think his doing so would have the least effect.—( Laughter.) He had been accustomed to judge of men by their ac'ions, and therefore he should say that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Alajesty's Government had not shown himself a practical Protestant in this instance, for he did not, as he was bound to eo as a Minister of the Crown, use 'his best efforts to uphold the Christian religion. If the measure was so important, why should he delay its third reading until the 19th of May? He would have entertained a better opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet, if he had gone on with it without the slightest delay. How would the Right Hon. Baronet stand with the elections, if he were to dissolve Parlia ment 7—( Hear, hear.) On one of the most important quese tions the Right Hon. Baronet was forced to have recourse to the support of men who were only seeking to undermine him.—(Laughter.) He did not blame them for it, but he did not like truckling.—( Renewed laughter.) Those were days when people thought but of themselves:, but the Right Hon. Gentleman would go anywhere for a friend.— ( Continued laughter.) But why did he not ask the country bow they liked his policy? He came into power on very different professions. He was then for Church and State, and for the agricultural interest. But how would the Right Hon. Baronet be now received in Marti-lane?—( Great laughter.) The first quality in a Minister was consistency. The Right Hon. Gentleman professed himself their protector, supporter, and friend, but he took them in and deceived them. This was only the first of a series of measures which he had in contempla tion. He should say, with deep regret, that he had no con fidence in any party ; he did not know where to look for any thing on which he could ground any hopes for the safety and honour of the country.—( Laughter.) He hoped he had in dependent feeling enough to vote against any men who showed such inconsistency. He should tee very wrongly upon any question that would affect the maintenance of the Protestant Church. They had given their defiance to the opinions and feelings of the people of this country, and if the Minister of the Crown should forget the duties he owed to one with whom he was connected in council and advice, then the sooner that Minister was removed from that situation which lie so badly filled the better. The Right Hon. Gentleman would fied him on that, as on all other occasions upon this question, opposed to him. Mr. PLUMPTRE said, that if the Government were dis posed to force this measure through the House they had it in their power to do so. Out of all the measures which had come under the notice of Parliament, since he had the honour of a seat in that House, he should say that there had been no mea sure, viewed in all itslbearings and probable consequences if it should pass into a law, that he had viewed with so much re pugnance. The movement which had been made by the Go vernment was a most unhappy one. It was unhappy, because if they were now to withdraw this measure, it would cause much agitation in Ireland. But that state of things would net be so unhappy, as would he called into existence by the passing of this Bill. He had always viewed the matter in that light, and whenever he had opposed this grant it was on this ground that he did so, and it was en the same ground that he opposed it still. Those were the grounds on which the people of this country opposed the measure. They distinguished be• tween truth and error, and in that light they viewed it. They protested against error, and they were arranged on the side of truth, and they said in their inward conscience that they could not consent to allow the public money to be used in the dis the 10th and II th clauses, said that the • Bill ens' l trustees to receive any amount of personal prope rt y . and age quantity of landed property. The remaining clauses aesed Bill principally rested on the foundation of t he Conseil en deo Fund. He proposed to negative all the c lauses deP t he upon the Consolidated Fund, but to take no division o n intermediate clauses. On clause 4 being proposed, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that in line She erenkitre; pose an alteration. If they would lock at clause 7, °would provision was made for the Dunboyne students, 84theyfor the en observe that provision was made for attendance , e" w edge se ii students, whereas, in the clause now under the c e ide ot, raticn of the Ilouse, provision was only made for th e preeto was vice-president, princisals, and vice-principals. The sn our limited to 6,0001., which was to be at the disposal of the s eords , tees. It had been suggested to him to add the se lse Whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the c ipal• ries of president, vice-president, principal, and vicViews. in said colleges, and to extend the attendance and othe r 11 sarles tbe supplied for their se." • e sti fer - After o a few words from Mr. o he LAW in approval of the of the amendment, ueut th e Mr. PLUMPTRE said that much had bee n said au; think poverty of the Roman Catholic clergy, but he did nn e seeh that Roman Catholics themselves would admit anl re sof! poverty-they would repudiate the imputation• ExPeenrsilegheat beautiful churches were everywhere building ttiedj on 6 Ireland. In Waterford, 70,000/. had been eaP en • We i cathedral. r Mr. HUME would ask the Honourable Member fe e ces a• why grants were made to the Universities of (Word an erg y ? bridge, to the Protestant Di-centers, and the Scottish then be If the Hon. Gentleman would answer th is q uestion, _ s ot i n ( Mr. Hume) would give the Hon. Gent leman at"- wou ld the question he had asked claw SIBTIIOUP trusted this deteetable allowed to pass.-( Great laughter. ) be F inn. no Mr. WILLIAMS said he had always found that for Member fir Kent was ready to vote money everything except the grant to Nlaynooth. The•vote per to the Bishop of Exeter, for his expenses in visiting, aloe, tion of his diocese-the vote of 11,000/. to the clergl°,loholiese nominations in the colonies-the vote to the Jews' by tbe pp erte" Wesievans, and others in Jamaica-all were su Hon. Member for Kent. - 02 10 ° Mr. WYSE made some observations, which were in the gallery. Oen t • Mr. FERRAND said the Right Honourable s o 0 at the head of the Government had stated that it; p ped;ent , to pass this measte eas a meet iure of t his , to Ireland -w eat had been the result se 0, lied most lavi notiso. Hr. S. O'Br en hail. in the Conciliation, , ":e of 0 , 0 " about an Americen fleet sweeping the Chanoet, fee (ti r e r third of the British army deserting the Quee n l w ould ha Ferranti) trusted that her Majesty's Govern:oer' mosee ilia the decency not. to force this Bill through Ce e n? ; le ki l. night. He believed tint during the Whit'n- enovene general meetings of the constituencies woul d be d to O s° " 1- ledge • e nts• 'Ray Members had come into that House Pe onstiflx that their seats a hen called upon by a majority of we' r e ' s tood Were they ready to redeem that ple d ge? He tten-,`,.is Ras the Hoontir.tble Member otposite (Mr. Start:ol"i pared to do so, ant this did him honour. by a dr„ Mr. ST NSFIELD said he had been waited upon d es, mutation, and he had eerta;.nly stated that he had felt ~Le- -e n e ts .e henoitr to vote according: to his own conscience.--( C' bar He felt that this was a measure of justice to that partd e eery lbjesty'g °minions to which the Bill was applied. 5 '..50 1 t . mainly object , d tie this money being taken from the nf tbe dated Fund, and he had therefore supported the motto` yid Honourable Member tor Sheffield. This motion 0 1 ' 4 e 0 successful, he still felt it to be his duttbere vote for the motion of the Government- ° short , were many other questions asked him. Amongs t g ains; whether he would continue to support this ecieas ur e e o gbt the opinions of his constituents ? Ile said that he thought tbs., his key to attend to the wishes of his constituents, rots e a he had a higher duty, which was to attend to the ~ that,. the whole commons of England.-( Cheers.) ne n- i e sce P„; he were to be forced to vote against his own eon " re port be psi would rather resign.-(Cheers.) He had been say something about resigning. He had said jest t wba o r° 613% stated to the House, that he would prefer reslgn-ng s against his conscientious opinion. wule n : M-. SHAW ebjected upon principle to the en-' • obs n : f his g hat; any Catholic college, and the amount was no Pert (hipk e tion.-( Hear, hear.) At the same time, he did net aler" ra e otri the college itself would be benefited by the g -nt h's 0 ° - so It had been very truly said that the Catholics t his a s c u s p i p h i t., n- h t e e s d tuselvreerlasludcoullueugleds,duantdhehesamtherght that t " ohr - H e W ould oa a il ,,ge to give the Catholics the power of endowing a thems rW elves Y . Lenrn Aleo4 M. SE said that the Right Hon. and ee-ollegee ber spoke as if the Catholics of Ireland supp orted 531,0 y, o"be their own ; whereas they supported a colleg e in lee Wt. in Meath, one in Kilkenny, and one at Carlow• ee ose r ) the fact that they supported colleges at the ir own 41(4e,h.fasi, titled them the more to support from the State. --4 ofi" t ee It was impossible in the present condition of thadequaten Moo nooth that the education of the priests could be bad ti n e je high office they were destined to till. The st ate is Ow upon itself the } support of the college, and the lea st of was to ive a suffieient support. catholOalf Mr.SHAW had not denied the liberal:( yof the 00 0 0 Ireland as regarded the education of thei r educatecl Prlote said the State ought generals to b called upon to „s' 0 4 for them. As for ;he g purposes of a l' bera eel o t the University of Dublin was open equ fl y to C a . - s , sue Protestants, except only the officeis on the fou elate _aa scholars and the fellows. r e ath°; - Mr. REDINGTON said that a , an Irish the 0 1 • he felt the deepest interest in the allege in wa - caiho were to be educated. He denies that ne Roma n ,- -- that 0 1 Ireland des: rued the taunt of the L Aimed itecorn er il e s et ought to support their own college. The Ca tty • a le s- s es late years. built churches out of th, it o ur eilea ns beho l ' e e site riesl those great temples of which their Vied h7,,ester restore had built, and which were new " s e e n e ur e hosth l '' oe' professors of the dominant religion. He hopeo" - the o co hear again such illiberal language even fr° 00_ 1 ,010 • and Learned Recorder. The State bad Cear.ses , tributed a small portion of that of which the . Church had be, n plundered with the sanction ef e serlit e tii and it was time that the contribution should be i nc ;th i t h • e tCh • Sir R. INGLIS protested again-( the language b the Member who spoke la-t, and said that the Elablis of o f ' , n et had olunaered the Roman Catholic with the e• - t,, State. There was much of that kind of language re:101010 doors, but he could not hear it in the House eri e t hn s u t he C nt 0! Mr. WYSE said it gas matter of histery. tri a ,„"olo o ,, s • s pit ° Church was plundered at the period of the Rehi r rilie 1 1 - e o• was it that Church alone that was plundered bu t eot s Oott" ld l a nded proprietors in Ireland were plundered 1 " - a s - ar e 0 011 ; Mr. Ole `ASHY GORE believed that the reeob_de he exceedingly useful. and he could assure the see S f 7 o ol Baronet that he should have his firmest liepPo rt ; by' 0' elle ° • the eight Ho'. Baronet that he was supporteu s a et ie l a 0 ,- religieus testing in the House and out of dog be sirooor Whatever might be the consequences to hiinsei f " su pe r de l the measure his most strenuous and meat religien' bris k frnooftno " eonsidera , ien on earth could induce him to shr.' o f so t oe Oaring the joy which he telt at the announcerner es of 0 00 a measure.-(Chsers.) He respected the feetqr oath who petitioned against the measure, hut _ l d D iet aie et known that t very change for the better h o ' Ge ver e oe bo equally boisterous ypo-ition, and he hoped th, s od w old not he deterred om persevering in the plow coo r e work which they had begun. at ie slstn Mr. 3A‘I ES was anxious to state the fact t hat , Legt , ot er which he had la' sly visited, Belgium, the tath' e ll ef ) os Fr t oo of that country granted a handsome stipend to ee or the tant clergymen in that country. In Brussels ther e t, . L o 7i t er clergymen, who had salaries from the Govern, son pe siv t were several others similarly supported in de d ih e esigh, towns. He was sorry that circumstances prectu t he beity of being present to vote for the naeaeuret;io, of .5 " Hon. Baronet. He would now take the oPPnr, es,efieltr cordially giving his suppo . t in favour of the gran" The chase was then agreed to. s tifle On clause 5 being proposed, the Mr. COLLETT wished to know what w as _ floe' which the Dunboyne students were to receive 7 that thee' Sir R PEEL said that it was their intentional. the y boyn students were to receive 651. each per all 7 , Wer e This clause, together with clauses 6 a n t t oo agreed to. w uSir in . t r ts A cl l s l u A se ll , l u s h ai i d uh tl r i e a l t ate h d e t u w t a h s e d a t r a ° , l l l ola it ] 9 ; ,: sh °f o llthl ; students. He wished that the words " profe ss W be put befo -e the word " students." against the , A te Colonel SIBTHORP said that he was , he cow; Bill from beginning to end. He would do " a _uobter., does Members to throw it out altogetber.---(l' a D The clause, as amended, was agreed to. " , to. Clauses 9, 12, 13, and 14 , were then agre e trod 0 On clause 15 being proposed fed to the `',it' Gt t Mr. PLUMPTRE said that as it rela e` o th v e er u t l h as e s e h d u cuc k a s ti w o h n iu p h ur w su er e e d u a s t e t d he th clan ° to of t his Clause 15 was then put and agreed ty po' Before clause 17 being read, clause being read, to state, in reyly to the Hoe nosfr b e e it s tet Mr. WYSE said he would take the oPP n a rt f u e n roh er a eP ere. r site, that " Denn's Theologs' was not no t r aisa te t; t o , IP been read, at Maynooth College. lie would m a ynee t _jipe Cer ceroel.lege, he wool 16 ' w lr as e whatever. And now, having said this, he ,g age h . ° • oh' erroneous nd,ur in so that y oth e the k in P g o d p u e m uE u exercisedrure y ,t;eltOo rki: t . abte:ou iti , i a n dd u it s i e on a , t t t h h a e t t u t e n i w v e o r u s l t i ie u s u d i:4 e r t t h a k i se ctoouraCtardy: j° viSpitelY IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 110 USE OF LORDS, May 2. The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Five o'clock. Messengers from the Commons brought up certain Bills. The Earl of ROSEBERRY presented several petitions from different places in Scotland against the Maynooth Bill. Ile did not concur in the prayers of those petitions. FRESH-WATER FISHERIES (SCOTLAND.) The NOBLE EARL also presented a petition in favour of the Bill for the protection of fresh-water fish in the rivers of Scot land. The Noble Earl gave notice that on Monday he should draw the attention of their Lordships to the report of the Com mittee on the subject. W BANKRUPTCY BILL. Lord: CAMPBELL presented a petition from Boston, praying for a revision of the clause in the Act of last session which did away with imprisonment for debts under 201. ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. Several petitions were presented praying for a repeal of the Act for the union of the Dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. MAYNOOTH. The Bishop of SALISBURY presented several petitions against the Maynooth Bill. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S had two petitions to present. on the subject of the ad(iitienal graet to Maynooth, the prayer of which differed from that of many of the petitions which had been presented on the subject. Toe petitioners were in favour of the grant. They were both from the borough of Carmar then, and were signed by the Mayor, Aldermen, mem bers of the Town Council, and in fact by almost ail the respectable inhabitants of the borough. He thought that he had better read to the House a portion of the petition. The petitioners stated that they were al! Protes tants, but that thee were desirous of seeing justice done; and that believing that - the Maynooth Bill was founded on the good old axiom, tt to do unto others as we would that others should do unto us," they prayed the House to consent to the Bill. He felt bound to say that he found that in some few instances, and they were but a few, the same names were attached to both petitions, but he believed that this had arisen solely from inadvertence. The Bishop of CASHEL presented several petitions from various places in Ireland, against any additional grant to May noeth. There was one of these petitions to which he wished to draw the particular attention of their Lordships. It was signed by only a small number of individuals—only by 18. It was from Dingle, in the county of Kerry. Of these 18 individuals only three hail been born Protestants. The others were con verts from the Roman Catholic faith. They said that the tenets taught in the college of Maynooth were uncharitable and full of persecution, and that the petitioners had suffered in a violent degree from the persecutions of the Maynooth-bred priests, because they had exercised the right of private judg ment, and had become converts to the Protestant faith. Only three of the petitioners had been originally Protestants, and the others had been converts from the Roman Catholic faith. The number of Protestants originally in the parish had been so few that had not these petitioners been converted the parish would have been susp' nded under the Church Temporalities' Act ; but in consequence of these conversions of heads of fa milies the Protestant congregation had been increased to nearly sixty persons, and the parish had been saved in consequence, and these fifteen heads of families had suffered great persecu tions from the Roman Catholic priests on that account. The Marquis of BRE ADAL B INE presented 82 petitions, signed by 10,604 persons in different parts of Scotland, chiefly from the congregations of the Free Church in that country, against the grant to Maynooth. He would take this oppor tunity of expressing his surprise at the mode in which her Majesty's Government were pushing the grant to Mayncoth through the Houses of Parliament—this, he might call it, unconstitutional mode. It appeared that, however numerous the petitions might be, and however earnest the expression of the country against it, yet the Government were determined, in consequence of the majority which they possessed, to carry this measure through both Houses of Parliament. The Duke of WELLINGTON felt compelled to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the Noble Mar quis who had just sat down. The Government were not pre pared to push this measure in an unconstitutional manner, but they were prepared to take the sense of Parliament, and on that sense they were prepared to act. Lord BROUGHAM, in rising to present a petition from Lord Kensington against the West London Railway, took the opportunity of saying that it was a very great mistake, he would not say a misrepresentation, but it was a very great mistake to suppose that because the majority of the country had not petitioned in favour of Maynooth, that they were against the grant. The contrary was the case. They who were in favour of the grant did not think it necessary to petition, but, as a Noble Friend of his had observed, if there were four persons in favour and one against it, the fifth, be cause he was the most noisy person of the lot, got all the notice. BEES AND SPIRI I" HOUSES. Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented an immense number of petitions from all parts of England and Wales against the sale of spirituous liquors on the Sabbath, and for the diminution of houses for the sale of spirits and beer. A great alteration had been made in the law in 1829, which had grievously disap pointed those who had advocated it. He was one of hose who, in the House of Commons, had voted against that measure, and trusted the House would entertain the prayer of the peti tioners. . . The NOBLE EARL also presented seven petitions from Carmarthen, in \Vales, against the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph ; likewiae a petition from the county of Somerset, against the Maynooth Bill. Lord NORMANBY presented a petition from Diss, in Nor folk, against the 3laynoolh Bill ; also one from the tradesmen of Hull against the 20/. clause of the Bankruptcy Act of last session. The Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions against the proposed union of Bangor and St. Asaph. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented a petition in favour of the g-eat Irish railway from a place in Ireland whose name we did not catch. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the Deanery of Bangor against railway travelling on Sunday, also one from the same place against the opening of beershops on Sunday. Lord VIVIAN presented a petition against the grant to slaynooth. CONFESSIONS OF CRIMINALS. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM wished to call the attention of their Lordships to a written statement that was made by the murderer, who was lately executed at Aylesbury, to the chap lain of the gaol there, the Rev. Mr. Cox, which statement he refused to deliver up to the magistrates on their requiring him to do so. He (Mr. Cox) told them he had no objection to make a private and confidential communication to them re specting it, but refused altogether to make a disclosure in open Court. Now, he (the Duke of Buckingham) wished to know from her Majesty's Government whether the chaplain of the gaol was authorised to withhold such a statement from the magistrates on their requiring him to deliver it up? The Duke of WELLINGTON had no authority from the Government to make any answer to the question ; but, con sidered that, unless in a c a-e w h ere th e lif e o f the minister himself was in danger or in cases of high treason, the common law forbade him to make any disclosures of a confession made to him under such circumstances. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that as the chaplain had, as he understood, made the communication known to the Secretary of State, and the judge who presided at the trial, that it could no longer be looked upon as a pri vate communication. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that it was no private communication, as it had been made in the presence of a third vereon, the governor of the gaol. Lord CAMPBELL said, that by the law of England there was no protection given to the minister of any religion with re spect to such a confession. It was over and over again ruled that they were bound to disclose it. Even in a case where a confession had been made to a Roman Catholic priest under such circumstances, he was compelled to disclose it. The Bishop of EXETER said that it was a portion of the liturgy of the Church of England, and the liturgy of the Church of England was recognised as a portion of the law of England, that if a clergyman saw a sick man, on whom he was in attendance, was labouring under compunctions of con• science, it was his duty to ease the conscience of the sick man, and to use that confession to further the ends of public justice. The Noble and Learned Lord was mistaken in the supposition of the case to which he had referred. The case was not that of a Popish priest, but of a clergyman of the Church of Eng land, and it was not tried before Justice Buller but before Mr. Justice Wilson ; and there was another case of more impor tance than this, which hail been decided by Mr. Justice Parke at Nisi Prius, according to the principle which the Noble and Learned Lord had advocated. After that trial he (the Bishop of Exeter) had communicated with the Learned Jud :e, and on reference to the decision of Lord Ellenhorough, which was taken en the Northern Circuit, they had ascer tained that Lord Kenyon, on a subsequent occasion, stated that he should have refused the evidence on which Lord Loughbo rough had decided. He trusted that the Noble and Learned Lord would not think him presumptuous in stating this opinion. It was not his own, but that of the high authorities to which he had referred, and he had made those observations in order that the ends of public justice might not be prevented. Lord STANLEY said that the confessions made by per sons under conviction, at the hour of death, or in the very extremity of life, could further no ends of public justice. Whether the clergyman who attended the person in these un happy circumstances had acted wisely or otherwise, it was clear that the confession would further no ends of public jus tice. The confession was made to clear the conscience, and conduce to the future spiritual welfare of the individual con cerned, and could' in no way act as a confession might have done in furthering the ends of justice. The publication of a confession was of value only with a view to this end, or to satisfy a prurient curiosity, and he (Lord Stanley) conceived that no one would think that publicity was necessary for that pursose. The chaplain in this case could reveal the contents of the confession to such Versons as he thought fit It was a question of discretion on his part ; and if the visiting magis. trates were dissatisfied, they had the remedy in their own hands. They had the power of removing him. Ile (Lord Stanley) would venture to say that, under such circumstances as those connected with the present subject, there was no case to call for the interference of the Secretary of State to force the chaplain to give up possession of the document. Lord BROUGHAM agreed with the Noble Lord who had just spoken, and thought the clergyman had exercised a sound discretion. It was no part of the duty of the Secretary of State to interfere in such cases as that brought under the considera- tion of the House, or to bind magistrates as to the particular interpretations that should be given to points of law. The question. whether clergymen were bound to disclose confessions made before trial under a pledge of secrecy, did not arise in the present instance. This was a case, and he would not speak on that point, in which a confession made after conviction was required to be given up. This case, he would state, they ought not for a moment to suppose, that an after confession was re nisired either to satisfy the public or the jury. The public ought to rest satisfied with the verdict. There were three parties to a verdict, the jury, the judge, and the coroner, and if these were satisfied with the guilt of a criminal, no confession was necessary after that. But if juries were to be told to speculate upon confessions being made after trial, instead of carefully weighing evidence, great evils would arise. If a jury had any doubts whatever they ought net to convict. it ought to be known, that juries ought only to convict upon evidence, and should have no doubt at all. They ought to be told, that they ought not to speculate on confessions, which were worth so very little, that they were sometimes resorted to by criminals in order to allow their accomplices to escape. The Marquis of NORM AN BY agreed with the Noble Lord who had preceded him in the view of the question he had advanced. There was another point to which he wished to make reference, while this business was before the House. It was respecting letters sent by persons under sentence of death. Their Lordships knew that the prison au thorities had the power of opening letters, but it never was !o pposed that they had the power of furnishing for publication such disgusting and blasphemous letters, as two which had recently appeared in the ' , ebbe prints, addressed by the con vict Hocker to two unfortunate females ; every sentence of which ought to have been buried in oblivion. He hoped at least that the Secretary of State would, if he did no more, give his counsel and advice to prevent the recurrence of such disgraceful proceedings. Lord DENMAN concurredwith the Noble Lord who had just spoken, and said that after a verdict was given by a jury the public had no right to doubt its integrity, but, should doubts at any time arise, the throne of mercy was open to be S 1 t • qw- -1 He hoped the public mind would give up its ex• riosity, in respect to publications containing such dis !tails as those which had been referred to. He did since the prisoner, who was a man of wealth and ~,,, _.‘ cur . , s r 771 -gusting de .....—,.....,- ~..:,_. ---'---• not See.th , - (........ s- :-- - -,...k i ., 7Y 1 4, 41 A s I