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

IMPERIAL PA 3i LIA3IEI T. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 2. on The Loan Clial:cm.Lost took his seat 112 the Woolsack at Five o'clock. Messengers from the Commons brought up certain , The E ar l of ROS'EREIIIIV presented several F lean different places- in Scotland again s t the Maynoot it Ile did not concur in the praiers of those petitions. FREBII-WATER FISHERIES (SCOTLAND.) The till N Lfavour OBLE EAR also presented a petition in o_f c t u l t ie_ for he prot ec ti on o f f res h -water fi s h i n t h e r i vers o f , le ,,nd. Th e N o bl e Earl gave notice that on Monday he shouldS "rtw the attention of their Lordships to the rapert of the Core taittee on the subject. NEW BANKRUPTCY BILL. CAMPBELL presented a petition from Boston, - 4 7-ng for a rev i s i on of the clause in the Act of last sesion Ithieli did away with imprisonment for debts under 201. ST. ASAPH A ND BANGOR. Sever petitions were presented praying for a repeal of the "set for the union of the Diocesiss of St. Asaph and Bangor. MAYNOOTH. Tha Bishop of SALISBURY presented several petitions agalint:s.l.h.e 11laynooth Bill. r t b e ts "hep of ST. DAVID'S had two petitions to pr . se . n er t f i C h e it tatket of fromda grant to Maynooth, the pray k _ n u differed that of many of the p.:titions had -ye he resented on the subject. The: petitioners were in favour the r grant were signed They were by both the May from the or, Aldermen, borough of a m rm e a m r : o 01 0 sod the Tow n C ounc il , an d i n f ac t by almost th 6u e r espectable inhabitants of the borough. He ght that he had better read to the House a portion of t t , h tt e . tents n' The petitioners stated that they were allPro an th s. bat thatthey were desirous of seeing justice done; the d Rill, duaux.usotnut good o b a" ls g that the Maynooth Bill was founded on all Id c s : n to do unto others as we would that others they prayed the House to consent to the last s! , He felt b o u n d to say that he found that in some few to from h ina n pdytenito tiry were b u t a few, the same names arisen solely ' we r attached e enc , e l . mt he believed that this had taThe Bist co '°P of CASHEL presented several petitions from to May 4°Qtbus places in Ireland,• t additional grant d The re Wa agains any t aw the • s one of these petitions to which he wished to by 0 Particular attention of their Lordships . It was signed fro m fr oro n a, a small number of individuals—only by 18 It - 014 t . g 1n Rlei in he county of Kerry. Of these 18 individuals ve r i s i r e* had been born Protestants. The others . werec te nets r ota the Roman Catholic faith. 'I he said that the taug4t the college of Maynooth were uncharitable . 445•14 io f l u e l n i t ° -i f Per: eulion,andfat the petitioners bad suffered in Pri em , Loegree from the persecutions of the Ma}7ooth- . la d red . ra 4 ,ent - ',L e eause they had exercised the right of private ju g surtat i o f s ' b. ad become converts to the Protestant faith. Only t he Petitioners had been originally Protestants, an v" had been converts from the Roman Catholic faith. f The e9alher e er that of Protestants originally in the parish had been so would hap "" not these petitioners been converted the pa .t r.is3hdies , Act ; blleen suspded under the Church Temporall tistt"" conseqnence of he conversions of heads of fa sixty " Protestant congregation - had been increased to nearly lad C s mis, and the parish had been saved in consequenc u e, l'aas frosme6ifteen heads of families had suffered great persec - The the Roman Catholic priests on that account. slo ted arquis of BREADALBANE presented 82 petit h ion fi s, fre ra tb uY 10,60 4 persons in different parts of Scotland, c le y itsinste,e°ogregations of the Free Church in that . country, k n i t , tue grant to Maynooth. He would take tills oppor•-• ter 4,9 f expressing his surprise at the mode in which throu-ieslYe't,Covernment were - pushing . the grant to Maynooth .Illneo rtstitut.; /louses of Parliament—this., he might call it, 1e Petitions .°llal mode. It appeared that, however numerou u s co ur W might be, and however earnest the expression .e . f 'tt co n r y against it, yet the Government were determin thi s ra sequence of the rnajority which they possessed, to carry T,:l3 ii in ,eturough both Houses of Parliament. * orris ae of WELLINGTON felt compelled to say a i few (Pai s to,"_?onsequenee of what had fallen from the Noble 11 ar- Pa red 4 7 d just sat down. The Government were not p b re ; th ey ZPush measure in an unconstitutional manner, u tlstit;',:_re prepared to take the sense of Parliament, and on .Ise ere prepared to act. totriuo OfJG HAM l in risin to present a petition from 4portuet.ttington against the W g est London Railway, took the *, tild ti n ny of s , ayin,, that it was a very great mistake, he Deat 9 t say a " misrep tation, but it was a ve . ry 41 the rn ' sta k° to suppose resen tl at because the majority th ey ,Zountry had notetiti-sned i in favour of Maynooth, that Rh, ;Tr', a g a inst the grant. P ' The contrary was the case. They Patiti on e, In favou r of the grant did not think it necessary to *er e foil ' °Qt. as a Noble Friend of his had observed, if there kal e h r Persons in favour and one asminst it, the fifth, be 4°tice, w its the most noisy person ' of the let, got all the Ea r l D rIEER AND SPIRIT HOUSES. I`et►tic, 'ITZ WILLIAM presented an immense . number of Qr , •n. from all parts of England and Wales against . the . sale 6W -°' liquor s on the Sabbath, and for the diminut!on likicses madhe sale of spirits and beer. A great alteratr . pointtqutte in the law in 18 9 9, which had grievously di w sl o, 14 the e h those oho had advocated it. He was one of ihosen 144 trust °4° of Commons, had voted against that measure, ,ef. tio n , rs. ed the House would entertain the prayer of the 1 i ~ rhe N Itr lQ °IlLt EARL also presented seven petitions from h iri arth en ; a ,,','° Wales, against the union of the sees of f 8 °1 . 0 1g4 4 - " gt. Asaph : likewiae a petition from the county L ord ‘I, against the Maynooth Bill. f el, ' ANDY preented a petition from Diss, LI Nor ot Roalainst the Maynooth - Rill • also one from the tradesmeu t sessiclo4tiost the 20/. clause oe the Bankruptcy Act of lab the Th e ii• ~ r '4l° P of LONDON presented several Thellierl union of Bangor and St. Asaph. petitions against f tvou r 0f.',11 of CLANRICARDE presented a petition in ba nle we di g'eat Irish railway from a place in Ireland whose 4Th e D '" nol catch. %4 Qke of RICHMOND pre et 'Y f Lan ~ e fro n , 4 ,_ gor against railway r , t avelling on of beershops on resented a petition Sunday,from alsothe da 'aloe place against the opening I L )'' 4 141 VlVlANpetition tyli,oth , presented a against the grant to of CRIMINALS. Th e I) CONFE SSIONS OF ' lke of BUCKINGHAM wished h t a o t c w a a ll s t m he ad a e tt b e y nt t ir e teurtipatr L ordshi l b s t o a written statement t le . 4ury to the chap lain of e .ll who was lately executed at ref used '4 gaol there, the Rev. Mr. Cox Y , Which ' statement he Li , to deliver up to the magistrates on their requiring `o do so e (Mr. Cox) told them he had no objection tom°l4 lte : sk et . a private and confidential communication to them en it, kng it, but refused altogether to make a disclosure I . ,Pert Court. No w , h e ( t h e D uke of Buckingham) wished ." 4 tow from her Maj es ty' s G overnment whether the chaplain of tow cad was authorised to withhold such a statement from nit' magistrates on their requiring him to deliver it up ? ~The Duke of WELLINGTON had no authority from the `I oaernment to make any answer to the question ; but, con ''',d*red that, unless in a case where the life of the minister iflitaself was in danger or in cases of high treason, the common law Chade hint to make any disclosures of a confession made to ro under such circumstances. T he M of CLAN RICA RDE thought that as the eh %Pla' arqu ' s knownin had, as he understood, made the communication kt , to the Secretary of State, and the judge who presided . ,i'ne trial, that it could no longer be looked upon as a pri -4 coranl uni cation. he puke of WELLINGTON said that it was no private *el k , . Peru > , tnetion, as it had been made in the presence of a third Lord the governor of the gaol. Was n° MI CAMPBELL said, that by the law of England the e re . speer Protection given to the minister of any religion with re pd ri t i m t,',' such a confession. It was over and over again ase Islip-, ' i lat they were bound to disclose it. Even in . c tt,t e r r , 4 enfess.ion had been made to a Roman Catholic priest •r t , %,I‘,ll circumstances he was compelled to disclose it. _ Irsilurte,'ltilhoP of EXETER said that it was a portion of the ~.blinial°o'ftth .Church of England, and the liturgy of the 'Agls ed ti:'•nkland was recognised as a portion of the liw of via % 41 1 4 a t 'lf a clergyman saw a sick man, on whom be of con leiell,e it was was labouring under compunctionssick an, lied tnttt,a' N tas his duty to ease the conscience of the th e litchi 'flat oenfession to further the ends of public justice. qt . h i t to 4,411,1-earn d Lord was mistaken in the supposition l s a f n - ( l , 4 B. l l l ) , !s c h t p - e Ns i e e st k:h , h e e had referred. n o T f h t e he cas c e h w ur a e s h n o o f t E t n h g a . t k i ltgi.se ~ 1 ,..t %,,,a not t oe t t ri of a clergyman tflPs o c th w ilten ; and there before waan ru o a s t t h ic e e r B cas ul e ler o b f but ohreefuljrme Justice tarke tit al p o b le trir i g th i i3p.!riwu,ll:eite had beets decided by . Mr. .. principle A fter t htaathLti trial lr Learned the ie, de t ,.., 11° 86.11Leearrie,1 Loared"kardidngadvtoocattheed. "°•;e g -P°' EXeter) hid communicated with I thiei t ..nd on referencthe decision of Lord El h le e nb . oroug e h r: tained that tkkenicoelin the t o Northern Circuit, they 1 it s o ,_ `uat Lord_had "e that N I - 541 have ett e ) . on h , on a subsequent occasion, stated hbo. Learned : 41 t c: 1 111111 11 ° 44 a o l t d d b e n cia t e h dl i •;: i n t e e trusted evidence tha o t n t the thoreferrea, an d i- eug . . h Noble and him presumptuous in stating that 444 " is °. wn, but t hat of the high au , hori!i t e h l is to . op i i v n a n h Lord- eo, r d A s os ! pub d ii h e e. u h s a t. d ee m m ad i those observations in order l g e ht not be prevented.b per' 4,,:irltuier.eq-oLXY said that the confessions o m r a i d n e th y e v p ery lii,reralty t he life, at the hour of deat 0 1, f public justice. h,"ethee :tro, Could further no ends • th ese un ly e' ergYinan who attended the person in was ttar tiZetuhtastaoncrea .liad acted wisely or otherscse, it , ~,,4-f. . r , e c n.ession would further no ends of public jus- Nn44-•ie confession was made to clear the conscience, con kdaPrlat ~ a g t 9n 4t g h : f,u_.ture spiritual welfare of the individual.h have t in ( 1 , 41 ,-*e in no way act as a confession mg ressi e "eilog ilse ends of justice. The pu.blicantdionorof to lf; 4 W all of value only with a view to this e , conceived filt; a PrUrient curiosity, - and he (Lord Stanley) h p •,t) 04, wouldb.st, cf .; 44 4, 1., Lin. t...atpubl' 't was necessary for that It SVa a l s. titi L : le st . tonteZentnaplain in this c a l a c s s ' b e y e co t u h l o d u r g e h a t eal;lt . e contents a ft4t ai l°4 or discret? '4'll personsrt ; and if the visi ing ma, hands we re d' ')n • on his pa , the re ds, 4, issatished, they ha wn ~.ntatiley)4,7Y had the power of removin b . . o me h d i y in. iti t H h e eir ( L ') ord the i 7 old venture to sa that, under such circumstances h il e 4 ,,, ll f4 t teted with the pr y esent subject, there was L eapi, ja t interferenne of the Secretary of State to force ment, j4,-,ar 114,-, ° „r4lve up possession of the (too° Lord who had iji"Pok en "L'OHAM agreed with the Noble t ietion. titnd thought the clergyman had exercised a sound ti ' or ;g o te . rf ere ;" was no part of the duty of the Secretary of State ; t th e ,:n such cases as that brought under the consiclera.- At,, nouse, or to bind magistrates as to the particular fo ett if o •etati,,._ s ~,,0 that should be given to points of law... gs T .o he 11 / a 4e lini.”"eiher clergymen were bound to disclose confessions tact P;'alienet2re trial under a pledge of secrecy, did not arise in the t hat 'lnit4nual, This Was a case, and he would not . speak s tettu tt N ed it - it, ill .which a fession made after they yloonnwoat tiot f or t° he gi , :en up. In n this - case, he would state,. was 5.5. ited:ittnhOlUerlt to suppose, that an after confessio.i The ' o glit t„ 81. to satisfy the public or the jury. l'art: ''' rest sat• 4 , the verdict, There were three I, ~,, to . satin . ts ed with w r, : s s e war; let, the jury, the Wig, i no confession n fied with the giailt 111 g grllla .l _ _ tp an . d the Crown, and it be tieee'soY after that. . Bat slte " to if juries . I ,ffefo ni, fooons being . 4 ( t r to 1 , speculate upon pall tils 4 11 in. stead of carefully weighing evidence, i Nilt u arise. If a jury had any doubts whatniria t h ey no vl tlP til t Ot t t° c onvict, it ought to be k d no sh wl, l, t i h h a a t v j e uries „. 01 24. tt i r, to eonvict upon ovide ce, an 4rut,-- They ough t t e b e told, that they ought not to l'itle, that , ley 1 ,, t un confessions, which were worth SO veil /,__; t 4 4114 , ‘.l: filet mss resorted to by criminals in "f4PF b Ti l t h , ir leeol.llplieeS to escape. th e Noble t•ntde,..,karqu;s :.`f NORMANBY agreed with question ha",;`' had nr (let; him in the view of the wi l h sidven ee ' i rf " e ' an 6.lter point til. ho t, , • There was . • was before i: tio t ,„ offs reference, while this busines t : -at ---• .It '• 't a Sent e t elute was respecting tut or I the orison , ,°riti,,, hideath. Their Lordships kill3W t ft it beli e f l'Y 4 ' 114k,e,,the by person . s u n m a ly . Power of opening letters, . ,ath es,,,t_haa they had the power of furnishi:g u w for t which had 'Z' LI ting and bl asphem . ous . letters,, ,, L sed ki thp eon- . publication ~,. ti!,,,,, Peered in the public prints. at '''';very sentenee 0 rtel, -vo:er to two unfortunate females ~ no hope d at t4iNt , gilt to have been buried in oblivion, 0 more, ti g_at the Secretary of State would, if he did ti 0 ,. stoh 440 tinsel and advice to prevent the recurrence r i,ltitOrdejlls,ro‘e.yedings. til spok,,,IAIAN concurred with the Noble Lord who bad 11,Ptdai e ", , an Hoard that after a aeyclict was given by a jury but, should kt d3t s at nad ight to doubt its integrity, was 0 , 20 tp be tiZess ed. a ny time arise, the throne of mercy its ex• R t 1;" c u , i Ye hoped the public mind wouldeseeuP lin t t iog ri e r t Y, in respect to publications containing edto. li e did dis ele thatJOß as those which had been referr d h an i d since the prisoner, who wu e man of weal such station, had had the benefit of such able counsel as defended him, and had been tried b. fore so excellent a judge, ;slid so impartial a jury, that his con..", ssion of guilt under such cir cumstances was a matter of much cmyequence, as it could mot in the least add to the satisfaction on the mind of every one that he was guilty of the crime laid to his charge.—(l - I,ar, 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 BUCK!NGIIAM thought the question. vas, whetheri'or not the chaplain was justified in withhol ding a statement made to him under such circumstances. - - Lord STANLEY said he woula make inquiry of Ole }Tome Secretary into the e'rcumstances, and would take. an early opportunity of communicating the result to their Lordships. BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH. Earl POWIS presented several petitions from -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 bad with the public on the subject of disuniting the two sees. He had lately received petitions in favour of his tsseasure from nearly every county in England and Wales, and all of tl.em complained of the difficulties and inconveni ence which had arisen from the union of the two sees. There was a numerous population in both set s, and their Lordships must be fully aware of the difficulties the present Right Rs v. Prelate had to contend against, owing to the dissimilitude which existed between the two languages. That Right Rev. Prelate was distinguished for his learning and piety, and although he had the love and confidence of his flock, he confessed that he found it extremely difficult to pay due and sufficient attention to improving the state and condition 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 lest 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) opinion 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 his Noble Friend, on the Act of Gth 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 argsmerits which he had then u,ed, for he was sure that then her Majesty's Government and the several members of the Ecclesiastical Commission would act with him. The report of that Commission was made on the 17th of March, 18:35, 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 secs 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 5,20,4. a-year, and that of Bangor, 3,800/. 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 30,0001., which was to increase the incomes of the thirteen Bishops, to the amount of 3,000/. a year. This report, however, did not hear 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 that it was the intention of the Government to place 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 balow 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 by. 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 ; arid while the canonries in England were 5001. a-year, those in %Vales 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 poiots. They were illustrative of the sense of two important bodies on this question. It would be recollected by their Lordships that last year the University of Oxford had conferred a degree upon him. At the time when this great honour was conferred lie was unknown to that uni verti. y, 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 him that which he looked upon as the greatest compliment ever paid him since his entry into public 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 union 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 chester 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 sitting, and out of 312 presented, only one third, or about 100, were presented from the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. The ethers 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 much required, anti to render it an object of attachment and affection in all parts 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 ois that report, involved 4 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 aides of the House. All this sacrifice was made with the single object of rendetine b 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, filling 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 rot 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 to that cause he attributed two-thirds of the peti• tians that had been presented against the union of the sees, but he could assure the Noble Lord. that such would not be the case. That union was certainly the foundation of part o the system in relation to tithe, and 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 iinturdjtely be supposed by their assenting to it that it was their intention tq withdraw from the system altogether. — (Hear, Ivor.) He begged their attention for a few minutes, alma Ise thought he rould be able to s hod them that the dioceses of kit. Asap b 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 cams from the dioces.es of Sr. Asaph and Bangor, He then came tq consider w hat the sacrifice would be to the diocese of Bangor when this Apt camp iuto operf t lion, and also what the gain would be, The sacrifice which would be made by the diocese of St. Asaph and Bangor would be altogether 4,7501., but, on the other hand, they would acquire the advantages of the sinecure rectories, which would amount to 3,9001. It was intended that the several rectories all over England and Wales cloud N f„-;fle,rened, and the revenues applied to the parochial service of the diocers le ¢hsch they ewist, But that Act went. further, for one Ciatas7e of it enabic4 tlig p o wnissioaeril not to wait till the demise of the present inemplients, bni tq pnraiase, the 4.dy9wspris at any time, so that the propeeds might be ap plied by the Apt fox the pqrpqseii of parochial spryipt.. Another 4dVantage would be the gain of throe hitehhapPna are' 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 di oces es, when united, were not so large, nor did it con tain so riitoy liviv as many other dioceses, and he could not understand why oue co uld net perform without difficulty or inconvenience the same d'iities 14,5 another Right Rev. Prelate ? whose diocese happened to be in another part of the country. He could not, either, see bow any com plaint could be made to the taking away of one Bishop, when there were other persons appointed to perform his duties. On the whole, he thought he had said sufficient to convince their Lordships that there was no neussity for the measure of the Noble Lerl, and he should, therefore, move as an amendment that it he rea I 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 secs of Langer 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 po t ulation of the two dioeeses. The Noble Duke, in treating this question, seemed to consider it a matter of pounds, 0 - tiliings, 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 nitin, and in the opinion of the clergy and people of Wales, assumed a higher and more important character. It was cer tainly with them not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, but a question bearing upon the spiritual wants of the princi pality. The people of \Vales looked upon the union at a step towards reducing the means afforded them of spiritual instrulion, and it was upon that ground, and 'hat ground alone, that they supported the measure which the Noble Earl had submitted to their Lordships. The office he filed, he could assure their Lord hips, was an thing but a sinecure. He believed there were no sinecure tithes or livings in the diocese of St. Asaph, from which his h ight Reverend Friend, who was not then present, derived any benefit. With regard to the see of Man che-ter, 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. Ile would now conclude by recommending the petitions and the feelings and the inserests of these people to their consideration. The Earl of WINCH ILSE A 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 which was in itself evil, in order to produce what was in itself good, for he was confident that if any good (lid apparently arise, it would in the end turn to mischief. What was the case ? Why, 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 rose was 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. Ills Noble Friend had earned to himself that which was beyond all price in these days i,f 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 be secured. He called upon their Lordships to support his Noble Friend in this Bill, and to di-- 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. Lori MONTEAGLE felt that he might be considered as deficient in Isis duty if he did net express his opinion on this measure. The House was called upon to loek at this question in reference to its efficiency, and in doing so he was Lound 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 1832 there were 1,428. This proved that the members of the Church of England was not a majority, as it ought tobe, but a small minority. Such was the truth, and he was induced 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 antiquity, 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 bishoprics stood on different g rounds 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 recom 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, but whether it was so argued or not, 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 institu 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 BROUG II A NI said he was not going to debate the Bill, for he gave his support to it, on the grounds which Lis 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 WO, 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 the'r 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 why 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.—( Hear, 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.) He 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 ware 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 i 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, end 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 on 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 recognised all the other dioceses of the kingdom. The commission certainly recommended the establishment of two now sees, but the funds saved by the union of the two sees of Baneor 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 consoldated ? True, they were, and, notwithstanding what hail 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 would not stop here. It was intended hereafter if this measure were carried to make a gradual increase to the numb; r of bishops who occupied seats in that House.—(" No, 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 most 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 population in these two benefices was not all equal to the population of benefices of other dioceses. One half of the population, too, of these benefice!, it should be remembered, wore 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 coesntry. He quite a'feed in what fell !rem a Nohle Lord the other ni g ht, that '- le y eeeld not aepareta 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 epiglopal staff of the whole country, so as to equalise the from the statements of the eccle siastical and the revenues of all the sees. If the principle were ; in favour of Wales a balance of to be adopted of considering the two countries as separate, Wales would lose more than it gained, for Wales gave more this 'al the revenues of the sinecure rec -7,501. ; and there was even now into th? coff i tuo.n kad, there Would than l,l 5 fund, uggnel Throwing 0 that w l in gt a ii p , ne p tr e oe ar w e !)üblic feud for MM. more. With i h o i r ia ll I .is l h o l f eh d r 4 v o e i. 4 L 9.9j a 1, i: ... i t • au applicatioo to the semination of error. That was not a temporary excitement, it was a deep-seated feeling, likely to last far some considerable time. He would venture to say that that feeling would not be extinct at the period of the next election ; and his own o;dnion was, that if the House forced through this measure now, and made it law, it would be swept out of the statute-book before the new Parliament had long commences its labour.—(" Hear, hear," and ironical cheering. ) What was the language of the Irish hierarchy ? They thought the brew a contemptible oue, and he would quote the language of Mr. O'Connell to show the estimation in•which he held it. ( The Hon. Gentleman then read the letter of Mr. O'Connell, dated the loth of April, accepting the invitation to a public dinner at Cork. ) It was evident f om that letter that the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork was d. tcrmincd on seeking for repeal, and would make use cf every concession that that House might make to further his objects. He regretted being obliged to op pose the Right Hen. Gentleman below him, but he felt it a duty to do so. He opposed the measure before, he opposed it that night, end he would oppose it to the end. He felt it a duty which he owed tothe Protestants of that country, most solemnly and earnestly to protest against the measure.—(" Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide, divide.") The SPEAKER asked the Hon. Member for Ashton-under- Lyne what were the terms of his motion ? Sir. lIINDLEY—I move that you, Sir, do leave the chair this day six montlis.—( Shouts of laughter. ) Colonel SIBTHORP seconded the motion. Colonel VERNER rose, amidst loud cries of "Divide, divide." lie said he regretted that the Right lion. Gentle man had not tat en time to collect the opinion of the Protestants of this ecuntry before he proposed the present measure. lie hoped the Right lion. Baronet would give the country an op portunity of expressing their real sentiments upon this measure. Mr. RE.DDINGTON sail that, as the Gallant Camel had chosen' to speak for the Protestants of Jr. land, he (Mr. Red dington), although a Roman Catholic, must protest against his declaration as expressing the opinion of the people of Ireland. In the district in which he resided, there were several Con servatives who were in favour of and petitioned for the mea sure—( Hear, hear)—and the wish of these gentlemen was that further remedial measures might be introduced. Sir R. PEEL said that whatever the opinions of individual Members might be, he did not think it was the wish of any party to divide on this oecasien.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The general understanding was that they would go into Committee on the Bill to-night and report progress. He lisped that the lion. Member for Kent would not think he was guilty of any disrespect in declining to accede to his proposition.—(Hear.) He felt bound to say that, with great respect to the lion. Member, he was firmly determined to persevere with his Bill.—( Hear.) He had postponed the de bate on the Bill until Friday, because the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Oxford, and other lion. Members, thought that the measure could not be properly discussed if it had not been postponed to that day. The Protestants of Ireland were, he believed, in favour of the measure, and he was justified in saying that it would engender kindly feelings.—(Hear, hear.) He did not say that the whole Protestant body were in favour of the measure. lie held in his hand a declaration signed by the Protestant and Roman Catholic inhabitants of the county of Galway—that declaration stated that the undersigned had heard with great satisfaction of the proposition of her Majesty's Government, for increasing the annual grant voted by Parliament- to the Royal College of Maynooth, and that they felt the measure was calculated to improve the social condition of the Reman Catholic clergy in Ireland, and therefore to improve the social condition of the country. This declaration was signed by thirty-four magistrates, Protestant and Roman Catholic, by several of the clergy, headed by the Roman Catholic Bishop— it was signed by Mr. Daly, and by several Protestant pro prietors—in fact, by the principal Protestant proprietors of the county. In fact, among the proprietors, who were chiefly Pro testants, there existed, he would not say au universal, but certainly a very general sentiment of approval of the measure which had been proposed by her Majesty's Government. He was perfectly justified in saying that in Ireland there was much less opposition manifested on the part of the Church and the Presbyterians of that country than in England. He would not set the example of entering into a discussion of the principles of the Bill, but he would still retain the opinion which he had already expressed. Lord J. RUSSELL asked if it was the intention of his Hon. Friend, and those who acted with him, totake a division on every part of the Bill in Committee; and, if so, he would be glad if he stated what parts of the Bill they were? Sir R. INGLIS said that he was not aware of any intention on the part of any Members to take the sense of the House on any other clauses than those to which amendments were con templated by his Hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) and the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Hanmer). He felt that having been indulged by the House for a considerable length of time, en former occasions, on the principles of the Bill, it would not be right for him to take up their attention a third time. Sir A. BROOKE said that though he should be sorry to intrude himself on the House, yet he wished to say that, in the north of England, there was no distinction between the Roman Catholicsand Protestants. They enjoyed one advantage which other parts of Ireland could not boast of, for they were not cursed with that agitation which the south of Ireland had been convulsed with ; and as long as they continued so, the same kind feeling would exist between the Roman Catholics and Pro testants in the north of England. It was his anxious wish that a sound and liberal education should be extended to all classes, but as the constitution of this country was founded on Protes tant principles, he did not see how the Government could con sistently with those principles maintain an establishment at Maynooth for the purl use of propagating the Roman Catholic religion. The education there mus t h ave a tendency to narrow arcontract the mind, and to cultivate the most intolerant notions of the infallibility of the Roman Catholic doctrines. Upon these grounds he opposed the measure. The House then divided : For going into Committee... l6O For Mr. Hindley's amendment 52 Majority for going into Committee .. —lOB The House then went into Committee on the BilL On the proposal of the first clause, Sir R. INGLIS submitted as an amendment to the first clause, which created the perpetual incorporation of the trustees of the College of Maynooth, that the power vested in the trustees might be placed in the hands of that body which had been created by the Act of last session, namely, the Charitable Bequests Act. Ile would leave it to her Majesty's Govern ment to consider whether they would accede to that amend- INIAYNOOTH. ' ment, but he would not give the House the trouble of Sir R. PEEL presented petitions from P.oehdale, and places dividing on it. in Bedfordshire, in favour of the grant to Maynooth. Sir R. PEEL said that he should inform his Right Hon. Mr. HUNIE presented two petitions from Arbroath against Friend that he could not acquiesce with his proposition, for he tb . grant to Maynooth. The petitioners regarded all State (Sir R. Inglis) did not propose that . the endowment should be assistance to religious denominations as unjust, unnecessary, less, but merely proposed that those employed to regulate t:- at and impolitic, and on that ground they prayed the House nut endowment should be the parsons who were lately employed to pass this measure. under the Charitable Bequests Act. The reason he differed Mr. Ewart, Mr. Lawson, and Mr. Smollet presented peti- from his Right Hon Friend was, because he apprehended that tions against the Bill. the duties of the trustees of the Charitable Bequests Bill, and Petitions against the grant were presented by Lord Claude those under the Maynooth Bill were not such as would war- Hamilton, by Mr. D'lsraeli, by Mr. 'Twice Captain Peelle'', rant their identifieation. His great and principal objection to Mr. S. Crawford, Mr. C. Bruce, Colonel Fox. Lord Ebring- the adoption of this course was, that the adoption of such a ton, Mr. Forbes, Sir C. Lemon, and Mr. Denison (Surrey). measure would be an unworthy and underhand implication of On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, suspicion.—( Hear, bear.) He found, upon reference to cer- Mr. HINDLEY said that in rising to object to the Speaker fain documents, that the trustees of the College of Maynooth, leaving the chair, ho was only discharging a painful duty, and appointed by the Irish Parliament, had been confirmed by the one which he undertook individually, without concert with any Imperial Legislatu re.— ( Hear, hear.) Na y , more, he found other Member of that House. He felt great regret that the that the Irish Lord Chancellor, and the Master of the Rolls, Government thought it consistent with their duty to go en who, under the Irish Act, held the offices of Directors of the with the present measure. What was it doing in England ? College, were removed by the English Parliament, and placed It was throwing the whole country into convulsions. It would in the position of Visitors merely, and the board of superin - raise the fires of religion, which would not easily be destroyed. tendenct made exclusively Catholic, On those grounds, then, —(Laughter.) It would make the next election a polemical he should say, that he could not be induced to assent to this arena, where the religion of every man would be taken into amendment. consideration. The Right Hon. Baronet must be aware that The question was then put on the amendment, and negae this measure had excited such dissatisfaction that at least tived without a division. 1,200 individuals had been induced to come up from the coon- Two other clauses were then agreed to without opposition. try, and spend several days in the metropolis, to protest Upon reading the next clause, that in reference to the mart• against the measure. As the Right Hon. Gentleman the main laws, Member for Newark said, the country was against the measure. Sir JOHN HANMER rose to move the omission of the Let not the House imagine that they were wiser than all Eng- words which limit the trustees of Maynooth College in taking land—(Laughter)—or that, because they happened to have any real property with which it may be desired voluntarily to secured their seats in Parliament , they were to act in contra- endow them. 'fhe reason he moved this amendment was diction to the feelings of the people of the whole country. He because he was unwilling to see the Government burthening would repeat it, that nathing could be more opposed to the itself with those troublesome obsolete ecclesiastical laws. feelings—or the prejudices, if they would—of the Protestants of ( Hear, hear.) He could see no• reason why the Roman Ca.. England than this measure. He would ask, if this measure had tholics should be deterred from pursuing their own system of created so much ill-feeling and confusion in England, did it at education, by those shadows of old feudal laws, known by the the same time effect any good in Ireland?—(Laughter.) He name of the laws of mortmain. The Hon. Baronet then re had heard it said that a great deal should be done to conciliate ferred to the statutes of mortmain, passed in the reigns of Ireland. lie would admit it, and he would be ready to sacrifice Richard 11., Henry VIII., Charles 1., and George 11., and everything but principle to do so. But can it be believed that contended that none of the provisions of those statutes ap this measure would have that effect ? He denied that it would, plied to Ireland, and said he could not concur in the pro. and in order to prove his assertion, let him read a letter which visions of the clause retaining those of mortmain. He had had recently appeared in the public prints, from the promised that he would not detain the House by entering on pen of the Right Reverend Dr. Higgins, a Roman Ca- the general policy of the Bill; but he thought this was such tholic Bishop in Ireland.—( Loud cries of " Oh, oh," an important question that it warranted his calling the at order and laughter, amidst which the Hen. Member attempted tention of the House to it. to persevere, but he would not be permitted. He then pro- Mr. T. B. C. SMITH said, that the Honourable DEPTFORD lAIPROVEMENT BILL. ceeded to read extracts from the letter as if he were continuing Member for Hull had somewhat misrepresented the sta. Mr. BARNEBY his speech.) He then went on to say that he did believe that tute as it at present stood, for by the Ist and 2d of Geo. 111. DIRECT GLASGOW, BARR lIE AD, AND NEILSI ON the last week had created a feeling in favour of the repeal of the the Government were empowered to dispense with the law of presented petitions against, RAILWAY. union in England, and he felt convinced that the Dissenters mortmain. He admitted the fact as stated by his Honourable This Bill was read a second time. would rather consent to that measure than that Ireland should Friend ( Sir J. Hanmer) that a man might sell a whole town petition several of BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY. be made prosperous at the expense of England. He would not ship and bequeath the money to the College of Maynooth. It On the motion that this Bill be read a second time, this Bill. trespass further upon the time of the House ; but if any Hon. might be so, but the Hon. Member must be aware that Fane, and leave the Chair for the purpose of going on with this Bill in The cases did not afford a parallel. If a particular eircum- Mr. G. BAN KES said that he would take that opportunity Member world second his proposition, that the Speaker do not property in land and sums in money were very different things. fhreormtenLaandivs,Gaeg°arignsiatirhe passing of Committee—(Great laughter)—he would divide the House starve required the setting aside of that writ, all that was re ootfheprrs,eseantitdi presenting this Bill. lie believed that this Bill was in a peculiar po- upon it.—(Hear, hear.) quired of the Roman Catholic College, was to make out a case sition. It had been taken into consideration by the Corn- Colonel SIBTHORP said if he could conceive that there to the Government, which would exercise its discretion as to mittee previ us to the second reading. It was certainly an wou ld b e th e least chance of the Hon. Member opposite sue- whether they would be allowed to exceed the limitations fixed anomaly in the proceedings of Parliament, that the principle in ceeding in his motion he wo u ld secon d it, b u t h e did no t thi n k by 4tatute. By such means they might be allowed to obtain the details of a Bill should be decided upon before it had his doing so would have th e l eas t e ff ec t.—( L aug ht er . ) H e an d t o h o ld an un li m i te d amoun t of property. Oa these been approved upon by the House at larg e. He should there- had been ac c u s t ome d t o j u d ge o f men b y t h e i r act i ons , an d groun d s, an d see i ng no necess it y f or th e amendment of the fore beg the especial consideration of the House to the petit ion therefore he sho u ld sa y th a t th e Ri g ht H on . B aronet at th e H onoura bl e M em b er, h e s h ou ld f ee l it his duty to oppose it. which he had now to present, which pray ed that the petitoner head of her Majesty's Go ve rn m e n t h a d no t s h own hi mse lf a M r . HINDLEY h ope d that the Hon. Member would not might be heard before the Committee perso nall y or by counsel. practical Protestant in this instance, for he did not, as divide the House upon it. The SPEAKER said that the plan which the Hon. Mem- he was bound to do as a Minister of the Crown, Lord J. MANNERS could have wished that the Right ber ought to adopt would be to move fur the reference of the use his best efforts to uphold the Christian religion. Hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland had given petitions to the Select Committee. There would be three If the measure was so important, why should he delay its third some reason for limiting the amount of landed property to the clear days before the Ist of June, b e t w een th e decision of the reading until the 19th of May? He would have entertained a College of Maynooth to 3,0001. He could not see the prin. Committee and the consideration of the Bill in the House. better o pinion of the Right lion. Baronet, if he had gone on ciple on which this restriction was based, neither could h-' un- Mr. BAN KES acted on this suggestion, and the petitions with it without the slightest delay. How would the Right Hon. derstand why there should be a fixed standard at all. He were referred to the Select Committee.—[ It will be recollected Baronet stand with the elections, if he were to dissolve Parlia- thought that as Oxford and Cambridge were unfettered by this by our readers, that in our report of the proceedings of the Se- ment?—( Hear, hear.) On one of the most important ques- law, Maynooth should be just as liberally dealt with. He lect Committee on the Bristol and Exeter Railway Bill tions the Right Hon. Baronet was forced to have recourse would give his willing support to the amendment of his Hon. it was stated by Mr. Merrewether, Counsel to the support of men who were only seeking Friend. for some of the petitioners against the Bill, that to undermine him.—(Laughter.) lie did not blame them for Mr. ROEBUCK, in a f e w wor ds, which were almost in the Bill hail not been read a second time in the House of it, but he did not like truckling.—( R e ne w ed l aug hter.) Those audible, opposed the amendment. Commons, and that the Committee were competent to take were days when people thought but of themselves, but the Sir R. H. INGLIS was of o p inion that the existing ad evidence in favour or again st the bill, thou gh they were un- Right Hon. Gentleman would go anywhere for a ' friend.— vantage of the Church of Ireland should not be interfered with. able to exclude the prayer of any petitioner, and of course to ( Continued laughter.) But why did he not ask the country In this opinion he was opposed by his lion. Friend, who had decide on the preamble. The Chairman, the Ho- how they liked his policy? He came into power on very no desire to exclude his Catholic fellow-subjects from tl e io n s;s ited ad nourable J. li. Liddell, and the Committee, taking different professions. He was then for Church and State, and vantaes. The universities of Enland nurseries of surely Protestantism. this view of the matter, the further consideration of the for the agricultural interest. But how would the Right Hon. to the preference, they being the the same sense as was deferred in order that the Bill might be read a Baronet be now received in Mart-lane?—(Great laughter.) lie did net hold maintaining the Church in preamble Inglis) held that (Sir R. H. second time in the Commons, and that they might proceed The first quality in a Minister was consistency. The Right the Right Hon. Baronet, for he and Ireland meant its merits legitimately to the consideration, of 1 Hon. Gentleman professed himself their protector, supporter, maintaining the . United Church of England MAY NOOTH. and friend, but he took them in and deceived them. This was mintaining it in all its endowments, and in all its privileges. 1 Mr. Broadley, a me ndment. Colonel Conolly, Mr. Thorne y, ley, Lord North- only the first of a series of measures which he had in contempla- He should oppose the that he would be allowed to trouble the land, and other lion. Members, presented petitions against the tion. He should say, with deep regret, that he had no con- Sir R. PEEL hopedo words on this subject. An Hon. Mein grant to Maynooth. fidenee in any party ; he did not know where to look for anya House with one or tw him whether he should prefer that the College of Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY presented a petition from thing on which he could ground any hopes for the safety and ber had asked_ be idled with land or money. As a mere the parish of St. George's, Southwark, signed by 800 persons, honour of the country.—( Laughter. ) He hoped he had in- Maynooth should of l'cy he ( g Sir R. Peel) should considerably prefer against the Maynooth grant. dependent feeling enough to vote against any men who showed matter Pcn lie thought that as there must be some limit petitions Sir R. INGLIS presented against the proposed, such inconsistency. He should feel very strongly upon any thelatter. year was a fair one. He did not propose 3,0001. or any grant to Maynooth, from places in the counties of Cum. question that would affect the maintenance of the Protestant 3,0001. y a of any jealousy to Maynooth, but he thought it right berland, Essex, Gloucester, and from the counties of Down, Church. They had given their defiance to the opinions and because how that sum should be managed, and if that sum were Goat, and Donegal, in Ireland. feelings of the people of this country, and if the Minister of the to see JEWIS H DISABILITIES BILL. Crown should forget t h e d u ti es he owed to one woh •whom he well-managed , the Crown could extend the p ower o f holding that more. He thought that the question relating to the statute of apetition from a Sir R. INGLIS presented large number was connected in council and advice, then tlie shooenseor badly mortmain would be more conveniently dealt with at a future of persons in Shropshire against the Jewish Disabilities Bill. Minister was removed from that situation which . _ UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. filled the better. The Right Hon. Gentleman would findhim period. opposed Mr. REDING TON said he would oppose themotion Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition_ the Chancellor on that, as on all other occasions upon this question, on Hon. Member for Hull, not because he was riot of the and Members of the University of Oxford, praying that no to him. of opinion t were dis that Roman Catholics should be left unfettered to alteration might he made in their Act. if the Governmen - Sir. PLUMPTRE said, that it . l eave landed to Maynooth, ifthey House the had is property Sir J. TROLLOPE presented a petition from Holbeach, posed to force this measure through the . Y h hadwho rmost interested in change in the for a all the measures which come we e in Lincoln hire, praying lnso lvent Debtors' their power to do so. Out of . he hadthe ho nourof a that question to he introduced - ecovery of debts Parliament, since incidentally. Bill, with a view to the better r under 2j. ; under the notice of POLLINGTON said he voted against the measure, also several t to AI petitions against the gran seat in that House, he should say . f ' b • ld consequences i it ut he wou vote for the • Colonel ACTON presented a petition from the parish of sure, viewed in all itslbearing and probable_motion of the Hon. Member for he s hadviewed with so much re- Hull, on the ground of Shillelagh--(Laughter)—in the county of Wicklow, against should pass into a law, thatleaving the Roman Catholic; at - . The movement which had been made by the Go- liberty to endow a College for themselves. eerfeet tiro grant to Maynooth. pugnance one. It was unhappy. because After a few wordy from Sir R. INGLIS el petitions Mr. FERR AND presette from vari o us parts of vernment was a most unhappy this measur e , it would cause M S England anal Ireland against the grant, if they were now to withdraw of _ . r. HARMAN CRAWFORD • Ireland. But that state things would for the Hon. 1% - said that he would vote Mr. HAMILTON presented twenty petitions from various much agitation in'ember for i i ' t. wouldcalledbythe be so unhappy, as he into existence should be no obstsei "ull i on- the ground -that there places in Ireland against the gran t• . net • of this Bill. He had always viewed the matter in that principle. ....re to endowments - upon the vohintary Mr. DI VETT presented similar petitions from Exeter. passing he had opposed this grant it was on this c" - Mr. BRIG HT presented thirteen petitions against the grant. light, and whenever Lord RENDLESHAM presented similar petitions from ground that he did so, and it _enthe same groun t - He could not well see the reason opposed it still. Those were the grounds on wis , -'" ... ne of the Right Hon. Baronet objecting to his proposal, after hay- Suffolk. the measure. '*'• ...a the people ing voted for and carried the Charitable Bequests Act last year. Colonel SIBTHORP :. • . rte divine •h d b No evils ofthe d tween truth and error, and , e sti, e e• great had befallen the State by reason Weees tb the same effect. es that light they viewed it. They ments of Cambridge and Oxford, which had risen to their ire- Air, again"' Alr, DUNCOMI3E presented a petition from Carlisle protested _ error, and they were arranged on the side of in g ofvoluntary laynooth. The petitioners complained hiss' sent greatness consequence . endowments. Any against the grant to A., a ....i, and they said in their inward conscience that they could person who travelled through the countries bordering on the thit he 3ill had been 19" ed th eu h the 'r g How Aga , " . -, -la up,- _ •-•.. the ' not consent to allow the public money to be used in the dis- Mediterranean, or in the Peninsula, must aware that the regard to the distance of the bishop from his flock, the fact was, there was a railroad abedately now forming which would pass through both the tones of St. Asaph and Bangor, and would bring them as near to each other as Liverpool and Alanchesler. lie felt deeply the indul gence 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 qtlestion, 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 ltieeleslastiesl Commissioners. If they would allow them to undo the evils of former days, if they would allow the Church to assert its own rights, and not raise the question of the spiritual or political superintendence of the Church, they would be best serving the interests of that Church. lie felt that this was a question purely of principle, arid if it were net, he would with plessure have voted for the Bill of the Noble Lord (Earl Powis), but he felt bound to give it his most de cided, but most conscientious, op; osition. The Bishop of St DAVID'S would have felt considerable reluctance to rise on any ordinary occasion, but he was anxious to clear up some little difficultywhirls had been thrown on the qtiestion, and the more so as he thought the question hsd assumed a new phase since he last addressed there. The Noble Lord was mistaken tf h e supposed that any one advocated this question on any other grounds than tho , e ehich it could prefer as being a part of the Church of England. No such idea as that had ever existed in the mind of env individual. Put yet the Church of \Vales had its rights an - d its privile_ es, and if the Campus \lartius of Perth and the Curragh of KiVare could put in their claims to consideration, the Church of Wales had also an equal rieht to the protection of the Government. The Constitution did not recognise that any one indivi fuel of the community should be sacrificed, much less such important interests as those under consideration. The inhabitants of Wales in this matter, as in many others, considered they had been overlooked and neglected. This was a streng reason why their Lordships ought to be cautious in dealine with such a question. He did conceive his duty, knowing 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 Commissioners, it might be supposed that a benefit was proposed to be conferred on the Church of Wales; but what 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 church funds ? Since he last ad dressed the House the state 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 del 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. He considered the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley), consummate as i t was in ability, a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end, having no other intention than to divert the att.' ration of their Lordships from the real merits of the question. '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 all 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. He sincerely believed that all that had been said respecting the revenues and super ficies of North Wales would not bear out the Noble Lord (Stanley) in the general statements he 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 the 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 nn the contrary had proved most pernicious to the interests of the Church.—(Loud cuies 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 Lord (Stanley) as his coad jutor for owe month, 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 not 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 FITZWILLIAM 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 Bishops.—( Hear, hear.) Lord LYTTELTON thought that, with the number of souls over which the Bishops had superintendence, instead of a reduction in their number, that more of them were re quired.—( Hear, hear.) The Earl of CA RNARVON said that after what had fallen from the Noble Lord (Earl Fitzwilliam) and the Right Rev. Prelates (the Bishops of St. David's and London) he could rseeentnoof public sui oseitpini rea: n on w w h h ic y h t h h a e i y i s s , h 4 o i u n ld in res f i a s v t ou t r he of st t r h o i n s g m c e u a r : 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 had arisen between the temporal and the spiritual Peers, since the re volution, be could not but think that the erra• voice of the country ; also several petitions, praying that the arr,stment of wages should be done away with. Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition from Ferfarshire against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. GODSON presented a petition from rcriain turnpike road trustees, praying to b-heard by counsel atainst the 13erks and Hampshire Railway. Lion of new Bishops would sltutly be a necessity. At the time the Eceli-s'astieal Commissioners made their report and rt commeneed the abo'.ition of one of the Welsh st es, it was apprehended that no fuuis 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 th At 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 leave an impression of wrong on the minds of the people of Wales; and when he recollected the number of the petitions presented on ►his subject, and the spirit by which the petioners were actuated, he could not turn a deaf ear to their prayer. The House then divided, when there appeared : Contents present 63 Proxies 34— 97 Non-Contents 7l Proxies 5B-129 Afnjority against the Bill Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 2. The SPEAKER. took the chair at Four o'clock. THE DUDDESTON AND NECHELLS IMPROVE MENT (No. 2) BILL. This Bill, on the motion of Mr. SPOONER, was read a second time, after a few words of opposition from Mr. Muntz. RAILWAY COMMITTEES. During the time of private business, Mr. OGEACIIY, 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 o f t h e group o n which he sat, and he therefore begged to be ex. u se d an y f ur th e r attendance on the Committee. The Hon. G ent l eman was accordingly dis charged from any further att en d ance . CORNWALL RAILWAY. Sir G. GREY and Lord CLENIENTS presented a considerable number of petitions in favour of the Cornwall and Devon Railway Bill. BRISTOL AND DORCHESTER RAILWAY. time. On the motion of Mr. MUNDY, thi s Bill was read a first HARROGATE RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. BOWES, thin Bill was read a second me. NEW ZEALAND. Sir R. INGLIS said, that notwithstanding that he had seen that certain communications had taken place between her Majesty's Government and the authorities of New Zea. land upon the subject of a notice that an lion. Member had upon the paper, which had indeced that lion. Member to withdraw that notice, still, seeing that Right Hon. Gentleman the secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, he would put to him, now in public, a question he had previously asked him in private, namely, whether the communicw,i ,, r-s Chet had taken place were of such a nature as to alter the position of the mi►sionaries of that colony with this et untry ; and also the position of the natives of the colony and the New Zcahnd Company with this country, and that of those partits with each other? Mr. HOPE said he felt it necessary to give some explana tion with respect to what had passed last nielit. He d d not pretend to say what had passed between the Noble Lord under whom he served and the Hon. :tlember for Liskeard. In the first place, the withdrawal of the notice of the Ilslnourable Member was wholly unsolicited on the part of her Majesty's Government, who were about to justify their conduct with respect to the missionaries. From the manner in which it reached the press, it would appear that the measure was more fully before the Government than was the case. The fact was this, that the Noble Lord at the head of the Colo. nial Department heard from the New Zealand Company that an arrangement would be submitted to him for his consideration. He answered that whenever such an arrangement should be proposed in a proper manner, he would give it his consideration. No such alteration had yet been made or decided on with respect to the New Zealand Com pany. He should, however, state that there was no compro mise whatever on the part of her Majesty'. Government. In answer to a question put by Lord DUNCAN, Sit: R. PEEL said that his Noble Friend at the head of the Commisston of the Woods and Forests had a Bill in prepara tion containing certain salutary regulations. He wished the Noble Lord would postpone his question until the resuming of business after WhitsuntitZe. THE BRAZILS. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he saw in the public papers a statement that the Brazilian Government had recommended the Brazilian merchants to impose 20 per cent. on cotton goods, as long as their sugar was distinguished in duty from other colonial sugars. His question to the Right Hon. Gentleman was, whether the Government had receives! any communica tion on this subject, anti whether such information affirmed or denied the statement? Sir R. PEEL said he felt confident that no official information had been received on the subject to which the Right Hon. Gen tleman referred. If the Right Hon. Gentleman had given him notice of the question, he would have been prepared to answer it ; but, as far as he knew, no such official information had been received. HOLYHEAD HARBOUR AND RAILWAY. Mr. HUME put a question (as we understood it) relative to the sale of Holyhead Harbour for railway purposes. Folk stone Harbour had been sold, and he feared that all the har bours would eventually meet the same fate. Mr. YORKE replied that he thought the question a•proper one, and would have the informa:ity erased from the Bill. Mr. COLLETT wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting a motion which stood on the book for that day. The Right Honourable Gen tleman intended to add the name of Mr. Milnes Gaskell to the five members already named, as a Committee on the Chester and Holyhead Railway ; did be mean that the Committee should consist of six members, or that Mr. Gaskell should be substituted for another Honourable Member? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did not intend to persevere in the motion. SCOTCH BANKING, AND SCOTCH POOR-LAWS. Mr. FOX MAULE wished to know when the second reading would take place of the Scottish Banking Bill, and the Scottish Poor-law Bill ? Sir ROBERT PEEL said it would be necessary to take some votes of supply on Monday, but he hoped to move the second reading of those Bills before the holida3s. SCHISM IN THE CHURCH. Mr. MANGLES said he had a petition to present respecting he difference which had lately occurred amongst the clergy of ..he Church of England. He understood that it was not competent for him to present this petition, but he wished to found a question upon it. The petitioners deeply regretted the strife and discord which at present existed in the Church of England, in consequence of an attempt to revive obso lete ceremonies. They stated that the disputes had arisen in consequence of conscientious scruples entertained by both parties. Many of the clergy of the country considered it their duty to revive certain ceremonies, and wear certain dresses which had not been in use in those parts of the country. On the other hand, the parishioners said that neither they nor their fathers were accustomed to these ceremonies, and they strongly and strenuously objected to their introduction. The result had been that a great deal of bad feeling had been created. The petitioners prayed that some measure might be introduced to restore harmony. The question he wished to put was, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government, either by Act of Parliament, or by means of the dignitaries of the Church, to take any measures to set these disputed points at rest ? Sir ROBERT PEEL—I do recollect, Sir, that the Hon. Gentleman, several days since, mentioned this subject. I am not prepared to give an assurance with respect to any in terference on the part of the Executive Government with re spect to the matter to which the Hon. Gentleman has referred. In answer to a question from an Hose. MEMBER on the Opposition side of the House, Mr. MACKINNON said that in answer to the question put by the Hen. Member, as to whether he intended to bring forward his measure rela•ive to interment in towns, he had to say that, after the assurance given him by the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, that a similar mea sure would be brought forward at an after period, he should postpone it. He would rather that the Bill were brought in by the Government than by a private individual, and under these circumstances he should postpone the bringirg forward of his measure. lands in the hands of the monasteries were much better culti vated than the lands which were held by lay psrsens. Lord CLIVE would suppott the motion of the Ilt.n. Mem ber for Hull. He thought that as the College of Maynooth could hold land indirectly, by means of the intervention of trustees, it would be much better if it were allowed to hold it directly.—( Hear, hear.) The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took place, the amendment having been withdrawn. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN moved the substitution of the word " thirty" for the word " three" in the 33ti line of the 2d clause. He thought that his motion was different f , orn that of the Hon. Member for Hull. He wished to give the Roman Catholics of Ireland an opportunity of acting on the voluntary principle, which tin.y seemed to approve of. He did not agree with the Hon. Member for Montrose, that Lis motion, adopted. would lead to increased irritation nut of doors. Mr. HUME recommended the withdrawal of the amend ment, because it would excite unnecessary alarm. He thought the public had slready greatly mistaken the nature of the Bill. Sir R. INGLIS thought the Hon. Member was outbidding even the Government, and would not therefore support him. He thought the Hon. Member would at encc withdrs w the clause and allow them to proceed to the consideration of the other clauses. Mr. SMYTHE thought it was very absurd in a State to tolerate and even to recognise religion, and yet proscribe reli gious munificence and limit its extent. —(Hcar. ) After a few words from Mr. DARBY, Mr. HUME said he bad been quite misunderstood. If Hon. Gentlemen asked him what he would do if he had the power of remodelling the three kingdoms, he did net think he would be bound to tell them—(A laugh)—they were there tolegis'ate upon a particular subject. Some were more alarmed at the pretended increase of Popery—he confessed he felt no alarm at all on the subject. So me lion. Members had spoken of want of gratitude on the part of the Irish people. Now he did not think the Irish people could be expected to go down upsn their knees and thank them for so small a favour. They had but little reason to express gratitude for what had been done. He regretted that more Christian feeling and Christian sympAthy for our Roman Catholic fellow -countrymen had not been mere generally shown. Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know whether the Hon. Mem ber for Northamptonshire would divide the House. Mr. S. O'BRIEN said, that after what had been said by the lion. Member for the University of Oxford, he did not think he would. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to have great anxiety to proceed with the Bill. Sir R. INGLI s id he intended to give every fair and legi timate opposition to the measure, but none other.—( Hear. ) Mr. REDINGTON reminded the House that no Hon. Member—that no one or. his side of the House asked him to withdraw the amendment. Mr. S. O'BRIEN said he understood what the Hon. Mem ber for Dundalk meant, and would divide the House on the amendment. The House then divided, when there uppeared— For the amendment Against it Majority against the amendment Mr. LAW, who had a motion on the paper for negativing the 10th and 11th clauses, said that the Bill enabled the trustees to receive any amount of personal property, and a large quantity .0! landed property. The remaining clauses in the Bill principally rested on the foundation of the Consolidated Fund. He proposed to negative all the clauses dependent upon the Con , olidated Fund, but to take no division on the intermediate clauses. On clause 4 being proposed, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that in line R he would pro pose an alteration. If they would look at clause 7, where provision was made for the Dunboyne students, they would observe that provision was made for attendance, &c., for the senior students, whereas, in the clause now under the conside ration of the House, provision was-only made for the president, vice-president, princi, als, and vice-principals. The sum was limited to 6,0001., which was to be at the disposal of the trus tees. It had been suggested to him to add the words, " Whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the sala ries of president, vice-president, principal, and vice-principal, in said colleges, and to extend the attendance and other neces saries to be supplied for their use." After a few words from Mr. LAW in approval of the formal mode of the amendment, Mr. PLUMPTRE said that much had been said about the poverty of the Roman Catholic clergy, but he did not think that Roman Catholics themselves would admit any such poverty—they would repudiate the imputation. Expensive and beautiful churches were everywhere building throughout Ireland. In Waterford, 70,000/. had been expended on a cathedral. Mr. HUME would ask the Honourable Member for Kent why grants were made to the Universities of Oxford and Cam bridge, to the Protestant Dissenters, and the Scottish clergy ? If the Hon. Gentleman would answer this question, then he (Mr. Hume) would give the Hon. Gentleman au answer to the question he had asked. Colonel SIBTHORP trusted this detestable clause would not be allowed to pass.—( Great laughter.) Mr. WILLIAMS said he had always found that the Hon. Member for Kent was ready to vote money most lavishly for everything except the grant to 111aynooth. The vote of 91/. to the Bishop of Exeter, for his expenses in visiting a ra tion of his diocese—the vote of 11,000/. to the clergy of all de nominations in the colonies—the vote to the Jews, Catholics. Wesleyans, and others in Jamaica—all were supported by the Hon. Member for Kent. Mr. WYE made some observations, which were inaudible in the gallery. Mr. FERRAND raid the Right Honourable Gentleman at the head of the Government had stated that it was ex pedient to pass this measure as a measure of peace to Ireland—what had been the result of this Mr. S. O'Brien had, in the Conciliation Hall, talked about an American fleet sweeping the Channel, and of one third of the British army deserting the Queen. He (Mr. Ferrand) trusted that her Majesty's Government woidd have the decency not to force this Bill through Committiee that night. He believed that during the Whitsuntide holidays general meetings of the constituencies would be convened. Many Members had come into that House pledged to resign their seats when called upon by a majority of their constituents. Were they ready to redeem that pledge? He understood th a t _ _ the Honourable Member opposite (Mr. Stansfield9 was pre pared to do so, and this did him honour. Mr. ST AN SFIELD said he had been waited upon by a de putation, and he had certainly stated that he had felt bound in honour to vote according to his own conscience. —(Cheers.) He felt that this was a measure of justice to that part of her Majesty's ,'ominions to which the Bill was applied. He cer tainly objecttd to this money being taken frorn the Consoli dated Fund, and he had therefore supported the motion of the Honourable Alember for Sheffield. This motion not being . . . successful, he rtill felt vote for the motion of it to the be his duty to Government. There were many other questions asked him. Amongst others, whether ho would continue to support this measure against the opinions of his constituent s ? lie said that he thought it his duty to attend to the wishes of his constituents, but that he had a higher duty, which was to attend to the interests of the whole commons of England.—(Cheers.) He said that if he were to be forced to vote against his own conscience he would rather resign. —( Cheers.) He had been reported to say something about resigning. He had said just what he had stated to the House, that he would prefer resigning to voting against his conscientious opinion. Mr. SHAW objected upon principle to the endowment of any Catholic college, and the amount was no part of his objee tion.—( Hear, hear.) At the same time, he did not think that the college itself would be benefited by the grant.—( Hear.) It had been very truly said that the Catholics in this country supported several colleges, anti he thought that the Roman Catholics in Ireland could do the same. He would not object to give the Catholics the power of endowing a college for themselves. Mr. WYSE said that the Right Hon. and Learned Mem ber spoke as if the Catholics of Ireland supported no college of their own ; whereas they supported a college in Galway, one in Meath, one in Kilkenny, and one at Carlow. lie thought the fact that they supported colleges at their own expense en titled them the more to support from the State.—(Hear, hear.) It was impossible in the present condition of the funds of May nooth that the education of the priests could be adequate to the high office they were destined to till. The State had taken upon itself the support of the college, and the least it could do was to give a sufficient support. Mr. SHAW had not denied the liberality of the Catholics of Ireland as regarded the education of their clergy. He only said the State ought not to be called upon to educate priests for them. As fur the general purposes of a liberal education the University of Dublin was open equally to Catholics and Protestants, except only the officers on the foundation, such as scholars and the fellows. Mr. REDINGTON said that as an Irish Roman Catholic be felt the deepest interest in the college in which the priests were to be educated. He denied to ;the Roman Catholics of Ireland deserved the taunt of the Learned Recorder, that they ought to support their own college. The Catholics had, of late years, built churches out of their poor means, almost ses rival those great temples of religion which their Catholic an cestors had built, and which were now occupied by the professors of the dominant religion. He hoped he should never hear again such illiberal language even from the Hon. and Learned Recorder. The State had hitherto con tributed a small portion of that of which the Irish Catholic Church had bet n plundered with the sanction of the State, and it was time that the contribution should be increased. Sir R. INGLIS protested against the language of the Hon. Member who spoke last, and said that the Established Church had plundered the Roman Catholic with the sanction of the State. There was much of that kind of language held out of doors, but he could not hear it in the House without protest. Mr. WYSE said it was matter of history, that the Catholic Church was plundered at the period of the Reformation. Nor was it that Church alone that was plundered ; but the Catholic landed proprietors in Ireland were plundered of their estates. Mr. ORMSBY GORE believed that the measure would be exceedingly useful, and he could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that he should have his firmest support. He assured the Right Hon. Baronet that he was supported by a strong religious feeling in the House and out of doors.—( Cheers.) Whatever might be the consequences to himself he would give the measure his snost strenuous and most religions support, an d no consideration on earth could induce him to shrink from de claring the joy which he felt at the announcement of so useful. a measure.—(Cheers.) He respected the feelings of that who petitioned against the measure, but it was well known that every change for the better had met with equally boisterous opposition, and he hoped the Government would not be deterred from persevering in the pious and n01.14e work which they had begun. Mr. JAMES was anxious to state the fact that, inac va t r y which he had lately visited, Belgiu m , th e Catholic Legislatureil of that country granted a handsome stipend to various Protes tant clergymen in that country. In Brussels there were ewe clergymen, who had sal a ri es f rom t h e Government, andthter: were several others similarly supported in Ghent and other towns. He was sorry that circumstances precluded the P° bility of being pre sent to vote for the measure of thelli si Right lion. Baronet. He would now take the opportunity of most cordially giving hi s su p port i n f avour of the grant.—( Hear.) The clause was then agreed to. On clause 5 being proposed, Mr. COLLETT wished to know what was the stipend which the Dunbosne students were to receive ? Sir R. PEEL said that it was their intention that the Dun boyn students were to receive tisl. each per annum. This clause, together with clauses 6 and 7, were then agreed to. On clause 8 being put, Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was tles . m.us to insert two words in this clause, which related to the accommodation of the students. He wished that tt. - ,e words " professors and " should be put before the wont 1 . students." Colonel SIBT 11 :0111 3 said that he was against the whole Bill from l'"iinning to end. He would do all he could to in duce ',:iembers to throw it out altogether.—(Laughter.) The clause, as amended, was agreed to. Clauses 9, 12, 13, and 14, were then agreed to. On clause 15 being proposed Mr. PLUMPTRE said that as it related to the controul over the education pursued at the College, he would object to the class books which were used there. Clause 15 was then put and agreed to, as was clause 16. Before clause 17 being read, Mr. WYSE said he would take the opportunity of this clause being read, to state, in reply to the lion. Member . oppo site, that " Denn's 'l'heolop' been read, at Maynooth College. Ile u was not now,ld a 1 nor r s state torsi i t t liaTi r t " was erroneous that the Pope exerc ised v IrclantLor in any other kingdom of Eu ro pe,.inanyll.l,7mitioo,orthai:poorwei7. d t : l r li e s a ' d „ pass age front kJOkl be begged to state, in whatever. And now, having addition, that he would undertakesaid TAR SUN, LONDON, S k TTTIITIAV 1-41VENING, MAY 3, 18451