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

IMPER Al 4 PA LTA El4l' HOUSEOF _LORDS, May 2. The LORD CHANCELLOR 'ouli his seat upon the Woolsack at Five o'clock. Messengers from the Commons brought up certain Bills. The E ar l of ROSEBERRY presented several petit io ns from different place s i n S cot l an d aga i nst t h e Maynooth Bi ll. He did not concur in the pral ers of those petitions. FRESH -WATER FISHERIES (SCO t LAND.) The NoRLE EARL, also presented a p e titi on i n f avour o f t he Bill for the protection of fresh-water fish in the rivers of Scot land. The Noble Earl gave notice that on Monday he shou'd draw the attention of their Lordshins to the report of the Com mittee on the subject. . NEW BANKRUPTCY BILL. Lord: CANIPBELL presented a petiti on f rom Boston, P r aying for a rev i s i on of the clause in the Act of last session which did away with imprisonment for debts under 201. ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR . Several petitions w ere p resente d pray i ng f or a repea l of the Act for the union of the Dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. MAYaOOTH. The Bishop of SALISBURY presented several p e titi ons against the Maynooth Bill. On The Bish o p of ST. DAVID'S h a d t wo pet i t i ons to prcsent ° th ,e I nhjeet o f t h e additional grant to Maynooth, the pray er of w nieli differed from that of many of the petitions which had of beethe n pre,ented on the subj ect . Th e pet i t i oners were in favour grant. They were both from the borough of Carmar ,_then, and were signed by the Mayor, Aldermen! 'tom u're of the Town Council, and in fact ey almost, all the r espectable inhabitants of 1 1,, borough. 1/0 the that he had better read to . ';-- 44e pe t ition. [hats' out thatthey , The petitioners House a portion of the ' . ...,aied that they were all Protta- Rtboixt but we:e desirous of seeing justice done; and '.,ltat the Maynooth Bill was founded on the shr,..t? id 7-...itnia, 1+ to do unto others as we would that others *- r..irri do unto us," they prayed the house to consent to the tn t te t w He felt bound to say that he found that in some few ,t) ces,and they were but a few, the same names were attached a,, both petitions, but he believed that this had arisen solely °l2l inadvertence nvaZiThe Bishop tto of . CA SHEL presented several petitions from Zs Places in Ireland, agaiest any additional grant toNlay owthdt.• %here was one of these petitions to which he wished to e particular attention of their Lordships It Wes signed Irony 0 01 y a small number of individuals—only by 18. It was Onlytn Dingle, in the county of Kerry. Of tiles , 18 individuals yert three had been born Protestants. The others were eon sett:s from the Roman Catholic faith. They said that the aa.i t i n ta nge k t in the collega of Maynooth were uneharitaid e 11 " i tio of persecutio n , anti that the petitioners had ruitered in N Z ent degree from the persecutions of the Maynooth-bred ntetp, because they had exercised the right of private juttp,- tin, p ) a nd had become converts to the Protestant faith. Only th e c'f the petitioners had been originally Protestants, and 7,11,,0,t1hers had been converts from the Roman Catholic faith. f ew ti.tiatrn.ber of Protestants originally in the parish had been so vs o a,t hail not there petitioners been converted the parish _ A,, t ' ; ' 1 4 3 4 11. been susp filed under the Church Temporalities' a the zniailiyesptli:rsetelfocte°sntsaencitueetninc;re"gf 'e c°":ersions of heads of fa- Indtheese if !, and . th e n-. ''.tn had been increased to nearly rish had been say-al in consequence, li nps ft, 've::. needs of families had suffered great persecu - th e ir t he Roman Catholic priests on that ace.iiiat. . . sig n4l 1 2, arnuis of BREADA Ll 3 %NE presented 8 2 petitions, fro m th y 10,604 Persons in di ff erent parts of Scotland, chiefly eigai nst e grew [ ion of the Free Church in that comery, hotity the grant to May nooth. He would take this oppor rough%hes aia°l expressing his surprise at the mode in which '"tY's Government were pushing the grant to Maynooth th e Mtitions he the Rouses of Parliament —this, he might call it, tha°"!4litional made. It app eared that, however numerous e COllntry against . miht b d v r earnest the expression of e, an owe e de erminea, la enn it, yet the Government were I t tl, „..to'ietl4relity of the majority' which they possessed, to carry la.._ nuke e through both Houses of Parliament. sa-orti'se. of WELLINGTON felt compelled to say a few (Nis fn e,nose.quenee of what had fallen from the Noble Mar- N ot , t 0 h ad just sat clown. The Government were not pre tlse,, vr!Pnelf this measure in an unconstitutional manner, but that 3,70 Prepared to take the sense of Parliament, and on Lortigg.they were prepared to act. lord x 'AI3UGHAM in rising to p resent a petition from wntotinnity of sayinta oppori er.isington against the West Lo ndon Railway, took the that it was a very great mistake, he Otis hat saY a n misrepresent ' ation, but it was a very 14 the balstake to suppose that because the majority they 1 , m mtry had not petitioned in favour of Maynooth, that 011 weerre Xgainst the grant. The contrary was the ease. They Petiti on e ,,' o favour of the grant did not think it necessary to Isere fo ur eut, a, a Noble Friend of his had observed, if there 404 persons in favour and one against it, the filth, he betie,., a was the most noisy person of the lot, got all the Earl 13EE A AND SPIRIT HOUSES. t .eliti ons f ._ A' presented :ITZIVILLI M an immense number of _ of Atiri. all parts of England and Wales against the of , luaus liquors on the Sabbath, and f or the • hitin2ues" for the sale of spirits and beer. A g r r ie e y a o t o a si l y te d ra is t a io p n_ p ot ,,r . o Made in the law in 1829, which ha d g ••see those who had advocated it. He was one of i hose who, la the 4 euse of Commons, had voted against that m th e e a l s ) u e r ti i, Itirestettrsasted the House would entertain the prayer o The N Ai OBLE EARL also presented seven petition s s ee f s ro o m f kotagoarrtahnedn, in Wales, agaiust the . u . nion fro o m f Bolter et Bt.• Asaph ; likewiae a petition L ot .; N• against the Maynooth Bill. . . t t h h e e county of fo 0n,.. Ct RAIA. NB Y presented a petition from D e is t s A di • e s aNtncero folk,orast the 11Iaynooth Bill • also one from Act cf last sesstoo.against the 2W. clause of ' the Bankruptc y , The Bich t ae pr o ° 1 ) of LONDON presented several petitions aga i nst The P44(1 Union of Bangor and St. A saph. e M ar • ed a petition in fav our ' quis of CL A N RICA RDEp v w e J., Do n . ° f the 19 Irish railway from a r p e l s a e c n e t in Ireland whose The ~ceiti not Catch. petition from the bea n .," ke ef RICHMOND presented . fine f r Y of Bangor against railway travelli a ng cr o o n f S ito. , °re the same place against the opening L "Y. Sunday, s al o s n o ka s t o d 1\7111.171AX presented a petition against the grant to r, CONFESSIONS OF' CRIMINALS, af t a *Juke of BUCKINGHAM wished to call the att:•„, tow twuri'r Lordships to a written statement that. was: - „,, at l e by the lai n ofrZ,ewho , was lately e l iecut i ed r at ,.. A v.. l _ e _ l ( , ) . ux, st t a o t : s l to le e c o h t ar, :e plie.rosed ttrt gl: lty t er er o e p , tt,i,e- theevldattist,„...(t wont their requiring r„ 1111 to do so. He (Mr . ....roc) told them he had no objection petti' rosk e a private a'.:..1 confidential communication to them re ng it, I.„„it refused altogethe r to make a disclosure ta onen-C".aart. Now, he (the Duke of Buckingham) wished ° k..ow from her :Majesty's Government whether the chaplain hf the gaol was authorised to wthhold such a statement from the magistrates On their requiring him to deliver it Up ? The Duke of WFLLINGTON had no authority froin the tie, tt,,4 e rnment to make any answe r to the question ; bist, con ;47,4ins!s*red that, unless in a case where the life of the mini ter eif vri . ss in danger or in cases of high treason, the common law 7,1.4 tie him to make any disclosures of a confession made to The such circumstances. cl o t il l i . Marquis of CLANIII pooh, -n o the Secret cARDE thought that as the 1tt1e,,441 had, as he unkistood, made the communication of State, and the judge who ided tat o t ri al ,toa that, it could no longer be looked upon ac t s pri lh. n,:.cation. ~,,,,,,2-14.06. of WELLINGTON said that it was no private kett-lo:.ation, as it had been made in the presence of a third t or " j the governor of the gaol. lejbe*as up,‘•;ANIPIIELL said, that by the law of England there it"t'retectioni given to the minister of any religion with re ,a,ted- t o r t : t tl e,h 4 confession. It was over and over again - "re k -". 1113' were bound to disclose it. Even in a c . . , e t 114., lucorifession had been made to a Roman Catholic priest •ttrhe I:lleireorestances, was compelled to disclose it. , 4 113 , i t, °l) of EXET'EReslid that p it ' was a portion of the i1 . 4.e1 l ° of te Church of England, and the liturgy, of the w7kRS4, thal'tg),nd was recognised as .akporation on of wham he ev.4:lll%;:t!eooarlicica ttglyrboan .sawoandseicr compunctions m of con °,.l`lti„.°Os'ottZas hi's duty to a o e u as r e m h e conscience of the sick ma n, .. eftsl"able a4t,einifession to further the ends of public just ice. 14)ocaie t tio Learned Lord was mistaken in the supposi,i . : a pish ° ;r7_.hich he had referred. The case was not tha t •)1,8. warst, but of a cl-rgyman of the Church of Eng tatZe Wir i 3 cot tried before Justice Buller but before . Mr. or. la t 7 t , tbs., ( t i s t.i .; and there was another case of more Justice it" a t s., which had been decided by Mr. . Snitable and this' Pri o , d• t o th e principle which the Whiteh. Leartled Lord Exete r had advocated.. After that trial he h' aunt to NI ) had commun i cat ed with the Learned i ed .. wi ts take ‘; erence to the decision of . L ord .., , th at r I,,_fm the Northern Circuit, the . y t t :Rh h a d h a ve refused the evidence on which Lord Lou b i , on, on a subsequent occasion, state n. d i t h h o a! at ra,,„.., decid ed, ;2:4 7 ti v l l l:l;t:in: stating this opinion. Yliomtrusted that the Noble and . Leari.ed iresunsptuous in t hat t i t tefe.'red, 01144 ' " awns.but that of the high au horities to whic L ot,, e Cods fl a...°,d,.he had made those be prevented. in order Issot,tl" STANiee. Justice might not . prevented. s ztte ogee coovi .1 said that the confessnons made by Per - No ll Inlty of. life,etns at the hour of death, or in the very dw h e ther t h e : could further no ends of public justice. c elrity Girth csyrnan who attended the person in these u ,ts tio:e tbat'ttastanees had acted wisely or otherwise, i .w us • .. eti ed „ The eo n confession would further no ends of public and eer it ;ee to tt,ffe_s.'ion sr.as. made to 'dear the conscience, do h ;1' a nd f uture spiritual welfare of the ind.dual have -Of .. n rthe r i_ 0 way act as aco hti:c*lu Wa s "g the ends of justice. The publication of a the A Y a p rur . of value only with a view to this end, or to ti'lo on e wient curioiy, and L Stanley) conceived - i tl e e • Th°,„u,d think that c i t ypubl was necessary t ias.;- e onf e ,, - enalilain in this case could reveal the contents hatri o "ton or ,scion lo Such as he thought fit ing I t wa . , es .._ diser.:_ persons and if the vi-i !nag's %s. were di s . - ...rt on his part ; his The satisfied, they had the, remedy in their own as t4l,leY) wool had the o - -f removing to ~,.- " I h i l eeu-ri?' nture io"seary ° that, under su l c n h in Circ li um e st ( a L n o c r e d s th,‘ .4 fe r th eted with the present subject, there was no case 1 I.ith,iplajoetttinterference of the Secretary of State to force ost l' ''' 4 40/ J 4 ,-, l ee UP possession of the document. th str ik Aen, a 'MA NI agreed with the Noble Lord who had . to • i t% s '4l oughtthou the clergyman had exercised a soun d , lat e t . • It w as ‘io o r er e ; part of the duty of the Secretary of .i Mate r. itti er °l th e ti o 4 such eases as that brought under the consi e a t l p ti p:t s l .' he t'et r is:i ethu'eiorezrbril;(ll magistrates g as to the particular hi Ica, wh et s that should be iien to points of law. T . he th4 s teot ittrteziai undei _ a I,( 7 ., c e re of b s o e u e n r d ee t y o d i -close a c r o i n se fe i s o sioLs l 'ettptkitit: 1,,9e.t. This W P as a ' case and h ' would not speak on a% r o ,„ re d to be-p.'%"ich a Confession' made , after conviction was 4i te t i a r ll o4 l° up. In this c.Ase, he would state, they ought re- ( 1 , 41 11 ht Zither toritsatt9 !uppose, that an aft e r confessio, n . The h public „sptiet. tett 3 _,,..,,i5 e fs the. Public or the . jury. , I '4., Loa verP"n d with the verdict. I here were three . Vtk, e'er, sat ~,tet, the jury the judge, and the Crown, an d . if i to t stotessi,fied with t hy,' the of a criminal, no confession' Sh pt. bid toaer after that. But if juries w ere to N i , t eial, t aPeculaie up o n confessions being ma d e ottthttrotiki ar r i ost eaa 0 , , t ce.ully weighing evidence, great ' ,I l ttli r Nit r o se ' If a jury had any doubts whatever they , t "at tt cialy to convict. it ought to be known, that juries rt e eah l t t all. il!encict upon evide- ce, and should have or, l e Y ct to o " e Y,ritight to be told, that hey ought nut to 44w*,ere0 feasions, which were worth, o very little, that Otitollir ,;eetn,tetotiptes resorted to by criminals in order. to 4,,e, t 4 te ,,L 41. ; t 1 ; 1 ,, i s of to , Scare. agreed with the Noble 1114,4 4,1‘,4'e I!reeeded him in the view of the questio t, n . 1, 1 , 11 1 4„ to to I,l,heeel There was another point . to whie h l e s for ti, t eoo se, I, reference, while this business was .41 4 ; of do`a.lras ; expecting letters sent by per Fons under au_ - ' ,:elil„Pk,...had th_"• he Lordships knew that the prisisn was that ,',_Pever of opening letters, but it ne ver ~Icrstiqfloirto`°ey had the Power of furnishing for . publication s. t.t l l aPp g and blasphemous letters, as two which had, .iii th selt„ toted in the public prints, addressed by tbecceots':f ei l t st t i . 'agl st t ,wo unfortunate females ; every senten d at t hi. 4 the ?..naVe been buried in oblivion. He hope Ititk„!eo ;ceretary of flat, would, if he did no more, , i isorPtil „ 41 and advice prevent the recurrence of such . "tt 4 4 -eccedin th, tri v Na l AA . P. allyti, a f 3l . coocurred with the Noble Lord who 'had d 6t t :Le lttintlit.,isaid that after a verdict was given by a jury tn e 'cas ed thy ti " right to doubt its integrity, but, slit Auld ta t . . s toe arise the throne of mercy was open t.o be tt *ti Q ati t 4 ho r ' 120 , ti s ., oso y , Pet the public mind would give up i a ex• t i t ? et ad _ i to respect to publications containing sukh nits that I ne s those which had teen referred to. He did a the prisoner, who was ' a man of ~f al.th and station, hail had the benefit of sikch rouniel as defeture I him, and hail been h-iV , .d b_fore so excellent a judge, and se impartial a jury, that his confession of guilt Under suCli ci'- cumstances was a matter of much con - V'enße, tt; it ent'sid nOi in tne l eas t a dd to t h e satiefactioil 4'. 'sae mind of every one that he w as gu il ty eq crime laid t o hi s charge.—( Hear, hear.) lit triest confess that he did not see how the magis trittes, 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 chsplaiti:—( liver, The Duke of BUCKINGHAM thought the question was, whether/or net the Chaplain aas justified in withhtildirig it statement made to him under such circumstancl?in Lord STANLEY sa id he week'.ufal:i inquiry o f th e H ome Secrstary into the eilaalfsaiitances, and would take an early opportunity of ebrnmunieating the result to their Lordships. BANGOR AND S r. ASAPIL Earl POWIS presented several petitlars flee tiaiie`a in Wales a ga i nst t h e un i on of theeeeea Of Mapn and Bangor. In moving the seeeed feadilig of the Bill it became necessary for him neW lb state the result of the communications he bad with the public on the subj , et of disuniting the two sees, He had la.ely received petitions in favour leg his . Meaellee frail nearly ev ery county hi Etielatnl tired Wales, and all of them complained et' tlit difficulties and inconveni ence which heal arisen from the union of the two Beet) there was a numerous population in both secs, and their Lordships must be fully aware of thb diflia.ties the present Right It Phetite had to euhtelid - against, owing to the dissittillitlide llshieli existed between the two languages : That Right Rey. Prelate was distinguished for his learning and piety, and although he had the love and eeoftdence of his flock, he confessed that he found it extremely difficult to ray due and sufficient attention to impeoelog the state and eondition of the numerous fleck lenelee hie charge. And if the Right Rev. Peelete eXperienced difficulties of this kind, how would hit successor, who might happen to have less experience and be less distinguished for his talents, be able to Contend against them ? Then, if they wan'sd any additiohal evidence of the inconvenienee restating from the union of two dioceses, they had it le the case o f th e di oceses o f Gl oucester and Brittol, the union et' which had given rise to extraordinary incenvenience and difficulty. Many persons had petitiened their Lordships whims interests were dt , cctly ativanttd by the union of the two sees t but the pettribners (for instance, the ' clergy and inhabitant§ of Manchester) had petitioned against the union, declaring their conscientious ob jection to receiving benefit from an Ant which inflicted Ins jury on anot h er part o f the stoenteee Ile fegretted that a Noble Lord who cook di i , p interest in this matter last year was pliable. ti :attend on that occasion, but he had the satisfac !len of assuring the llotoe that that Noble Lord's (Harrovvhy:s) opinion on this matter remained unchanged. As reearcicd the appointment of a Bishop of :11aticliester, 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 6th and 7th William IV., which had been the foundation of the Church Commission. He only wi,h.d that his Noble Friend had been of the same opinion now that he was when this Commistion was issued ; and that he and the inhabitants. of No th Wales could have the advantage of the arg 'merits which he had then used, for he was sure that thee her Majesty's Government and the several members of the Ecclesiastical Commission would est with him. The report of that. Commission was made on the 17th of March, 18t5, and in the year following, on the 4th of March, a great alteration had been made in the view taken by the Ecclesiastical Commission of the union of the sees ! of St. Asaph and Banger, 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 reduciiin was mooted. The income of the diocese of St. Asaph was 5,204. a-year, and that of Bangor, 3,80(►/. It was proposed to take from these the sums of 2,3001., and, with the 28,000/. already appropriated from other sources, to create a sum of upwards of 30,000/., which was to increase the incomes of the thirteen Bishops, to the amount of 3,0001. a year. This report, however, did not hear the signature of Sir R. Inglis, but of Thomas Spring line. At the time it was first proposed to take anything from the 3,e00t. 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 °eel sion to see persona 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 LOH 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 hripression of the deputation that it was the intention of the Government tea place the bishoprics in Wales on precisely the same footing as other bishoprics. They conceived at that time thnt nn portion ought to be taken froth the revenues of the Welsh benefic,t, as they were at that time only sufficient, and barely sufficient, for the wants of the people, and that if they did so they would reduce the revenues below the requirement of the country for spiritual inatructioh. That deputation had been composed of men of the highest position, and of all par ties. After the interview, hovieVor, hr *as free to confess that the hope of the deputation had glue 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: Asttph and llangor ; although he had stated the intention of the tio vernme it to modify those blehopties. 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 :youth Wales the cues 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 tntl eanotiries attached. Not withstanding the declaration of the Government, that it was intended to place the Church in England and Wales on the same footing, arel to assimilate the number of the canonries to those belonging to the chapter* In England, the number re mained unaltered, and while the deaheries In England were 1,000/. each, while those in Wales were only 700/. each ; and while the cannot-Ma In England were 500/. a-year, theta 'n Wales were only 300/. a-year. There was another source from wheel:* the sums tequired might be drawn and applied to North Wales. This was the revenges of what were called the sinecure vicarages, to which Ito duty was attached, and no in jury would there fore be done by applying their ineemes to active and useful purposes. If it was not taking too great a lib rti, he would address their Lordships on t wo o th er points. T hey were illustrative of the seme of tyro impoi tent 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 he was unknown to that uni versity, except through his connexion with the question of the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. His conduct on that question had found favour in their eyes, and hence it was that they conferred on him that which he looked upon as the greetest compliment ever paid him Si7Ce 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 got up 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 anal 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 others were from all other parts of England.— ( Hear, hear.) He would make some observations on these petitions presently. But what he wished to call their attention at present to was the particular provisions of this Bill. It was a Bill neither more or less than to repeal the Act 5 and 6 William IV., which Act was intended to carry into effect the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He would state the object sought to be obtained by that Corn miss:on. 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, and 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 ON that report, involved a great sacrifice of patronage, not only on the part of the country, but by the Ministry, the Right Reverend Prelates and Noble Lords of both aides of the House. All this sacrifice was made with the single object of rendering the Church more efficient in its ministrations, and better adapted to the wants of the people. For he did not tee why the public should be made to incur greater expense than was absolutely necessary, and he we., quite coefident 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 lit 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 ih the Church— which he contended was to a certain event to be attributed to the circumstance of the having an adequate remuneration for the slischaree of the important duties which devolved upon them. Associaticg as he dial 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 hot 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 tions that had been presented against the union of the Wee, but he could assure the Noble Lords that such Omen' 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 immediately be supposed by their assenting to it that it as their intention to withdraw from the system ell - stealer.— (Hear, lissr.) He begged their attention for a few minutes, and he thought he would be able to show them that the dioceses of St. Asa.oli and Bangor had no reason whatever to complain of the whole arrangement. A sum had been already given to augment the amount enjoyed by the small livings, but he was not aware that any portion of that came from the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. He then came to consider what the sacrifice would be to the diocese of Bangor when this Act came into operation, and also what the gain would be. The sacrifice which would be made by the diocese of St. Asaph and Bangor would be altogether 4 ) 750/., hut, 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 should be reformed, and the revenues applied to the parochial service of the dioceses in which they exist. But that Act went further, for one clause of it enabled the Commissioners not to wait till the demise of the present incumbents, but to purchase the advowsons at any time, so that the proceeds might be ap plied by the Act for the purposes of parochial service. Another advantage would be the gain of three archdeacons and an increase of deans, chapters, and canoes, all of whom would be properly provided for ; and they would also gain by the parochial services being more efficiently attended to. He would now come to the inconveniences of the proposedarrangement. The two dioceses, when united, were not so large, nor did it con tain so many livings as many other dioceees', and he could not understand why one Right Rev. Prelate could not perform Without difficulty or inconvenience the same duties as another Right Rev. Prelate, whose diocese happene.d to be in another .t.ll f.. gti N, L.O.N b_ON:,....S..A_T vitl) A v , . . part of the country. Ile could i not, either; ; .see how _any cons plOnt.o6l,l made to the tak!riß aWai- of dtie Bishop when there P:rs-cs. (Rise persons appointed to perform his duties. On the whole, he thought he had said sufficient to convince their Lordshi l s that there was no necessity for the measure of the Noble Earl, and he should, therefore, move as an amendment that it be - rea i a second time that day six months. The Bishop of BANGOR Imp!tired the House to listen to the 8f the people of Wales, and the Majority of the People Of nigland, and not to create a thsidh of the tiei sees of 13ango'r and„gt, Aga iii. ft we illd greatly ineotivehiente him fteff Mi l d his Bi'glit Bei. Friend the Bishop of St. Asaph, with out either benefiting the clergy or the po, ulation of the two dioceses. The Noble Duke, in treating this question, seemed to consider it a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, and dwelt upon the money . -tailing wiiich feSttlt tilt two dliieeStst e. WEre effected ; bill the question, in his opi nion, and in the opinion of the clergy arid people of Wales, assumed a higher and more important character. It was cer tainly with them riot a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, but a question bearing upon the spiritual wants of the princi paliq'. The people: of Waltits looked Open the union as a step loikai'dsredueng the means afforded them of spiritualinstru 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 dice he filled, he could assure their Lord hips, wag an)thing but a sinecure. He believed there *ere fig sinecitre tithes or livinto in the diocese of St. Asaph, ("Mil tthiah his light Reverend Friend, who was not then present, derivet any benefit. With regard to the see of Man chester, he could see no difficulty in providing funds for its support. Whether well or ill endowed, whether rectories, vicarages, or curaties, it was the desire of the people that the sees sholthl remain its they ate; 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 accus'omed to delight their Lordships. He would now conclude by recommending the petitions and the feelings and the interests of these people to their consideration. The Earl of tVINCHILSEA felt that it etas necessary to tall the eiiiphatic 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 Wits in itself evil, in order to produce what was in itself good, for he ens confident that if any good did 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 fot the sake of a paltry saving of ;5,000/. a year. The Ecclesiastical Commission might perhaps have had no other course than that of recommending the union of these sees at the time their report was made. But now the case was widely different. England was. gorged with wealth, and it was going out with its millions in wile.' he could not but term the most shameful gambling speculation. His Noble Friend had earned to himself that which was beyond all price in the s e d a y s f liberal, or rather h e wou ld say , of impious opinions, by stand ing up for those principles on which the greatness of this coun try had been built, and through which alone the spiritual wel fare of the country could he secured. He called upon their Lordships to support his Noble Friend in this Bill, and to di, regard all private opinions, and if it was necessary to stand between the Ministers and the Crown, not to he , itate 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 thankedthatwich should give on this occa s i on , and he earnestly 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 his duty if he did not express his opinion on this measure.- The House was called upon to look at this question in reference to its efficiency, and in doing so he was bound to inquire into the efficiency of the episcopal superintendence of those sees. In 1805 there had been only 520 dissenting chapels in Wales; in 1810 there were 954, and in 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 it.duced to ascribe this inef flcieney to the fact, that the parochial system had been sacrificed to tho 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 irehdeaconries of Atiglesea Were founded in 1685. The three archdeaconries of Bangor were endowed at the some time ' and others in different parts of th e country were endow e d in 1710, and others as late as 1813. The endowments of those bishoprics stood on different grounds from those of many of the bishoprics of England. There was now no surplus fend in the Erelesiastical 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 c utimission, by the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, by Sir Robert Peel, and by Mr. Watkins %V. Wynne.— (" Hear, hear," from Earl Powys.) 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 du' ics 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 thi in, 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 LI A NI said he was riot going to debate the Bill, for he gave his support to it, on the grounds which his Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) had stated, and on the re commendations contained in the Commissioners' Report. The whole question at present was the second reading of the Bill, which he would decidedly oppose, and would vote for the amendment of his Noble Friend. 'I he Bishop of SALISBURY said the Government mea sure for the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph was founded on the Report of 1835 ; but it ought to be recollected that the Commissioners afterwards changed their opinion on the subject, and admitted they had not sufficiently considered the difficulties of the case before making their report. The dean and chapter of Christchurch, Oxford, for instance, possessed the impropriate tithes of seventy parishes, and if the parochial. wants of the diocese were great, he did not see why they should not call upon the Legislature to pass an Act to transfer these funds to the wants of the destitute clergy who might happen to be in the diocese. The principle was the same. If they interfered with the arrangements and appro priation of ecclesiastical revenues in 'Wales, he did not see 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 accomated 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 charactev 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 were the circumstances under which the Commission of 1834, was appointed. It was made up of venerable and learned men, and after due and deliberate investigation it came to the conclusion that it was advisable that the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph should be made. Now, he begged their Lordships :to remember that this Commission was appointed by no Government hostile to the Church. The objects of that commission was to make inquiry into the dioceses of England, and 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, he it observed, was the equalisation of the revenues en the one hand, and nt the duties tin thd other. How then could it be said that the principle which actuated the commis sien was placed upon an erroneous basis? Well, then, it left only three dioceses untouched, and the commission remo delled at reeognited all tie °thee dioceses of the kingdom. The commission certainly recommended the establishment of two new sees, but the funds saved by the union of the two sees of Bangor and St. Asaph *ere net applied to the establishment of eithet Of thetti, tb the ingilientation 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 Roe,hester in ,e similar manner? And t , .'ett not the sec's of Bristol and Gloucester tonsotislated? True, they were, and, notwithstanding what hart 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 eicperitnehte, Which had given so titieh satisfactioh, td irritate or unsettle the public; mies‘ oh thR subject ? It *ai ddiniitrd that the alteratithi wuulst not stop here. I t was i nten d e d h erea f ter if this measure were carried to make a gradual increase to the number of bishops who occupied seats in that House.—(" No, no.") Noble Lords might say no t but he told them that such was the opiniOn edit Of dosirs,,And lie *tidied their Lercbiliips tiot to eiesnte hn hostility in the country towards the Church, sehich, if it did not eventually destroy, must most assuredly prove a very serious injury to the Chur c h. W as i t w i se then eatudte,Ber the oe present moment of ai to ptets tiiii r e sa f ur i s ? W ot i ld It hot t the ht net, P re lat es w ho h e l d flight seats in that House ? Let them paute then before ,they took a step Which was, likely id lead id disistrotis, giti.nting 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 anion of the sees of hatt ,, or. and St. Asaph nuAt net tti lie distOlied. iWesitiited together were 360,i30, lining k , ei'y little Mere tnen half the average of the whole of the dioceses, which was 538,1,00 souls. The - . numbrr of benefices was 262, but this was not a fair average, because the pointlation in these two benefices was not all equal to the population of benefices of ether dioeeses. titie half of the population, foe, of these bettelices, it ehotild be reinernbertil; Were Dissenters from the Establishcd Church. Ile should like, then, to see any Noble Lord arguing for the 1 1 division of the two sees, and the retention of Exeter or of Lin coln as one diocese. Whether it was from the want of BA _ cient episcopal superintendence, or other causes, the l a b ours of the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor were lighter th an t h ose of almost all the other dioceses in the country. H e qu i te agreed in what fell from a Noble Lord the other night, t h at Wales sfr as from England, but th at they identical; and h e s h ould mustthey co c u ou ld si n de o r t stehpeartatitou countries conceive that the best mode of distributing the whole of the episcopal staff of the whole country, so as to equalise the duties and the revenues of all the sees. If the principle were to be adopted of considering the two countries as separate, Wales would lose more than it gained, for Wales gave mor e titan it got. It appeared, from the statements of the eccle siastical fund, that there was in favour of Wales a balance of 1,45 1. Throwing into this the revenues of the sinec ure rec tories, which gave - 4,0001., into the contnion fund, th ere would be a gain of 8,•2801. as against 7,5601. ; and there was even now an application to the public fund for 3,0001. more. With regai-d to the distace of flih bishOp hi flock, the f ac t ' *is, 'there was a railroad ibsoluiely fiow forming which would . - pass' through 'both the towns of St. Asaph and Bangor, and would bring them as near to each other as Liverpool and Manchester. He felt deeply the induls 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 question, and that it was absolutely necessary for the equalisation of the spiritual duties of the country, that it should lie cafried; they . would allow this business to be worked by the Eccleiiastical tommisSionefs. 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 ur political superintendence of the Church, they would be best serving the interests of that Church. He felt that this was a qttestion purely of principle, and, if it were not, he *mild With pleasure have eoted for the Bill of the Noble Lord (Earl Powis), but he felt bound to give it his smog de cided, but most conscientious, opposition. 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 difficulty which had been thrown on the yes'ion, and the more so as he thought the question had assumed a new phase since he last addressed them. The Noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed that any one advocated this question on any other grounds than those which it could prefer as being a part of the Church of England. No such idea as that had ever existed in the mind of ant individual. But }vet the Church of Wales had its rights and its privile:es, and if the Campus Martius of Perth and the Curragh of Kildare could put in their claims to consideration, the Church of Wales had also an equal right to the protection of the Government. The Constitution did not recognise that any one individual of the community should be sacrificed, much less such important interests as those under consideration. The inhabitants of Wales in this matter, as in many others, considered they had been overlooked and neglected. This was a strong reason why their Lordships ought to be cautious in dealing 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 aide of the House, that the lair needed amendment, and that there was an injus tice Which required to be redressed. He d.d admit the great Want of spiritual instruction in North Wales, and that if the surplus funds to be disposed of were applied to improve that spiritual instruction, great good might result from the mode in which it was to be effected. He considered the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley ), consummate as it was in ability, a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end, having no other intention than to divert the attention of their Lordships from the real merits of the question. That Noble Lord had endea voured to impress on their Lordships' minds that in consentirg to the Noble Lord's (Lord Yowls's) Bill they would be up setting all that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had done. He (the Bishop of St. David's) adm'iletl the great good that that Commission had done, hut 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 No'.le I ord, 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 on the contrary had proved most pernicious to the interests of the Church.—( Loud cries of " Question, ques tion," amid which the Right Rev. Prelate sat dawn. ) 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 o.ie 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 opinion's he entertained object to the Noble Earl's motion, but, from the peculiar position in which he stood, he would abstain frOrn 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 thonght 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 RNA RYON said that after what had fallen from the Neble Lord (Earl Fitzwilliam) and the Right Rev. Prelates•(the Bishops of St. David's and London) he could see no sufficient reason why they should resist the strong cur rent of public opinion which had set in in favour of this mea sure.. The almost universal feeling of the clergy of Wales, and the all but unanimous sympathy of the laity, afforded a great reason for carrying out the measure before the House ; a:kd he did not see iny"reason to apprehend any of that dor mans 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, he could not but think that the crea- tion of new Bishopi would shortly be a necessity. At the time the Eccles astical Commissioners made their report and recommended the abolition of one of the Welsh sees, it was apprehended that no funds could be raised for endowing the new see of Manchester, but he was glad to find now, from every ride of the House, that there was no similar ground of fear on . that aecount, 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 this subject, and the , pirit 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 Proxies Nora-Contents . Proxies . 58-129 Majority against the Bill 32 Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 2. The SPEAKER took the chair at Four o'clock. THE DUDDESTON AND NECHELLS IMPROVE MENT (No. 2) BILL. This Bill, on the motion of Mr. SPOONER, was read a second time, after a few w or d s of opposition from Mr. Muntz. RAILWAY COMMITTEES. During the time of p r i vate b us i ness, Mr. APGE ACHY , who formed one of the C omm i ttee on G roup X, stated that since the morning he had ascerta i ne d t h at h e had a pecuniary interest in one of the railw a y s o f t h e g roup on w hich he sat, and he therefore begged to be excused any f urt h er a ttendance on the Committee. The Hon. G ent l eman was a ccording:y dis charged from any further attendance. CORNWALL RAILWAY. Sir G. GREY and Lord CLEMENTS presented a considerable number of petitions in favour of the Cornwall and Devon Railway Bill. IHISTOL AND DORCHESTER RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. MUNDY, this Bill Was read a first tme. HARROGATE RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. BOWES, this Bill was read a second me. DEPTFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL. Mr. BARNE BY presented p e tition; against th is Bill. GLASGOW, BARRHEAD,-AND NEILSTON DIRECT RAILWAY. This Bill was read a second time. BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY. On the motion that this Billberr;11; second time, Mr. G. BANKES said that he would take that opportunity of presenting a petition from Lady Georgiana Fane, and others, and from several of her tenants, against the passing of this Bill. He believed that this Bill was in a peculiar po sition. It had been taken into consideration by the Com mittee previ, us to the second reading. It was certainly an anomaly in the proceedings of Parliament, that the principle in the details, of a Bill should be decided upon before it bad been approved upon by the House at large. He should there fore beg the especial consideration of the House to the petition which he had now to present, which prayed that the petitoner might be heard before the Committee personally or by counsel. iose. The SPEAKER said that the plan which the Hon. Mem ber ought to adopt would be to move for the reference of the petitions to the Select Committee. There would be three r ir m . il ß te A e N a K nd E t s he act e o e n d sid e on clear days before the lit of June, between the decision of the Co suggestion, n the and th H e u petitions were referred to the Select Committ ee . — rl , will be recollected by our readers, that' n our report of the proceedings of the Se lect torniiiittCe on the Bristol and Exeter Railway Bill it was stated by M r. Merrc•wether, C ounse l for some of the petitio ners a g ains t the Bill, that ra th ti i ° s ti the Bill had not been read a second time in the House of CoMfilon!, and that the Committee were competent to take evidence in favour or against the Bill, though they were un able tti exclude the prayer of any petitioner, and of course to decide on the preamble. the Chairman, the Ho nourable J. H. Liddell, and the Committee, taking this view of the matter, the further consideration of the preamble was deferred in order that the Bill might be read a set tittd time in the Commons, and that they might proceed legitimately to the eoftsiciMetafion of itsinerits 1 AYNOOTH. Colonel Conolly, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Broadley, Lord North land, end gther Hen. Members, presented petitions against the grant to Alaynootil. Mr. Alderman HUMPHBRY presented a petition from the pdrish Bt, tiedge4l, Sotithwark, signed by 800 persons, against the Maynooth grant. Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions against the proposed, or any grant to Maynooth, from places in the counties of Cum. berland, Essex, Gloucester, and from the counties of Down, Goirt; and Donegal, in Ireland. hivatsti DISABILITIES BILL. • Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from a large number of pers o ns in Shropshire against the Jewish Disabilities Bill. UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the Chancellor and Members of the University. of Oxford, praying that no alteration might he made in their Act. Sir J. TROLLOPE presented a petition from Holbeach, in. Lincolnshire, praying fora change in the Insolvent Debtors' wi:h a view to the better recovery of dtbts under 2 :/. ; also several petitions against the grant to Maynooth. Colonel ACTON presen t e d a petition from th e p ar i s h o f Shillelagh—(Laughter) —in the county of Wicklow, against the grant to Maynooth. •petit;ons from • Mr. FERRAND presented var io us parts of England and Ireland against the grant. Mr. HAMILTON presented twenty petitions from various places in Ireland against the grant. .Mr. DIVETT presented similar petitions from Exeter. Mr. BRIG HT presented thirteen petitions against the grant. ;Lord RENDLESHAM presented similar petitions from Wolk. Colonel SIBT HOR P presented a number of petitions from 'Wales ta the same effect. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Carlisle against the grant to itlaynooth. The petitioners complained that be Bill had been forged through the House against the EVENING, MAY 8, 1845. voice of the country ; also several petitions, praying that the drflstment of wages shoted be done away with. Mr. DUNCAN pfnentt4 a letition from Ferfarshire against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. GODSON presented a petition from ccriain turnpike road trustees, praying to be heard by counsel against the Berks and Hampshire Railway. NEW ZEALAND. _ _ Sir R. INGLIS said, that not.vithstanding that he had seen that certain communications had taken plane between her Mtjesty's Government and the authorities of New Zea land tipOn the subject of a notice that an Hon. Member had upon the paper, which had indL eed that Hon. 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 communications that had taken place were of such a nature as to alter the po;ition of the missionaries of that colony with this country ; and also the position of the natives of the colony and the New Zealand Company with this country, and that of those parties with each other? Mr. HOPE said he felt it necessary to give some explana tion with respect to what had passed last night. He d d not pretend to say what had passed between the Noble Lord under whom he served and the Hon. Member fur Liskeard. In the first place, the withdrawal of the notice of the Honourable 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 hia consideration. He answered that whenever such an arrangement should be rroposed 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's Government. In answer to a question put by Lord DUNCAN, Sir 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 Whitsuntide. THE BRAZILS. Mr. LA BOUCHERE 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 lion. Gentleman was, whether the Government had received any communica tion on this subject, and whether such information zdfirmed or denied the statement ? Sir IL 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 f 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 purpose.. 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 informality erased from the Bill. Mr. COLLETT wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respeCling a motion which stood on the hook for that day. The Right Honourable Gen tleman intended to add the name of Mr. Alilnes Gaskell to the five members already named, as a Committee on the Chester and Holyhead Railway ; did he 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 MAULS 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 be hoped to move tine second reading of those Bills before the holidays. SCHISM IN THE CHURCH. Mr. MANGLES said he had a petition to present respecting the difference which had lately occurred amongst the clergy of the 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 arm 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. 'l he 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 HON. Mastaza 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 Hun. Baronet at the head of the Government, that a similar mea . sure would be brought forward at an after period, he should postpone it. Be would rather that the Bill were brought in by the Government than by a private individual, and under these circumstances he should postpone the bringing forward of his measure. AIAYNOOTH. Sir R. PEEL presented petitions from Rochdale, and places in Bedfordshire, in favour of the grant to Maynooth. Mr. H LIME presented two petitions from Arbroath against th , grant to Maynooth. The petitioners regarded all State assistance to religious denominations as unjust, unnecessary, and impolitic, and on that ground they prayed the House not to pass this measure. Mr. Ewart, Mr. Lawson, and Mr. Smollet presented peti tions against the Bill. Petitions against the grant were presented by Lord Claude Hamilton, by Mr. D'lsraeli, by Mr. Ilastie, Captain Pechell, Mr. S. Crawford, Mr. C. Bruce, Colonel Fox, Lord Ebring ton, Mr. Forbes, Sir C. Lemon, and Mr. Denison (Surrey). On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, Mr. HINDLEY said thai in rising to object to the Speaker leaving the chair, he was only discharging a painful duty, and one which he undertook individually, without concert with any other Member of that House. He felt great regret that the Government thought it consistent with their duty to go r n with the present measure. What was it doing in England ? It was throwing the whole country into convulsions. It would raise the fires of religion, which would not easily be destroyed. —(Laughter.) It would make the next election a polemical arena, where the religion of every man would be taken into consideration. The Right Hon. Baronet must be aware that this measure had excited such dissatisfaction that at least 1,200 individuals had been induced to come up from th t coun- • try, and spend several days in the metropolis, to protest against the measure. As the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Nevraik said, the country was against the measure. Let not the House imagine that they were wiser than all Eng land—( Laughter)—or that, hecauie they happened to have secured their seats in Parliament, they were to act in contra diction to the feelings of the people of the whole country. He would repeat it, that nothing could be more opposed to the feelings—or the prejudices, if they would—of the Protestants of England than this measure. He would ask, if this measure had created so much ill-feeling and confusion in England, did it at the same time effect any good in Ireland?—( Laughter.) He had heard it said that a great deal should be done to conciliate Ireland. He would admit it, and he would be ready to sacrifice everything but principle to do so. But can it be believed that this measure would have that effect ? He denied that it would, and in order to prove his assertion, let him read a letter which had recently appeared in the public prints, from the pen of the Right Reverend Dr. Higgins, a Roman Ca tholic Bishop in Ireland.—(Loud cries of " Ols, oh," order and laughter, amidst which the Hon. Member attempted to pe:severe, but he would not be permitted. He then pro ceeded to read extracts from the letter as if he were continuing his speech.) He then went on to say that he did believe that the last week had created a feeling in favour of the repeal of the union in England, and he felt convinced that the Dissenters would rather consent to that measure than that Ireland should be made prosperous at the expense of England. He would not trespass further upon the time of the House ; but if any Hon. Member would second his proposition, that the Speaker do nut leave the Chair for the purpose of going on with this Bill in Committee—( Great laughter)—he would divide the House upon it.—(Hear, hear. ) Colonel SIBTHORP said if he could conceive tbat there would be the least chance of the Hon. Member opposite suc ceeding in his motion he would second it, but he did not think his doing so would have the least effect.—( Laughter.) He had been accustomed to judge of men by their ac•ions, and therefore he should say that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had not shown himself a practical Protestant in this instance, for he did not, as he was bound to eo as a Minister of the Crown, use his best efforts to uphold the Christian religion. If the measure was so important, why should he delay its third reading until the 19th of May? He would have entertained a better opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet, if he had gone on with it without the slightest delay. How would the Right Hon. Baronet stand with the elections, if he were to dissolve Parlia ment?—( Hear, hear.) On one of the most important ques tions the Right lion. Baronet was forced to have recourse to the support of men who were only seeking to undermine him.—(Laughter.) He did not blame them for it, but he did not like truckling.—( Renewed laughter.) Those were days when people thought but of themselves, but the Right lion. Gentleman would go anywhere for a friend.— ( Continued laughter.) But why did ho not ask the country how they liked his policy? He came into power on very different professions. He was then for Church and State, and for the agricultural interest. But how would the Right Hon. Baronet be now received in Mark-lane?—(Great laughter.) The first quality in a Minister was consistency. The Right Hon. Gentleman professed himself their protector, supporter, and friend, but he took them in and deceived them. This was only the first of a series of measures which ho had in contempla tion. He should say, with deep regret, that he had no con fidence in any party ; he did not know where to look for any thing on which he could ground any hopes fur the safety and honour of the country.—( Laughter.) lie hoped he had in dependent feeling enough to vote against any men who showed such inconsistency. He should feel very wrongly upon any question that would affect the maintenance of the Protestant Church. They had given their defiance to the opinions and e feelings of the people of this country , an d if the Minister of the Crown should forget the duties he owed to one with whom tic was connected in council and adv ice, then the sooner that Minister was removed from that situation which he so badly filled the better. The Right lion. Gentleman would find him on that, as on all other occasions upon this question, opposed to him. Mr. PLUMPTRE said, that if the Government were dis posed to force this measure t hrou g h the House they had it in their power to do so. Out of all the measures which had come under the notice of Parliament, since he had the honour of a seat in that H ou se, he should say that there had be en n o mea sure, viewed in all itstbearings and probab l e conse q uences if it should pass into a law, that he had viewed with so much re pugnance. The movement which had been made by the Go vernment was a most unhappy one. It was unhappy, because if they were now to withdraw this measure, it would cause much agitation in Ireland. But that state of things would not be so unhappy, as would he called into existence by the passing of this Bill. lie had always viewed the matter in that light, and whenever he had opposed this grant it was on this ground that he did so, and it was on the same ground that he opposed it still. Those were the grounds on which the people of this country opposed the measure. They dis'inguished be • tween truth and error, and in that light they viewed it. They protested against error, and they were arranged on the side of truth, and they said in their inward conscience that they could not consent to allow the public money to be used in the dis semination of error. That was not a temporary excitement, it was a deep-seated feeling, likely to last for 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 opinion ita3, that if the Hou-e forced through this measure now, and made it law, it would be swept out of the statute-book before the new Parliament had long commenced its labour.—(" Hear, hear," and ironi c al ch eer i ng .) Wh at was the l anguage of the Irish hierarchy? They thought the brim a contemptible one, 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 18th of April, accepting the invitation to a public dinner at Cork. ) It was evident f om that letter that the lion. and Learned Member for Cork was d, termined on seeking for repeal, and would make use of 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, and he would oppose it to the end. He felt it a duty which he owed to the Protestants of that country, most solemnly and earnestly to protest against the measure.—(" Hear, bear," and cries of " Divide, divide.") The SPEAKER asked the Hon. Member for Ashton-under- Lyne what were the terms of his motion ? Mr. HINDL EY—I move that you, Sir, do leave the chair this day sic months.—(Shouts of laughter. ) Colonel SIBTHORP seconded the motion. Colonel VERNER rose, amidst loud cries of "Divide, divide." He said he regretted that the Right Hon. Gentle man had not taken time to collect the opinion of the Protestants of this country before he pr-posed the present measure. He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would give the country an op portunity of expressing their real sentiments upon this measure. Mr. RE DDIN GTON said that, as the Gallant Colonel had chosen to speak for the Protestants of Ireland, he (Mr. Red dington), although a Roman Catholic, must protest against his declaration as expr. ssing the opinion of the people of Ireland. In the district in which he resided, there we-re 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 l e 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 occasion. —(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The general understanding was that they would go into Committee en the Bill to-night and report progress. He hoped 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 Hon. Member, he was firmly determined to persevere with his Bill.—( Hear. ) Ile had postponed the de bate on the Bill until Friday, because the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Oxford, and other Hon. Members, thought that the measure could not be properly discussed if it had not been postponed to that day. The Protestants of Ireland were, ha 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. He 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 Coiegc 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, beaded 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 an 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, to take 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, tat 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. BR' )OKE 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 sec how the Government could con sistently with those principles maintain an establishment at Maynooth for the purl ose of propagating the Roman Catholic religion. The education there must have a tendency to narrow and contract 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 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. He would leave it to her Majesty's Govern ment to consider whether they would accede to that amend ment, but he would not give the House the trouble of dividing on it. Sir It. PEEL said that he should inform his Right Hon. Friend that he could not acquiesce with his proposition, for he (Sir R. Inglis) did not propose that the endowment should be less, but merely proposed that those employed to regulate t::at endowment should be the parsons who were lately employed under the Charitable Bequests Act. The reason he differed from his Right Hon Friend was, because he apprehended that the duties of the trustees of the Charitable Bequests Bill, and those under the Maynooth Bill were not such as would war rant their identification. His great and principal objection to the adoption of this course was, that the adoption of such a measure would be an unworthy and underhand implication of suspicion.--( Hear, hear.) He found, upon reference to cer tain documents, that the trustees of th e C o ll ege o f M a y noo th, appointed by the Irish Parliament, had been confirmed by the Imperial Legislature.—( Hear, hear.) Nay, more, he found that the Irish Lord Chancellor, and the Master of the Rolls, who, under the Irish Act, held the offices of Directors of the College, were removed by the English Parliament, and placed in the position of Visitors merely, and the board of superin tendenct made exclusively Catholic, On those grounds, then, he should say, that he could not be induced to assent to this amendment. The question was then put on the amendment, and nega• tived without a division. Two other clauses were then agreed to without opposition. Upon reading the next clause, that in reference to the mort main laws, Sir JOHN HANMER rose to move the omission of the words which limit the trustees of Maynooth College in taking any real property with which it may be desired voluntarily to endow them. The reason he moved this amendment was because he was unwilling to see the Government burthening itself with those troublesome obsolete ecclesiastical laws.— (Hear, hear.) He could see no reason why the Roman Ca tholics should be deterred from pursuing their own system of education, by those shadows of old feudal laws, known by the name of the laws of mortmain. The Hon. Baronet then re ferred to the statutes of mortmain, passed in the reigns of Richard 11., Henry VIII, Charles 1., and George 11., and contended that none of the provisions of those statutes ap plied to Ireland, and said he could not concur in the pro visions of the clause retaining those of mortmain. He had promised that he would not detain the House by entering on the general policy of the Bill; but he thought this was such an important question that it warranted his calling the at tention of tlse House to it. Mr. T. 13. C. SMITH said, that the Honourable Member for Hull had somewhat misrepresented the sta tute as it at present stood, for by the Ist and 2d of Geo. 111. the Government were empowered to dispense with the law of mortmain. He admitted the fact as stated by his Honourable Friend ( Sir J. Hanmer) that a man might sell a whole town ship and bequeath the money to the College of Maynoo!h. It might be so, but the Hon. Member must be aware that property in land and sums in money were very different things. The cases did not afford a parallel. If a particular circum startle required the setting aside of that writ, all that was re quired of the Roman Catholic College, was to make out a case to the Government, which would exercise its discretion as to whether they would be allowed to exceed the limitations fixed by statute. By such means they might be allowed to obtain and to hold an unlimited amount of property. On these grounds, and seeing no necessity for the amendment of the Honourable Member, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. Mr. HINDLEY hoped that the Hoe. Member would not divide the House upon it. Lord J. MANNERS could have wished that the Right Hon. Gent;emln the Attorney-General for Ireland had given some reason for limiting the amount of landed property to the College of ►taynooth to 3,0001. He could not see the prin ciple on which this restriction was based, neither could h- un derstand why there should be a fixed standard at all. He thought that as Oxford and Cambridge were unfettered by this law, Maynooth should be just as liberally dealt with. He would give his willing support to the amendment of his Hon. .. . - Friend: Mr. ROEBUCK, in a few words, which were almost in audible, opposed the amendment. v a n S t i a r g R e o . f li t 13 . e I C S h G u i ; c i h S o f w l a r s e Ireland do opinion should o not that b the e in interfered a fe ia r t e i dw it a lt no desire to exclude his Catholic fellow-subjects f rom t o coed In this opinion he was opposed by his Hon. Friend, who hse h ad d . The universities of England we re surel y en t i vantages. He did net hold maintaining the Church in the .. to the preference, they being the nurseries ofllraomteestsaenntsiesma; Inglis)anhdeld meant that maintaining the United Church of England . the Right Hon. Baronet, for he (Sir R. il a . nd Ire] He should oppose the amendment. mintaining it in all its endowments, and in all its privileges. • Sir IL PEEL hoped th at he would be a llowed to trouble the House wit h one or two words on this su b j ect. An Hon . Mem ber had asked him whether he should prefer that the College of Maynooth should be gifted with land or money. As a mere matter of policy he (Sir R. Peel) should considerably prefer the latter. He thought that as there must be some limit 3,00C1. a year was a fair one. He did not propose 3,000/. because of any jealousy to Maynooth, but he thought it right to see how that sum should be managed, and if that sum were well-managed, the Crown could extend the power of holding more. lie thought that the question relating to the statute e; nnortmain would be more conveniently dealt with at a future period. Mr. REDINGTON said he would oppose . the motion of the Hon. Member for Hull, not b ecause h e was not of opinion ' that Roman Catholics should be left unfettered to leave landed property to Maynooth, if they thought fit, but because those who were most intereived in the present grant did not wish that question to he introduced incidentally. Lord POLLINGTON said he voted against the measure, but he would vo t e f or t h e motion of the Hon. Member for , Hull, on the ground of leaving the Roman Catholics at perfect liberty to endow a College for themselves. After a few' words from Sir R. INGLIS, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said that he would vote for the Hon. Member for hull, on the ground that there should be no obstacle to endowments upon the voluntary principle. Sir J. HANNIER replied. He could not well see the reason of the Right Hon. Baronet ia%jecting to his proposal, afzcr hav ing voted for and carried the Charitable Bequests Act last year. No great evils had befallen the State by reason of the endow .. . nients of Cambridge and Oxford, whieb had risen to their pre sent greatness in consequence of voluntary endowments. Any Terson who travelled through the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, or in the peninsula, must aware that the , lands in the hands of the monasteries were much better culti vated than the lands which were held by lay persons. Lord CLIVE would support the motion of the Hon. Mem ber for Hull. He thought that as the College of Maynooth could held land indirectly, by means of the intervention of trustees, it would bepuch 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. STAEIipRD O'BRIEN moved the substitution of the word " thirty" for the word " three" in the 33d line of the 2d clause. He thought that his motion was different from 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 they seemed to approve of. He did not agree with the Hon. Member for Montrose, that his motion, adopted, would lead to increased irritation out 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 once withdraw 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.--(Hear.) After a few words from Mr. DARBY, Mr. HUME said he had been quite misunderstood. If Hon. Gentlemen asked him what he would do if he had the power of remodelling the three kingdoms, he did tot think he would be bound to tell them—(A laugh)—they were there tolegislate upon a particular subject. Some were snore alarmed at the pretended increase of Popery—he confessed be felt no alarm at all on the subject. Some Hon. 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 upon 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 Hon. 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. ING LI said lie intended to give every fair and legi timate opposition to the measure, but none other.—( Hear. ) Mr. RECINGTON reminded the' House that no Hen. 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 33 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 of landed property. The remaining clauses in the Mil principally rested on the foundation of the Consolidated Fund. He proposed to negative all the clauses dependent upon the Consolidated Fund, but to take no division on the intermediate clauses. On clause 4 being proposed, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that in line 8 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 6,000/., 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 churckes were everywhere building throughout Ireland. In Waterford, 70,0001. 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 thin question, then be (Mr. Hume) would give the Hon. Gentleman an 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 Maynooth. The vote of Rh . , • _. ..... to the Bishop of Exeter, for his expenses in visiting a por tion of his diocese—the vote of 11,000/. to the clergy of all de nominations in the colonies—the vote to the Jew., Catholics, Wesievans, and others in Jamaica—all were supported by the Hon. Member for Kent. Mr. WYSE made some observations, which were inaudible in the gallery. Mr. FERRAND said 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'Br'en 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 would have the decency not to force this Bill through Committee 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 that the Honourable Member opposite (Mr. Stanheldt) was pre pared to do sn, and this did him honour. Mr. STANSFIELD 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 dominions to which the Bill was applied. He cer tainly objected to this money being taken from the Consoli dated Fund, and he had therefore supported the motion of the Honourable Member for Sheffield. This motion not being successful, he still felt it to be his duty to vote for the motion of the Government. There were many other questions asked him. Amongst others, whether ho would continue to support this measure against the opinions of his constituents ? He 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.) Ile 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 j ust w h at he had stated to the House, that he would prefer resigning to voting against his conscientious opinion. Mr. SHAW cbjected upon principle to the endowment of any Catholic college, and the amount was no part of his objec 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, and 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. He 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 fill. The State had taken upon itself the support of the college, and the least it could de was to give a suffilient support. Mr. SHAW had not denied the liberal:ty of the Catholics of Ireland as regarded the education of their c'ergy. He only said the State ought not to be called upon to educate priests for them. As for the general purposes of a 1 beral 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 he felt the deepest interest in the rePege in which the priests were to be educated. He denied test he 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 roor means, almost temples of religion which their Catholic an. c r e iv s a to l r t s ho h s a e d g b r u ea ii t t, ad 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 bad 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 be could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that he should have his firmest support. He assured the Bight Hon. Baronet that he was supported by a strong religious feelirg in the House and jout of doors.—( Cheers.) Whatever might be the consequences to himself he would give the measure his most strenuous and most r eligions support, and no c onsideration on earth could induce him to shrink from de claring the joy which he felt at the announcement of so useful c in h s a t ng t e he forth the better measure, btt b er ut hadit was s t with wet a m easure.—(Cheers.) He respected th e f ee li ngs of those equally boisterous opposition, and h e h ope d t h e Government k w n h o o w nPetthi petitioned e e d ver a y ga would not be deterred from persevering in the pious and noble work which they had begun. Mr. JAMES was anxious to state the fact that, in a country which he had lately vi s it e d , B e l g i um, the Catholic Legislature of that country g r a n t e d a h an d some stipend to various Protes. tant clergymen in that country. In Brussels there were two clergymen, who had salaries from the Government, and there were several others similarly supported in Ghent and other towns. He was sorry that circumstances precluded the possi bility of being present to vote for the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet. Ile would now take the opportunity of most cordially giving his support in favour 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 Dunboyne students were to receive ? Sir It PEEL said that - itw;;their . Znticin that the Dun.. boon students acre to receive 65/. each per annum. This clause, together with clauses 6 and 7, were thea agreed to. On clause 8 being put, Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was desirous to insert two words in this clause, which related to the accommodation of the students. He wi,lied that the words " professors and "should be put before the word " students' Col :net SIBTEIOIII 3 said that he was against the whole Bill from beginning to end. He would do all he could to in, duc2 Membi rs 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 otject to the class books which were used there. Clause 15 was then put and agreed to, as was clause IS.. Before clause 17 being read, -* Mr. WYSE said he would take the opportunity 4- clautc being read, to state, in reply to the Hon. Iti r enbri t om r -. . site, that. " Denn's Tbeolog "e kle " w ot ou n i ' d w, al n s; ata,te that it been read, at Abaynooth College, thewas is having Pope d h os said e xercised tuirs ~e a n n 1 g a y e d n o t ot hs,t.aor in ia,t •Irelurl,oi in arnsndy other kridm oi f Eoi he i bt il • yg teroporalxower wha o ow, n a ddition, that be would undertake to read a passage from te boots 2 the the Wel 010 ps o 0:6 53 2 1 G 4 2 0 7 9 31 ' 41 •