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

IMPEPLIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 11. The Low:, CHANCELLOR. took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'relock. Pretitiems were :presented: against the union of the sees of Bangor: and St. Asaph. Thie Bishop of LICHFIELD presented several peti tion,, none of which were worthy of notice.. M AY N OOT 11. A number of petitions were also presented against the rant to Maynooth, by the Earl of Eglinton, the Bishop of ondon, and the Duke of Hamilton. Those presented by the L Duke of Hamilton referred to the feelings of the people of Scotland, who he stated were against the grant. 'the Bishop of Chester, the Bishop of Bangor, the Bishop of Lichfield, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Denman, and several other Noble 'Lords, presented petitions against any ad ditional grant to Vsaynooth. The Earl of 'MIDDLETON presented a petition from the 'board of gtrardians of Bromley, in the county of Worcester, praying °eat the owners of small tenements should be made liable fr r poor-rates instead of the occupiers. Tb'e Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition praying Mei': Lordship' to take steps to ameliorate the condition of Scotch schoolmasters. Lard CAMPBELL gave notice that on Monday he intended to present to their Lordships a petition of some importance respecting the custody of Lunatics in Scotland. THE GAME-LAWS. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented petitions from the tenant-farmers of Essex, complaining of the great extent to which game was now preserved in this country. CUSTODY OF SUSPECTED CRIMINALS—MR. WAKLEY AND THE POLICE. The Marquis of NORMAN BY sail he had intended to put a question to a Noble Lord connected with the Govern ment concerning a somewhat unseemly conflict which had lately taken place between two authorities as to the cus tody of persons suspected of having committed the crime of -murder. Since he had intimated this intention the opinion of the Home Secretary on the subject had been com municated to the public in a letter to the Co roner for Middlesex. A decision involving one particular part of the question had also been gone into before a judge at chambers, and he also further understood, that it was the in tention of the Coroner to make a further appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. Under these circumstancee, reserving altogether any expression of opinion on his part, he thought it was desirable that he should postpone for the pre sent any question relating to this subject. lIINH RAILWAYS. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice of his in tention, on Monday, to put a question to the President of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, on the subject of the Irish railways. It was to ascertain if the promoters of the present Irish railway schemes had all complied with the provi sions of the Registration Act. The Bastardy Bill then went through Committee. THE SUGAR DUTIES BILL. Lord MON TEAGLE presented a petition from the Chain. ber of Commerce of Manchester against the Sugar Duties Bill. The petition was one of considerable importance, and as their Lordships were not in the habit of printing petition!, be would take the liberty of suggesting that the Noble Lord who had the care of the Sugar Duties Bill in that House, should carefully peruse its contents. The Earl of DALHOUSIE rote to move the third read lag of the Sugar Duties Bill. He said he would on that occasion confine himself simply to a statement of the views of her Majesty's Government in bringing forward the pre sent measure. It would be probably in the recollection of the House, that in introducing the Bill of last year before their Lordships' attention, he had referred to the necessity of adopting some alterations with respect to the supply of sugar for the consumption of the country. He had said that although the produce of the East Indies and the Mauritius had very considerately increased, it was not yet sufficient to meet the deficiencies of the supply from their other colonies, and he then stated the general result of the falling off that had taken place in the whole supply available for the consumption of the country in late years. During the year 1843 the supply was 204,000 tons, whilst the consumption had reached 302,4100 tons: the demand, therefore, was greater than the supply. Although there was no probability of a falling off in the coming year, it appeared to the Government to be desirable, in case there should be a recurrence of so disastrous a contingency, to introduce the present Bill for the purpose of meeting it, by allowing the introduction of sugar at a lower rate of duty from certain countries named in the Bill, being countries in which sugar was raised entirely by free labour. The Noble Lord then entered into a statement of the provisions of the till, and proceeded to say that it would be right, before asking their Lordships to give their assent to its third reading, to advert to one or two objections which had been urged against the measure during its progress through Parliament. It had been stated that in order to justify the sacrifice of so large an amount of duty, they were bound to show that substantial good would accrue to the consumer. The Noble Lord entered into a statement to show that the con • sumer would benefit to a considerable extent by the reduc tion of the duty on sugar—that such benefit would be felt more especially by the middle and lower classes ; and, moreover, that the consumption of the article would be so greatly increased by the diminution of the price, that the sacrifice would, in a great measure, be retrieved. As to the objections which had been made to the classification of sugars, he could only say, that such a practice existed in France, in the United States of America, and in Sweden, and that in Java there were no less than eighteen different • classifications. The system of classification worked well in each of these countries, and he could not see any reason why it should not answer the expectations of the British Go. vernment. As to the objection that foreign slave-grown sugar would be smuggled into this country, it appeared to him that the certificates of origin would afford sufficient pro • tection against such a practice ; besides which, it ap peared, from returns for the last ten years, that the price of sugar at New Orleans and New York had been such that it would not be the interest of the Americans to send their sugars to this market. It was clear that the sugar of Louisiana could not be imported at a price sufficiently low to come into competition with the sugars of this country. Upon the general question of the admission of the sugar of all countries at the same rate of duty, he contended that such a measure would be most unjust to the British colonies, which the Government was bound to protect, and that, therefore, it was not merely a question of sound commercial and financial policy, neither had it been so treated. After all that had been done many years ago for the abolition of the slave trade, and subsequently for the abolition of slavery, at the most costly sacrifice—after the innumerable treaties into which this country had entered—after the enormous force employed in all parts of the world—he asked how it was possible to adopt a course of legislation which must have the effect of intro ducing the staple prodnee of slave-labour into this country ? So long as it was the declared opinion of Parliament—the echo of the declared opinion of the nation, that it ought to be the policy of Great Britain to discountenance slavery, it seemed to him that Government was not allowed a choice, even if it were disposed to make one. In such a case, what appeal could ever again be made to foreign countries, or what pretence could there be to enforce the regulations under existing treaties? Other States would have a right to say that the practice of Great Britain gave the lie to her professions, and she would be told, not only that she had deserted her principles, but that she had adopted a shuffling evasion of the consequences of the policy she had pursued. He, therefore, requested their Lordships to give a third reading to the Bill upon the table. The Earl of CLRENDON wished to make a few remarks upon what he conceived would be the practical operation of thrßill, as well as upon the principle it involved. The more t was examined the less calculated it would be found to effect the objects in view; and it would introduce new intricacies into our fiscal system, instead of that sim plicity by which it was important that it should be characterised. Not a cargo of sugar would arrive, in which either the merchant would not unintentionally defraud the revenue officers, or the revenue officers the merchant. However well satisfied the West India interest might be with the present protection, they would not be satisfied with this Bill, and mainly because they saw that the inevitable consequence must be a further change. Confusion must inevitably arise out of the enforcement of the distinctions de pending upon colour, grain, and saccharine matter, and no uniformity could be expected in the practice of the outports. The attempted classification must be a failure, and ere long an sad vatorem duty, as in the case of tea, must be adopted. If classification had been possible, it might have been carried into effect while the East India Company had the monopoly of the tea trade ; but even then it was soon discovered to be oat of the question, and the general duty of 2s. Id. per lb. was esta blished. The experiment now once mare to be made bad been tried over and over again, and it had always been followed by an increase of crime, and of loss to the revenue. Another change in the law must, ere long, be made. The market would be thrown into confusion, and great individual hardships would be inflicted. By the treaties of reciprocity, the sugars introduced from other countries where it was cultivated by free lalrettr, was to be imported into this country were to bear the same duty as those from China, Java, and Manilla Be the 19th Clause of this Act, it was decreed that the duty on reined sugar from foreign possessions, which had hitherto been Ss. 8(1. a tow, should be reduced to Is. Id. ; and that on sugar of the same quality from British Colonial possessions, which had heretofore been 255. 9d., was reduced to 14s ; that on Musco vado, which had been 355. 9d. was reduced to 235. 4d. Since the introduction of the difference made between refined sugar and Muscovado, a third class had been introduced ; termed white clayed sugar. The duty laid on this was 265., while that imported from the British Colonies, which had been 16s. 4d. was reduced to 141. It appeared that the ,vhole of the produce of the British pos sessions and Mauritius would vary from 250,000 to 250,000 tons ; that from Manilla and Java, and China, was estimated at 20,000 tons, the stock in hand at about 45,000 tons, *making the total available for consumption an aggregate of 315,295 tons. The reduction of duty was shown by the cir cumstance that for 1845-6 the whole amount estimated was 3,916,0001., that for 1844 was 5,216,0001., showing a decrease of 1,300,000/. It was known that a decrease of duty led to a decrease of price, and an increase of consumption. The quantity usually consumed was at the rate of 171bs. per individual per annum, making a proportionate consumption of one-third of a pound per week, and causing a saving to a labouring man of rper week per family. This, though small, was equal to one lb of the whole expense. The Noble Lord then went into a series of returns for the years 1830 to 1844, to prove that the price affected the clnoUsumption in an invariable proportion. alleged as likely to atta;nsdi fi ocnatisohneandtlie distinguishingfficulty that had been country, it was said were not felt at GrataSweden,in n qualities or in, u this te United States, where this modeof classification was adopted, or in Java, here the classification extended to 18 qualities. It was said that it was impossibetomake a distinction in this country between slave and free- grown suga r, te but, at all events, if they did make the distinction, it wou ro totally inoperative, because the Americans would manage to ' d, p i ;l e r s t i l..ouisiana. But n h e Europe.Am eri be denied the practicability of this, and, Ameri cans founds a better market for their produF n e than in Only twelve years ago, the term property man was a con venient term, and he believed that other countri es would . be guided by our schemes of morality. Brazil and other n not triers might say—" we have read Blue-books, and while y ou n. talk of kindliness and char;ty, we ere aware of the excess ot labour to which your artizans are exposed ; we know the im morality to which your people are subjected in consequence of men and women working together in mines, and we will not receive your manufactures unless you repeal the laws by which these enormities are authorised." They would to a certainty directly or indirectly carry this into effect. The whole of the attempt to repress the slave trade was perfectly useless, for it was well known that the attempt to obliterate it from human commerce was perfectly futile. If they said to the people of Cuba that they would take none of their sugar while they were quite ready to receive their copper ore—( Hear )—t he extraction of which was ten times more deadly and onerous to the slave than the pro slu tion of sugar. The very same thing held with regard to the sugar of America. They objected to receive the sugar of slave labour, and yet they were quite ready to receive the tobacco and the cotton of the United States, which wasp ro . duced by the cultivation of a set of slaves, who from their early lives, and their after experience, had a far more acute sense of the evils which they had to endure, than the slaves of Africa or of any other slave country. They refused also the sugar of Louisiana when they were ready to encourage the sugar of other places precisely in the same condition as Louisiana. It was indeed very evident, that the only object in this Bill was the protection of our West India Colonies, and -he did - hope. that before the time arrived for the conclusion of • the income-tax, that they would propose some other substitute for that most - odious impost, and that they would not any longer base the country to suppose that other States would be misled by the pretences which were held out to them by the British Government. Lord BROUGHAM felt compelled to differ from his Noble Friend on one or two points. The object of this Bill was not to make out a difference between countries which used slave labour and free labour, bat the restriction really intended was, that between those countries which had refused and which had not refused to abolish slave labour. He was not one of those Pharasaical pretenders who said " we are purer than you are," as was the case with those enthusiastic, but, it might be, very well-intentioned persons, whose zeal was much more conspi cuous than their knowledge, and whose enthusiasm was far more influential than their judgment. Complaint had been made that America had not followed the example of England ; but it should be recollected that the example was not of Mid dlesex and Yorkshire, but of Barbadoes and Jamaica, and it was net because they did not follow our example, but because they followed it a great deal too closely that they were to be cried down. The fault was not that slavery existed there, and that they had not extinguished slavery so soon as we did, but that they cried up slavery as a good ar.d advisable thing, in stead of decrying it, as they ought to do, as the pest and the infection of their society. It was for their gross injust ice and inhumanity in keeping up the system of holding in bondage so great a number of their fellow creatures, and from their wish to introduce in the valleys of neighbouring countries the blessings of domestic la bour. It was for this inconsistency that he blamed them. It was not the whole of the United States, but a portion of its population that be blamed for this. By the encourage nient of the sugar of these slave-growing countries he gave to those countries an inducement to introduce more slaves from Africa, just in proportion to the number of hogsheads of sugar which he caused to be introduced, and if these 17 lbs. of sugar per head was to be doubled or tripled, and that that increase was to be met by better agriculture, or better treatment of the slaves, then he could not help it, and he was bound to increase the comforts of his own people. But was that the case with Cuba? No ; it was a sudden increase, and that was only to be met with a sudden, a rapid, and a miserable increase of the slave trade ; and that, so far from makings similar argument, was a precisely contrary effect to that which the Noble Lord had assumed. God forbid that any man should consider the horrors of the middle passage, or trepanning their fellow-crea tures, was to be esteemed other than a horror and a crime, and a crime of the deepest dye. They made a difference in the slaves employed in the culture of coffee, and other tropical pro duce, but really to those there was comparatively little objec tion. The culture of rice was unwholesome wherever carried on, but that of sugar was decidedly the worst.—( Hear.) In 1807 we abolished the slave trade, and cut off 20,0001. a year ; but that was only the letter of the law, for a man would run the risk of losing four or five cargoes for the sake of saving one. But by his Bill the act of carrying on the slave trade was made criminal ; and by the 51st of George 111., the Act of 1811, they made the slave trade felony, but the at ' tempt to make it piracy was ineffectual. He could not at all agree that the internal slave trade of America ought to be placed on a footing with the African slave trade, to abolish which it ought to be, and lie believed was, countenanced by this country. He did not think they could consistently object to receive sugar the produce of slave labour, but he entertained no doubt whatever that they ought to object to receive produce coming from slave-trading countries, because such a step would only tend to increase the horrors of the African slave trade. Lord MONTEAGLE reminded his Noble and Learned Friend that the Bill they were discussing not only prneibited the introduction of sugar, the produce of slave-trading coun tries, but sugar the produce of slave-labour as well. —( Hear. ) The Noble and Learned Lord had made a most powerful speech against the s'ave.trade, and expressed his acknowledgments to the Government for bringing forward a measure which directly discountenanced this traffic. Now, was this so? Certainly not. The Bill had nothing to do with the slave trade, nor was it calculated to put an end to that trade. Then again the Noble and Learned Lord had told them, that they had no right to in terfere with the internal and municipal legislations of foreign countries; but let him tell the Noble and Learned Lord that his principal objection to the measure was its medley tendency, and its interference with the internal concerns of an independent county. But it was utterly impossible that the Government could carry out the principle of this measure for Brazil or Cuba might change their system of slavery in name but not in fact, and then they would have a right to import their slave-grown sugar into this country at the same rates of duty as those paid by the colony or by States where there were none but free labourers. He admitted that the opening speech of the Noble Lord who brought in this Bill was marked with a spirit of moderation and temperance that did him great credit, but still he could not corn eal from himself the fact that the Noble Lord had over and over again indulged in a course of reasoning on this subject that was based on erroneous premises. There could not be a shadow of a doubt that the measure was one of great commercial and financial importance. It affected an enormous amount of revenue, and he very much feared the Government would be grievously disappointed in its results. The remis sion of the duty in some respects was too large, and under those circumstances he thought it would have been much better to equalise the sugar duties generally. The present measure, to a certain extent, would restrict the trade in sugar; and, therefore, instead of reducing its price, it would tend to increase it, because it produced. a scarcity of the commodity. But how could Government support the measure on the ground that it was to discontinue the slave trade? This principle of protection was not one of recent establishment. It existed anterior to the abolition of the slave trade, and they would find some difficulty in making foreigners believe they continued it, because it would ultimately lead to a total abandoe merit of the traffic. He believed that foreigners would think that Parliament had not done its duty, unless it interfered upon the question. He believed that what had hitherto been done was but a faint promise of what was to take place in future. No sacrifice would be too great to put an end to the slave trade. Lord STANLEY begged to draw the attention of the House to the admissions of the Noble Lord who had just sat down. He must, in reference to the statements from the Noble Lord, draw the attention of their Lordships to the different state in which the_country stood under the late Government, and that in which it s-nod now. Then there was a great deficiency, while now there was a surplus. Now the Noble Lord admits that if the Bill should effect a discouragement of the slave trade, the sacrifice in the price of sugar would be a price which he was quite satisfied to pay. He admitted the principle of pro• teetion, because they had substituted free-labour for slave labour in the West Indies. With regard to the deficiency of free-labour, he would say that it was quite impossible to insti tute any comparison between the amount of slave-labour and freeelabour. In a country where the population was ex cessive, he was free to confess that free-labour might success fully compete with slave-labour. But in a colony like the West India colonies this was impossible, for the effect of slave-labour was to concentrate the labour into one spot, which would otherwise be spread over a wider surface, and it was this principle which would always make free labour cheap, and slave labour dear. His Noble Friend had acknowledged that they could make no distinction between the East and West Indies, Now, the object of the Bill was to give protection to our own colonies, whether the East or West Indies. There was no country, whether from policy, humanity, or justice, more entitled to protection than that immense district which comprised the East Indies. They had destroyed the commerce and manufactures of the East Indies, and introduced their own manufactures in place of them, and while they were thus encouraging free labour, and dis countenancing slave labour, they were doing their best to pro mote the peculiar produce of the East Indies. With respect to sugar, be did not think it was possible, in this country, to sacrifice the manufacturing interests for the sake of repressing the slave trade. But were they called upon to make this sacri fice, were they to be told that they were guilty of hypocrisy, because they did submit to a temporary sacrifice, for the object of reducing the horrid evils of the slave trade? Practically, the effect of this Bill was to discourage the importation of those countries in which a mitigated slavery exists, but to prohibit the introduction of sugar from those countries in which the produce was obtained by slave labour with all its evils, and for the sake of which the system of introducing slaves from Africa was kept up. The sugar of Cuba and Brazil was produced by these very means. They were accused of encouraging the introduction of refined sugar from Cuba and Brazil ; but by this introduction they did not increase the con sumption of sugar by one single pound. But then it was said, you do indirectly encourage the slave trade by taking free-labour sugar into the market, because they have made an opening for the slave-grown sugar. The supposition that giving the custom of consumption to free growers was an inch:cot encouragement of slave-grown sugar was a perfect fallacy. If there was not an encouragement to free-labour sugar over slave-grown sugar, why was it that Noble Lords opposite complained so much of their ill-treatment of Cuba and Brazil? But the fact was, they wire throwing a real substantial discouragement to the slave trade, and just in proportion as they gave an encouragement to the growth of cotton and coffee, they caused a subsidence in the culture of sugar. The Noble Lord objected to the Bill, because they were binding themselves by foreign legislation ; but there was a principle in this Bill, although the Bill was of a tempo rary nature, and that principle was protection for British sugar against foreign sugar, and protection for free-labour sugar against slave, grown sugar. The Noble Lord feared the intro duction of apprenticeship into Brazil, but if Brazil gave a bona fide assurance that they would suppress slavery by the sup pression of domestic slavery, why then it would be fur her Ma jesty's Government to take generously and candidly into con sideration the encouragement which they should give to the sugar of Brazil. He must remark further on one or two other points of his Noble Friend. He said that they intro duced 17 or 18 different classes of sugar, when, in fact, there was only one in addition. His Noble Friend had stated that he was favourable to an ad valorem duty, and that there was a difficulty in distinguishing the qualities. Now, he would venture to assert that there was not one hogshead in ten thousand introduced into this country on which the smallest difficulty would arie.—( Hear hear.) A small quantity of sugar might be liable to fluctuations of duty, but there could be no doubt whatever the great bulk of the sugar to be introduced into this country would not in the least be liable to doubt or speculation. The objections were raised not against the Bill, but against certain proposi tions which had lately been entertained by the Government. Noble Lords, however, seemed to forget that an important alteration had lately been introduced into the proposition, and therefore their present objections were almost entirely un founded. It was admitted that they had properly selected an article for reduction, and for encouraging the industry of the country ; but it would appear the Noble Lord who last spoke, although he agreed in their prin ciple, felt there were difficulties in the way of its realization which certainly were not entertained by Custom-house officers. The measure would greatly improve the condition of the country, and he, therefore, called upon the House not to sacri fice the interests of humanity by stultifying the exertions Parliament was making for totally and effectively abolishing the slave trade. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. The Lands' Clauses Consolidation Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed on Monday next. The Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed on Monday. The Railway Clauses (Scotland) Bill was also read a second time and ordered to be committed on Monday, as was also the Lands' Clauses Consolidation Bill for Scotland. Their Lordships then adjourned. ROUSE OF COMMONS, April 11. The House sat at Four o'clock. There was a very thronged attendance of Members, and the seats were literally obscured with bundles of petitions, almost every other Member who entered the House bringing with him a lsrge parcel. . RAILWAYS.—BRISTOL AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE. Mr. SPOONER presented a petition, praying that the Bristol and Gloucester Railway Bill might be amended. SOUTH WALES RAILWAY. Dr. BOWRING presented a petition against the South Wales Railway. _ CALEDONIAN RAILWAY. Mr. FOX MA ULE presented petitions, numerously signed, from the city of Perth, the district of Blairgowrie, Coupar- Angus, Kirriemuir, and Nairn, in favour of the Caledonian Railway Bill. Mr. RUTHERFORD presented a petition from the mer chants of Leith to the same effect. Mr. P. M. STEWART presented a petition from mer chants, bankers, &c., of Greenock, in favour of the Bill. Mr. LOCKHART presented petitions from West Calder and Kirkmichael in favour of the measure. MAYNOOTH. Petitions against the grant to Maynooth were presented by Sir E. Filmer, Mr. Codrington, Mr. Fellowes, from Hunting don ; Mr. F. Mamie, Mr. H. Stuart, from places in Ireland ; Mr. W. Patten, from places in Lancashire; Mr. Busfeild, Mr. Hawes, from Lambeth and other places; Mr. Montague Gore, Mr. Thornely, from Wolverhampto n ; and Col . Acton, from Wexford. Sir ANDREW ARMSTRONG presented a petition from the inhabitantssof Tullamore and its vicinity in favour of the Irish Great Western Railway to Galway vid Tullamore, and also a petition signed by the High Sheriff and a majority of the grand jury of the Kings county to the same effect. The Hon. Baronet declared that the prayer of the petition had his concurrence. Mr. Hamilton, Lord Lowther, Lord Bernard, Sir William James, Lord Duncan, Mr. Plnmptre, and another Hon. Member presented petitions against any additional grant to Maynooth. Mr. BLEWITT presented a petiti on from Newport, against the Bridgwater Navigation Railway. A great number of petitions against the grant to Maynooth were presented by Lord CHARLES 111A1414ERS, Col. SIBTHORP, and other Members ; some of those presented by Col. Sibthorp stating that the petitioners feared that some of the members of the Government intended to found another establishment than that of the Church of England, which, for its tyranny and cruelty, was not acceptable to the people of England. Sir ROBERT INGLIS also presented several petitions on the same subject, most of them not objecting to the grant, but any increase of it, and others praying for the entire withdrawal of the grant. Mr. SHERIDAN presented a petition against the Parochial Settlement Bill. Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Plumptre Sir J. Hanmer, Colonel Verner, and Mr. Mitchell, presented petitions against the May nooth Bill. Mr. S. O'BRIEN presented a petition from some place in Northamptonshire, praying that the second reading of the May neoth Bill might be postponed for a fortnight. Mr. R. PALMER presented several petitions from places in Berkshire, against the Maynooth College Bill. Mr. SPOONER presented twenty-two petitions, nine of which were from the clergy, churchwardens, and inhabitants of various congregations of Birmingham, and the others from various Dissenting congregations, against the Maynooth grant. The latter class of petitioners objected to any grant of public money in support of any particular religion, but, above all, to a grant in support of the Roman Catholic religion. Mr. BRAMSTON presented a petition from Essex, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. CHARLES HOWARD presented a petition from Cumberland against the proposed Maynooth grant. Petitions from Lancashire and Plymouth were also presented against the Mavnooth grant. Mr. PAT TISON pre-ented a petition from the young men of the City of London—(Laughter)—against the grant to May r ooth College. Mr. GREENE presented a petition from the Wesleyan con gregation of Lancaster against the grant to Maynooth. The SPEAKER said that, though it was five o'clock, he thought he would be consulting the convenience of the House, by permitting the presentatim of petitions to continue. Mr. WARD presented five petitions from Sheffield and other places against the grznt to Maynooth. Mr. ST AN SFIELD presented petitions against the grant. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented two petitions from St. Mar tin's-in-the-Fields and from Devon against the grant. Dr. BOWRING presented seventeen petitions from Wes leyan ccngregations in and near Belton, against the grant; also a petition from Bible Christians against the grant. Mr. WAWN presented a petition to the same effect. Mr. TURNER presented petitions from Truro to the same effect. Captain M. F. BERKELEY presented two petitions from Bristol, and six petitions from Somerset, to the same effect. Mr. FORSTER presented petitions to the same effect. Mr. G RINI STONE presented petitions to the same effect. General LYGON presented a petition to the same effect. The Earl of HILSBOROUGH presented petitions to the same effect. Mr. ANTROBUS presented a petition from Surrey to the same effect. Mr. HURST presented four petitions against the grant. Alderman HUMPHERY presented five petitions against 'he grant. Mr. WODEHOUSE presented three petitions to a similar effect. Lord 11ENIKER presented two petitions to the same effec Lord WORSLEY presented a pile of petitions against the grant to Maynooth, from places in the north of England, and various other places, the names of which occupied at least three minutes in reading. Mr. FORSTF.R presented petitions from Walsall and other places against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. MUNDY presented a petition, signed by 129 clergy men of Derbyshire, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. ROSS presented a petition from the Boman Catholics of Belfast against the Bequests Biil of last year. Mr. GEORGE BANKES presented petitions from the Wesleyan congregations of Bristol and several places in Dor setshire, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. Labouchere presented numerous petitions to the same effect from the inhabitants of Taur.ton ; Mr. Newdigate, from Warwickshire ; Mr. Macaulay, from Edinburgh ; Sir G. Staunton, from Portsmouth ; Mr. R. Trevor, from Bangor, and several other places in Wales; Lord Shelbourne, from Caine ; Mr. Matheson, from Ashburton. Mr. FERRAND'S PETITION. Mr. FERRAND said he had to present a petition, signed by nearly 2,i)00 members of the Dublin Protestant Association. The petitioners stated that they regarded the Legislature as the source from which laws should emanate ; and the laws which had hitherto emanated since the Reformation from the Legislature of the United Kingdom had been the means of elevating Britain to the highest point amongst nations. The petitioners went on to state that if the Legisla ture should allow itself to sanction, by any of its Acts, heresy or religious error, instead of a national blessing it would become a national curse. They stated that they had heard with great pain that the head of the Government had intended to intro duce a principle which was in itself diabolical and anti-Christian —that he intended to largely increase the annual grant which had been most improperly and inconsistently made to the Popish College of ;Maynooth, and they looked on this proceeding as cal culated to subvert national liberty, and to involve the Parliament, the Throne, and the Constitution. The Hon. Member was pro ceeding to read a part of the petition, in which a portion of the Act of William and Mary, commonly called the Act of Settle ment, was introduced, when he was interrupted by Mr. ROEBUCK , who rose to order, said he understood it was the rule of the House that no word should be spoken on the presentation of a petition, and that Members presenting petitions should not be permitted to read them, but should confine themselves to stat ing their substance and their prayer. Now he held in his hand, in extenso, the petition which the Hon. Member was about to present, and instead of confining himself to a statement of the substance, the Hon. Member was, by the merest sleight of hand, getting rid of the rule of the House, and reading the petition. The SPEAKER.—The Hen, and Learned Gentleman is perfectly correct in his idea as to what is the rule of the House ; and if the Hen. Member is reading the petition he is out of order, for he should clearly understand that he is merely at liberty to state the substance of it. Mr. ROEBT CK said that the Hon. Member for Knares borough was reading the petition. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for Knaresbsrough must confine himself to state the substance of the petition He might take notes of the substance of it and read those notes to the House, but he must not read the petition itself. Mr. FERRAND—I can assure the House that I have left out every word of the petition except the substance of it, for the purpose of being enabled to state it to the House. —( A laugh.) The petition says that all persons reconciled to the Church of Rome — Mr. ROEBUCK—I again rise to order.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member is now reading an Act of Parliament quoted in the petition.—( Cheers. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member is clearly out of order in reading the petition. Mr. FERRAND was only reading what was stated in the substance of the petition. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member is at liberty to state the substance of the petition, and the substance of the mate rial allegations made in it, but he must state then as briefly as possible, and must not read them at length.—(Cheers.) Mr. FERRAND—The petition went on to state, by the Act which he had quoted any person becoming reconciled to the Church of Rome was declared incapable of succeeding to the throne of these realms, and if the Sovereign was reconciled to the Court of Rome the subjects were absolved from their allegiance, and the throne would go to the next Protestant heir in succession. The petitioners stated that they had read in the Dublin Gazette of December - last an order of the Sovereign, countersigned by the Minister of State, making certain appointments of Commissioners of Cha ritable Bequests in Ireland, and among the list were found the names of certain Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops, as well as of certain Protestant Bishops and Archbishops. Now, the petition stated that the petitioners considered this as a re cognition of, and a reconciliation with the Church of Rome, and-- Mr. ROEBUCK—I again rise to order.—(Cheers and laughter.) This is reading word for word the statements of the petition which I hold in my hand. It is a breach of the orders of the House—(Cheers) —and a most unworthy breach of those orders.—(Loud cheers.) Sir, I move that the Hon. Member he commanded to bring his petition up at once. The SPEAKER—I have already stated the rule of the House, and I hope the Hon. Member will confine himself within the limits of that rule. If he does not do so, he will be guilty of conduct that is most disorderly.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. FERRAND—I do not wish to do anything that is dis disorderly or disrespectful to the House ; but I have a duty to the petitioners to perform, and I will do my best to perform it.—( Hear, hear.) I know not why I should be called to order for acting as I am doing. The Hon. Member for Gateshead did the same thing last night, and he was not called to order. Mr. Roebuck and Sir Robert Peel rose at the same time, and Mr. Roebuck immediately gave way to the Premier. Sir R. PEEL said that under the circumstances, if it was not inconvenient to the House, the Hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to state the objects of the petition. Mr. ROEBUCK objected to that, saying that it was right to enforce the orders of the House. He objected himself to the making of that order, as also did his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. If the Hon. Gentleman wished to bring this forwsrd, it ought not to be brought forward without the possibility of a reply. There ought to have been a substantive notice given, and the Honourable Gentleman should read the petition for the purpose of submitting a motion thereon, but he objected to the petition being read when no person could get up in answer to it. Mr. M. MILNES—WouId it net be better to have the re tition read at the table by the clerk ? Mr. FERRAND said he would consider it his duty to call upon the clerk to read the petition at the table of the House, if he did not think that he was taking up less of the time of the House by reading the substance of it himself. It went on to state that the orders of the Roman Catholic priests were solely of foreign origin, and it submitted that the grant to Maynooth was a flagrant attempt to subvert the Bill of Rights, and directly to contra vene the oath of supremacy, which required that no foreign Prelate should have any power, spiritual or ecclesiastical, in this realm. The SPEAKER said that nothing was more common than giving notice to present a petition, but that notice did not re quire that the pstition should be read. If the Hon. Gentleman wished it to be read at length he should move it be read by the Clerk. The Hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the prayer of the petition. Me. FERRAND—The prayer was this, that the humble petitioners prayed that the House should retract all grants for the f sueprepiogrnteorfsPor thises tablishmentshrelm of power a int te this realm, ; andrealm, and deprive ive all peoeull.d and,ini qu i r into if they h discovered conduct v . eredit tea be improper, Robert improper, thin- should impeach, condign co, withand if he had been f sand guilty that they sliopld inpunishinent.—(Roos of laugh- ter on both sides of the House, in which Sir Robert joined.) The petitioners stated that all classes of her Majesty's subjects were disgusted with the conduct pursued by the Right Hon. Gentleman—(Loud laughter)—that he ousted other men from their places to adopt their policy—(Laughter)— that if he was successful in his financial policy it was owing to a series of measures calculated to draw down the wrath of IlJelven— ( Continued laughter)—and they earnestly prayed that Almighty God would in his mercy avert the scourge which such conduct was calculated to draw down upon the realm.—( Increasedlaughter.) The Hon. Gentleman concluded, amidst repeated bursts of laughter, that the clerk at the table read the petition. The Clerk commenced to read the petition, but the Hen. Gentleman, who had resumed his seat, and obtained the advice of several Hon. Gentlemen near him, again rose, and said that he was requested by several Members not to press his motion for having the petition read at the table, as they did not think it would be becoming to the House; he would there fore merely move that the petition be laid on the table. The petition was accordingly ordered to lie on the table. Mr. WYNNE said he certainly felt that there were reasons why objections should not be urged against the peti tion lying upon the table, but as it might be called into a precedent for calling a Member of Par liament to account for his Parliamentary conduct in that House, he certainly thought it would not be consis tent with the honour of the House, or the advantage of the country, that the petition should be received. If a vote were to be given, he should therefore vote for the negative. for he did not think that charges against a Member of Par liament by name should be received under the guise of a peti tion.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and " :‘love. e ) Mr. WYNNE—I would certainly, therefore, negative the motion that the petition lie on the table. Sir R. PEEL scid he did nut see any reasons why they should refuse the petttion. It was true that the charges referred to Parliamentary . proceedings, but as it contained charges against the Executive Government he thought that it ought to be received. He, therefore, hoped that his Right Hon. Friend would not object to the petition lying on the table. Mr. ROEBUCK said he only rose for the purpose of re minding the House that there was a deba'e on the presenta tion of a petition. The SPEAKER said that it was upon a point of order.— (Hear, hear.) He understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to have risen on a point of order.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. WYNNE said he conceived he was right in moving that the petition should not be allowed to remain on the able. Mr. ROEBUCK —It appears lam not in order, although the Right Hon. Gentleman distinctly proposed a motion, and the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government spoke to it.—(Cries of " Order, order," amidst which Mr. Roebuck sat down.) The SPEAKER—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman is not in order. 1 will read the standing order of the House. The Right Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read the stand ing order, to the effect that no Hon. Member, upon the pre sentation of a petition, could speak upon it ; but he might move that the petition be read by the clerk at the table, and it would be read accordingly.—( Hear, hear.) The rule of the House is, that no debate can take place on the presenta tion of a petition, unless it has reference to a breach of privi lege of the House.—( Renewed cries of " Hear.") Mr. HUH E—The Right Hon. Gentleman said— The SPEAKER—Order, order. The Hon. Gentleman then sat down. The SPEAKER then put the question that the petition do lie upon the table, which was agreed to. Mr. MACLEAN presented several petitions against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented numerous petitions from several places in Yorkshire against the grant. Lord SAN DON presented a petition from Liverpool. signed by 15,r00 persons, against the grant to Maynoo h. The Noble Lord said he did not concur in the prayer of the petition. Alderman COPELAND presented a petition to a similar effect. Lord H. VANE presented petitions to a similar effect. Lord CLIVE presented several petitions also aeainst the grant to Maynooth from Ludlow, and various places in Wales. Sir W. CLAY presented similar petitions from places in East Middlesex. Mr. WAK LEY presented petitions from the inhabitants of Finsbury, and from the congregation of Dissenters of Bedford row, against the grant to Maynooth. Petitions were also presented by Lord Ingestre from several places in Shropshire; Sir Arthur Brooke, Mr. Raikes Currie ; Mr. Gisborne, from places in Nottinghamshire ; Mr. Dickenson, from Somersetshire ; Mr. Blcwitt, from Newport; Mr. D'lsraeli, from Shrewsbury ; Mr. Tancred, from Ban bury ; Lord Castlereassh, from Downshire ; and Lord Dun cannon, from Derby, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. SHEIL presented a petition from the Wesleyans of Barnstaple, who stated that they were against grants to any University ; but as grants were made to the English Universi ties, they prayed that the proposed grant might be given to Maynooth. Mr. HINDLEY presented 350 petitions against the May nooth grant, from the following places :—the inhabitants of Westbourne, Sussex , Wathesfield, Suffolk ; Cannock, Staf fordshire ; Wickhambroek, Suffolk ; Independents, Zion Chapel, Dovor; New Connexion Methodists, Ashton-under- Lyne; Dissenters, Bromley, Kent; Ealing Chapel, Middlesex; Burten-row Chapel, Brentford ; Salem Chapel, Burton-on- Trent; Sandbach, Cheshire; Southampton, Binkley, Lanca shire; Providence Chapel, Marsden, near Burnley ; Baptists, Emswor;h, Hants; Hinckley, Leicestershire; Briercliff, near Burnley ; Wheatley-lane Chapel, near Burnley ; Ebenezer Chapel, Burnley ; Haggate, New Burnley ; Abingdon, Berks ; Primitive Methodists, Burnley ; Heybead, Marsden, near Burnley ; Teachers of Zion Sunday-school, Emsworth, Hants ; the Inhabitants of Welwyn and its vicinity ; Framlingham, Suffolk; Halesworth, Suffolk ; Tottenham and Edmonton ; the Independents of Craven Chapel, Golden-square, London ; St. Albans, Herts ; Beaconfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk ; Andover, Hants • Langhem, Essex ; Leek ; the Inde pendents of draven Chapel, Golden-square, London ; St. Albans, Herts; Beaconsfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk; An dover, Hants ; Langham, Essex ; Leek, Staffordshire ; Den ton, Lancashire; Greengate, Salferd ; Great Harwod. Bucks ; l)ebenham, Suffolk; Headgate Chapel, Colchester; Heywood, Lancashire ; Ettery, St. Mary's, Devon ; Union Chapel. Lu ton, Beds ; Staleybridge, Lancashire ; Tottenham and Edmon ton ; Salem Chapel, Barnsley.; Newport Chapel, Swindon, Wilts; Albion-street ChaVel, Ashton-under-Lyne; Baptists Ilford, Essex; Sible Hedingliam ; Yarmouth, Isle of Wight Niton, Isle of Wight; Brentford, Middlesex ; Heywood, Lan. cashire ; Andover, Hants; Ashton under-Lyne ; Primitive Methodists, Leek. taffordshire ; Luton, Beds ; Wesleyan Me thodists, Southw ell, Surrey ; Hersham and Walton-on-Thames, Surrey ; Middicham, York ; Hornsey-road. Middlesex' Me thodist A ssoc i a tion, 1-Teywood, Lancashire; Teachers at Union Chapel Sunday School, Luton, Beds; Langham, Essex • In dependent Sunday School, Staleybridge, Lancashire • the In habitants of Wycken ; Hel p er, Lancashire ; Chester-le -street, Durham ; Throope Ling, Buckby, Northampton ; Ducie Chapel, Manchester ; East Dereham, Norfolk ; Chishill, Es sex; Soreby-street Chapel, Chesterfield; Huntingdon and Godmanchester ; Kettering, Northampton ; Stafford ; North walshen, Norfolk; Newport; Essex; Stubbing Hoyland, York; Clavering, Essex; Tenterden, Kent; Walpole, Suf folk; West-street Chapel, Wareham, Dorset; Warwick, Essex ; Weatherfield, Essex ; Philip -street Chapel, Kings lind-road, Shoreditch ; Worster, Norfolk ; Towcester, Nor ihampton; Sand wich, Kent ; Zion Cha p el, W hitstable , K ent ; Thrapstone, North am p ton ; Rounds, Nor t ham p to n , Gran tham, eo; Eynsford, Kent ; Mere, Wilts ; Whitstable, :n Illanniegton, Essex ; Hi nc kl e y, L e i ces t ers hire; c Middlesex ; Marsh Chapel, Newcastle-under-Lyne ; Kent;L H Hi a ing ieshw Highgate, Middlesex ; Wilmore ; St. Andrew's Chapel, Tynemouth, Northumberland; Luxlingham, Nor folk; Old Meeting House , St. Clement's, Norwich; Wood ford, Northampt on ; Kin g stead, Nor t h ampton ; Wes l ey an s Norfolk ; Dunstable, Bexdfrd ; T ;1 iMethodists,ouag‘th%erbtaolliy, Regis, Oxford ingham,Nne ;ds B ;u Harlington, Norfolk; Islip, Oxford ; Hedington, O ton Beds ; Deynall, Bucks; Tetworth, Beds ; Takenham, Norfolk ; New Con nexion Methodists, Armley, Walsingham, Norfolk ; Islip, ep H we enslett, Leeds Oxford; Hedington Oxford; Tatchley, Oxford; Kirtliegton, Oxford ; Burton, Norfolk ; Dunstable, Beds ; Houghton R foeor Beds;m 4 vvt i ee uytt nrr yyt F iL e :n; d e k g s eNsedd : Tch, in: Harlington, a rk nnsßi, Bethel hot,rahotpehkel:i, Norfolk; cpcoh ß e eado e rpsv d bee : lr N: B; ; T c e t o te l :r t t e h s s , Dessau, Bucks ; Methodists, o u ll r a y pt s i t st . s, E, C im o t w in la d n ,s d , Chapel, C Suffolk ; 1 7 ; Teachers in St. James's Sunday School, ,%orwich ; Biddenden ; Takenham, Nor folk ; Cow-lane Chapel Sunday School, Coventry ; Baptist Sunday School, St. Ives, Huntingdonshire; inhabitants of Waltham Abbey, over Darwen, Lancashire ; Upping, Essex; Farnham, Surrey; Athcrston, Roxton, and its eieunity; Aylesbury, Reading; H ariiro ,, , Sussex ; Drayton, Norfolk Fo r, Der Cambridgeshire; 'f einmouth, Devon Stoke Row, Oxon; Wellington, Somer set. Winsor, Dorset ; Wyrnundham, Norfolk; Unston Abbot, Devon; Westerham, Kent; Wotton-tmder •Edge, Worksop; Titchfield, Hants; Prescott, Lancashire; Printers and Book binders in Norwich; set ; Titchfield, Hants; New Alresford, Hants ; Melton Mowbray, Leicester ; Coney, Norfolk ; Withersedge Hill, Oxon • Kidmore End, Oxon ; Redenhill with Harleston, Norfolk ; Hempton Fakenham, Norfolk Woodley, Berks ; inhabitants of No. 2, Gloucester-terrace, New -road, Middle rex ; Asten Tirrold, Berks; Independents—Abbey Chapel, Romsey, Hants ; Bethesda Chapel, St. Coluvnb, Cornwall ; Stoney Stratford, Bucks ; Great Yarmouth Old Meeting House ; St. Neon:, Huntingdonshire ; Heytesbury, Wilts ; Killworth, Leicestershire ; Masbro' Chapel,Hayes End, Middlesex ; Thome, York Berkhampstead, Herts ; St. James-street Chapel, Nottingham ; Hamstead Keigh ley, York; Eadmon and Brookfield, Hants; Reigate ; Lavenham, Suffolk ; Luttleworth, Leicestershire ; Ship ham, Norfolk ; Ryde, Isle of Wight ; Ware, Herts ; Croft Chapel, Hastings ; Southwold, Suffolk ; Church Street Chapel, Buckingham ; Biggleswade ; Upton-upon-Severn, Worcester ; Ebenezer Chapel, Shoreditch ; Zion Chapel, Churtsy Isle, Ely; Darlington; Providence Chapel, Rochdale; Protestant Dissenting Ministers of Exeter ; King Street Chapel, Dudley ; Wendover, Bucks ; Colebrook Chapel, Rochdale ; Hope Chapel, Rochdale ; Llanfyllan, Montgomeryshire ; Whittlesea, Cambridgeshire ; Mardeen ; Newton ; Dorset Chepstow, Monmouth ; North Elmharn, Norfolk ; Totten, Hatsts; Puckeridge, Herts; Bethesda Chapel, Shrewton Wilts; Chippenham, Wilts; Zion Chapel, Shrewton, gilts; Poole, Dorset; Woodford, Essex; Winchester ; Zion Chapel Deptford ; Smart's Hill Chapel, Penshurst : Charnmouth, Dorset ; Wokinghani, Berks • Bicester, Oxon ; Castle Gate Meeting House, Wilts; Hurley, Norfolk; Little Shetford. Cambridgeshire ; Ebenezer Chapel, Edenbridge, Kent ; West Merton, Essex; Tabernacle Chapel,Holyvrell, Flint ; Lyining ton ; Church Street Chapel, Hackney; Burton-on- Trent, Staffordshire; Tunbridge, Kent; John Street Chapel, Royston ; Olney, Bucks ; Exeter ( Females) ; Acton, Middlesex ; Asherne, Warwickshire ; Brook street Chapel, Warwick ; Allerton, Salop; Mar lret Drayton, Salop ; Harlington and Hayes, Middlesex; Wit ney, Oxon; Salem Chapel, Brixton-hill, Surrey; Broughton, Hants • inhabitants of March, Cambridge ; Asten Clinton, and Weston Turvill, Berks ; Sicklade, Gloucester ; Longford, Berks; Teddington, Beds; Wesleyan Meihodist Association, Upper Brook-street, Winchester ; Upsombourne, Troyford ; Dissenters at Acton, Middlesex ; Baptists of Halifax ; Tutor and Students at Homerton College ; In ha b itants of No. 2, Gloucester-terrace, New-road, Middlesex ; Dissenters of Asherne, Warwickshire; inhabitants of Ashton Timold, Berks ; Independents of Brook-street Chapel ; Baptists, Mat field, Kent ; Warwick ; Union-street Chapel, Rochdale ; Haywood, Lancashire ; Bogslatt, Longsdale ; Barnford, Rochdale ; Miln-row, Rochdale ; Somerplace, Lancashire ; Broad Lime, Lancashire ; Temple, Rochdale ; Littleborough, Lancashire ; Illingworth, and Rakewood, Lancashire • Newton, Devon ; West Parade Chapel, Wakefield; St. Sidwell, Exeter ; Saf. fron Walden, Essex ; Mint-lane Chapel, Exeter ; Upper Brook-street, Winchester; Upsumbourne, Troyford ; Sun day School Teachers, Independents. Launton, Ox ford ; Church- s t re et Chapel, Hackney, Middlesex ; Abbey Chapel, Ramsay, Hants ; Harvey-lane Sunday School, Leicester ; Various Schools, Hereford, Bicester, Ox ford ; Tutor and Students at Homerton College ; Methodist New Connexion, Ripon ; Parliament-street Chapel, Notting ham ; Primitive Methodists, Rochdale. Graveston, Whisburgh, Tendenham, andWorkering, Norfolk, East Dereham ; Inhabit ants of Bedminton Church, and Congregation at Bethnal green ; Protestant Association, Bethnal-green ; Wesleyan Methodist Association, Oldham-road Chapel, Manchester ; Chatwood, Manchester ; Moston, near Manchester • Blackley, Molineux, Mills, Sun-street, Keighley ; Crumpsall, Toman street, Hayfield, Derbyshire ; New Mills, York-street, Cheet ham, Macclesfield, Cheshire - Moutit Pisgah Sloops, Camel ford, Cornwall, Ellesmere, Salop; Seven-street, Manchester ; Duddleston, Port Isaac; Dlount Pleasant, Burnley, Bolling ton, Cheshire, Carlisle, Wrexham, Derbyshire, Readitch, Liss keatd, Cornwall, item b h; Ellesmere, Croplane3, liy den, York, Todmorden, Yorkshire, Coatholme, Lancashire ; Wil low• walk, St. Luke's, Middlesex; Castle-street, Marylebone, Middlesex ; Erith, Kent ; Charlotte-street, Islington ; Gee street, Goswell-street, Middlesex ; Woolwich, Kcnt ; King's road, Chelsea; William-street, Portland-town ; Gosport, Bromin, Cornwall, Stockport, Borough of Droitwiteh ; Park street, Worcester ; Glossop, Derbyshire, Mullion, Cornwall, Ashton, Cornwall, Lustvilhin, Bradford, Gonwallee, Eccles hill, Yorkshire; Brompton,Kent ; Gildingwells and Woodcells, York ; Whitewell and Creswell, Derby ; Austen, West Riding, Yorkshire ; Worksop, Nottinghamshire ; Tregather roan, Cornwall, Helston, Kinsey, Rorvrick, Cury, Cornwall, Devonport ; Bermondsey, Surrey; Earl-street, London-road, Surrey. Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition from the Re monstrant Synod of Ulster, specially . convened. The peti tioners stated that they had long enjoyed a generous pro vision for their Ministers, as well as a liberal grant towards the education of their theological students. They were con vinced that the proposed measure for the grant and endowment of the College of Masnooth would confer a great and lasting benefit on the population of Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. MANNERS SUTTON presented a petition from the Wesleyan Methodists of Cu - abridge, against the grant to the College of Marnooth. Mr. HUNIE presented similar petitions from Scotland. Lord ASHLEY presented petitions to the same effect, from Dorsetshire. Sir GEORGE CLERK presented simi'ar petitions from the berough of Stamford. IMPEACHMENT OF SIR ROBERT PEEL. • Mr. FERRAND gave notice that he would, on Monday, move that the petition which he had presented from the Pro testant Operative Conservative Association, avtinst the cou duct of Sir Robert Peel, should be printed with the votes. MR. WARD'S MOTION. Mr. WARD said he had to thank the Speaker for the kind intimation which he had given him in the course of the morn. ing, as to the form in which he might bring forward his motion without inconvenience or irregularity. He should, therefore, in accordance with that intimation, move, upon the question that the House go into Committee upon the Bill, that it be an instruction to the Committee, that any provision for the pen-- poes of the Bill should be supplied out of the funds already applicable to ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland. THE LATE ACCIDENT AT BOX TUNNELL. Lord DUNCA N wished to ask a qtiestion from the Hon. Member for Reading ( Mr. Russell) as to the late accident at the Box Tunnell, on the Great Western Railway. It was stated in the public press t• at a quantity of earth and stone had fallen in and obstructed the passage of the mail. lie wished to ask whether any measures had been taken to pre vent the recurrence of such an accident in future ? Mr. RUSSELL said that the best answer to a question of so much im; ortance to the public and to the Cempany would he to read the report of the Company's engineer. ( The lion. Gentleman then reel the report. but in so tow and indistinct a tone, that we could not catch the leading points.) The acci dent on the Box Tunnel was owing to the severe frost and such occurrences were more unfraquent in tunnels than in any other places. He hoped the statement he had made would be satisfactory. He could assure the Noble Lord that every care and attention was paid to the Tunnel, which was as safe as the roof of that House.—( Great lauehter. ) NEW ZEALAND On the motion that the order of the day for the second read ing of the Mar nnoth College Grant be read, Mr. C. BULLER asked if the Government were prepared to lay en the table of the House the papers relating to New Zealand of which he had given notice. Mr. HOPE said the documents in question or extracts from them, as the Hon. and Learned Member wished, would be printed and laid cn the table in a few days. THE GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill being read, Mr. COLQUHOUN said the Noble Lord (Lord John Rus sell) was one of those Members of the Opposition who pos sessed great influence in the House, particularly when he rose to express his opinions upon Irish subjects. When the Noble Lord held office and occupied a place on the Treasury benches, he advocated many measures which were invariably neutra lized by the weight of opinion on the other side, but when a question in refer( nee to the Irish Church was introduced by the Noble Lord, the Honourable Member for Sheffield accused him of deserting his principles ; yet, strange to say, that in all discussions upon such questions—no matter what party were in office—the Opriositien always appeared to have the power of deciding. When the Hon. Member for Sheffield occupied a seat on that side of the House, he was remarkably inert in expressing his opinions upon the question of academical education. It seemed to be the law of their political existence, since the passing of the Reform Act, that it. was not the Government with their large majority that carried their measures, but those who were opposed to them. He besought the Noble Lord opposite to consider well the responsi bility under which he was acting. He besought that Noble Lord to reflect well upon the advice he was about to give upon the subject of the Irish Church ; to reflect upon it as i he were sitting in the Cabinet, with all the responsibility not :of office, but of opposition. Agreeing generally in the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government, he entirely agreed with what the Noble Lord had said on the Oregon question, but he disagreed with him entirely on this question of the Irish Church. He also wished to make an earnest appeal to the Hon. Member for Montrose and to the Hon. Member for Sheffield. Those Hon. Members entertained opinions on the Irish Church which were perfectly different from those which he entertained, but it was evident they could not agree with the Noble Lord. He entreated the Hon. Member for Mon trose to return to the seat which he formerly occupied on his ( Mr. Colquhoun's) side of the! House;, and he besought the Hon. Member for Sheffield to join him. Let them not be alarmed by the name of Conservative—there was nothing to occasion alarm in it.—(Cheers.) It was a name without a notion.—( Opposition cheers.) Not only was it treading on the heels of Radicalism—it was treading on the very toes of Radicalism.—( Cheers.) Nay, in many instances, it was going further than Radicalism—( Renewed Op; osition cheering) and in all eases it was gaining on Radicalism at a very rapid pace.—(Continued Opposition cheering.) He should certainly resort to every Means in his power to oppose the progress of this 11111.—( Hear, hear.) He would appeal to the Rouse whether he had. ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, been guilty of anything like a factious opposi tion, but when a measure of such importance as this was pressed forward in such a hasty manner, without giving time for its consideration, he felt himself called neon as a member of the minority, to exercise those rights with which a minority was inves ed, and which never could he exercised with grea;er temperance than they had been by him.—( Hear. ) fhe character of the measure b ought forward on the subject of Maynooth was of such a nature that he could not help thinking a more inadequate an i injurious measure could not be brought forward. With regard to endowment. he thought there was great good sense in what had fallen from the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool the other night, that they ought to take care not to stretch the principle of the majority binding the minority too far; for, in that case, they would not endow the Roman Catholic religion in Canada and Malta, though it would not be possible for them to retain those colonies if they carried out that principle.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) Yes ; he fully admitted that ; but there was another principle that they ought rot to carry out—that doctrine where it militated against the broad and fundamental principles of morality and the Christian religion, otherwise they would haste rat right to interfere with the Suttees of India, or the practices of the inhabitants of New Zealand. It was once remarked of Napoleon that he was an honorary member of all religions ; that he was a INlahomedan in Egypt, and a Jew and Roman Catholic whenever it suited his purpose; but that was not a pi inciple on which a Christian state ought to act. He thus disposed of the question of conscience ; with regard to the question of compact, he thought the Right Hon. Gentlemen had entirely misapprehended it. It was true that the Irish Parliament left to the Roman Catholics the power of endowing a college of their own, and if they refused them that liberty, he should think worse of the Irish Parlia ment than ever he did. But. when it was proposed to make the grant to Maynooth a permanent instead of an annual grant, the Irish Parliament refused to do so by a vast majority. It could not, therefere, be successfully maintained that there was any compact. But to go from the high vintage groend which he might take, and to look upon this question as a merely political one, he would refer to the objects of Mr. Pitt, who founded Maynooth. Lord Castlereagh, who carried t t Union, and who was well acquainted with the object of Mr. Pitt, said, in 1810, that it was not his wish that there should not be Roman Catholics—that they might continue to be sincere; but that his wish was to make them liberal Roman Catholics, connecting themselves with their own Government for the benefit and the mutual advantage of all, to the exclusion of all foreign influence. Well, what was the effect now that - Maynooth had been in existence fifty years? It was a remarkable fact that when the repeal was agitated, a few years ago, almost all the ecclesi attics educated at Maynooth, with scarcely a single exception, were violent agitators of that measure. The Honourable Member for Waterford, in speaking of the Roman Catholic Association, said that Maynooth began to be felt, and from the exclusive rature of the education in Maynooth it could scarcely be otherwise. If a college were established on the banks of the Isis, in which an exclusive sys tem of education was pursued, from which the entrance of pub lic opinion was repelled, where there was no intercourse with persons who were to occupy stations in the general relations of society, where there were no young men educated for the law or other learned professions, he was sure that the result of such a system would be that it would be impossible to maintain the connexion between Church and State for six years. Then when they came out into the world, they were in a great degree cut off from society by the system of celibacy ; they were men who were filled with arrogant and intolerant views of their own importance, and they thought that all others were bound to obey their behests. That was the natural consequence that might be expected from the education pursued at Maynooth.— ( Hear, hear.) Allusion had been made to the difference in the character of the priests who were educated abroad and those who were educated at Maynooth. He had lately received a letter from a gentleman who held office under the present Government in the constabulary force. He said that he never heard the subject of the priesthood mentioned, without its being universally considered of the priesthood edu cated abroad and those educated at Maynooth—that the former were well disposed and peaceable, the latter turbulent, assum ing a politiyal character hostile to English connexion. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted a letter which appeared in the Morning Chronicle, signed " Phililathes," in which the writer said that the Roman Catholic priesthood had entered into the repeal movement in the worst—that was to say, the rebellions spirit. When the subject of education in Prussia was mentioned, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon and the Right Hon. Member for Waterford cheered ; hut those Right Hon. Gentlemen ought to know that the system of education pursued in Prussia was very different from that which was pursued at Rome. His Hon. Friend the Member :or Pontefract, the same night, advocated the Roman Catholic -ystem of education; but he had the highest a uthority—that of the Prussian Minister now in this country , respecting the dif ference which existed in the Roman and Prussian systems. He said the system which prevailed in Rome was this :—A person was taken at seven years of age and placed in an ecclesiastical seminary, where he he was educated apart from the society of others of the ecclesiastical profession. The consequence was that they came out into the world very illiterate and extremely intolerant; and however such a system mi g ht be suited to Italy, he hoped it would never find favour in this country. On the other hand, under the Germanic system, the State took the boy at the age of seven years, when he was brought up with others intended for word!) , pursuits, by which his manners were refined and his opinions moderated. He con tinued there till the age of twenty-one, when he was placed in an ecclesiastical seminary, where he was educated precisely as they were educated at Maynooth. Prussia was a country composed of Catholics and Protestants, but it was well known that the Germanic character pervaded the whole, and what was the consequence? Why, this, that when the Archbishop of Cologne attempted to enforce in Prussia some of those intolerant measures which were ad mitted to exist in Ireland, he was met by the most strenuous and determined opposition. In Ireland it was well known that the Roman Catholic priests were the most assiduous fomentors anti promoters of the repeal agitation. Yet, strange to say, the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty s Go vernment had proposed to the House a measure, by which would be kept up the system of educa tion that those priests re ceived. Now, he would adduce a stronger argument in favour of his position than the evidence of a Roman Catholic, a Mr. M'Kenna, who had declared that the system of education at Maynooth; was a highly vicious system. The reason that none but men of the lower classes of society entered that Col lege as candidates for any of the professorships was, because of the smallness of the salaries ; yet the Right Honourable Baronet's proposition did not propose to remedy that defect. And this was another instance of the super'ority of the Prussian Catholic Colleges, lieeau , e men of the highest clas.es of society received their education there. Let him aik what Catholic gentleman in Inland would -end his son to Maynooth to receive his education? Such a thil g was un- hea - rd of. Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. Member had better stick to facts. Mr. COLQUHOUN—WeII, let him remind the Right Hon. Baronet that the Professor of Mathematics in Maynooth College, when he was examined before a Committee of that Horse, declared, in answer to a question, that he did not know that there was a sixth book of Euelid.—( Laughter.) Honourable Members argued that by paying professors well in Maynooth good professors would be had, and others bad stated that the reason they were called upon to grant this additional sum of 25,0 01. was for this purpose; but he begged to tell them that they would pay the money for no other certainty than the certainty of not getting such persons.—(Laughter. ) The only men on whom they could calculate were those who had promulgated the asceticism and se verity of the Roman Catholic priests, and who would send forth men who would foster no other doctrines in the country. On these grounds he begged to say he would give the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet his most strenuous opposition. Before he sat down he begged to re turn thanks to the Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) for having had the courtesy to send him notice yesterday of his intention not to bring on his motion to-day. Mr. GROGAN said he intended to give the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet his strongest opposition. A great number of petitions had been presented from the city he repre sented, and that city, from its contiguity to Maynooth, might be' said to know something of the results of the system of educa tion pursued at Maynooth. He did not think the Right Hon. Baronet had made out any ease whatever calculated to con vince the House or the country that he was warranted in bringing forward such a proposition, for he had not shown that it was based either on compact or ex pediency. In the year 1795, when this grant oil gloated, it was not intended to he continued, because in the Act of Union there was a stipulation, providing for the continuation far twenty years subsequently of grants made to charitable institutions then in existence, or that hart been in existence for six years previously, and therefore it was clear that it was intended to exclude Maynooth. because May nooth lAd been in existence five years previously. Then there was the evidence of Dr. Golly, before a Committee of the House, who stated that he believed that the increased grant of 1'1,006/. made in the year 1810, was not, in his o e inioti. a grant fur the establishing, but in order to meet expenses in curred by additional buildings. He did not mean to speak disparagingly of the Roman Catholic priests ; on the con trary, he was willieg to extend to them the highest praise for the manner in which they had exerted themselves for the preservation of life and property during the aultation that convulsed Ireland two years ago. —( Hear. ) (The Hon. Gentleman then read extrncts from a speech of Mr ('Connell's, showing the difference between the education of foreign priests and the priests of Ireland ; and that the great Anti-Protestant feeling in Ireland was fostered by the education which was bestowed on the students at. Maynooth. He also referred to a statement in an article written by Mr. Inglis, a foreigner, who stated that the priests of Ireland were agitating priests.) And now they were going to increase tIY power and the circulation of those doctrines which led the country so near its destruction some time ago, and were now about to give facility to. and extend the prevalence of their opinions. The Protestants of Ireland all disapproved of the system of education which was pursued at Maynooth, and the sacs tic seclusion which was impo-ed on the students. Any body of men would, under the same system of training, turn out into the world such men as the priests of Ireland. A young man, early in life, put into the college with a view to a provision for his after life, would, under the influence of the doctrines and tenets inculcated at Maynooth, become one of thnt class to which they objected. The power of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland was absolute, and the Protestants had strong doubts whether that power did not extend to temporal as well as spiritual matters. It was to be remembered that the Pope had no controul over them what ever ; they had a greater degree of liberty, and were less re stricted by the Pope than the priests in any other Catholic country in Europe, so that their power was almost absolute. He objected to the version of the Bible with notes and com ments as printed by the College printer, and read in Maynouth as a class book. He then instanced a note to the 13th chapter of Matthew, to show the false intepretation which was given in their Bible. Under these circumstances he did not think it uncharitable, unjust, or ungenerous on the part of the Pro testants of Ireland, to object to the doctrines which were taught in that place. Before they passed that Act they ought to take very great care lest they were about to found a college for the education of a set of men publishing the doc• trines of those who were banished from nearly every country in Europe. He meant the Jesuits, who, though re markable for their great knowledge and talents, were suppressed by every country in Europe in consequence of their extreme desire to obtain power. Dr. Kenny, who was the principal of the Jesuits in Ireland, stated, on an examination as to the opinions which pervaded Maynooth, that what they were taught was exactly the same as in the Jesuit Colleges abroad, where he was educated. He would not say that it was a Je suit college, but they had no reason to know that it was not ; and they ought, at least, before passing the Act, to institute a Committee to inquire into the system of education adopted there, that they might be assured that they were not giving mo ney to a body who were proscribed by every power in Europe. The Bill put posed to endow, permanently and for ever, without the controul of the Crown, the College fur the education of Roman Catholic priests. We profess to be Protestants and Dissenters from the Romish Church, and yet we attempted to make the priests of that Church better controversialists and more able opponents of the religion which we believe to be true. He asked could a Protestant Parliament consent to en dow a college for such purposes ?—( Hear, hear.) The 1 ader of the Opposition—or rather of that portion of it which sits upon the other side of the House—was a supporter of the Bill. But he did not daavow that he had mere at heart the concilia. tion of the Remish Church ( Ilear)—than the preservation of the Protestant religion. The leader of the Catholic party in Ireland had expressed himself in strong teems of approba tion of the measure. and had sated that he would so far abate disaffection in Ireland as to give the government the full value of its money. Two years ago that country was on the verge of rebellion, and if the eoncessi , n now proposed were made, what good ground had the House for supposin 2 that a fresh threat of a civil war would not lead to further conccsi•ins to the de mands of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Some time since, in the north of Ireland, a large number of Roman Catholics were converted to the Protestant faith, and they were refused provisions at any price, and they were obliged to he supplied by the Protestants ot other par sof the country. The cheek to conversion would be increased by the propos e d gra n t. Th s Roman Catholic clergy were trait - R(1 in doctrines the most anti social and the most repugnant to the Protestant population of the country. No petition had been presented in support of the Bill which was indicative of a great deal, and he thought many of the Roman Catholic aristocracy did not approve of this measure. They might approve of the endowment of a Roman Catholic College and feel proud of it, but it was clear they did not feel anxious about it, for they did not present a single petition in favour of it. He had trespassed too long on the attention of the House, but he felt it to be his duty to enter his protest against the Bill—he objected to it on principle, because it would tend to endanger the existence of the Protestant Church in Ireland—because no necessity existed for it, because neither expediency nor even compact, upon which so much had been relied, required it, and be cause the Bible was withheld by those who were educated in Maynooth from the Roman Catholic people. He had endea voured as far as he could to express his opinions without con demning the opinions of any sect, but he felt it his duty thus fairly to protest against the measure. The question having been put by the SPEAKER, Several Hoss. /11E34)3E11.s rose to address the House, but all gave way to Mr. GLADSTONE, who spoke as follows :—Sir, I am sure the House will excuse me if I profess my anxiety to take the earliest opportunity of delivering my sentiments in the debate I feel it my duty to apologise to the House for having suffered one occasion in which this measure was discussed to pass by without expressing an opinion upon it, or having given a vole. The truth is that I did not think I could vote on the division of last week, without stating to the House the reasons on which that vote was founded, and I did not on the other hand feel that I could put the House in pessession of my views of the entire case until the Bill was printed, and until I was enabled to take a view of all its provisions. It was on that account, and not from any desire to avoid the responsibility in cumbent on me, in common with every Member of this House, and incumbent on me, for some special reasons, frankly to disclose all the sentiments I entertain on this ques tion. I have TIO reason whatever to complain of the course taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxtord, who felt it his duty to call for an ex pression of this House. Representing, as he did, a very power u 1 and aside-spread sentiment among the people of this country, and entertaining sentiments the dictates of a con scientious conviction, I could not. be surprised at the course pursued by my Hon. Friend. I fully admit that the minority of last week did represent the general and prevailing sense ot the people of England and Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) But, making that admission, I must state, for my own part, that after the most full and mature consideration of the question in the position in which it stands, I am prepared, in opposition to what I believe to he the prevailing opinion of the people of England and Scotland—of my own constituents, from whom I deeply regret to differ, and to my own deeply-cherished predi lections—l am, I say, prepared to give my deliberate and anxious support to the measure before the House.—(This an nouncement was received with loud and prolonged cheering from the Opposition.) I will advert to some reasons which have been advanced in support of the measure, and which; I confess, appear to me inadequate to its support. My Right Hon. Friend, in the closing part of his address, observed that the grant he proposed amounted to no more than a libera and honourable construction of that compact. My Right Hon. Friend remarked, that that compact, the Act of Union, he did not interpret in a literal sense, but in that spirit of equity which ought to subsist between the English and Irish people. I confess that doctrine greatly facilitates my approach to the consideration of this question. I believe, with the Right Hon. Oentleman, the Member for Dungarvon, that there is some thing like a compact in this case. Ido not mean with instru ments binding the parties to all eternity ; but I mean a state of circumstances and relations between the Parliament and the people of Ireland, which precludes the question from being considered as a new one, for it has been a matter of discussion in a very considerable degree in previous debates upon the annual vote to Maynooth. But, Sir, I do not think that argument is altogether applicable to the present question. I have to consider the measure on other grounds—to consider it in the circumstances of a new measure. With respect to the contract. I as ill quote a few words cf Mr. Percival, which have not been yet mentioned in these discus sions. Mr. Percival said, in 1812, that he supported the grant as it stood, because it was one of those which the Parliament of Ireland thought they should preserve at the union ; because he found it in fact given over to Eng land as a part of the union. If the grant were fairly open to opposition after the union, be should certainly be disposed to resist it, because he thought it in principle witting for a State endeavouring to establish a particular system of reli gion, to provide for the maintenance, ecclesiastical endowment, propagation, and encouragement of another religion. He (Mr. Percival) found, that a Parliament composed of Iriih men, possessing the whole religious endowments of the country, altering the law for the purpose of enabling parties to establish colleges, and making, in the first instance, con. tributions in support of a college, which was continued from year to year. After quoting some further observations of Mr. Percival, the Right Honourable Gentleman read the following extract from the same speech. " Under these circumstances, I say it would be most ungenerous in you (the English Parliament) to avail yourselves of that numerical superiority and strength for the purpose of withdrawing the grant that has been conferred by the Irish 1 8 . arliament,and which, I am confident, thelrishParliamentnever Would have withdrawn." But he found that in the declaration of Mr. Perceval, whose whole conscientious convictions were opposed to the grant,whose Government was founded upon prin eiples of resistance to every concession, great or small, to Ro man Catholics, but a man whose native honesty and candour led him to recognise the obligations of good faith and which led him to make the declaration to which he had alluded. When he looked at the fixity of the grant for so many years, he could not think that at this moment there could be any doubt with respect to the recognition of the grant by Parliament, but he felt that the changes which were now proposed to be made were so material with respect to the foundation of the College, as to make the question altitost al together a new one. He would not at all have referred to the question of contract, had not so many petitions which had been presented to that House referred to it, and denied that it eee islet', or that Parliament was bound by it. But what he had to consider teas, the proposal of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, which effected most important alter' ations in the foundati , n of the College itself. He was not merely going to change the grant from being an annual into* permanent one, but he was going to place the building nutl et the immediate control of Government, thereby establishing connexion with it as close as it could well be. The increal , e money appeared to him most important, not simply because tt was an increase of so many thousands, but because it altered t) 1 !, character ot the State in relation to the College. Originall” certainly was not intended that the State should entirely this college; and the Duke of Wellington declared that the institution was not to be entirely supported by the State. th e fact the eight or nine thousand a year voted to Maynootb ws only understood as the part of a collection made for its support. The State was only one of its contributors. But it was clear they were now going to depart from that system. The will plan was about to be reconstructed. The professors who ha but scanty salaries, mere now about to be liberally rewarded, inaintagi and the aliment, education, and care of the pupils there was t° be taken under the consideration of the State. The basis 0 1 the College was about to be changed a material change, but that change he had Ma"' up his mind to support.—( Hear, hear.) He entirelY r ef pudia'ed one argument that had been employed in support the increased grant—that of restitution. He.discla tmed it i every point of view—in point of law and constitution, and on the ground of its being contrary to everything he knew of historye He would not now go into the details on that argume nt, bet 'el that was to be done as an act of restitution, it was one e e th most shameful confessions that could be made by the Leg iir ture.—(Hear, hear.) The Government made a -gift 0 1 ; shilling or a sixpence in the pound. If this were mad she _ of restitution, would it not be most shabby, worse than ei —int-a - nous and disgraceful to offer such terms ?—( [Rears.% He, therefore, had nothing to do with the argument of res"`"" tion. Then as to the funds which are to provide for the educf. firm of the pri , ste, and to the class of society from whic h the; , were selected, he thought, with regard to the Roman Ceiba' l a l" be priests, they were selected from the only class they cou taken from. Reference too had been made to Germany, ~ the reason asked why more aristocratic persons entereo ;le Russian Catholic priests in Germany than there did in Irelae° o; In answer to this he could state that in Germany there was is other church ; bit that was not the case in Ireland. in many the Rumish Church bore something of the same r elate° J. there as the Established Church of England did in Englanesi nee-jure. he did not think that any great alteration was neeern on that head, bat did think that, whatever might be , to add to the professors' dignity and ease, would probti tend to smooth down the course of educution. was " ic e , known that, from the extremely small salaries of the Pr, lessors at Maynooth, they were induced, as soon as p ossih't, to seek out dist' let churches, in order to better their po t , tion, and by these means it was not. likely for the rollege.bo retain the very best theolo g ical teachers. By increasing rot salaries this defect would be remedied. Another arguic. ( o. id been used as to the effect of this measure, which was v' n f culous. It had been asserted that this grant was to be in order to the increasing and promulgating of Protestan t S in Ireland. Now this argument appeared to him as reasonsis as , o say that by the invention of printing books had bee° e , scarce, and that locomotion was a means to 'retard conetnere,;• It ens hard to say, that by having given them these eal:i! means, you have weakened their cause. Indeed, he thoug h • the meanest argument he had ever heard brought befall/ public assembly ; therefore he would throw that entirely 001 1 d his arguments. Then, in approaching this matter, he Ive i be take it as it appeared to him at the present time, and under the present circumstances. It he had had any agency at all hi , e • matter, it would have been probably used to have retarded;el scheme as at present proposed. Now, it was a ir t o ) i e ed rule which had been laid down, and which in :the a very popular argument, that those who Pi", di' taxation of a country should share the benefits a b rell vileges which it had to offer, and the question Wh'Ciegis had to ask himself was, whether his mind and cot"c'ci, recognised any firm, fixed, and permanent principle , e d foe ° would justify him in setting at nought these popular bad that very reason, important—considerations? Nothing o r more completely satisfied him of the difficulty' of finding n o quate arguments in opposition to this measure than the ! % ::g 00 of the arguments that had been brought forward and- eel _ ee d on the part of its opponents.—( Hear, hear.) Almost -In-, man who had spoken against this Bill had founded ht5,..4401 arguments on some small question of detail. T he OPP'"" t of the measure had not ventured to rise to th e heir,' the breadth of the question.—(Cheers.) His Hon. Frie o , l ol' Member for Newcastle (Mr. Colquhouti) though he he n th° tainly reserved to himself the right of falling back Al o of ground of religion—had not pressed forward that go w hick the most convincing and appropriate. The arguments en s 0' he had thought best suited to address to the Parlianeccoese England were arguments in small points of detail. fli 9 n b) . , was principally to the structure of the Bill. 'the questi.see had raised were mere questions for Committee, and he ns' laid down any broad ground for his objection to see es el sure which had for its object such vast and M e t changes. His Hon. Friend had also stood upon the fa'' that object, as far as it at present had been carried onts'thets of his grounds had been that the endowment of May an experiment of Mr. Pitt, and that that experiment W e ' o fel But that seemed to him the most superficial, partial, " 3 V' Bed ion.—(Cheers. ) He begged to inquire whetbevatte ever been Mr. I'itt's calculation' to found the college nothing more? No; the view which Mr. Pitt had tes17:001: to train the priesthood, and then to find provision Cl f, too , subsequent suppor.—(Cheers. ) To a certain, and - ,e l i j s elb,o limited extent, they had trained the priesthood ; htb' ese eir e e not made —they had net endeavoured to make —any vi e etig:f for their suusequent support. That might be rights 01 ' ne t •!, be wrong; but it would be ridiculous —no, he would sfest. ridiculous, liu. it was most unfair—when only part a th:: went had been tried, to arrive at the conclusion that t" t - edee experiment had failed. If the experiment were to be a or,. ought to be tried completely. They ought no to try .....i oC purr, arid then argue upon the failure ot the wholes Le t se; hear.) His Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle‘rosts; spoken much of the defective state of the College Cu rate' J Po I as to literature. tits lion. Friend was generally tee 0 he did not know Woe her he was or was not so on ta: k rfeetto occasion ; but he had made a point founded upon the . eaol; ee literature of May-nowt' College. But could any en e " 0 0) the state of Ireland—could any one look at the divisget* subject of religion &still-bed that country-eeceic% one reflect on the history of Ireland for meal' svm se tir especially during the last century—and, giving eu ro c o l o weight to these topics, could any one, for any single„ ses ee! t o etypose that if the literature of the College of "'efuel we e defective, that that was a ground That he present measure ?—(Loud cheers.) t, c r question of detail, and what an argum ent was 1 en F; tr.s wish the matter of the p e titions which had fec` oe 0 seated, with the movement which had taken Pla c o e p ole subject. with the strong religious feelings of the PO sl of the measures out of doors. His Hon. Friend she u g " . f ei b s the grounds, and from the arguments of those pefltil s iell„ 4 l that movement. He was afraid to meet fully an" _OO7 main principle, and he confined himself to those.o/60 considerations which did not necessarily interfere vel ee e rst cess of the Bill, and which might be settled herenests w e ss Hon. Friend had also alluded to the working of the of A pe w education in Germany, and had referred to the els , eet e e —the same, he believed, who had seceded. — ( ° A O! same," from Engle Hon. Member.) Well , t he y tee it not take any collateral debate, and he would reserve es o r e line of his observations. Considering the pop ull ses° argument which had been taken in favour of this o f y o i and the movement in support of it, the burdettoreit rested with its opponents, and he asked what was o 6 001 k A n ot A A in the law or Constitution of the country, and f tb" V the law and Constitution, but in the convictions °. OO , I f t el ground which was the living basis of the C o nstitn t ' r eef to ground of objection—strong, definite, and perrnaC c ef est) be taken against the Bill? What he was in in galv,so inquire was, whether there was any e i e / means of resisting the principle upon which this its re , di, founded? He, of course, did not allude to physical an d He had never entertained a doubt that, at all times % AO all circumstances, this country would be able to becri.beelli the efforts of physical resistance and opposition b e i t r eatOes!, entertained this opinion, yet he thought that the sieel of that resistance ought not to be excluded fr ont c°4 401 He was not afraid to have it east upon him thet i ;„ or e high a regard to the means of conciliating oppo'%dor a paradox in human nature to deny that cone"' o f ss s eifi grateful or that it was not generally a politic con deb epees' - (Cheers. )—and he would willingly submit to rep OP/ constructian rather than refuse to grant what ss fr, ep on if generous to a people who were their fell ° ; A h e .04 and their fellow-men.—(Loud cheers.) Bute e ; sriet t i s ing this question of principle to the best of u;„00„, though there was little of that principle relied ,:neOri;iet speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Ile e or found, on one side and on the other , very extveeteetle , On one side it was contended that any ei re ligiou% Sd, whatever was contrary to natural justice. ' side it was asserted that a State endowment Was,ineesofii religious duty. He could not hold one of these W o o other. He could not hold that it was contrary t° oo Se 0 . ; ' tice that a government should support one religt tll6 cure to another, and he believed that few men `fi e e ettrer if they considered the paradoxes involved in tn e di*. 0; 4 ; The Hon. Member had referred to the case of the did not, as a rule, interfere with the religion 0 r e s y e Whether they did so sufficiently was a question vv e ou i - 1 1 ;0: 0 ,' sideration, but it was one into which he vr ° y e e enter. But in India there was a Mahomedan.a.o d op population which supplied the taxes to the Bv e t tl e e i r•F e t ment, and they did not hesitate to apply witt °3 e oei t 'od r l and with no sparing hand, such portions as theY fie 4 for the encouragement of the Christian religion:, it s e", think this coot , ary to natural justice. He though t eee e ; with the highest justice, .and with the most r e, sci ? rious considerations. But it might be said tio!etineter of India were not Chrietians, and that a broad 11 ', 5 0 0 4 0 0° , i / to be drawn between Christians and all other see' io bl ies of religious worshippers ; but to test this prioelLst tar) put to all who belonged to his religion—he voat t L e a e r of t ifi, of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward , a t the t;stioll formation. As they were all aware, the Refer ebe ee; sr sy spring from the ground. It descended from' e e ao or s j handed down by the bishops, the clergy, and tn ent W e , 19 .1 fore they impregnated the people with doctrines TO 409 new. The great mass of the people were impreg"lneste!eerS above them. lie did not enter into any other clu e s, to tleir f le th ose troubled times gave rise. He said n othing id n, o f used. for propagating the new opinions• lic e s e s g be,, teo e to the persecutions and cruelties which then tt, tha tised ; but he ask-d, was there any one who he s _ oo el! e r duty of Queen Elizabeth to have refrained% in be ing to communicate to her people that wh4 ne y ee l efol st as the greatest blessing she could impart ? a rifl4 tained such an opinion he was not one of therrnel?te emphatically protested against the truth o r r T a re ' a lo any such doctrine. But he could no more ale oine set t 9 l who contended that a State endowment Was C sit feo e gious duty. Those who supported that prop% h ie confuse the duties which a man perform_ eel ' to Pr e tli Id capacity and the duties he was called 'tir e " hie ' O OO a member of society.—(Hear, bear.) I° 9o fere i er capacity such a man was his own rule , % to oo trJA not only allowed, but was by duty hci u , e s ad 40'071 opinion for himself on those serious and Sacred Es i ei, but in civil and po:itical society each • Inc e n lio es. upon opinions and feelings of bis a e o l 1/ %4 society h existed by means of mutual conces el of/ surrender.—( Loud Opposition cheers.) r es o ,el l llo, insisted upon his own opinion—if ever/ 0 10 1 0 Of) terminated to follow the dictates of his °" that 1° 04 1 man would listen to himself alone—whoever . 0 0 1 1 et), pursued this course, ` e hat man issued the sett' , Le go in sol ; throw the whole of society into confusion.-seTetii ed 0110; His Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle_wof bisifeeSueol he could not bind every body to the adopti c e n tee d. e e. He trusted that he should not be misundeve,ens se ways thought, and lie still thought, that dv 11' antage "44 happy who enjoyed the inestimable 3 _ o va ) . f"'e unity, and with whom that religious u:tiyhafoolgdipg.h_toperet tie e .. 1 of their legislation. He placed that adv ne e ealis all civil and social blessings, and he —he would not earn applause —by wit- _ ere co y j o that fertile, indeed, of misery arid sorrow % at II:, oir': l dissensions which prevailed amongst tbent.defiyaite a b : r eS t r o ell; say that in this he found such a body of we e t° t s tl' t e tial truth as would form a satisfactory ans de ar . 0 0, 1 Ireland. He did not find in this princ i P l° real e 1 rk agree with it. But it might D e tabhl P whilcehger every yd body y n o w u h ld i eetlheyancdouludndfoerr.s;vue j r sa:laf - 0 ; a particular form of religion 10 b e e : o nlet I under any other circumstances, Yrol SUGAR DUTIES. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition, praying that sugar from all parts of the world might be admitted at the same rate of duty. THE MAYNOOTH GRANT. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition, praying that the Go vernment should not pay the clergy of any religious denomina tion whatever out of the public money.—( Cheersand laughter. ) Sir J. DUKE presented a petition from the mayor, alder men, and burgessos of Boston, to repeal an Act passed last session, amending the law of bankruptcy ; also seven petitions from Dissentingeongregations in Boston, Sibsey, Frieston, New Bolingbroke, and Stickney, against the proposed grant to Maynooth ; and a petition.from the inhabitants of Boston to pu3tpone the second reading of that nitaiare. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 12, 1845. '