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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. - _ HOUSE OF LORDS, April 11. The Loan CmaxcaLLea took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. Petitions were :presented' against the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. The Bishop of LICHFIELD presented several peti tions, none of which ware worthy of notice. MAYNOOTH. A number of petitions were also presented against the grant to Maynooth , by the Earl of Eglinton, the Bishop of London, and the Duke of Hamilton. Those presented by the Duke of Hamilton referred to the feelings of the people of Scotland, who he stated were against the grant. The 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 Maynonth. The Earl of MIDDLETON presented a petition from the board of guardian; of Bromley, in the county of Worcester, praying that the owners of small tenements should be made liable for poor-rates instead of the occupiers. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition praying their Lordships 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-LAW:. The Earl of HA DDINGTON 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 NORM AN 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. IRISH RAILWAYS. The Marquis of CLANRICAR DE 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 pros; sions of the Registration Act. The Bastardy Bill then went through Committee. THE SUGAR DUTIES BILL. Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the Cham 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 petitions, he would take the liberty of suggesting t hat the Noble Lord who had the care of the Sugar Duties Bill in that House, should carefully peruse its contents. The Earl of DALHOUSIE ro'e to move the third read ing 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 considerably 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 204,00 tons, whilst the consumption had reached 302,1,00 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 Pill, 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 tho 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 bad 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 produce 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 CLARENDON wished to make a few remarks upon what he conceived would be the practical operation of theßill, as well as upon the principle it involved. The more it was examined the less calculated it would be found to effsct 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 ad valorem 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 more to be made had 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 labour, was to be imported into this country were to bear the same duty as those from Chin a, Java, and Manilla By the 19th Clause of this Act, it was decreed that the duty on refined sugar from foreign possessions, which had hitherto been Bd. a too, 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 introcn'tion 01 the difference made between refined sugar and Muscovado, a third class bad been introduced, termed white chi* sugar. The duty laid on this vas 28 , , while that imported from the British Colonies, which had been 16e. 4d. was reduced to 14s. It appeared that the whole of the produce of the British pos sessions and Mauritius would vary from 250,000 to 230,000 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 1,300,0001. It was known that a decrease of duty led to a decrease of price, and an increase of consumption. The quantity usually consumed was a t the rate of 17Ibs. per individual per annum, making a proportionate consumption of one-third of a pound per week, and ca using a saving to a labouring man of id. per week pe r family. This, though small, was equal to one fourth of the wh o l e expense. The Noble Lord then went into a series of returns for the years 1830 to 1844, to prove that the price affected the consumptionanidn theandifficultyinvariable th at had proportion. b eei Aith respect to the clansificat alleged as likely to attend on the distinguishing qualities in this country, it was said were not felt at United States, where this mode of Gratz i classification awee w le a n s , a adopted, extended to 1R qualities. or in Java, where the classification It was said that it was impossible to mae a listinction in this eu untry between slave and free-grown sugar,but, at all ev en t s , to inoperativ e , if they did make the distinction, it would be besidLouisiana. tally i But e i b eca use the Americans would manage to import Eur he denied the practicability of this , and, Ameri cans founds a better market for their produce than " in Only twelve years ago , the term property in man was a Europe. can ven i e nt term, and he believed that other countries would not . be guided by our scheme s of moralit y . Bra zil and other coun tries might say — " we have r e a d B lue - books , and while you talk of kindliness and charity , we ere aware of the excess of labour to which your artisans 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 ?wive 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 opiite ready to receive their coppar ore—( Hear) —the extraction of which was ten times more deadly and onerous to the slave than the pro du lion 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 endilre, 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 be 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 net =7 kuier have the country W suppose that CALEDONIAN RAILWAY. Mr. FOX MAPLE presented petitions, numerously signed, from the city of Perth, the diArict of Blairgowrie, Coupar- Amlus, Kirrierouir, and Nairn, in favour of the Caledonian ether 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 Pharisaical 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 don n. The fault was not: hat slavery existed there, and that they had not extinguished lavery 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 sestem of holding in bondaze 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 he blamed for this. By the encourage cent 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 he 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 making a similar argument, was a precisely contrary effect to that which the Noble Lord had assumed. God forbid that any man should consider the horrors of the middle passage, or trepanning their 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 elves 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 20,000/. 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 51et 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 he believed was, countenanced by this country. Ile 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 ter ow 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 measure.; calculated to draw down the wrath of Heaven— (Continued laughter)—and they earnestly prayed that Almighty God would in his mercy avert the scourge which such conduct was calculated to draw down upon the realm.—( Increased laughter.) The Hen. 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 Hon. Gentlemen, 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. WY NNE 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 c untry, 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 " Move.") Mr. WYNNE—I would certainly, therefore, negative the motion that the petition lie on the table. Sir R. PEEL said he did not see any reasons why they should refuse the petition. It was true that the charges referred to Parliamentary proceedings, but as it contained charges against the Executive Government he thought that it ought to be received. He, therefore, hoped that his Right Hon Friend would 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 debate on the presenta tion of a petition. The SPEAKER said that it was upon a point of order.— ( Hear, hear.) He understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to have risen on a point of order.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. WYNNE said he conceived,he was right in 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 Hoer. 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 rot in order. I will read the standing order of the House. Thu Right lion. 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.—( Beer, 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 " Hea r. ") Mr. HUME—The Right Hon. Gentleman said— The SPEAKER—Order, order. The lion. Gentleman then sat down. The SPEAKER then put the question that the petition do lie treon the table, which was agreed to. Mr. rIACLEAN presented several petitions against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. S. ii"ORTLEY presented numerous petitions from several places in Yorkshire against the grant. Lord SANDON presented a petition from Liverpool, signed by 15,c00 persons, against the grant to Maynoo h. The Noble Lord said he did not concur in the prayer of the petition. Alderman COPELAND presented a petition to a similar effect. Lord H. VANE presented petitions to a similar effect. Lord CLIVE presented several petitions also against the grant to Maynooth from Ludlow, and various places in Wales. Sir W. CLAY presented similar petitions from places in East Middlesex. Mr. 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 planes in Shropshire ; Sir Arthur Brooke, Mr. Raikes Currie ; Mr. Gisborne, from places in Nottinghamshire ; Mr. Dickenson, from Somersetshire ; Mr. Blewitt, from Newport; Mr. D'lsraeli, from Shrewsbury • Air. Tancred, from Ban bury ; Lord Castlereagh, from D' o wnshire ; and Lord Dun cannon, from Derby, against the grant to Maynoo t h. 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 WeAbourne, Sussex; Wathesfield, Suffolk; Cannock, Staf fordshire ; Wickhambroek, Suffolk ; Independents, Zion Chapel, Dover; New Connexion Methodists, Ashton-under- Lyne; Dissenters, Bromley, Kent; Ealing Chapel, Middlesex; Burten-row Chapel, Brentford ; Salem Chapel, Barton-on- Trent; Sandbach, Cheshire; Southampton, Binkley, Lanca shire ; Providence Chapel, Alarsden, near Burnley ; Baptiste, Emsworth, Hants ; Hinckley, Leicestershire ; Briercliff, near Burnley; Wheatley-lane Chapel, near Burnley; Ebenezer Chapel, Burnley ; Haggate, New Burnley ; Abingdon, Berks ; Primitive Methodists, Burnley; Heyhead, 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 • Langham, Essex ; Leek ; the Inde pendents of eraven Chapel, Golden-square, London ; St. Albans, Herts; Beaconsfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk; An dover, Hants ; Langham, Essex ; Leek, Staffordshire ; Den ton, Lancashire; Greengate, Salford; Great Harwod, Bucks; Debenham, Suffolk; Headgate Chapel, Colehester ; Heywood, Lancashire ; Ettery, St. Mary's, Devon ; Union Chapel , Lu ton, Beds ; Staleybridge, Lancashire ; Tottenham and Edmon ton ; Salem Chapel, Barnsley ; Newport Chapel, Swindon, \Vets ; Albion-street Chapel, Ashton-under-Lyne; Baptists, Hord, Essex; Sible Hedinghare ; Yarinouth, Isle of Wight; Niton, Isle of Wight Brentford, Middlesex ; Heywood, Lan cashire ; Andover, Hants ; Ashton under - Lyne ; Primitive Methodists, Leek, Staffordshire; Luton , Beds; W es l eyan Me thodists, Southwell, Surrey ; Hersham and Walton-on-Thames, Surrey ; Middleham, York ; Hornsey-road, Middlesex ; Me thodist Association, Heywood, Lancashire; Teachers at Union Chapel Sunday School, Luton, Beds ; Langham, Essex ; In dependent Sunday School, Staleybridge, Lancashire ; the In- East Dereham, Norfolk ; Chishill, Es habitants of Wycken ; Hel p er, Lancashire ; Chester-le-street, Durham ; Throope L in g , Buckb y , Northam p ton ; Duci e s C e h x a ; pel s , o A re l b an y c .s h t e r s e t e e t e ;ch.pei, Chesterfield; Huntingdon and. Godmanchester ; Kettering, Northampton ; Stafford ; North walshen, Norfolk ; Newport ; Essex ; Stubbing Hoyland, York ; Clavering, Essex ; Tenterden, Kent ; Walpole, Suf folk ; \Vest-street Chapel, Wareham, Dorset; Warwick, Essex ; Weathorfield, Essex ; Philip -street Chapel, Kings land-road, Shoreditch; Worster, Norfolk; Towcester, Nor thampton; Sandwich, Kent ; Zion Chapel, Whitstable, Kent; Thrapstone, Northampton ; Rounds, Northampton ; Grantham, Lincolnshire ; Eynsford, Kent ; Mere, Wilts ; Whitstable, Kent; Brecon Mannington, Essex ; Hinckley, Leicestershire; Highgate, Middlesex ; Marsh Chapel, Newcastle-under-Lyne ; Hanwell Chapel, Middlesex ; Wilmore ; St. Andrew's Chapel, Tynemouth, Northumberland; Luxlineharn, Nor- O x ford ; Burton, N or f o lk ; D unsta bl e , folk ; Old Meeting House , St. Clement's, Norwich Wood ford, Northampton ; Kin g stead, Northam p ton ; W esleya n Methodists, Walsingh am, Norfolk; Isli p , Oxford ; Hedin g ton, Oilexdfosr;dl;ioTuagthchtoleny,Regis, Beds ; Harlingt on , B e d s ; D eyea ll, a, Bucks ; T e t wor th, Bucks; Tetworth , B eds ; Takenham, Norfolk ; New Con nexion Methodists , Armle t' , Walsingham, Beds Walsingham, Norfolk Boughton lslip,olk; 11 ) 0 (O e x xgf f o oi ,r r ,d d B; ; e H dBs e n tioi g nat Harlington, n,gto Norfolk;i, Oxford;Be d s T iu a tDenhsel Dunstable, ey, O x f or d ; Ki rt li egton , a n ble Beds ; Fakenham, Norfolk; New Connexion Methodists, Armlev, Leeds; Bethel Chapel, Hunslett, Leeds ; Countess of Eiuntingd‘.n Chapel, Dover; Baptists, Cowland Chapel, Coventry ; Sharnbrook, Beds ; Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk ; Coventry ; Wirksworth, Derby ; Teachers in St. James's Sunday School, lsorwich ; Biddenden ; Takenham, Nor folk ; Cew-lane Chapel Sunday School, Coventry ; Baptist Sunday School, St. Ives, Huntingdonshire ; inhabitants of Waltham Abbey, over Darwen, Lancashire ; Opping, Essex; Farnham, Surrey ; Atherston, Roxton, and its eieinity; Aylesbury, Reading; Harlin:, Sussex; Drayton, Norfolk; Foulbourne, C a mbridgeshire; Teignmouth, Devon ; Broad Winsor, Dorset ; Wymundhem, Norfolk; Unston Abbot, Devon ; Westerharn, Kent ; Wotton-under•Edge, Worksop ; Titchfield, Hants; Pres cott, Lancashire; Printers and Book binders in Norwich; S toke Row, Oxon; Wellin g ton, Somer set ; Titchfield, Hant s ; New Alresford, Hants ; MeltonMowbray, Leicester ; CeehfieY, Norfolk ; With erse d ge Hill, ll'nfraoorn, Redenhill with Harleston, Norfolk; Woosiley, Reeks; N Ox or o f riA ; Kit i r em gore pton End,Fa ke inhabitants of No. 2, Gloucester-terrace, New -road, Middle sex; Asten Tirrold, Berks; Independents—Abbey Chapel, Bomsey, Hants ; Bethesda Chapel, St. Colurnb, Cornwall ; Stoney Stratford, Bucks ; Great Yarmouth Old Aleeting House ; St. Neots, Huntingdonshire. ; Heytesbury, Wilts ; Killworth, Leicestershire ; rslasbro' Chapel, York ; Hayes End, Middlesex ; Thorne, 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 ; Southvvold, Suffolk ; Church Street Chapel, Buckingham ; Biggleswade ; Upton-upon-Severn, Worcester ; Ebenezer Chapel, Shoreditch ; Zion Chapel, Churt.sy Isle, Ely; Darlington; Providence Chapel, Rochdale ; Protestant Dissenting Ministers of Exeter ; King Street Chapel, Dudley ; Wendovor, Bucks ; Colebrook Chapel, Rochdale ; Hope Chapel, Rochdale ; Llanfyllan, Montgomeryshire ; Whittlesea, Cambridgeshire ; Mardeen ; Newton ; Dorset ; Chepstow, Monmouth ; North Elmham, Norfolk,; Totten, Heists; Puekeridge, Herts; Bethesda Chapel, Shrewton, Wilts ; Chippenhant, Wilts ; Zion Chapel, Shrewton, Wilts ; Poole, Dorset; Woodford, Essex; Winchester ; Zion Chapel, Deptford ; Smart's Hill Chapel, Pcnshurst Charnmouth, Dorset ; Wokingham, Berks ; Bicester, Oxon ; Castle Gate Meeting House, Wilts; Hurley, Norfolk; Little Shetford. Cambridgeshire ; Ebenezer Chapel, Edenbridge, Kent ; West Mentors, Essex; Tabernacle Chapel,Holywell, Flint • Lyming ton ; Church Street Chapel, Hackney ; Burton-on- Trent, Staffordshire; Tunbridge, Kent; John Street Chapel, Royston ; Olney, Backs ; Exeter (Females) ; Acton, Middlesex ; Asherne, Warwickshire ; Brook st reet Chapel, Warwick ; Allerton, Salop; Mar i-et 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 Methodist Association, Upper Brook-street, Winchester •, Upsombourne, Troyford ; Dissenters at Acton, Middlesex ; Baptists of Halifax ; Tutor and Students at Homerton College ; Inhabitants of No. 2, Gloucester- t errace, New-road, AI iddlesex ; Dissenters of Asherne, Warwickshire • inhabitants of Ashton Timold, Berks ; Independents of Brook-street Chapel ; Baptists, Hatfield, Kent ; Warwick ; Union-street Chapel, Rochdale ; Haywood, Lancashire ; Bogslatt, Longsdale ; Barnford, Rochdale ; Milo-row, Rochdale ; Somerplace, Lancashire ; Broad Lime, Lancashire ; Temple, Rochdale ; Littleborough, Lancashire ; Illingworth, and Rakewood, Lancashiro ' • 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-street 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 Dereharn ; Inhabit ants of Bedminton Church, and Congregation at Bethnal green ; Protestant Association, Bethnal-green ; Wesleyan Methodist Association, Oldham-road Chapel, Manchester ; Chatwood, Manchester ; Melton, near Manchester ; Blackley, Molineux, Mills, Sun-street, Keighley ; Crumpsall, Toman street, Hayfield, Derbyshire ; New Mills, York-street, Cheet ham,' Macclesfield, Cheshire ; Mount Pisgah Sloops, Camel. ford, Cornwall, Ellesmere, Salop; Seven-street, Manchester; Daddleston, Port Isaac ; Mount Pleasant, Burnley, Bolling ton, Cheshire, Carlisle, Wrexham, Derbyshire, Readitch, Lis heard, Cornwall, Revrush, Ellesmere, Croplanes, kiebden, Railway Bill. :llr. 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 fiv,mr of the measure. M AYNOOTH. P. tltions against the gr.llit to Maynooth were presented by Sir Eimer, Mr. Codrington, Mr. Fellowes, from Hunting don; Mr. F. Maule, Mr. H. Stnart, 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 Wolverhampton ; znd Col. Acton, from Wexford. - Sir ANDREW ARMSTRONG presented a petiticn from the inhabitants of Tullamore and its vicinity in favour of the Irish Great Western Railway to Galway vifi Tullamore, and also a petition signed by the High Sheriff and a majority of the grand jury of the King's county to the same effect. The Hon. Baronet declared that the prayer of the petition had his concurrence. Mr. Hamilton, Lcrd Lowther, Lord Bernard, Sir William Jam-, Lord Duncan, Mr. Pirmptre, and another Hon. Member presented petitions against a n y additional grant to 31a) nootti. Mr. BLEWITT presented a petition from Newport, against the Bridgwater navigation Railway. A great number of petitions against the grant to llaynooth were presented by Lord CHARLES MANNERS, COl. SIBTHORP, and other Members ; some of those presented by Col. Sibthorp statinr , 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 ol.jecting to the grant, but any increase of it, and others praying for the entire withdrawal the grant. Mr. SHERIDAN presented a petition against the Parochial Settlement Bill. Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Plumptre, Sir J. Hanmer, Colone' Verner, and Mr. Mitchell, presented petitions against the May. nooth Bill. Mr. S. O'BRIEN presented a petition from some place in Northamptonshire, praying that the second reading of the May nooth Bill might be postponed for a fortnight. \lr. 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. BRAM SION presented a petition from Essex, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. CHARLES HOWARD presented a petition from Cumberland against the proposed Maynooth grant. Petitions from Lancashire and Plymouth were also presented against the Maynooth grant. Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from the young men of the City of London—(Laughter)--against the grant to May tooth 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 presentation of petitions to continue. Mr. WARD presented five petitions from Sheffield and other places against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. STAN SFIELD presented petitions against the grant. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented two petitions from St. Mar tin's-in-the-Fields and from Devon against the grant. Dr. BOWRING presented seventeen petitions from Wes leyan congregations in and near Bolton, against the grant ; also a petition from Bible Christians against the grant. Mr. 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 RIM 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 the grant. Mr. WODEHOUSE presented three petitions to a similar effect. Lord HENIKER presented two petitions to the same effect. Lord WORSLEY presented a pile of petitions against the grant to Maynooth, from places in the north of England, and various other places, the names of which oecupied at least three minutes in reading. Mr. FORSTER presented petitions from Walsall and other places against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. MUNDYI presented a petition, signed by 129 clergy men of Derbyshire, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. ROSS presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of Belfast against the Bequests Bill of last year. Mr. GEORGE BANKES presented petitions from the Wesleyan congregations of Bristol and several places in Dor setshire, against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. Labouchere presented numerous petitions to the same effect from the inhabitants of Taunton ; Mr. Newdigate, from Warwickshire ; Mr. Macaulay, from Edinburgh ; Sir G. Staunton, from Portsmouth ; Mr. R. Trevor, from Bangor, and several other places in Wales; Lord Shelbourne, from Caine ; Mr. Matheson, from Ashburton. Mr. FERRAND'S PETITION. Mr. FERRAND said he had to present a petition, signed by nearly 2,000 members of the Dublin Protestant Association. 'The petitioners stated that they regarded the Legislature as the source from which laws should emanate ; and the laws which had hitherto emanated since the Reformation from the Legislature of the United Kingdom had been the means of elevating Britain to the highest point amongst nations. The petitioners went on to state that if the Legisla ture should allow itself to sanction, by any of its Acts, heresy or religious error, instead of a national blessing it would become a national curse. They stated that they had heard with great pain that the 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 Nlaynooth, and they looked on this proceeding as cal culated to subvert national liberty, and to involve the l'arliament, 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 be 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 Hon. 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 nut of order, for he should clearly understand that he is merely at liberty to state the substance of it. Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Hon. Member for Knares borough was reading the petition. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for Knaresbarough 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 it, 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 be commanded to bring his petition up at once. The SPEAKER—I have already stated the rule of the House, and I hope the Hon. Member will confine himself within the limits of that rule. If he does not do so, he will be guilty of conduct that is most disorderly.--(Loud cheers. ) Mr. FERRAND—I do not wish to do anything that is dis disorderly or disrespectful to the House ; but I have a duty to the petitioners to perform, and I will do my best to perform Hear, hear.) I knew not why I should be called to order for acting as I am doing. The Hon. Member for Gateshead did the same thing last night, and he was not called to order. Mr. Roebuck and Sir Robert Peel rose at the same time, and Mr. Roebuck immediately gave way to the Premier. Sir R. PEEL said that under the circumstances, if it was not inconvenient to the House, the Hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to state the objects of the petition. Mr. ROEBUCK objected to that, saying that it was right to enforce the orders of the House. 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 forward, 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 coneider 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 has taking up less of the time of the House by reading the substance of it himself. It went en 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 petition should be read. If the Hon. Gentleman I t r fic;nre FE gsn ß perr ß asye AN din D th — at 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. thisTt h h ee realm prayerHowe o shoulda s o t wh retractei s r , . that a n adl the l t h grantsa humble u m theybf ol epetir t support of Popish establishments in this realm, and deprive f should inquire into the conduct ll of Sir Robert Peel, and, if they di scovere d i t t b improper, they should impeach, a n d if h e h a d b een foune ' d guilty that they should inflict hum with condign punishment,—'Roars of laugh- trade. Lord MONTEAGLE reminded his Noble and Learned Friend that the Bill they were discussing not only prollibited the introduction of sugar, the produce of slave-trading coun tries, but sugar the produce of slave-labour as well. —( Hear. ) Tne 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 Ist him tell the Noble and Learned Lord that his principal objection to the measure was its medley tendency, and its interference with the internal concerns Of an independent county. But it was utterly impossible that the Government could carry out the principle of this measure for Brazil or Cuba might change their system of slavery in name but not in fact, and then they would have a right to import their slave-grown sugar into this country at the same rates of duty as those paid by the colony or by States where there were none but free labourers. He admitted that the opening speech of the Noble Lord who brought in this Bill was marked with a spirit of moderation and temperance that did him great credit, but still he could not conceal from himself the fact that the Noble Lord had over and over again indulged in a course of reasoning on this subject that was based on erroneous premises. There could not be a shadow of a doubt that the measure was one of great commercial and financial importance. It affected an enormous amount of revenue, and he 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 toe total abandon 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 stood 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 free. labour. 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, he did not think it was possible, in this country, to sacrifice the manufacturing interests for the sake of repressing the slave trade. But were they 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 sugarinto 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 indirect encouragement of slave-grown sugar was a perfect fallacy. If there was not an encouragement to free-labour sugar over slave-grown sugar, why was it that Noble Lords opposite complsined so much of their ill-treatment of Cuba and Brazil? But the fact was, they 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 for 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 nr 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 arise.—( Hear hear.) A small quantity of sugar might be liable to fluctuations of duty, but there could be no doubt whatever the great bulk of the sugar to be introduced into this country would not in the least be 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 la'-t 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 h umanit y b y 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. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY F;VENING, APRIL 12, 1845. York, Todmorden, Yorkshire, Cornholme, Lancashire ; Wil low- walk, St. Luke's, Middlesex ; Castle-street, 11lar3lehone, Middlesex ; Erith, Kent ; Charlotte-street, Islington ; Gee street, Goswell-street, Middlesex ; Woolwich, Kent ; King's road, Chelsea; William-street, Portland-town ; Goliort, Bromin, Cornwall, Stockport, Borough of Droitwitch ; Park street, Worcester ; Glossop, Derbyshire, Mullion, Cornwall, Ashton, Cornwall, Lustvithin, Bradford, GAnwallee, Eccles hill, Yorkshire; Brompton.Kent ; Glldingwells and Woodcells, York ; Whitewell and Creswell, Deiby ; Austen, West Riding, Yorkshire ; Worksop, Nottinghamshire ; Tregather man, Cornwall, Helston, Rinscy, Ro,wick, Cury, Cornwall, Devonport ; Berinond , ey, 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 Ala3nooth would confer a great and lastieg benefit on the population of Ireland.—(Loud cheers. ) Mr. MANNERS SUTTON presented a petition from the Wesileyato Methodists of Cambridge, against the grant to . the College of Maynooth. Mr. HUME presented similar petitions from Scotland. Lord ASHLEY presented petitions to the same effect, from Dorsetshire. Sir GEORGE CLERK presented simi'ar petitions from the borough of Stamford. IMPEACHMENT OF SIR ROBERT PEEL. Mr. FER RAND gave notice that he would, on Monday, move that the petition which he had presented from the Pro testant Operative Concervative Association, against the cou duct of Sir Robert Peel, should be printed with the votes. defect. And this was another instance of the superiority of the Prussian Catholic Colleges, Leeawe rum of the highest classes of society received their education there. Let him ask what Catholic gentleman in Ireland would !end his son to Maynooth to receive his education? Such a thit•g was un- presented to that House referred to it, and denied that it ex isted, cr that Parliament was bound by it. But what he had to consider was, tire proposal of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, which effected most important alter ations in the foundation of the College itself. He was not merely going to change the grant from being an annual into a permanent one, but he was going to place the building under the immediate control of Government, thereby establishing a connexion with it as close as it could well be. The increase of money appeared to him must important, rot simply because it was an increase of so many thousands, but because it altered the character m the State in relation to the College. Originally it certainly was not intended that the State should entirely maintain this college ; and the Duke of Wellington declared that the institution eves not to be entirely supported by the State. I° fact the eight or nine thousand a year voted to Maynooth was only understood as the part of a collection made for its support. The State was only one of its contributors. But it was clear they were now going to depart from that system. The whole plan was about to be reconstructed. The professors who had but scanty salaries, were now about to be liberally rewarded , and the aliment, education, and care of the pupils these was to be taken under the consideration of the State. The basis of the College was about to be changed a most material change, but that change he had mad e up hie mind to support.—( Hear, hear.) He entirely re pudimed one argument that had been employed in support of the increa.ied grant—that of restitution. Ile disclaimed it in every point of view—in point of law and constitution, and on the giouni of its being contrary to everythino he knew of hietorv. He would not now go into the details on that argument , but if that was to be done as an act of restitution, it was one of th e most shameful confessions that could be made by the Leg sla ture.—( Hear, hear.) The Government made a gift of a shilling or a sixpence in the pound. If this were made a case of restitution, would it not be most shabby, worse than s habby —infamous and disgraceful to offer such terms ?—(Hear.) He, therefore, had nothing to do with the argument of restitu tion. Then as to the funds w hich are to provide for the educa tion of the priests, and to the class of soeiety rim which these were selected, he thought, with regard to the Roman Catholic priests, they were selected from the only class they could e taken from. Reference too hart been made to Germany, ai' bd the reason asked why more aristocratic persons entered a,; Rumen Catholic priests in Germany than there did in Ireland • In answer to this he could state that in Germany there was n 1 other church ; but that was not the case in Ireland. In Ger many the Romish Church bore something of the same relation there as the Established Church of England did- in England' Therefore. he did not think that any great alteration was n eeded on that head, but did think that, whatever might be given to add to the professors' dignity and ease, would probably tend to smooth down the course of educution. It was wel l known that, front the extremely small salaries of the pro fessors at Maynooth, they were induced, as soon as possible, to seek out district chueches, in order to better their posi tion, and by these means it was not likely for the college t° retain the very best theological teachers. By increasing the salaries this defect would be remedied. Another a rgumen t hid been used as to the effect of this measure, which wa s ridi culous. It had been asserted that this grant was to be vote° in order to the increasing and promulgating of Protestantism in Ireland. Now this argument appeared to him as reasonable as to say that by the invention of printing books had become scarce, and that locomotion was a means to !retard commet-ee. It was hard to say, that by having given them these can's, means, you have weakened their cause. Indeed, he tho u g ht it the meanest argument he had ever heard brought before a s public assembly; therefore he would throw that entire l y out his arguments. Then, in approaching this matter , h e wool° take it as it appeared to him at the present time, and under the present circumstances. It he had had any agency at al l in the matter, it would have been probably used to have retarded th e scheme as at present proposed. Now, it was a g enera l ride which had been laid down, and which invole" a very popular argument, that those who paid pry taxation of a country should share the benefits and vileges which it had to offer, and the question which h e had to ask himself was, whether his mind and conscienrhe recognised any firm, fixed, and permanent principle, eth i ,!',. would justify him in setting at nought these popular—and loci that very reason, important—considerations? Nothing more completely satisfied him of the difficulty of finding an': quate arguments in opposition to this measure than the haul'' , of the arguments that hsd been brought forward and relie d on the part of its opponents.—( Hear, hear.) Almost el man who had spoken against this Bill had founded his Mai,. arguments on some small question of detail. The opponel of the measure had not ventured to rise to the height and breadth of the question. — ( Cheers. ) His Hon. Friend t Member for Newcastle (Mr. Colguleouri) though he had le vainly reserved to himself the right of falling back upon ground of religion —had not pressed forward tha t grounOcait the most convincing and appropriate. The arguments I° f he had thought best suited to address to the Parliam e nt . 0 0 England were arguments in small points of detail. His objeetT, was principally to the structure of the Bill. he questions 7,-t had raised were mere questions for Committee, and he had n laid down any broad ground for his objection t o a eta sure which had for its object such vast and irneorta'es changes. His Hon. Friend had also stood upon the failur,, e o that object, as far as it at present had been carried out. u of his grounds had been that the endowment of Maynooth an experiment of Mr. Pitt, and that that experiment had fancair But that seemed to him the most superficial, partial , a nd on' sa deduction.—(Cheers.) He begged to inquire wheth er it ucie ever been Mr. Pitt's calculation to found the college a nd to 0 nothing more ? No; the view which Mr. Pitt had taken t c - r to train the priesthood, and then to find provision for the', eubsequent support.—(Cheers.) To certain, and only 14. hag limited extent, they had trained the priesthood ; but they had not made—they hail not endeavoured to make—any p rovo ht for their subsequent support. That might be right, or it migmr be wrong; bur it weulti he ridiculous—no, he would grit ridiculous, tu, :t was roost unfair—when only part of the e%l", e o 'l o ment had been tried, to arrive at the conclusion that thew' , it experiment had failed. If the experiment were to be trieetnall ought to be tried completely. They ought no to try ai'var, part, and then argue upon the failure ot the whole.--4 &le e hear.) . His Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle harl_oote spoken much of the defective state of the College of 3 11 ) h ba t as to literature. His Hon. Friend was generally accurate,iat he did not know wheiher he was or was not so on the Vre • e fecti v occasion ; but he had made a point founded upon the de e literature of Maynooth College. But could any one loo,ba a t the state of Ireland—could any one look at the divisions on subject of religion which disturbed that country--eould ao a one reflect on the history of Ireland for maay centuries, al oe especially during the last century—and, giving tl'e ir „ e t, weight to these topics, could any one, for any singl e o cn ' et h suppose that if the literature of the College of DlaYch•el eg were defective, that that was a ground for refus the present measure ?—(Loud cheers.) That wa s oo , question of detail, and what an argument was it in e ee , toast with the matter of the petitions which had been P t i be seated, with the movement which had taken place °h e el subject, with the strong religious feelings of the opP O l of the measures out of doors. His Hon. Frien d shrunk ti d o f the grounds, and from the arguments of those petitions, fairly t es that movement. He was afraid to meet fully and fairlY,4 main principle, and he confined himself to those secong'oes considerations which did not necessarily interfere with th e 'leis cess of tire Bill, and which might be settled hereafter. of Hon. Friend had also alluded to the working of th e sYatelesa education in Germany, and had referred to the case of At the —the same, he believed, who had seceded.—(" No, nt et ter same," from some Hon. Member.) Well, they had ', s ill not take any collateral debate, and he would reserve the of line of his observations. Considering the popula r l'h`eret a rgument which had been taken in favour of this area roo f and the movement in support of it, the burden of 'otta rested with its opponents, and he asked what was the P i ', ill in the law or Constitution of the country, and not oe Per the law and Constitution, but in the convictions of the:,jest pie, which was the living basis of the Constitutio n, na ld ground of objection—strong, definite, and permanent c, to be taken against the Bill ? What he was intereste'eet inquire was, whether there was any Pe rm s means of resisting the principle upon which this measat'aece. founded? He, of course, did not allude to physical resis o der He had never entertained a doubt that, at all times and aoipst all circumstances, this country would be able to bear up aOhbe the efforts of physical resistance and opposition ; but thougoiee entertained this opinion, yet he thought that the circuit" lore of that resistance ought not to be excluded from considerat tac t He was not afraid to have it cast upon him that he pa i i ` t 0 .0 high a regard to the means of conciliating opposition. "no s a paradox in human nature to deny that conciliation ,".01/ grateful or that it was not generally a politic course of eels jo ie (Cheers. )—and he would willingly submit to reproach (air' sod construction rather than refuse to grant what was ges o generous to a people who were their fellow'-Ch ri a s meg and their fellowmen.—( Loud cheers.) But, in e q i ier s ing this question of principle to the best of his au"" ie th` though there was little of that principle relied uteri° , e ,eli a speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Neweastgooi found, on one side and on the other, very extreme °Woe' On one side it was contended that any religious en" the f whatever was contrary to natural justice. On the to contrPitb side it was asserted that a State endowment was religious duty. He could not hold one ot these opinion ° jar other. He could not hold that it was contrary to naturareser tice that a government should supp rot one religion in e P ie e cube to another, and he believed that few men would "leas' if they considered the paradoxes involved in the proP°9-114 The Hon. Member had referred to the case of India. t gies' did not, as a rule, interfere with the religion of the / '` a ece h e ' Whether they did so sufficiently was a question worthY h t f or sideration, but it was one into which he would riiiiied° enter. But in India there was a Mahomedan and a, e eer, h : population which supplied the taxes to the British se' ro r t i ment, and they did not hesitate to apply without li l a c a ffe r 4 and with no sparing hand, such portions as they cop pa t for the encouragement of the Christian religion. fi e e iste n think this contiary to natural justice. He thought it con or a re i ; with the highest justice, and with the most grave ..,eOP rious considerations. But it might be sad that the.er, of India were net Christians, anti that a broad distineuhciassed to be drawn between Christians and all other sec ts ande 0 0 1 , of religious worshippers ; but to test this principle h tbe co ° put to all who belonged to his religion—he would pot th e R OC of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward , at the tine' o ' e did Dot formation. As they were all aware , the Reformation it es: , spring from the ground. It descended from above. [p handed down by the bishops, the clergy , and the neeMar-e tore they impregnated the people with doctrines that w ee.__ new. The great mass of the people were impregnated 0, se lec, . to o i above them. He did not enter into any other questioo eere e . 4 those troubled times gave rise. He said nothing as to to tbie sS, used for propagating the new opinions. He said n°,. to the persecutions and cruelties which then had Iste. ri i o V r , tig.d ; but he asked, was there • any one who held that itiogetici duty of Queen Elizabeth to have refrained from enh _ b ell , ing to communicate to her people that whi .11 her eoter was the greatest blessing she could impart? Harty 7 he ;V o l tained such an cpinion he was not one of them , blehe° to emphatically protested against the truth or r easona. l any such doctrine. But he could no more agree wi: te r it e who contended that a State endowment was contrarseereol gious duty. Those who supported that proposition S_ diye t $4 confuse the duties which a man performed in his eihrforelol capacity and the duties he was called upon to P ti giaid o ,o a member of society.—(Hear, hear.) In his I ro n a n capacity such a man was his own ruler. Ea ch corn' s ti not only allowed, but was by duty bound , to _ . b ier n t opinion for himself on those serious and sacred iseupeeti.c;i but in civil and political society each man WO a r e lii o ,l upon the opinions and feelings of his fellow's. ed gin' 0 0 society existed by means of mutual concession e a v n e y ff' do , surrender.— ( Loud Opposition cheers. ) If wes v r 1 insisted upon his own opinion—if every niann...if 'got terminated to follow the dictates of his own feelings one se t man would listen to himself alone—whoever that ma hick nisd pursued this course, ",,liat man issued the sentence vici-cheet'iot throw the whole of society into confusion.--( 1 - 4 Litte d n ig Ills Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle had au'"., r itl e l• he could not bind every body to the adoption of Ins i le He trusted that he should not be tnisundersto .el• op le " ie eo ways thought, anti he still thought, that that P f re liA m et , happy who enjoyed the inestimable advantaged e c lad al unity, and with whom that religious unity marke the h of their legielation. He placed that advantage at n oPa• o itia r ilf all civil ahil social blessings, and he would not earn e e pn ee r in , 11 ' 6 —he would not earn applause—by withhold a , r e 0 0 he est' ,1 that fertile, indeed, of mi,ery and sorrow were tn e , o uil i .0' dissensions which prevailed amongst them. But ed s o te t say that in this he found such a body of definite a t. l. e olr e iii• tial truths as would form a satisfactory answer to t_i' an le irti b iee Ireland. Ile did not find in this principle a clear__ sot oe; p et . gible ground upon which they could for ever which every body could feel and understand, ..if ""„leler h e ie le t aid, agree with it. Put it might be fis hed, a particular form of religion to be este') under any other circumstances, you could " heard 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. House, declared, in answer to a questien, that he did not know that there was a sixtl, book of Euclid.—(Laughter.) Honourable Members argued that by paying professors well in Maynooth good professors would be had, and others had stated that the reason they were called upon to grant this additional sum of 25,0 0/. was for this purpose ; but he begged to tell them that they would pay the reeney for no other certainty than the certainty of not getting such persons.—(Laughter ) The only men cn 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 case 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 eithtr on compact or ex pediency. In the year 1;95, when this grant cri gin aced, it was not intended to he continued, because in the Act of Union there was a stipulation, providing for the continuation for twenty years subsequently of grants made to charitable institutions then in existenee, or that had been in existence for six years previously, and therefore it was clear that it was intended to exclude Maynoath. because May nooth had been in existence five years previously. Then there was the evidence of Dr. Crolly, before a Committee of the House, who stated that he believed that the increased grant of 12,0061. made in the year 1810, was not, in his opinion, a grant for the establishing, but in order to meet expenses in curred by additional buildings. He did not mean to speak disparagingly of the Roman Catholic priests ; on the con trary, he was willing to extend to them the highest praise for the manner in which they had exerted themselves for the preservation of life and property during the agitation that convulsed Ireland two years ago.—( Hear. ) ( The Hon. Gentleman then read extracts from a speech of Mr O'Connell's, showing the difference between the education of foreign priests and the priests of Ireland ; and that the great Anti-Protestarit 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, whe stated that the priests of Ireland were agitating priests.) Anti now they were going to increase the power and the circulation of those doctrines which led the country so near its destruction sonic 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 ascr tic seclusion which was imposed 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 elegeee of liberty, and were less re stricted by the Pope than the priests in any other Catholic. country in Europe, io that their power was almost absolute. He objected to the version of the Bible with notes and com ments, as printed by the College printe:, and read in Maynooth 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 Jee suit college, but they had no reason to know that it was not ; and they ought, at least, before passing the Act, to institute a Committee to inquire into the system of education adopted there, that they might be assured that. they were not giving mo ney to a body who were proscribed by every power in Europe. The Bill purposed to endow, permanently and for ever, without the controul of the Crown, the College for the education of Roman Catholic priests. We profess to be Protestants and Dissenters from the Romish Church, and yet we attempted to make the priests of that Church better controversialists and more able opponents of the religion which we believe to be true. 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 disavow that. he had more at heart the concilia. tion of the Romish Church— ( Hear)—tban the preservation of the Protestant religion. The leader of the Catholic party in Ireland had expressed himself in strong terms of approba tion of the measure, and had stated that he would so far abate disaffection in Ireland as to give the Government the full value of its money. Two years ago that country was on the verge of rebellion, and if the concession now proposed were made, what good ground had the House for supposing that a fresh threat of a civil war would not lead to further concessions to the de mands of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Some time since, in the north of Ireland, a large number of Roman Catholics were converted to the Protestant faith, and they were refused provisions at any price, and they were obliged to be supplied by the Protestants of other pars of the country. The check to conversion would be increased by the proposed grant. The Roman Catholic clergy were trained 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, fur 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 hail 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 lie felt it his duty thus fairly to protest against the measure. The question having been put by the SPEAKER, Several Hoer. MEMBERS rose to address the House, but all gave way to Mr. GLADSTONE, who spoke as follows :—Sir, I am sure the House will excuse me if I profess my anxiety to take the earliest opportunity of delivering my sentiments in the debate. I feel it my duty to apologise to the House for having suffered one occasion in which this measure was discussed to pass by without expressing an opinion upon it, or having given a vote. The truth is that I did not think I could vote on the division of last week, without stating to the House the reasons on which that vote was founded, and I did not on the other hand feel that I could put the House in possession of my views of the entere case until the Bill wad 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 110 reason whatever to complain of the course taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, who felt it his duty to call for an ex pression of this House. Representing, as he did, a very powerful and wide-spread sentiment among the people of this country, and entertaining sentiments the dictates of a con scientious conviction, I could not be surprised at the course pursued by my Hon. Friend. I fully admit that the minority of last week did represent the general and prevailing sense of the people of England and Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) But, making that admission, I must state, for my own part, that after the most full and mature consideration of the question in the position in which it stands, I am prepared, in opposition to what I believe to be the prevailing opinion of the people of England and Scotland—of my own ccnstituents, from whom I deeply regret to differ, and to my own deeply-cherished predi lect.ons—l am, I say, prepared to give my deliberate and anxious support to the measure before the House.—(This an nouncement was received with loud and prolonged cheering from the Opposition.) I will advert to some reasons which have been advanced in support of the measure, and which, I confess, appear to me inadequate to its support. My Right Hon, Friend, in the closing part of his address, observed that the grant he proposed amounted to no more than a liberal and honourable construction of that compact. My Right Hon. Friend remarked, that that compact, the Act of Union, he did not interpret in a literal sense, but in that spirit of equity which ought to subsist between the English and Irish people. I confess that doctrine greatly facilitates my approach to the consideration of this question. I believe, with the Right Hon. Gentleman, 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 Illaynooth. 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 will quote a few words of 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, he should certainly be disposed to resist it, becanse he thought it in principle wrong for a State endeavouring to establish a particular system of reli gion, to provide for the maintenance, ecclesiastical endowment, propagation, and encouragement of another religion. He (Mr. Percival) found, that a Parliament composed of Iri,h teen, 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 Parliament,and which, I am confident, thelrishParliament never would have withdrawn." But he found that in the declaration of Mr. Perceval, whose whole conscientious convictions were opposed to the grant,whose Government was founded upon prin ciples of resistance to every concession, great or small, to Ro man Catholics, but a man whose native honesty and candour led him to recognise the obligations of good faith and which led him to make the declaration to which he had alluded. When he looked at the fixity of the grant for so many years, he could not think that at this moment there could be any doubt with respect to the recognition of the grant by Parliament, but he felt that the changes which were now proposed to be made were so material with respect to the foundation of the College, as to make the question almost al together a new one. He would not at all have referred to the question of contract, had not so many petitions which had been MR. WARD'S MOTION. Mr. WARD said he had to thank the Speaker for the kind intimati ,n which he had given him in the course of the morn ing, as to the form in T, hich 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 par poies of the Bill should be supplied out of the funds already applicable to ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland. THE LATE ACCIDENT AT BOX TUNNELL. Lord DUNICA N wished to ask a question from the Hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Russell) as to the late accident at the Box Tunnel], on the Great Western Railway. It was stated in the public press tl'at a quantity of earth and stone had fallen in and obstructed the passage of the mail. He 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 importance to the public and to the Company would be to read the report of the Company's engineer. (The Hon. Gentleman then read the report, but in so low and indistinct a tone, that we could not catch the leading points.) The acci dent on the Box Tunnel was owing to the severe frost anal such occurrences were more unfrequent in tunnels than in any other places. Hr hoped the statement he had made would be satisfactory. He could assure the Noble Lerd that every care and attention was paid to the Tunnel, which was as safe as the roof of that House.—( Great laughter. ) NEW ZEALAND. Os the motion that the order of the clay for the second read ing of the Mas nooth 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 tli e table in a few days. THE GRANT TO MAYNOOTII. 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 opin'ons 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 reference to the Irish Church was introduced by the Noble Lord, the Honourable Member for Sheffield accused him of deserting his principles ; yet, strange to say, that in all di , cussions upon such questions—no matter what party were in office—the Opposition always appeared to have the power of deciding. When the lion. 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 if 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 wets 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 Opposition cheering)— and in all cases it was gaining on Radicalism at a very rapid pace.—(Continued Opposition cheering.) He should certainly resort to every means in his power to oppose the progress of this Bill.—( Bear, hear.) He would appeal to the 1 - louse 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, ke felt himself called upon as a member of the minority, to exercise those rights with which a minority was invested, and which never could be exercised with greater temperance than they had been by him.—( Hear. ) The character of the measure brought forward on the subject of Maynooth was of such a nature that he could not help thinking a more inadequate and injurious measure could not be brought forward. With regard to endowment, he thought there was great good sense in what had fallen from the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool the other night, that they ought to take - care not to stretch the principle of the majority binding the minority too far; for, in that case, they would not endow the Roman Catholic religion in Canada and Malta, though it would not be possible for them to retain those colonies if they carried out that principle.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) Yes ; 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 have no right to interfere with the Suttees of India, or the practices of the inhabitants of New Zealand. It was once remarked of Napoleon that he was an honorary member of all religions; that he was a Mahomedan in Egypt, and a Jew and Roman Catholic whenever it suited his purpose; but that was not a principle on which a Christian state ought to act. He thus disposed of the question of conscience ; with regard to the question of compact, he thought the Right Hon. Gentlemen had entirely misapprehended it. It was true that the Irish Parliament left to the Roman Catholics the power of endowing a college of their 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, therefore, be successfully maintained that there was any compact. But to go from the high vantage ground which he might take, and to look upon this question as a merely political one, he would refer to the objects of Mr. Pitt, who founded Maynooth. Lord Castlereagh, who carried r Union, and who was well acquainted with the object of Mr. Pitt, said, in 1810, that it was not his wish that there should not be Roman Catholics—that they might continue to be sincere ; but that his wish was to make them liberal Roman Catholics, connecting themselves with their own Government for the benefit and the mutual advantage of all, to the exclusion of all foreign influence. Well, what was the effect now that Maynooth had been in existence fifty years? It was a remarkable fact that when the repeal was agitated, a few years ago, almost all the ecclesi astics educated at Maynooth, with scarcely a single exception, were violent agitators of that measure. The Honourable Member for Waterford, in speaking of the Roman Catholic Association, said that Maynooth began to be felt, and from the exclusive nature 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 political 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; but those Right Hon. Gentlemen ought to know that the system of education pursued in Prussia was very different from that which was pursued at Rome. His Hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, the same night, advocated the Roman Catholic system of education ; but he had the highest authority—that of the Prussian Minister now in this country, respecting the dif ference which existed in the Roman and Prussian systems. He said the system which prevailed in Rome was this :—A person was taken at seven years of age and placed in an ecclesiastical seminary, where he he was educated apart from the society of others of the ecclesiastical profession. The consequence was that they came out into the world very illiterate and extremely intolerant ; and however such a system might be suited to Italy, he hoped it would never find favour in this country. On the other hand, under the Germanic system, the State took the boy at the age of seven years, when he was brought up with others intended for wordly pursuits, by which his manners were refined and his opinions moderated. He con• tinned 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 and promoters of the repeal agitation. Yet, strange to say, the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go vernment had proposed to the House a measure, by which would be kept up the system of education that those priests re ceived. Now, he would adduce a stronger argument in favour of his position than the evidence of a Roman Catholic, a Mr. M'Kenna, who had declared that the system of education at Maynooth' was a highly vicious system. The reason that none but men of the lower classes of society entered that Col lege as candidates for any of the professorships was, because of the smallness of the salaries; yet the Right Honourable Baronet's proposition did not propose to remedy that HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 11. The House sat at Four o'clock. There wss a very thronged attenklance of Members, and the seats were literally obscured with bundles of petitions, almost every other Member who entered the House bringing with him a I irge 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. SUGAR DUTIES. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition, praying that sugar from all parts of the world might be admitted at the same rate o 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.—( Cheers anti laughter. ) Sir J. DUKE presented a petition from the mayor, alder men, and burgesses of Boston, to repeal an Act passed last session, amending the law of bankruptcy ; also seven petitions from Dissenting congregations in Boston, Sibsey, Frieston, New Bolingbroke, and Stickney, against the proposed grant to Maynooth ; and a petition from the inhabitants of Boston to postpone the second reading of that measure, I I I r I