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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 3. Their Lordships met to-day, for the first time after the Easter recess. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sick at five o'clock. The Bishop of WORCESTER presented numerous petitions from places in various parts of England and Wales against the sale of intoxicating liquors on the Lord's day. PARISH SCHOOLMASTERS. —SCOTCH BANKS. The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions frcm several presbyteries in Scotland, praying for an aug mentation of the salaries of parish schoolmasters. in that country. The Noble Duke also presented a petition from the merchants and bankers of Banff against any interference in the present system of banking in Scotland. MALT-TAX. The NOBLE DUKE also presented a petition from a place in Hampshire for the repeal of the malt-tax. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. The Bishop of HEREFORD presented a petition from the city of Hereford, against the Act passed last year for the abolition of imprisonment for small debts. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mr. GREENE and others from the House of Commons brought up the Lands Clauses Consolidation Bills (Eng. land and Scotland), the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bills (England and Scotland), the Puisey Gas Bill, and the Birkenhead Docks Bills (two Bills), which were seve rally read a first time. EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS. Lord CAMPBELL had great great pleasure i❑ pre senting a petition from Portsmouth in favour of the Bill brought in by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, for relieving the disabilities of the Jews. SUGAR DUTIES. Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the Horticultural Society of India, complaining that sufficient encouragement was not given to the application of British capital to the growth of sugar in that country, and praying their Lordships to place the sugar duties upon a more permanent base:,. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH laid upon the table of the House the second part of the appendix to the second report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of large towns iu England. The Noble Duke at the same time presented a number of petitions, praying their Lordships to adopt some measures fur improving the condition of the schoolmasters of Scotland. MAYNOOTH. Lord REDESD ALE presented a petition from Hogs den, in Oxfordshire, against any further grant to Maynooth. THE ASHBURTON TREATY. Lord ASHBURTON requested their Lordships' per mission to offer a few observations upon a subject, which though undoubtedly in some respects a personal one, was also of a public nature. At the terminatioa of the conference, at which he had the honour to negotiate on the part of this country with the United States of America, he hai the great satisfaction of receiving the most unequivocal expression of their Lord ships' approbation ; and he, therefore, felt himself more bound to notice certain great misrepresentations which had been made in another place with respect to his conduct on that occasion. Their Lordships' House was the only place where he could give an explanation, and he trusted their Lordships would excuse him for so doing. He was not about to enter into any general discussion as to the merits of that mea sure ; but he'hoped their Lordships would do him the justice to recollect that when on a former occasion he entered into a discussion on that question, he took no notice whatever of the various criticisms, some of which were not very just, which had been made in another place. He should not upon the present occasion have intruded himself upon their Lordships' notice if it were not with the view of contradicting what had been stated as positive facts in another place. He did not complain of the personal manner in which the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had brought this sub ject forward, because that Noble Lord was constantly making similar reflections upon his conduct, in a tone which it was to be regretted the Noble Lord did not confine to an individual case, but applied it to questions affecting the general interests of the country. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rcse to order. He had no objection to listen to any explanation the Noble Lord might desire to make, but he hoped the Noble Lord would not fall into the error he was deprecating , by attacking a person who was not present to defend himself. Lord ASHBURTON said he did not wish to use any stronger expressions than were necessary for the occa sion, but he at the same time thought that the expres sions of which his Noble Friend complained were quite necessary, in order to justify the line which it was his duty on this occasion to take, and to repel those attacks which the Noble Lord (Lord Palmers ton) was in the habit so li g h t l y and so flippantly of making upon him. The House was aware that that was the only House in which he (Lord Ashburton) had the opportunity of repelling attacks of this nature. If he understood these attacks aright, what he was accused of was, that in the late treaty which he had the honour to negotiate he had unjustifiably ceded the territory of Madawaska, on the banks of the river St. John. Now, it was necessary to state that the territory of Mada waska was nothing more than a narrow strip of land on the banks of the St. John, which comprised a straggling village some two or three miles in length ; and it should be recollected that, on two or three occasions, this very same terri tory had been ceded. The dispute between this country and the United States had been first referred to the decision of the King of the Netherlands. by whom it had been allowed to the United States. The Americans had refused to abide by the award of the Kir.g of the ntherlands, and twenty-live years afterwards Lord Pal merston, considering that the best mode of settling a dispute of this nature was to divide the con tested district between the two countries, ceded the territory of Madawaska to the United States. His own (Lord Aehburton's) decision hail been impugned sie extravagant, and yet it was better than that of Lord Palmerston, for it secured to this country those intermediate heights between the St. John and the St. Lawrence, which from their command of the latter river, and the consequent power of inter rupting the navigation of that river, were the only really valuable portions of the territory in dispute. He should further state that he implied no blame upon the Secretary of State for making that proposal. Nor did he think the line at all unfair. But, combinir g all the circumstances, and consider• ing the line decided upon by the King of the Netherlands, their Lordships would see that his (Lord Ashburton's) line was so much the best, that it was hardly fair to cast upon him any reproach whatever. But now, with respect to the Madawaska settlement, a Noble Lord in the other House of Parliament (Lord J. Russell) stated that when he held the office of Secretary for the Colonies he directed negotiations to be entered into by Lord Sydenham with Mr. Webster, the result of which was, that Lord Sydenham refused to allow the Americans to retain that settlement, Mr. Webster on the other hand reusing to give it up. The Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said that one of the last acts of his official life was to declare his appro bation of Lord Sydenhani's course. Now, he (Lord Ashburton) believed their Lordships would be surprised when he informed them that the whole of that scat: meat of facts was without foundation. There was no negotiation whatever on the subject between Lord Svdenhane and Mr. Webster. There was a negotiation biaween Mr. Fox, our Minister at Washington, and Mr. Webster, but not on the subject of the Madawaska settlement. The Noble Lord, however (Lord J. Rus sel), prided himself very much upon the course which he and Lord Sydenham had taken, and had chosen to make it the ground of a reproach upon him (Lord Ashburton). He had a most sincere and unfeigned respect for Lord John Russell, and from a long and intimate knowledge of the matter, he was perfectly assured that his Noble Friend would not make any statement which he knew to be unfounded. Yet that statement of fact was so—whether it was that the Noble Lord in going out of office dreamed of these facts—(A laugh)—or took the statement upon some light authority—(A laugh)—there was no founda tion for it. The negotiations between Mr. Fox and Mr. Webster arose out of the disturbances which took place between the irregular troops of the State of Maine and our leticibles in New Brunswick. It had been settled that there should be a treaty on the boundary in that direction, and Mr. Webster and Mr. Fox agreed only to fix upon a boundary, in the mean time, to pat an end to those disturbances, until the treaty should be settled. But there could be no treaty on the boundary in the Madawaska statement, without the consent of the States of Maine and Massachusets ; and when he (Lord Ash burton) was in the republic, he had to wait for the arrival of the Deputies from those States. He had felt himself called u p on t o ma k e t hi s exp l ana ti on , w hi c h h e did without any intention to east imputations upon others. The Companies'Clauses Bill was read a third time and passed. On the motion of th e E ar l of DALHOUSIE the fol lowing Bills were rea d a first time :—The ' Railway Clauses CousAidation Bill , the Companies' Clauses Consolidation Bill, and th e Lands ClansesConsolida. tion Bill. RAILWAYS. The NOBLE EARL at the Game time laid upon the table of the House, by command o f h er Majesty- maps relating to the proposed railway communications' with the northern districts of Ireland and Scotland,the re port. , of the Board of Trade upon th e scheme fur supply ing Leeds and the West Riding of Yorkshire with rail way communications, upon the Portsmouth and South Wales schemes, and upon the London and York and South Wales projects. The Duke of RICHMOND trasted that as the Court of Quarter Sessions would be held next week the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill would not be pressed through the House till the following week. There were other parties interested in this Bill besides those connected with railways, and he hoped there would he no objection to the course proposed. The Earl of DALHOUSIE had no desire to press these Bills more rapidly than was consistent to admit of proper attention being paid to them ; but, at the same time, it must be remembered that, to a certain extent, the postponement of this Bill was checking the progress of the numerous measures likely to come before Parlia ment, connected with railway legislation. BASTARDY BILL. Lord STANLEY said—the fact of the quarter se3sions coining on next week ii,duced him to hope that their Lordships would now sanction the second reading of another measure. It was a Bill for amending the existing law of bastardy, for which no day had yet been fixed for the second reading. The Bill would not, to any extent, alter the spirit of the present law, but it was introduced into Parliament for the pur pose of removing certain technical difficulties which im• peeled the operation of the Act of last year. After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL and the Duke of RICHMOND the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. THE OREGON TERRITORY. Lord CLARENDON gave notice that he would to morrow call attention to the question of the Oregon tcr ritory.—Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 3. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. MEDICAL REFORM. Mr. MANGLES presented a petition from the whole of the medical practitioners of Surrey against Sir James Graham's Medical Reform Bill. BIRKENHEAD DOCKS. On the motion of Mr. TATTON EGERTON, the Bir kenhead Do2ks' Bill was read a third time and pa sed. EASTERN UNION RAILWAY EXTENSION. Captain FITZMORRIS presented a petition from a private individual against the Eastern Union Extension Railway. Lord' RENDLESIIAM presented a petition from Man chester against the Manchester and Salford Waterworks Bill. The report of the Committee on the Birmingham and StaffordAire Gas Bill was referred back to the Com mittee. On the motion of Mr. SPOONER, the report of the Committee on the Thames Navigation Bill was further considered, and read a vcond time. MAYNOOTH. Mr. DIVETT presented a petition from Exeter against the increased grant to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. Sir G. SMYTH presented numerous petitions from parishes in the county of Essex also against the grant. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a great number of peti tions to the same effect from parishes in Kent, Bucking ham, Berkshire, York, and other counties. THE BOARD OF TRADE—CROYDON RAILWAY. Mr. DODD rose to move, according to notice, that the report of the Board of Trade against the Bill in tended to be brought in by the Croydon Railway Com pany, to authorise the construction of a railway to Ash • ford, be referred back to the Board of Trade for recon sideration. The SPEAKER said, that before the Hon. Gentleman proceeded with his motion, the House should decide whether that motion could come on during the time of private business. This was the first case of the kind that had occurred, and it was his (the Speaker's) opinion, that the motion involved a question as to the conduct of the Board of Trade in the discharge of a public duty. He, therefore, thought that it should be brought on at the time of public business. Mr. lIAWES trusted that the House would take this matter into its serious consideration. With great deference to the opinions advanced by the Speaker, he (Mr. Hawes) conceived that, if they were acted upon, it would be imposing a very great restriction on the pro gress of private Bills. The reports which the Board of Trade made, he understood, were only for the information of the House, and he should wish to know how these indi viduals could proceed with this Bill if they were not allowed to question the accuracy and value of the Board which bad decided against them. If this opinion were acted upon it was perfectly clear it would stop the further erogress of this Bill. He thought it would be in his power to show that the decisions of the Board of Trade were not entitled to the confidence of the House, and under these circumstances he thought it better for the House now to decide whether the Board of Trade should thus be allowed efficiently to arrest the progress of pri vate Bills. Lord G. SOMERSET, without entering into the question of the principle sought to be established by the Hon. Memb?r for Lambeth, certainly thought that this was a most improper time for bringing the subject before the notice of the House. It was quite true that if the Hen. Member could get the House to support the opinions he had advanced it would be most desirable that the question should be at once settled. But the House should remember that the reports of the Board of Trade were nothing more than an opinion given upon cer tain schemes by a number of gentlemen ; and whether these schemes were reported against or not, it was at the option of the supporters to proceed with those schemes. He trusted that the matter would be allowed to go on in the proper order, and that, therefore, the Hon. Member would not proceed with his motion now. Lord HO WICK said that the House was placed in a most anomalous position with regard to the Board of Trade. Hen. Members might recollect that during the last session it was decided that the reports made by the Board of Trade should be referred to the Committees on the Bills to which those reports had reference. But in this session they had gone somewhat further. On the 4th of March it was decided that when railway Bills and projects had been reported on, these reports should be referred to the single Committee, and under this re solution the Bill to which the Honourable Member alluded, and the report upon that Bill would go before the Committee appointed to examine into the group of schemes of which that Bill formed a portion ; and the Committee, therefore, in dealing with the whole subject, would reject or approve in a great mea sure upon the report of the Board of Trade. He begged to remind the House that the resolution by which these schemes were referred to single Committees, was moved by the Noble Lord (Lord Granville Somerset) and agreed to by the House at the time of private business. He thought it a great injustice to refuse a hearing to this motion at the present time, for if the Hon. Member were not allowed to bring it forward now, he might not be enabled to do so for a very considerable time. In the meantime, however, the private Committee might be appointed ; it might proceed to the consideration of this Bill, and to the report of the Board of Trade, which this petition complained of. They ought, therefore, to be given an opportunity of stating their ground of complaint before the Committee was appointed. It would be folly to refer the report back to the Board of Trade, because, as the Noble Lord himself admitted they had not time even now to get through their own proper business. Sir GEORGE CLERK said it was not his intention to follow the Noble Lord in the course of reasoning he had adopted. The question simply was, whether this matter ought to be brought forward at the time of public business. He would not go into the details ; but he should say that the uniform practice of the House was, that railway matters should be disposed of with the private business. But this question did not fall within that rule. As it touched the character of a public board, he did not conceive that it should be heard with the private business, Mr. LABOUCHERE con f esse d that he was inclined to take the view of the Right Honourable Baronet opposite, in preference to the opinion of the Honourable Gentleman who sat beside him. He could not help thinking that this resolution differed in its nature from any that he recollected, and was sure that it would take the House, some considerable time to discuss it. It could not be considered or disposed of as the private business of the House, as it effected the con duct of a public board, and would open the door to other and perhaps more serious petitions. If it were true that the Board of Trade had hastily and negligently reported on this Bill, he thought that a discus sion on the matter in this House in this mode would be perfectly unsatisfactory. He was of opinion thrt the House would do well to adhere to these rules which they had hitherto observed, and wished that the House would dismiss the Bill. Mr. DUNCOMBE did not coincide with the reasons offered by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for resisting the Bill. His complaint was that more peti tions could be presented to the House against the reports of the Board of Trade ; but if there were petitions of that description presented, it was the duty of that House to hear them, and it was right that they should be heard. In fact the discussions upon this question hid been the cause of creating very great dissatisfaction in the public mind against this department of the Board of Trade— (" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthorp)—and that dis satisfaction would continue to increase if this inquiry should not be gone into.—(Hear, hear.) But the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite said, " let the Committee decide upon this question ;" but surely the Committee had quite enough to do already, without imposing this additional duty upon them— (Hear, hear)—but if it should be referred to them, see the loss of time that would follow : there would be counsel on the one hand, and counsel on the other, and in fact there would be no end of the labour they would have to perform.—(Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to what had been said about not allowing matters of this sort to interfere with private business, surely the Right Hon. Gentleman should recollect that their petitions had been allowed to be presented and printed during private business ; and therefore the time for bringing the subject forward was the time during which private business was before the House, in order to hear all just complaints and do justice to those who had charges to make against the public department of the Board of Trade.—(Bear.) If those complaints ware not to be brought forward now, he would like to know when they would ?—at the close of the session?—up stairs, when all the falsehoods put forward on one side should have been heard 2—(Hear, hear.) He would say that there were very grave and serious accusations made against the railway depart ment of the Board of Trade, and he was aware that they could be supported, and when they were heard it would be found that very great injury had been done to masiy persons connected with railroads ; and therefore • he did think that the proper time to hear those parties wk., during the private business. On those grounds, he begged to move that the Hon. Member for Maidstone be now heard.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. GISBORNE conceived that Hon. Gentlemen opposite had got themselves into a great mess by the manner in which they had conducted this proceeding.— (Hear.) The present was only one of a great many cases of this kind, and they were all owing to parties having a duty entrusted to them which they were in competent to deal with.—(Hear.) By referring these complaints to a Select Committee who had already 23 independent railways to deal with, it would be f oun d t h at this addition to their labours could not be s a ti s l' actorily dealt with by them. His opi nion was t h at the ease ought to be heard. The li on. Gentl eman ought tobe allowed to make his state ment, and s h ou ld the report of the Board of Trade afterwards pro ve unworthy of further notice it would be the duty o f t h e H ouse at once to u ld defy diligent cancelb it. n d y g o h f t g b e t n . t I to e - m n e C n u , 1 o n u o e 1 m S l a ß t t ' e r r fl ° h however v w e o r come to a corr ec t d ec i s i on within six months‘ - of a vast number of railway sc h emes, and he should, support the moti on o f t h e H on. Member for Finsi e 3 refore, Sir G. GREY said th a t h e cou l d not altogether rY.' cide in the opinion o f th e H on. Member for MaidestTwn n (Mr. Dodd), and the p os i t i on w h ich he had taken.e Whatever might be the error committed by the Board of Trade in their tactics, he believed their opinions to be honestly adopted. Whatever decision the Ho use might come to on the case of the present petition, he trusted that the object of the petitioners would not be prejudiced thereby. It could hardly be expected the Board could come to any sufficiently considered decision within a month or six weeks. At the same time he must say that the decision of the Board of Trade was not the de cision of the House of Commons, and he thought that that decision, whether it militated against or was in favour of any particular scheme, ought not to prevent any discussion upon it when it came before a Commit tee. He should also remind the House that it was an express declaration of the Board, that in the event of any facts transpiring which affected their decision, that they should reconsider it, and republish it in the Gazat'. Thre was nothing to prevent the reconsideration of that decision within the present session. And as these reports were not considered at the usual hour for public bnsiness, he trusted that if the motion of the Hon. Gentleman was not acceded to, that circumstance would not prejudice the petitioners in Committee. Mr. DODD begged to thank the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite for the interest be had evinc:d in the object which he had the honour of bring ing before the House. He would also beg to thank the "Vice-President of the Board of Trade for the suggestion which he had made with respect to the republication of the reports of that Board in the Gazette. If the House would consider that the peti• tioners were 57 miles from London, and by the alteration that they would be brought within an hour and a half- The SPEAKER must remind the Hon. Member that he had no right at present to go into the merits of the petition. Mr. BORTHWICK thought that the present ditii • culty arose from the constitution of the Railway De partment of the Board of Trade, which was partly executive and partly legislative. What he would sug gest was this, IN nether they might not waive the general rule in the present instance ? Mr. lIAWES though., that the House would have heard what the Right Hon. Geatletran opposite (Sir G. Clerk) had to say in reply to the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey). If he considered that the Speaker had pronounced an opinion upon the matter, he would not say a word on the subject, but he understood that the Speaker had left the matter in the hands of the House. He thought that an early day should be fixed for bringing on this subject. Mr. MANGLES said that the Hon. Gentleman the Member far Lambeth had suggested that an early day should be appointed for discussing this subject, hut he thought a Committee could very much better inves tigate the matter than the whole House. It ought not to be heard by the House either in the light of private or public business.—(lronicAl cheers from Lord Howick.) The Noble Lord cheered him. He (Mr. Mangles) was interested in railroads as well as the Noble Lord, and preferred the whole matter to go before a Committee. He could not conceive a better mode of showing by proof that decisions of the Board were wrong than by giving those who thought so an op portunity of going before a Committee. Mr. RICARI)O did not think it quite consistent with the dignity of the Board of Trade to object on a mere point of form. Sir G. CLERK said he did not raise any objection on the part of the Board of Trade on a mere point of form, but thought the House should act on a uniforre principle, and be guided by what had taken place in matters of this sort. Mr. THOMAS S. DUNCOMBE thought the matter was well worthy of consideration. He should certainly take the sense of the House, even if he stood alone, and the House might depend upon it that on another day they would have similar petitions until they brought the House to its senses with regard to this matter. The House then divided : For the motion ... 73 Against it Majority against the motion NOTICE OF MOTION. Mr. HUME gave notice that he should, on the 17th, bring forward his motion relating to Sir 11. Pottinger. PAYMASTERS AND PUR3ERS IN THE ROYAL NAVY. Captain PECHELL moved that the petition which he presented yesterday from the paymasters and pursers of the Royal Navy be printed with the Votes —Agreed to. COLLIERIES RAILWAY BILL. Mr. HODGSON HINDE gave notice that on the order of the day for the second reading of the Colleries Railway Bill (as we understood) being read, he should call the attention of the House to a letter which had been published on the subject, and should move that the order of the day should be discharged. NEW WRIT FOR GREENOCK. Mr. HUME moved that the Speaker do issue his writ to the Clerk of the Crown to issue a new writ for a burgess to serve in Parliament, in the room of Robert Wallace, Esq., who since his election had accepted the office of Steward to the Chiltern Hundreds. GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. The SPEAKER said that those Members who had petitions against the additional grant to Maynooth had better present them at once. At this announcement almost every Member on the Ministerial side of the House rose and pointed towards the table with a roll of petitions which he held in hand. This simultaneous movement elicited roars of laughter. There were upwards of 200 Members on the Ministerial benches, and of these certainly not 20 kept their seats on the announcement of the Speaker. On the Opposition side of the House, on which there were abut 180 Mem bers, not more than twenty had petitions to present on the subject. The first Member who came forward was Mr. HAWES, who presented thirteen petitions from various Dissenting congregations against any additional grant to Maynooth. Mr. STF,WART WORTLEY presented petitions from the West Riding of Yorkshire to the same effect. Mr. Greene. Mr. Vernon, Mr. Pakington, and Sir Howard Douglas presented petitions to the same effect. Sir R. INGLIS presented an immense number of petitions to the same effect, but from the noise and con fusion in the House it was impossible to catch the names of the places from which these petitions emanated. Petitions, principally against any further grant to the College of Maynooth, were presented by Mr. Pattisor, Mr. Darby, Lot d Worsley, Mr. Greene, Lord J. Stewart, Lord Palmerston, Sir T. Acland, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Bankes, Col. Sibthorp, Mr. Spooner, and Mr. M. Manes. Petitions were also presented from Glasgow, Chippen ham, and various other places, against any increased grant to Maynootb. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the 40th of George 111., cup. 85, Mr. GREENE iu the Chair. Sir R. PEEL rose and spoke as follows :—Mr. Greene, Sir, in the course of the last session of Parliament I took the opportunity of publicly declaring, on the part of her Majesty's Government, that it was our in tention, during the recess, to apply ourselves to the consideration of the state of acade mical education in Ireland. I accompanied that declaration with a distinct intimation that the circum stances and position of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth would undergo the consideration of the Government. I added that, undertaking the con sideration of the, state of Maynooth, it was our intention to undertake it in a friendly spirit, and I made that public declaration at that time in order that due public notice might be given of the intentions of her Majesty's Government. I was not unprepared fur the demonstration of opinion which has been made this day. I could not look back to the discussions which have taken place in this House with respect to Maynooth, without fore seeing that a proposition upon the subject of Maynooth, connected with its extension, was likely to encounter the risk of great opposition. I could not disguise from myself that there were many entertaining strong religious opinions and conscientious scruples, the sincerity of which cannot be questioned, and which, on account of their sincerity, are entitled to respect—l say I could not but foresee that any proposal for an in creased grant to Maynooth was likely to be encountered by an opposition such as that to which I have referred. And it was because we were so placed that we have deemed it our duty to enter upon this difficult task, fully sensible that it would be such, but also that it was one by which men were not to be cowed. But, Sir, while we had resolved that e should undertake this duty, and encounter this diffi culty, we had resolved that it should not be ace gravated by any such accusation as that we had concealed our intentions from the country or the public, or that we had taken any party by surprise.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) Sir, it was upon this ac count that I declared explicitly and deliberately this in t, ntion, on the part of the Government, at so early a period of last session—an intention not intimated in any vague or equivocal terms, but plainly and deli berately stating that what we would pledge ourselves to do was to give an improved system of academical education to Maynooth, with an increase of the public grant. Sir, in pursuance of the determination we have taken this grave subject into our consideration I shall now say nothing with respect to one portion of this question which will become before the House separately. I mean the question of academical education. The obser vations I shall have to make will entirely apply to this question of the College of Maynooth ; and . it is solely in reference to the institution that I ana now speaking. In taking this sub ject into consideration, we had to take cognisance of the extent of obligation which past Acts of the Legislature might have imposad upon the Government and the Parliament for; the support of this institution ; and the practical effect of the past system, as well as the probable effect of any alteration which might be made; and given ail those poii ts our best and most mature consideration, I now, on the part of the Executive Government of this country, submit to the calm considera tion of the House of Commons the proposal which we are prepared to make. Sir, it has appeared to us that wo were at liberty to pursue one of these courses with respect to the College of Maynooth. We considered, first, that it was competent to us to continue, without alteration, the present system pursued in that institution, and the amount of the Parliamentary grant annually made hitherto; secondly, that it was competent to discontinue that grant, and repudiate the institution altogether, and all connexion with it, and, after providing for existing interests, publicly to notify that, hereafter, no connexion whatever should exist between the Government of this country and Maynooth. But I need not say that this course we were not prepared to adopt. The third course open to us to pursue was, to come forward in a friendly spirit and offer to improve the present system of Roman Catholic education—(Op position cheers)—and to extend, to a liberal amount, Parliamentary protection.—(Cheers from the Opposi tion.) This we propose to do, not by attempting any interference with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic creed, but by a more liberal grant to improve the system Majesty'ste present G overnna system, ent, and ele va t e the tone of the Catholic people of Leland. that it th Sir, with regard to the first—the continuance, without ald h alteration or modificatio n o f any ki n d , o f t h e p resen t grant declare, it i s our deliberate on e prt f v hicer - tion th a t, o f all courses that could be pursued, that is the m os t o bj ectionable. In giving the present a co o n grant, we profess to make provision for the education of those who are to give spiritual instruction and religious consolation to man y millions of people.— (Hear, hear.) We jus; give enough, by voting annually 9,000/., to discourage aid paralise all voluntary contri butions.—(Hear, hear.) Remove the grant altogether, and you will find, on the part of the people of Ireland, I have no doubt, a disposition to pecuniary sacrifices, and to provide some, perhaps an imperfect, endowment for the religious education of the Roman Catholic priestlood of Ireland. But the grant of 9,0001. a year, and tie public undertaking on the part of the Government to er.dow the institution, and to provide instruction for the priesthood, has effectually discouraged contributions from others, and yet the sum we vote is ineffectual and insufficient.—( Hear, hear.) By continuing this grata now what do we do? If it be a violation of principle to provide instruction for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood, we are guilty of that violation.—(Hear, hear.) The grant of 9,0001. a year, professedly for the educa tion of the Roman Catholic priesthood, is a violation of principle at least as great as any I shall propose to-night. What is the effect of the existing statutes ? It is not merely that you make a Parliamentary grant annually, revocable at your plea sure, but in the statute-book there are three Acts of Parliament—two passed before the union by the Irish Legislature, and one passed since, in IRS, which adopted and sanctioned this insti tution, for the support of which an annual grant is made. By the combined effects of these Acts of Parliament, you provide for the establishes ant of a college for the education of the Roman Catholic priest. hood, and the words you make use of, are, " the establishment cf a College." And though you may say, that the existing statutes dis claim all connexion with the College, and repudiate it as a guilty thing with which you would have no communion, yet whom do these statutes appoint as the visitors of the College ? The Lord Chancellor, the highest judicial authority in the country, and the judges, are the persons whom those statutes appoint as the visitors of that institution which you so much discourage. You provide, it is true, by an annual vote only for cer tain. professors of that College ; but the Act which has received your sanction expressly speaks of fellowships of that College to be endowed. The Act originally con templated a perfect• system of collegiate education consisting of scholars, masters, professors, and fellows. —(Hear.) You have repealed the statute of mortmain in favour of that body—you have permitted the trustees to hold land—real property, to the amount of 1,0001. per annum, far the purpose of providing for that body. By the Irish Act they are permitted to hold real property to the amount of 1,0001. a year, repealing the statute of mort main. That was the Act of the Irish Parliament, but in 1808 this Imperial Parliament distinctly recog nised the institution so far as to make a further provision, still further repealing the mortmain statute in favour of the College, enabling the trustees to make certain compromises, and to hold real property, as contemplated by the Irish Parliament. You have enabl-d the trustees by an express enactment to provide and as :ign a chapel, in which the rights of the Roman Catholic Church can be performed by a chaplain appointed by the trustees. This enactment received the sanction of the Legislature, and I ask whether there has not been a complete violation of the principle—if principle be involved in it—by the nature of the connexion with the Roman Catholic priest hood thus deliberately sanctioned by the Government ? Having then sustained the inconvenience—if inconveni ence there be in the departure from principle, why should not the intentions of Parliament be carried into effect ? You have assigned 9,000/. a year for several years past, as a provision for this College, in respect to which establishment a vote has been annually made, to be expressly applied to the annual salaries of ten professors in that College. There are three professors of theology, which you endow, and to which your grant is applied, but that grant is so limited in amount that you are not enabled to assign more to the professors than 1201. a year.—(Hear, hear.) In seven out of ten cases, the provision made for professors was less than the sum named. In the case of the three professors of theology, you expect to have the services of men of learning, of eminence, and integrity, for a salary of 120/. a year.---(Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from Mr. Shed.) And observe that that salary cannot be increased by means of fees. No other payment is awarded to these professors than that which the Parliament provides ,• and the sum which you give is all that they have. That institution, at the present moment, contains 440 students. I think that 130 of these students belong to the class denominated pensioners—that h to say. parties who pay a certain sum for their admission, and in addition provide for their own support. In addition there are 250 free students whom the State professes to maintain. The average sum paid by the State for each student is 231. per year.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) For that sum of 23/. the student has to provide his college dress, the furniture of his rooms, his commons, and in addition, out of the 231. for each student, there are to be provided for the repairs of the College, the expense of coals and a variety of other in cidental expenses.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Now, if this is a violation of principle, I ask you what do you gain by it? Surely you gain nothing by establishing professors of theology at salaries of 1201. a year each.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) If you violate your principle, surely it is politic—surely it is wise, to violate it in such a manner as to insure the services of men of the highest character and of the most competent attainments.—(Opposition cheers.) I do not speak at all of those gentlemen who are at pre sent professors in that College. I do not mean at all to derogate from their hi g h character or from their great attainments.—(Cheers.) But if men of high character are found from their zeal for their religion, and from their desire to promote the course of education, to de vote their time to the public for incompetent salaries—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition)— that is no reason why we should not take measures to secure the services of men of compe tent learning, by giving them a proper and requisite pro vision. —(Hear, hear, and Opposition cheers.) All I contend for is that you have no compen sation for your violation of principle by voting so low a pecuniary grant, as to place the parties whom you charge with your favour in a state of indigence.— (Opposition cheers.) Now, with regard to the state of the building. What must be the feelings of ayoung man who en tered that building for the first time—feelings which would produce an effect upon him for the whole of his after life?—(Opposition cheers.) Why, the appearance of the building is desolate in the extreme. It bears the charac ter of a deserted barracks, rather than that of a colle giate establishment.—(Cheers.) Now, recollect that there are 440 students there, receiving your liberality, It is impossible to insure to each of these students a separate room. In many cases, according to the reports of the Committees, several students are placed in one room, and in some they are placed in one bed. I hold in m y hand a report which was made to the Executive Government , an d which was signed by several, indeed, I may saYt by almost all th e aut h or iti es connected with that College. I am sure I need make no apology, oust Ibreegaidns—th?, Your Excellency, we beg leave s tatements contained in it t o th e n humbly t o state, that the College of Maynooth has long been struggling under great disadvantages for many years, in consequence of the very inadequate accommo dation provided, and we beg to state that for the purpose of carrying out the objects intended by the Government, we instituted an inquiry with the view of laying the state of its affairs before your Excellency. We exa mined first into the internal administration of the Col lege, and we find that not only are the salaries of the professors lower than the usual allowances, but that this reduction is so great as to interfere with their comforts to a degree unbecoming a public institution for the education of the youth of Ireland. Thus they inflicted a great inconvenience in the removal of that wholesome restraint which is so necessary to be kept up during the short period of the student's proba tion, in order to render him a practically useful member of society in that sphere in which it was destined he should be placed. Notwithstanding every endeavour, a debt of 4,6001. has been incurred. So insufficient was the sum granted for the purposes of the College, that during the term, the authorities were con • pelled to give an additional vacation of two months for the purpose of saving some of the expenses. We beg further to state, that the increased expenses of the College has had the effect of closing its doors against that class of society in which candi dates from the Roman Catholic priesthood had been most frequently found. Those who support the scholars at Maynooth now find the expenses of doing so so heavy, that numbers of the latter are obliged to with draw before the term of their probation is completed. Their departure has in consequence caused a diminution of the profits arising to the Col lege from the number of students there. To such embarrassments are :they reduced, being fre quently obliged to withdraw tho students before they have completed their ordinary e cclesiastical course of study." I may state, in addition to that, that there are many cases in which, from the inability of the provisions to defray the expenses of the College, the sum of 231., the allowance for one student, is obliged to be divided between two. Now, air, I have stated fully the state of the College of' Ilaynooth, and I ask whether I am not right in saying that you can take no course that is not preferable to the one now pursued ? It contained a Romanwise ?shall wes say responsible.. to iolation, if it b e a violation, of a pr i nc i p l e i n under taking t o i nstruct the priesthood of Ireland, f rom w h ose doctrines y ou di ssent, and to make an i na d equate pro vision f or th e e d ucation of those for whose i nstruct i on you m Wouldato hli i e t be ake prudentyourself subjects we are b ound by an inconvenient obligat i on contracted by ourselves, and that obligation we will respect in a surly spirit. We will continue to give you w h at you now have—there shall be no im provement—there shall be • i the it ? C uo increase to the grant. We shall allow the amount to remain so much as the statute permits —we will, in a surly spirit, give you 9, 0001 . a year—and w e t e ll you that we do it, though our con science is violated, because it is our intention to adhere to the statute. When we come to the consideration of another matter, shall we al!ow that our conscientious scruples are violated ? and shall we resolve to discon tinue all connexion with the College of Maynooth ? and shall the burthen of educating the prie • sthood be thrown on the people themselves ? There are some, I know, who consider that a desirable object.—(Hear, hear.) Are we, therefore, t o adopt that course, and at the same time must we tell the Roman Catholics that, on religious grounds, we absolve ourselves from all further connexion with the education of the priesthood ? Before you adopt that course, you should weigh and fully deliberate upon the circumstances which attend that establishment. I do not hesitate to say that, apart from the obligation of payment, apart from the consideration of the mortified and irritated feeling which might arise from such an avowal on your part, namely, that you have conscientious scruples against the continuance of that vote, I do not hesitate to say that I believe the absolute discontinuance of the vote would be better for all parties than a con tinuance of such a state of things as that which I have described. But I think I ca • n assign a reason why, if you will, as legislators, take into your account public feeling, and the consideration of public policy, I think I can assign reasons which might dissuade you from taking that course, and repudiating all connexion with that College. When did your connexion with it com mence ? Under whose authority, and bow long has it been in existence ? Why, Sir, fifty years ago you undertook to maintain a Parliamentary vote for Maynooth. You commenced your connexion with it in 1795. The reigning sovereign was George the Third ; the Minister of England was Mr. Pitt ; and the Secre tary of State for the Home Department was the Duke of Portland, who was afterwards the Chancellor of the University of Oxford. In the year 1795 the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Fitzwilliam, called the at tention of the Irish Parliament to the state of education there. That was in the critical period of 1795.—(Hear, hear.) [The Right Hon Baronet read the speech of the Lord Lieutenant to the Irish House of Commons at the commencement of the session of 1795, and also a quotation from a speech of Mr. Grattan.] In that year the House of Commons of Ireland was told that it was intended to establish Maynooth. Lord Fitzwilliam was succeeded by the Marquis Camden, who laid the first stone of the College of Maynooth. At the close of the session of 1795 the Lord-Lieutenant who presided at the inauguration, who laid the first stone of the building, congratulated the Parliament in having laid the foundation of the establishment of a Roman Catholic college. In the course of that year the Irish Parliament passed its first Act—an Act passed by the Irish Lords and Commons—without difficulty, with out one dissentient voice. The Prelates of the Protestant Church were present—the Parliament was exclusively Protestant and yet, at that period, in that year of 1795, at the instance of the Executive Government, that exclusively Protestant Parliament without a division—without a dissentient voice—consented to this supposed violation of principle, and voted the sum which they then thought requisite l i for maintaining the institution, and stamped upon it a Parliamentary sanction. In 1800, before the union, another Act passed. After the union the Imperial Par liament, finding those grants in existence, passed, as I before observed, an Act in 1808, not interfering with the system which they adopted and sanctioned, and for ex tending which they gave further facilities. For fifty years, up to this very year 1845, has this vote continued for supporting the College of Maynooth. I know there is a prevailing impression that the Imperial Parliament did nothing more than adopt the Acts of the Irish Par liament—that they found the vote, and continued it without alteration, feeling themselves bound by the contract into which it is supposed the Irish Parliament entered. That is an impression which has prevailed. I am about to prove that that is completely erroneous, and to show that you have, at two distinct periods, granted an additional sum for the support of Maynooth —that you were not merely content with adopting the vote of the Irish Parliament, but that, on two specific occasions, you increased the vote. In 1807 the vote was increased to 13,000/., the 5,0001. increase being applied for additional buildings. In 1808 Mr. Percival lent his di rect sanction to the permanent increase of the vote. In that year Mr. Foster, the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved a resolution for granting to Maynooth College a grant of 13,000 L, being 5,000 L over the grant of former years, for the purpose of enabling that institution to erect buildings capable of accommodating 50 additional students. In former years the number of students being 200, a grant of 1,000/. was made, but as there was a further sum voted for the maintainenee of 5 0 additional students, Mr. Foster moved that a sum not exceeding 9,2501., Irish currency, should be granted to his Majesty to defray the expenses. Mr. Percival said he was per fectly right after the grant was established, and after the union was carried, that the grant of the Irish Parliament should not be diminished. The grant was extended one-fourth more for the pur poses of education. It appeared that 111 others were educated for the Catholic priesthood in different parts of Ireland. On the whole, he thought a supply of 360 stu dents would be sufficient to meet the demand. In 1808, Mr. Percival being Minister, the Government consented to extend the vote beyond that made by the Irish Cabi net, for the express purpose of providing education for 50 additional students.—(Hear, hear.) And further, Mr. Percival implied that if he thought a greater num ber of students than 361 were requisite for the service of the Roman Catholic Church, he would not be unwil ling to increase the grant.—(Hear, hear.) But here is a distinct proof that in 1808 the Imperial Parliament made an increased provision, in order that 50 more stu dents might be educated in Maynooth. Again, in 1813 —I can speak of that myself, for I was then in office— an addition of 7001. or 900/. a year was made, in order to be applied to the maintenance of senior students, called the Dunboyne establishment. I have stated what have been the circumstances of this connexion in the first instance, and how the Parliaments both of Eng land and Ireland have, on different occasions, strengthened that connexion by successive grants and endowments. And I now ask whether, after this state of things existing for half a century, it would be prudent or proper, on an alleged violation of conscientious scruples, to give notice to the Roman Catholics of Ireland that this con nexion, so continued-uninterruptedly for half a century, must be abandoned.—(Hear, hear.) When this con nexion was formed, the Roman Catholics were labouring under disabilities, but those disabilities did not then con stitute a ground of objection in the eye of the Irish Par liament.—(Hear, hear.) These disabilities have been done away with—the Roman Catholics now stand on the same footing with ourselves in respect to equality of civil privileges—shall we now take the opportunity,. in opposition to the deeds of our ancestors, of saying to them, " That favour was granted under the reign of George the Third, in the administration of Mr. Pitt, but we must now withhold it on account of religious scruples."—(Hear, hear.) What would be the effect of such a declaration on the Roman Catholics? Why, it would not be the refusal of the amount of pecuniary aid which would be deprecated—it is the animus which dic tated that refusal. —(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," in which the shrill piercing voice of Mr. Sheil was dis tinctly audible.) We never could convince them that we were actuated by those conscientious scruples which were not entertained by George 111 , by Mr. Pitt, nor by an exclusively Protestant Legislature of their own country, and which were never felt since that time.— (Hear.) I should deeply regret that such a refusal should be made, not merely on account of the Roman Catholics, but for the sake of the general welfare of Ire land. Such a declaration would be in effect a proclama tion that we who dissented from the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church—that we who held a faith which we considered more pure, and to which we are devotedly attached, would not on account of these doc trines and on account of that devotion give any assis tance to Roman Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) If we make that declaration what is the lesson we inculcate?—(Hear, hear.) Now, take the case of the Protestant pro• prietors of an extensive district—they had a large Roman Catholic tenantry—they were probably Dis senters and Catholics who tilled the soil—would it be right in these lauded proprietors to refuse to contribute any assistance towards those Roman Catholic tenantry — would they be acting in accordance with the will of the Supremo Judge to refuse all means whereby those poor people might obtain religious consolation?—(Hear, hear.) I think they would be acting more in accord ance with the principles of the faith which they profess, if they said to these poor people, " I wish you to have religious consolation in the hours of need. I wish you to have religious instruction from those who can afford it. I will, therefore, contribute towards the maintenance of the minister who will perform these duties."—(Hear, hear.) Is there any precept in our religion to forbid this? Do not great and enlightened bodies act so? I will take for example some of the great companies of the City of London, who do everything to improve the condition of those dependent upon them. They make great sacrifices to do so. Take the Drapers Company—they allot a small sum as a stipend for the payment of the Roman Catholic priest hood, and contribute to the repairs of the Roman Ca tholic chapels ; and am I to advise Parliament to take a course, which would in effect tell the companies—" You cannot contribute towards Roman Catholic purposes without a violation of religious principle."—(Hear, hear.) But what will be our own position? How shall we act when we come to decide upon the grant to Pres byterian ministers ? Shall we continue that vote? Por tions of the public money are voted to men whose re ligious opinions we utterly repudiate. What position will we stand in with respect to our own colonies?— (Hear, hear.) If we avow such a principle, in what re lation will we stand towards the Roman Catholics at Malta and Gibraltar—(Hear, hear)—in the Canadas and in the Mauritius I—(Hear, hear.) In many of the West India Islands it would be impossible to act upon the principle of disclaiming altogether such religious support. How shall we stand with regard to the Roman Catholics of Ireland ? Shall we repeal the Act which provides the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains for prisons? An Act was passed enabling grand juries to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains to gaols—nay, making it compulsory upon them to do so when a proper requisi tion was made. The grand jury was required to make provision for the maintenance of those .haplains, and to prevent the assignment of unequal salaries to ministers of the different religious persuasions. Will you repeal the Act for the maintenance of Roman Catholic chaplains for workhouses? There again you have imposed an absolute obligation to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains. Will you take away from the wretched pauper that religious consolation which lie seeks in his last moments before he is ushered into the presence of his Maker.—(Hear, hear.) That faith against which you protest, and those doctrines which are not your doctrines, you have yet given a Parlia mentary sanction to, by providing salaries for its teachers. Can I then, after reviewing our own position, and that of the colonies, and that of the Roman Catholics of Ire land, who have for the last fifty years received this Parlia mentary grant—can I now come to the conclusion that we are prepared to discontinue that grant on the ground of the violation of religious scruples ? Will the House continue the present grant or repudiate it altogether? I know only one other course, and that course we are prepared to take.—(Loud cheers.) Prepared—yes, I will say prepared—believing that it will be conducive to the welfare of the Irish people, and that it will generate a confiding spirit among them. If we are to take that course, all will admit that it should b e t a k en in a conci liatory sp irit. If these institutions are to remain, we should consider them with a view towards improving their condition. By improvement I do not mean inter ference with the course of educati on p ursue d there, which would be poisoning all the good that our liberality would effect, but I mean treating them in a really generous spirit, with the hope that such treatment will create a corresponding spirit, and that we may reap the fruits of it in the improved feeling and, condition of the Roman Catholic cl erg y an d l a ity. Having determined to take that course, we ought to take it effectually, and make a provision which will be really sufficient to supply the wants of the Roman Catholic Church, so that the ministers of that religion may be well educated and well discipli ne d. T o increase the grant by an addition of 3,000/. or 4,0001., would be worse than nothing..—(Hear, hear.) I exc l u de that en tirely from my consideration. I cannot think that the amount of pecuniary assistance can be said to be of any very great importance when the principle is admitted. I will now, with the permission of the House, proceed to state the nature of the proposal which I am now, on the part of the Government, instructed to make.— (Hear, hear.) I have already stated that, by the exist ing laws, the trustees of Maynooth are expressly em powered to purchase and acquire land. That power was confirmed by the Act of George the Third. They were nowhere allowed to hold real property beyond 1,0001. a year. That is the enactment, but effect was never given to it, because the trustees were not nominated, they were never able to hold land. They could not hold land by any other tenure than by the lives of the existing trustees, and that land could not pass to their successors. In order to remedy that, I propose in the Bill I will lay before the House to incorporate the trustees, to make them a corporate lord ship, under the name of the Trustees of Maynooth Col lege, thus giving them a real power and an ability of holding land to the amount of 3,0004; that is to say, if the members of the Roman Catholic faith are desirous to endow and make a provision for the endowment of particular localities. I can conceive no objection to such a voluntary contribution; and I therefore propose to admit a body so incorporated to hold real property to the extent of 3,000/. I will next address myself to the position of the chief officers of Maynooth. I propose to make a liberal provision—liberal as compared with the present stipends of the president and professors. At present the stipend held by the professors does not ex ceed 1221 a year. Instead of defining what shall be the amount of stipend to such professors, to allocate to the trustees of Maynooth certain sums, which shall be placed at the discretion of the trustees, from which such salaries shall be drawn 6.0001. or 7,0001. a year ; the salaries for professors to vary from 250/. to 3001. In order to increase the number of professors it would be necessary to make an additional provision. I propose, therefore, that a sum not exceed ing. 6,0001. a year should be given to the trustees, in order to make a provision for the president, professors, librarian, and principal officers of the College. I now come to the provision to be made for students, but I must first remind the House of the ccnstitution of the College. The College is divided into two departments— ore of these has three senior classes, which are called divinity students, and from these selections are made for the priesthood. In the subordinate departments of the College there are four junior classes; in addition to these classes there are twenty senior students, or Dun boyne students, so called because Lord Dunboyne left a grant of 5001. a year expressly for that provision. I have also stated that twenty senior students were selected by the president, who were allowed to remain three years after they have finished the collegiate course, in the same way as bachelors are at our universities. There are in all four hundred and thirty students in the College divided into these three classes: the Dunboyne, the senior, and junior classes. We propose to allot to each of the Dunboyne students the sum of 401. per annum. We propose to make, in the whole, a provision for 500 students-250 in the four junior classes, and 250 in the three senior classes, these being divinity students. We propose that, for the maintenance of each student, in order to cover the expense of collegiate education, that the sum of 28/. a year should be allowed to the trustees --that is, 281. a year for each—and, in addition to that sum, amounting to 14,5601., we pr o p ose f or th e t wo hundred and fifty divinity students in the supe rior classes a separate allowance of 201. a year, making a further sum of 5,000/. The effect of this ar rangement, when sanctioned by the House, will be a very considerable increase. For president, professors, and librarians, we propose a sum not exceeding 6,000/. a year For the twenty Dunboyne students 40/. a year ; making a total yearly provision of 26,316/. Observe here we admit of an increase in the number of students in the College from 440 to 500. We propose that such addition to the building itself shall take pla !e as will enable a decent apartment to be assigned to each student ; and that the College shall be made in appear ance, and, in fact, worthy of such an institution.— (Hear, hear, and cheers.) W e f urt h er i nten d t h at a decent provision shall be made for the president, and that the repairs of the College shall be annually attended to. For the better accommodation of the president and the professors we design suitable apartments for them. The whole grant, then, will be a sum not ex ceeding 30,000L—(Great cheering from the Opposition) —to be made from the public funds. We do not pro pose that the provisions made for the five hun dred students should be divided among an increased number. We wish their education to be a liberal one, and that the reminiscences of Maynooth should not be revolting.—(Hear, hear.) We increase the grant, but we limit the number of students to 500. We pro pose, also, that the Board of Works shall undertake the repairs of the College of May nooth, the amount of such repairs and improvements to come before the House in the shape of an annual vote, included in the yearly estimates of the Board of Work With respect to the visitorial powers—we do not propose that any greater powers shall be conferred on the visitors than they at present possess, but we propose that instead of a trien nial visitation it shall be an annual one, and that five visitors shall be appointed instead of three, and that the Lord-Lieutenant shall have power to direct a visitation whenever he may think fit. her Majesty will appoint these visitors in addition to the three Roman Catholic visitors which at present exist. These visitors, as I have already stated, will not be invested with greater powers, but their visit must be a bond fide one : it will have no reference to doctrine or discipline. We will not spoil this act.—(Hear, hear.) This bu siness was ascertained by three visitors, and the visitors were the Earl of Fingall, Dr. Crolly, and Dr. Murray ; and I can assure the House that this mea sure has not been brought before it without a considera tion of the feelings of the Roman Catholic body, or without consultation with those who may well be sup posed to be acquainted with the feelings of that body, and I think I may say that those gentlemen are pre pared to recommend it to the members of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe, Sir, that this measure is conceived in the spirit in which it was first ann ounce d, and that it will meet with the general consent of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I believe, Sir, that they are prepared to receive it with a feeling of sa ti s f act i on, and that they are grateful for it. That it will meet with the approbation of the most influential and respectable of that powerful body, and that it will be accepted as a liberal and efficient remedy for the evils under which they have suffered. I do not use this as an argument for the adoption of this measure by the House, but I do be lieve that it is a strong inducement for the House to take it into its most favourable consideration. I am not insensible of the difficulty of the position under which I and those who act with me labour, in proposing this increased grant to Maynooth ; but still I conceive that this grant is nothing more than a liberal construction of the obligations into which this House and the country have entered with the Roman Catholic body in Ireland ; and this measure is nothing more or less than a legiti mate fruit of that obligation. Nor do I conceive that any misconstruction can be put on this grant, otherwise than to say that this is an act of greater liberality than might have been expected. I do not propose that this grant shall be one for giving a title to intermeddle with the doctrines of the Church to which this grant is made. I believe that such an attempt would be both ungra cious, unjust, and uncalled-for. We do not give any thing by this grant, which in ptinciple has not been yielded by previous grants. I am of opinion that you will be amply rewarded by the improved system of edu cation among the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics of Ire land. And in doing this. Sir, I do not believe that we violate any one conscientious principle whatever—(Hear, hear)—for I hold stedfast and unwavering every prin ciple of the Church to which I belong ; but at the same time, I do believe that we violate none of the obligations of honour and good faith in promoting improvement in the character of those who are entrusted with the education of those who are to be spiritual guides and instructors of millions of our fellow countrymen.—(lmmense cheering from the Opposition benches). On the motion that the Bill be brought in, Sir R. INGLIS said that he regretted, on many ac counts, that no other person stood in the precise position which he occupied, and the more so, because it hap pened that on this occasion he was more than usually unable to address the House ; but, however that might be, he felt thankful that he was able to offer some oppo sition, however feeble, to the proposition from his Right Hon. Friend at the head of the Government. At the close of his speech, as at its commencement, his Right Hon. Friend had stated that the proposition which he had brought before the House was one which violated nei ther honour nor good faith. Now, in the consideration of this question they must take it as regulated either by law or custom, and he felt assured, however reluctantly he might do it, that it was impossible to resist opposing the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend, and he felt that his Right Hon. Friend must have entertained con siderable doubt of his ultimate success, by a circum stance which could not have escaped his practised ear, that all the cheers with which this propositi on was re ceived came from the Opposition side of the House-- (Cheering from the Opposition side of the House)—but he believed that his Right Hon. Friend would find that the general feeling of the country was against any grant such as he had made to the consideration of the Rouse. His Right Hon. Friend had stated that this proposition would not take the country by surprise, for that at the close of last session he had intimated that he intended to introduce some provision for academical e d ucat i on in Ireland, but he (Sir R. Inglis) must state, that neither i© his declaration of last session, nor in that remarkable speech which ho had made five years ago when not a Minister of the Crown, he had professed that he was not prepared to vote for the discontinuance of the grant to the College of Maynooth. His Right Hon, Friend had stated that he bad three courses before lain; —the discontinuance of the grant, its increase, or the endowment of the College. At that time, after the speech of the Hon. Member for Kent, his Right Hon. Friend had refused to give his pledge for the discon tinuance of the grant. Had it been merely the con tinuance of the grant, he (Sir R. Inglis) would have said little in opposition to the motion ; but he, end those who acted with him, could look on it only as a grant of en dowment to the Catholic Church in Ireland, and entirely uncalled for by any circumstances of the present time. This had been in fact an annual grant, and when reference was made to the prac tice of fifty years as sanctioning this grant, and as authorising the present measure, he must assert, in opposition to the position of his Hon. Friend, that it was merely a provision from year to year, and such as never precluded the reconsideration of the grant even within the session in which it was made. Ner was it expected by the Roman Catholic body, at the time that it should be anything more. When as a matter of course the Irish House of Commons had passed the grant for the support of the College, in 1799, the House of Lords virtually negatived it by a motion which was equivalent to voting the consideration of any question for this time six months, by voting its application at an impossible date. And what was the impression entertained of any right to support from Government when the College of Maynooth was first established ? It N%as perfectly understood that the College was to be e tablished and supported by the voluntary contribu• tions of the Roman Catholic body, and on the present 3d of April there was no compact, statute or implied, or existing even in feeling, that support should be de rived from Government. On the 29th April, 1808, statement had been made by Sir Arthur Wellesley, at that time Secretary of the Irish Government, that the College of Maynooth was not to be supported from the public purse. Now, if a plea were to be made that this grant was necessary, in order that the peace of society might be better secured, he (Sir R. Inglis) would ask , what was the state of society in 1794 and 1795, and the state of the Church of Rome, as compared with the pre sent time ? The experience of any man acquainted with public affairs would reply to the ques tion, that it was expected that the Roman Catholic Church was to be supported at its own expense. Tbis was evident from the memorial of the Roman Catholic Archbishop, presented to Parliament on the 4th of April, 1794, in which he had expressly declared that if permission was granted to erect the College of Maynooth, the members of the Roman Catholic Church were prepared to support it from their own funds. Ble Right Hon. Friend at the head of the Government had referred to the opinion expressed by an illustrious states man in the course of his speech, to whom he could never refer without bearing his (Sir Robert Inglis's) testimony, and who had exhibited a consis tency of conduct and principle well worthy of the great interests he was called upon to direct, but it should be recollected that that great statesman had not originated this grant, for it remained during his time just as it had been previously conferred. It mattered not whether 1 0 was 8,000/, or any other sum ; he could say for himself, and he believed he might assert for those friends who acted with him, that it was perfectly immaterial whether the sum voted was 8,000/., or double that amount, or ball that amount; what they objected to was, any endowment at all for the Church of Rome. He believed that they would, none of them, be accused of want of toleration for refusing to be parties to this grant, and he did not despair in the hope that there would be found a majority 111 that House who would represent the majority of the people of England—(Hear)—and if his Riglit Hon. Friend was disposed to neglect the opinion of that majority, he would beg to remind him, from the 1 11- tluence of public opinion on the education clause which her Majesty's Government had propounded some four or fire years ago, on the discussion of that measure , and to beg them to calculate what would be the effect of the expression of that same public opinion on the present measure, for he had sufficient confidence in his countrymen to believe, that if even a majority of this House were to confirm the grant which had been pry' posed by his Right Hon. Friend, that it would be vir tually nullified by the opposition which it would en' counter in the feelings and convictions of the country:. If the opinion of Mr. Grattan were to be referred to, it was plain that that opinion was in opposition to the principles of this grant to Maynooth, for he believed that it would promote anything but order and peace. lii the discussion five years ago the Hon. Member for Dun: garvon (Mr. Sheil), in speaking ;on this question, hs°, expressed his opinion as being hostile to this grant; an d Lord Morpeth, then Secretary for Ireland, who on that occasion came down to the House with the Irish sta tutes in his hand, had created a sensation from which 4 0 House did not recover so soon as he thought it ought to have done; but he was surprised that ,the intly mations of that Noble Lord had not been acted upon. What was the language of the Act to which the Hoe. and Learned Member had made reference ? He (Sir Rv Inglis) believed that it would not bear the construction put upon it by the Hon. and Learned Member. It wfki the foundation on which his Right Hon. Friend had en deavoured to build the argument he had advanced that evening. How r .1n the Act of the 35th George 111. ? It ran thus :—" Whereas by law, as now enforced, it /5 not lawful to endow any college or seminary for the eda cution of Roman Catholic persons, be it therefore enacted," and so forth. Then it went on—" The trustees named in the Act and their successors will have power and authority"—Did the House think it was to demand an annual grant from a Protestant country ?-4 4 to re' ceive subscriptions and donations, to enable them to establish and endow an academy." Did this em' power them to ask support for their College at the expense of the nation ?—(Hear.) When the Roman Catholics of Ireland asked in the year 179 4 or 1795 for only one seminary to educate their pr:esfr hood, they asked as much as the Parliament of that yesr would grant, and more than the Irish Parliament of few years before would have even entertained. So far were the Roman Catholics of that day from maintaining that they were entitled to support from Governments that they were even contented with the permission t 0 apply subscriptions and donations to the purposes . 0f education. In the construction of an Act of Parlor ment the intentions of the parties making it should be considered, and he was sure that the promoters of that Act never intended to lay down the principle that the support of the Roman Catholic priest' hood should be binding on the country.—(Hear.) He contended that the pledge given at the Act of Union that 8,0001. should be given to this College for twenty years had been fully redeemed. He was opposed t° further concessions on this subject, for the experience of the last twenty years proved that when concessions were made by Parliament its power was just so much weakened.—(Hear, hear.) In the same degree that they endowed the Roman Catholics they withdrew their support from the Protestant institutions of the country. It was alleged that the proposition of the Government would have the effect of conciliating Mr. O'Connell and his party. But how could that be ? In 1831 Mr. O'Con nell said that the grant ought to be 70,0001., but that be did not care whether it was abandoned altogether, as the Catholic clergy would still be educated without Govern" ment aid.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped that he h a d not failed altogether in proving that the proposed measure , if it could be defended at all, was not to be defended on the ground of any compact, either by Act of Parliament or by unbroken usage. If it could be defended at all, it was only on the ground of expech ency—a word for which he had no particular favour' and which was justified only when considered with * view to correct principle.—(Hear, hear.) But he thought that, even on the ground of expediency, the Ministers would signally fail. He thought that the Catholics were as well able to maintain the education of their priests as the Dissenters of this country ; and he could not recognise any claim of theirs to pre-eminence in this matter. Surely the education by the State of a body Of men whose conscientious desire it must be to root out the Protestant, or State Church (as he would call it), li e a nuisance in the sight of men, and a serious evil in the sight of God, a as as great folly on the part of the State as that of the Dutch who sold gunpowder to th e ir own besiegers. He did not suppose that the Ministers were actuated in bringing forward this measure by any other, motive than a wish to do what was right between ah parties.—(Hear, hear.) But he hoped his Right Hon. Friend at the head of the Government would believe that he spoke in the most inoffensive spirit when he said that it was to be regretted that theeßight Hon. Baronet had not earlier made know* to the House and the country what his views were upon this question.—(Hear, hear.) He regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet did not state those views in 1840.- - (Cheers.) For his own part, he (Sir R. Inglis) was not ashamed to say that he took his stand on Protestant Christianitv—(Hear, hear)—that had been the Consti tution of tliis country for three hundred years—and, although the vessel had, of late, been much tossed and shattered, yet there was still a Protestant feeling at the mast head, and as long as one plank remained, he, for one, would nail to the mast that flag of Protestant Chris tianity which, in better times, had waved over the whole empire. —(Cheers.) He thanked the House for the patience with which he had been heard, and concluded by moving a negative on the question, in the terms of the notice which he had placed in the hands of the Chairman.—(The Right Hon. Baronet was inuo , ,t` cheered at th e conc l us i on o f hi s s p eec h, an d immetu" ately after his resuming his seat, Members in g reat numbers left the House.) Capt B. OSBORNE, who was for some minutes in audible from the noise of Members leaving the House!, said, that for thr ee h un d re d y ears th e Government this country had been endeavouring to root out the Catholic religion from Ireland, but without success. That religion had survived and flourished when ever)" thing around it had been destroyed. He thought the present Government was right in changing the policy ; and as they could not make seven millions of people Protestants, they should try to make the m g ood Cr tholics.—(Hear.) There was one fact which was get sufficiently known in this country—that every pulpit a t Maynooth was required to be provided with a Bible and, from the paltry allowance, the College had given away last year 300 Bibles.—(Hear, hear.) The bishops had also expunged, from the notes to the Catholic vere sion, every passage which was considered offensive to their Protestant fellow. countrymen.—(Hear, hear.) Ile was not at all surprised that the opposition to this ;nor suns arose from those who were the most ready to red at the Roman Catholic priesthood for their want of eclue" cation.—(Hear, hear.) A short time ago an Irish Lord . • a Peer of Parliament, published a letter in the Even i ng Mali relating to the controversy which be haf t respecting the shutting up of a path to a chapel. In that letter the Noble Lord, the Marquis of West' meath, was witty upon the bad spelling of the parish priest, and designated the Roman Catholic priesthoo sl , as " emasculated vermin " and " amphibious creature , who put their " unwashed feet upon the necks of the , poor, unhappy, and much to be commiserated people. He was surprised he had heard nothing of the lore origin of these priests, but he could tell the House that Roman Catholics prided themselves upon raising their clergy from the lowest classes. In the middle ages the higher classes monopolised all the higher stations and offices of state, and it was through the instrumentality ° I the Romish Church alone that democratic principles could find any outlet, and had it not been for this system Luther himself would have remained a farmer' peasant. He hoped, therefore, he should hear n° more of the low origin of the priesthood . Prussia boasted of a Protestant population, and the King himself was .a Protestant. In 1815 the Rhenish States, whose inhabita n t s were Roman Catholics, were pitted to Prussia ; and what was the first step Prussia took after this union ? Why, t o found a Roman ca.' thelic College, and to place themselves in communication with the Pope ? In 1821 the Pope issued his bull, b which h e em p owere d t h e Pruss i an Crown to con f er wits the clergy in the election of Roman Catholic bishops ; and now a correspondence between the clergy and the Pope an nua ll y too k p l ace , un der the superintendence of the Crown. And, if this system answered in Prussia, why, he would ask, should it not succeed here? It appeared to him that there were two classes of opponents to this measure. Some non' Members objected to making any provision whatever, while others, like the Right Hon. Baronet the Member fur Oxford, who thought they had an exclusive monopoly of the truth, and therefore they objected to what they called the endowment of error. With reference to the first class, he differed with them; but he had some diffi culty in meeting the objection of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, The Right lien. Baronet objected THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 4 1845