The Sun. — London, England, 1845-04-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 14. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. Several Bills, amongst which was one for affording better protection to works of art, were brought up from the Commons. M AYNOOTH. The Marquia of ANGLESEY presented several pe titions against any further grant to Maynooth. The Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions, from different parts of the country, against the sale of spirituous liquors on the Lord's day. The Right Rev. Prelate also presented petitions against any further grant to Maynooth, and against the Irish Education Bill. Lord BROUGHAM presented a number of petitions against any further grant to Maynooth. The Noble Lord did not agree with the prayer of the petitioners. Lord ARUNDELL presented several petitions to the like effect, and also disclaimed any participation in the prayer of the petitioners. ENTAILED ESTATES. Lord REDESDALE gave notice, on behalf of the Duke of Richmond, who was unavoidably absent, that on Thursday neat his Noble Friend would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of pass inm a legislative enactment to tmpower the ho lder, of' entailed estates to rai s e money upon them for the purpose of effecting permanent improvements on the land. The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented peti tions front several towns and congregations in Scotland against the grant to Maynooth. The Bishop of Llandaff also presented petitions against the grant to Maynooth ; as did the Marquis of Nor manby and Lord Monteagle ; the last stating his difference with the petitioners, and declaring that he regretted that the grant had been so long withheld, and that he should give the grant his most hearty support. LUNATIC ASYLUMS IN SCOTLAND. Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the Commissioners of the county of Fife, which com plained that there was no provision for the care of criminal lunatics, and stated that there were no means provided fur their recovery. One criminal was, from want of any other place of confinement, placed in a solitary cell. He nas a monomaniac, and on all other subjects, except that on which he was deranged, he was a most intelligent man. The Commissioners had done their utmost to provide him with some other place of confinement, but their effbrts were ineffectual, and he thought the Government should take the subject up. Lord WHARNCLIFFE regretted that there was to provision. Until the 39th Geo. 111. there was no enact went on the subject ; but that was insufficient ; and he promised that the subject should receive the best atten tion of the Government ; and in the meantime they would make every inquiry so as to provide a remedy. RAILWAYS. Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that he should to morrow move for the adoption of certain standing ord( rs respecting railways, and that he should found a motion on the subject for a future period. GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. _ _ The Bishop of St. DAVID'S presented a petiti,,n against any further grant to Maynooth. The Right Rev. Prelate wholly dissented from the prayer of the petitioners, although he agreed the object of the peti tioners might be good. The Bishop of HEREFORD presented petitions from Ludlow and other places against the grant to Maynooth. The Marquis CAMDEN presented a similar petition, but could not concur with its prayer. Lord DENMAN presented similar petitions. The Earl of Si'. GERMANS also presented several petitions, but disagreed with the prayer of the petitioners. IRISH RA I LWXYS. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to ask the Noble Lord opposite, the President of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, a question of considerable importance relating to the projected railways in Ireland. lie wished to ask whether the line recommended by the Board of Trade was the best possible one which could be marked out, or whether it was only the best of two or three which might have been submitted to them ? He was induced to ask that question by the terms of a report which was laid on their Lordships' table on the 3d of April, and which referred to the lines pro jected in the particular part of Ireland with which he was connected. Without entering into a discussion of the; merits of the two lines reported on, he might state that neither of these two lines was the best which could be contemplated. In dealing with railways in Ireland, Government was placed in a very different position than when they were legislating upon railways in England. He thought in Ireland Government might more directly interfere in procuring for the public the best line which could ba suggested, and not confine themselves to any two or three which a number of private individuals might mark out. He wished to ask a second question, namely, as to how far the Board of Trade, in examining the various schemes which came before them, inquired whether the promoters which came before them had conformed with the provisions of the Registration Act, so as to enable the promoters or shareholders to call themselves a company. The regulations of the Registration Act were certainly very stringent, and if the Board of Trade er Parliament agreed with him they: ought to be altered. Until, however, those alterations were made, the provisions of the Act ought, in his opinion, to be strictly complied with. lie should move for a paper stating the names of all persons who were really and truly connected with the several schemes; and he thought that the public ought not to be misled by the imposition of certain names on the lists, which might give a false colour to the concern to which they were attached. He had lately seen the names of certain Noble Friends of his attached to schemes with which they had netbing to do, and he thought that this ought to be obviated. The Earl of DALHOUSIE said that before he re plied to the question of the Noble Lord, he would beg to make mention of the circumstance to which the Noble Marquis had alluded. The fact that reports of the Board of Trade appeared in the newspapers before they were placed on the table of their Lordships arose from their having been placed on the table of the House of Commons, and the consequent report of them through the press before they were submitted to the House of Lords. With respect to the secoi d question, whether due deliberation had been used in carrying their decisions, and especially with respect to Irish railways, he would say that he was aware that the Act of last session was very stringent, but with regard to the compliance with the standing orders the House of Commons were alone to judge. The business of the Board of Trade was simply to report on the merits of the scheme, but with respect to the registration the Board had nothing to do.—(Hear.) He conceived that the Board for enforcing the Registration Act had not been negligent of their duty. They had in several instances issued notices to all parts of the country to warn shareholders of the risk they ran. As to the Stock Exchange their Lordships were aware that the proceedings of that place were kept quite secret, and though it was notorious that many of the transactions of that place were notoriously at variance with the law, yet it was quite impossible to punish the parties to those transactions. The Marquis of CLANRICARI)E thought that the terms of the Act were much less difficult than the Noble Earl imagined. The Noble Marquis then read the clause which requires a deposit upon shares before they are transferred. He thought that the projectors had precisely adopted the line recommended by the Railway Commissioners, and he thought the Govern ment ought to be very particular in recommending lines for the adoption of the public. The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that with regard to the clause for the registration of shares, he took leave to say that every care had been taken, and if it had not been taken it was no part of the duties of the Board of Trade to interfere with such registration, and further he thought that every care had been taken to avoid any thing like disregard of public interest. GLASS DUTIES BILL—CUSTOMS EXPORT BILL—MUTINY BILL. On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, these Bills were read a seeond time. LAND CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL. The Earl of DALHOUSIE moved that the House should go into Committee on the Land Clauses Consolidation Bill, and in doing so he begged to correct a misapprehension which had gone abroad respecting this Bill, that it was a new measure, when, in truth, this Bill was nothing more than the consolidation of the scveral clauses which had been previously passed in the several private Bills which had obtained the sanction of their Lordships. It was thought extremely desirable that in legislating with railway and other Companies that they should con solidate in one Bill all the provisions that were appli cable to the whole, and having done so, it was found advisable to proceed further, inasmuch as in some Bills it would be necessary to introduce portions only of the eousolidated clauses. It was, therefore, determined to bring forward a Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill, to meet the necessitie s on cases of canals and gas compa nies, &c. In conclusion, he moved the committal of that Bill. Lord BEAUMONT said the Bill was of v e rtance, and it Vk as the duty 11 of their Lordsh dutyßigreat public im ips to see that no T error crept into it. on the part severa l t r ib una l s , and made it compulsory Prailway company to apply to one of these in cases where of a tthey mght happen to have disputes with the owners of lraeniNow, in connexion with this part of the Bill, there was a provision s which inflicted of related land. to great injustice on tl.e landhold er fos t ; arising out of a dispute as to theovr a al value e t ases where the sum awarded by the jury, ma gistrates, amounted to less than that previouslrbi(t)ffrator, or company, one-half of the costs fell upon the landholder, by the and if the amount so avvarded was less than the costs, the power to distrain for the balance. Now, this wa c s ompany had m unjust. Where a ma n borro w ed money , the wholeitestly th e expense fell upon the borrower—(Hear, hek.r) of and wa s not a railway company that required land placed io the same position as a borrower? Well then, if that were so. they ought to pay all the expenses. But it was difficult now for a private individual to grapple with a railway company, for a railway company, when they got the sanction of the Board of Trade, treated any little landholder as they thought proper. He should move that this Bill be referred to a Select Com mittee up stairs. The Earl of DALHOUSIE said that it was thought ex tremely desirable by the House of Commons and the parties concerned that the different clauses should be divided into groups, and that was the reason why this Bill was di vided from the Companies Clauses Consolidation Bill. With respect to the reference to the Committee up stairs, he had to say that those Bills embodied the experience of fifteen years ; indeed, during the whole of the period since the con struction of railways, and therefore he thought that that ex perience up stairs was quite out of the question. They had been told that they had an arrear of business in railway Bills which was quite unprecedented. There were now 248 Bills before Parliament, and though this was now the middle of April, there was not a single Committee sitting in either House of Parliament upon them, and he trusted that no opposition would be offered to the House going into Committee, especially when they recollected that if the Committee did not now sit, a great expense would be incurred by the parties concerned, and a great impediment would be offered to the business of the country. The amendment of Lord Beaumont was then negatived, and the Rouse went into Committee. On the reading of the 23d and 24th clauses an amendment was adopted, the object of which was to give to the proprie tors of land the option of referring either to arbitration or a jury, for the value of their lands before the lands were entered upon. On the moving of the 26th clause, which empowered parties to take lands for a railway, The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH expressed his suspicion of the justice of the arbitrations, and he thought that the Board of Trade should have an ultimate power of electing the umpires. The Earl of DALHOUSIE thought the Board of Trade ought not to be made parties in all these instances. Lord BEAUMONT thought that the proposal of the Earl of Ellenborough ought to be adopted. The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that he thought the Board of Trade ought not to interfere to appoint umpires in every instance ; but only in those instances in which the arbitrator s had neglected and refused to appoint umpires, and that the clause had better stand as it was ; and he thought that it was incumbent on the Legislature, and especially upon their Lord ships' House, to see fair play, and he conceived that it was but just that the railway companies should bear the costs of the award, if the sum awarded was more than they offered ; but if the sum was the same, the costs should be awarded equally be tween the two parties. The Earl of DEVON moved an amendment to the 64th clause, authorising the owners of entail , cl property to ra;s9 and lay out money in the drainage and improvement of the land they occupy, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor. The amendment was opposed by the LORD CHANCELLOR and the Earl of DALHOUSIE, and afterwards withdrawn. The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the House resumed. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 14. The SPEAKER tuck the Chair at Fuur o'clock. NEW WHIT. Mr. S. YOUNG moved for a new writ for the elec tion of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for West Kent, in the room of Lord Marsharn, now Earl 4,1' Romsey, who has been removed to the house of Peers by the death of his father. The Aberdeen Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. The Hartlepool Pier and Port Bill, and the Yar mouth and Norwich Railway Bill, were also read a second time and ordered to be committed. Petitions were then presented against the Yarmouth and Norwich Railway Bill. SHEFFIELD. AND TINSLEY CANAL. On the motion of Mr. B. DENISON, this Bill was read a second time. The Chelsea Improvements Bill was read a second time. CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. Mr. BERKELEY presented a petition from Thomas Watts, surgeon, of Cheltenham, against the Cheltenham and Great Western Railway Bill, and the petitionrr prayed to be heard by counsel against it.—Referred to the Committee on Standing Orders. BOARD OF TRADE—RAILWAY DEPARTMENT Mr. T. DUNCOMBE begged to postpone his motion relative to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade until Thursday next. On the motion of Mr. W. PATTEN, the North Union and Ribble Navigation Branch Railway was read a second time. Mr. BARRY BALDWIN presented a petition againsi the Wolverhampton Waterworks. THE MIDLAND RAILWAYS. Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER brought up the report of the Committee on this Bill, declaring that the standing orders had not been complied with, a clause having been introduced into the Bill without any previous notice being given to the parties interested of its nature or import. Lord G. SOMERSET thought the report showed a grass violation of the standing orders, but the House would ebserve that the Committee did not state the circumstances under which the resolution was made. He was, therefore, strongly impressed with the belief that some further inquiry ought to be instituted, nit with a view of inquiring further into the fact of the irregularity, but to ascertain the circumstance undo- which it had been fallen into. He had been privately informed that the agent was cogni sant of the introduction of this clause, and therefore the agent had been guilty of a serious error. He moved that the dame be referred back to the Committee, with power to inquire and report specially to the House by whom, and under what circumstances, the standing orders had been violated. Sir J. Y. BULLER said the reason why they did not report how this clause got into the Bili, was because the majority of the Committee thought it was only their pro• vince to ascertain if the promoters of the Bill had complied or notwith the standing orders. He agreed with the Noble Lord, that the matter bad better be referred back to the Sub-Committee, giving them leave to report specially to the House. He thought also that, in referring the case back to the Committee, it should be an instruction that the evidence given erroneously by Mr. Burke should be written out for the consideration of the Committee. . . Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was quite clear a most gross, Ilag,rant, and dangerous breach of propriety had been committed on the part of the agent for this case, and it was equally necessary that the circumstance under which that breach of propriety was made ought to be inquired into. He, therefore, thought the House would do well to adopt the course recommended by the Noble Lord. _ _ . The clause was then ordered to be re-committed. SECOND READINGS. The Taw Vale and Dock Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. —..-........ The Forth and Clyde Navigation and Canal Junction Bill (No. ‘2) was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. The Hungcrford and Lambeth Suspension Foot Bridge Bill was also read a second time, and ordered to be committed. .-- The Southport and Euxton Junction Railway Bill passed through the same stage. The report upon the Forth and Clyde Navigation Bill was fut thcr considered and received. LAW OF SETTLEMENT. Colonel WYNDHAM and Mr. GORE presented petitions against the new Law of Settlement Bill, Int we were unable to catch the designations of the petitions. GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. Mr. HOWARD presented a petition from Carlisle, against the proposed grant to Maynooth College ; the petitioners expressing, at the same time, their opinion in favour of a grant for the rurpose of uniting the Irish colleges into one university, and throwing the university open to all denominations. The Hon. Member said that although he did not concur in the prayer of the petition, yet he had not objected to present it, because it was not characterised by bigotry. He was proceeding to speak further on the petition, when he was called to order by the Speaker. NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND.) Mr. SHAW presented a petition from the Bishop and clergy of Down, against the present system of National Education. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman pre sented petitions to the same effect, signed by 15,000 in habitants of the same diocese, of whom 5,000 did not belong to the Established Church. bIAYNOOTH. Mr. BRADLEY presented petitions from the East Rifling of Yorkshire against the grant to Maynooth. Colonel VERNER presented similar petitions from the county of Donegal. Sir J. Hanmer, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Collier, and other Hon. Members presented numerous petitions to the same effect, but neither the names or places were distinctly heard in the gallery. Petitions against the grant to the College of May nooth were presented by Lord Heniker,fromEssex; Mr. Dickinson, from Somersetshire; Mr. Christopher, Lord Northland, Mr. W. Williams, from Nuneaton; Mr. Pen darves, Mr. Duncan, from Dundee; Mr. Lawson, from Yorkshire; Mr. T. Duncombe, from Leicestershire; and Mr. Cumming Bruce, from Elgin and other places in Scotland. JUSTICES' CLERKS BILL. Petitions against the 12th clause of this Bill were pre sented by Lord C. Manners and Mr. Christopher. GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. Mr 0. :DUNCOMBE presented petitions from the West Biding of Turk against any further grant to May nooth. _ . Mr. FERRAND presented petitions from the Wes leyan Methodists of Knaresborough, and from the Pro testant Association of Cork, against the proposed grant to Maynooth. Mr. BUSFEILD presented a petition against the ap propriation of any public money to the support of any religious sect. Several Hon. Members rose at once to present peti tions upon the same subject, when TEe SPEAKER said that Hon. Members would have an of p tenuity of presenting these petitions after the orders of the (lay had been disposed of. Mr. FERRAND said, that if the proposed grant to Maynooth should reach the third reading, he should be prepared to move the following resolution and amendment:—" That it is the opinion of this House that the ith and Bth of Victoria, com monly called the Catholic Bequests Act, was a violation of the Act of Settlement, and a contravention of the oath of supremacy, and that the present grant to May nooth is calculated to subvert the Constitution as by law established." Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said, that in a future stage of the grant to Mayuooth Bill he would move the following resolution :—" That the principle of endowment of any religious sect or sects, from a state fund, or from a fund received from tithes, rents, &c., whether known by any other name or denomination, is a violation of the rights of conscience, detrimental to religion, and dan gerous to civil and religious liberty, and that all such grants ought to be abolished." Mr. FEIiRAND moved that the petition which he had presented from the Dublin Protestant Operative As sociation b e pr i nted with the votes. Mr. AG LION B N Y moved, on L bAe half a of Mr. C. Buller, for copies of eor Sir R . PEEL " re.pondence connecte d w i t h N ew Z ea l an d. moved the order of the day fo r the second reading of the C o ll ege o f Maynooth Bill. P AROCHIAL SETTLEMENT. Sir J. GRAHAM, i n answer to Hon. Member, said he would postpone the int ro d uct i on of this Bill till Wedne s d a y next . Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice that he would upon that day move that the Parochial Settlement Bill be read that day six months. PORT NATAL. Mr. HINDLEY asked if the Government had yet appointed, or if they intended to appoint, a Governor ever Port Natal ? Mr. HOPE was understood to say that a Governor was about being appointed over Port Natal. reading, but would feel at liberty to take which course he thought fit upon the third reading. Sir 'l'. FREMANTLE said, though he understood the Hon. Gentleman intended to support the second reading of the Bill, he was desirous at that early period of offering a few ob servations to the House, and he hoped the House would indulge him for a short time. He could not pass by the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, for it appeared to him that the Hon. Gen tleman acted rather hastily upon his own impressions of wha the future policy of the Government with re sp ec t to Ireland would be, considering this Bill as the precursor of others which would follow. In looking narrowly into this question he telt, after the full and able exposition given of the measure and of the views of his Right Hon. Friend at the head of the Adminis tration, that he had little more to say in recommending the measure to the House. He wished, however, with reference to his own position and his own feelings, to state the grounds on which he entirely concurred in those views. The opposition to the proposed grant came from two sources, o n e f rom th ose w h o opposed it entirely on religious grounds, and.the other from those who opposed it cm what was called the voluntary prin ciple, and those who objected to any grant of public money in aid of Church matters. In regard to the first, he confessed that he could nut concur with them in thinking that this question ought to he viewed as a religious one. Undoubtedly it had been stated, and stated truly, that every act of a man's life ought to be subjected to moral and religious responsibility. But he could not see in what way religion was violated by voting for a measure of this kind. The Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hawes) had stated, and he ( Sir T. Fremantle) concurred with him, that this vote, whether it were passed, or whether it were refused, wou ld not encourage or discourage in the slightest degree the Catholic religion in Ireland. hey were dealing w i t h a popu l at i on o f between six and seven millions. Was it to be supposed that whether they gave a better or a worse education to the priest of Ireland the extension of the Catholic or the Protestant reli gion would be affected one way or the other? He could not understand hew the religious question had arisen, unless it were supposed that the effect of this grant would be to in duce those who are Protestants now to become Roman Catholics. He conceived, therefore, that he was perfectly justified with reference to all religious denominations, in voting as a matter of charity—as a matter of public expedi. eney—that this grant should be made. H e conce i ve d h e was justified in don g this without reference to any religious considerations whatever. His Hon. Fu iced, the Member for the University of Oxford, had brought this quostion home in a much more intelligible way, as he said that he would not consent to give anything to per,ons who taught that which was erroneous in doctrine. Now, the question was, w h e ther they could act on that principle or wh e th er th ey cou ld riot ? Now he did not think that his Hon. Friend himself could alto gether act upon that principle. Could he act upon that prin ciple in the situation of landlord, or guardian, or parent, or in any other relation in which he might be called upon to stand? Now his Hon. Friend proposed to leave a large population in Ireland without the means of religious instruction. The prin ciple wh:ch his Hon. Friend advocated had been violated in numerous instances. The statute-hook contained se veral enactments in which that principle had been violated. In the army estimates there was a distinct vote for the pay ment of Roman Catholic chaplains. Every military hospital was furnished with a Roman Catholic chaplain, if there were a sufficient number of Roman Catholic soldiers in the regiment to require his attendance. To that he thought that the Hon. Gentleman could not object. There was no religious prin ciple violated in the measure. There was no principle of the Protestant Church violated in the vote. With re gard to that portion of the question, it had been before advocated in that House. It had been advo cated in thu year 1808 by Mr. Tierney, and in language so much better than any he (Sir I'. Fremantle) could make use of, that he could not do better than quote it. In support of the grant to Maynooth, Mr. Tierney had said that they might make the Irish Catholics bad subjects—they might make them bad Catholics—they might make them bad Christians, but they could not make them Protestants, and that there was no effectual method of improving the condition of Ireland but by educating the Catholics. Mr. Grattan, who was also a most high authority on this subject, had said, in the same debate, that if they refused this grant they would be securing the ignorance of a great portion of the Roman Catholic clergy—that to secure religious conformity was impracticable, and that they would render the securing of political conformity equally impracticable if they were to refuse this vote. He concurred in these opinions, and he believed that the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend was not only justifiable in prriciple, but that it was absolutely just.—( Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend, in a former debate, had gone into the histbry of the system so fully, that it would be unnecessary for him (Sir Thomas Fremantle) to go over the same ground. They knew that the College of May nooth had been established by an Act of the Legislature, in 1795 ; that by another Act of the Legislature it had been re cognised, in 18.0; and that, as late as the year 1808, another Act of Parliament had not only acknowledged its existence, but had given it a firmer settlement, and had given the trustees of that College power to take and to hold larger quantities of land than they had been enabled to hold before. In addition to this the grant had been made uninterruptedly , till the present time. When they considered who had established the College it was rather too much to say that they should not continue the grant, and even extend it. All, he believed, were in favour of the principle of the grant.—( Cries of " Heat.") Ile believed that it was not denied that the number of Ro man Catholics had doubled in Ireland since the Union. In 1795 the Catholic population was estimated at four millions— it was now seven millions. There was another question—the question► of contract—upon which he wished to say a e very few words. It was only those who wished to shrink from the performance of a contract, who would first demand its produc tion.—( Hear, hear.) But there were agreements and under takings between men and parties which ought to be more bind ing than contracts. It should be recollected that the College of Maynooth was established and endowed by a Parliament which was entirely Protestant ; and it was established with the perfect understanding that the grant was to be permanent. It was also to be remembered that the Roman Catholics, since the Union, had exercised great influence upon Par liamentary questions. They had contributed to the carrying of the Reform Bill and other measures, and it could not be doubted that if the Parliament had con tinued in Ireland an enlarged grant would have been given be fore this to the Irish priesthood. He thought that they ought not to legislate for Ireland in an Irish sense.—( Hear, hear.) If the question touched any great subject connected with the 'in terests of the empire, they then should look upon it as an im perial question, but when it did not affect the interests of this country, they ought to view it as an Irish question, and they ought to deal with it as Irish Members. In support of that argument, he might refer to the contrast between the feeling in Ireland and that in England on this matter.—( Hear, Lear.) Though the table was covered with peti tions against the grant to Maynooth from England and Scotland, those from Ireland were very few, though there ex isted a strong feeling in Ireland against Catholicism, and a fear of Catholic ascendancy. He might also allude to the petition from one Presbyterian body in favour of the grant, which was presented by his Right Hon. Friend. If, then, there was no principle to be violated, and if it was but just that the vote should be made, it was easy to perceive that the policy which led to it was good. The existing want of everything necessary to keep up a great establishment had been depicted to the House over and over again, and had not been denied by any Member. His Right Honourable Friend was perfectly correct when he stated that they gave enough to prevent voluntary con tributions, but they did not give enough to keep up an institu tion. The allowance made was so inadequate that stu dents were very frequently obliged to leave the College before they had completed their academical course. He thought that it would be well worth the expenditure of a few pounds to introduce a better feeling in the breasts of those f amongst the Rom a n Catholics who could not leave the Co lle g e witho ut a feeling of degrada tion. He rejoiced that th is measure had been introduced by c existing he,r s rom the Opp os iti on . ) her Majesty's Governmen t, because he did think it would be a great means of removing some of th e many grievances of which the Irish people had to com p lain, and particularly those causes of o discontent thattryu.s—tly( e° u s n o justly It would also, he hoped, have the effect of inspiring the great majority of the people of that country with co n fid ence i n the existing Government—(Cheers)—for without that con fidence it was useless to hope that the existing Government could he upheld.—( Cheers from the Opposition benches.) No doubt, it would be very easy, if the exist ing Government did not choose to covet this con fidence, to send military troops, and enforce courts-martial in that country, to enforce obedience to the law ; but he would contend for it that such a mode of attempting to prevent eva sions of the laws, would never be successful in enabling the ex isting Government to carry on the business of the country.— ( Hear, hear.) Therefore, he must hold that, in order to con vince the Irish people that their confidence was sought, some such measure as this was necessary to be introduced.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) When once the people of Ireland saw that the intentions of the Government were conciliatory and honest, they would give them credit for meaning well towards them.--( Hear, hear.) But it would be unnecessary for him to follow this subject out any further. Already they saw many indications of improvement in Ireland. Railroad projects were now being extensively carried on in that country ; and he did hope they would prove to be but the forerunners of others still more extensive and beneficial. if topics of a' political character were not kept up as a means of preventing that union of inte rest as well as of affection which should ever exist between the two countries. Mr. FOX MAULE said, that he was perfectly aware that be could scarcely command the attention of the House at that hour, when more distinguished individuals were expected to address it, but he felt that it would be necessary for him to detain them for a very short time while he explained the rea sons why he intended to vote against the second reading of this Bill. He thought that the Right Hon. Baronet had notmade ont a case for the allowance of this grant, nor had he (Mr. F. Maule) heard from that (the Ministerial) side of the House one argument to disprove the saying of his Hon. Friend near him, that this measure had an ulterior object. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that his Hon. Friend had no right to make that supposition. He (Mr. F. Maule) would grant that the Right Hon. Gentleman was right in contradicting the line of *alignment advanced by his Hon. Friend, provided he had proved to the House that those anticipations were not well grounded. But he had not chosen to give his own friends or the House the smallest hint to guide them in this case.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. F. Maule) grounded his opposition to this Bill on the assumption that this was no final m easure—(Cheers) — but that there would be an ulterior course adopted which he could not and would not approve. He thought that no one could doubt, unless indeed the Right Hon. Baronet himself would, that there was a strong feeling in the public mind on this subject, and that the petitions which had bee n p resented to this Neuss did not emanate from any system of centralisa tion, but from the general feeling. That one which the Right Hon. Baronet had himself the other day presented was an ex ception to the rule, but it would have been the height of in gratitude if that petition had not been presented at that time. NVhy, those parties had a Bill of their own before that House last year, and the Roman Catholics of Ireland had presented numerous petitions in their favour. It would then have been the height of ingratitude if the Dis senters of Scotland had not come forward to support the R.iman Catholics upon this question. He hoped that the House would acquit him of all wish to discuss this question in. a spirit of hostility to the Roman Catholic people of Ireland. —( Hear, hear.) He would not enter into any religious dis pute whatever. He thought he had a right to discuss this as a political measure of the Government ; but in doing so it was impossible to avoid some reference to the effect of the measure upon the religious feelings of this country.— ([Tear, hear.) He maintained that the grant to Mayneoth was not a matter of contract. Look to the origin of the vote and you would find it originated in 1795 ; and he could not help thinking from all that he saw in the paltry grant of t4,000/.,that it was nothing more than a subscription on the past of the Government, at the time when they had granted to the people of Ireland the great boon of being allowed to establish an institu tion for the education of their own clergy. It was a boon to the people, to allow them to erect places where they could themselves educate their priesthood. . That was a boon worth the Irish people's receiving. But as that paltry grant was given then, and continued since, it was only meant as a bene volence of the Government, to assist the private benevolence of individuals. He was not prepared to discontinue the grant, and in voting for its continuance as it now was, he held that to be an entirely different question from that at present before the House. —(Hear, hear.) The question was not now whether they would continue the old grant, but whether they would convert it into a fixed and permanent endowment.—( Hear.) If the increase of the grant was even to be by an annual vote, he should not consider the question the same as the mere con tinuance of the old one. But that was a question not now before the House. He rested his position on this, that it was proposed to make an establishment for the education of the Catholic clergy of Ireland, bona fide in connexion with the State.....(Hear.) TILE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 15 1845. MEDICAL REFORM. Mr. MACAIJLAY asked when it was intended to brill; forward the second reading of the Bill on Medical Reform? Sir JAMES GHAEIAM said he hoped he would be permitted to forward he ill a stag© that evening and let the discussion be taken upon another occasion, as there was no objection to the principle of the Bill. Colonel T. WOOD hoped that the Bill would not he read a second time without discussion, as there were a great number of professional persons who were deeply interested in the Bill. Mr. HUME also hoped that the Bill would not be read a second time without discussion, as there was no other means by which the public and the profession could be made so well acquainted with the Bill. Mr. HAWES was understood to say that no prejudice would arise by allowing the Bill to be read a second time that night, and discussing it at a future stage. Mr. F. FRENCH said that as there did not appear to be any objection to the principle of the Bill, he did not see why they should not consent to the second reading. Mr. SHAW hoped the Bill would not be read a second time. The second reading was therefore postponed. GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. Mr. MASTERMAN presented petitions against the Maynooth grant. Mr. SPOONER presented thirty-eight petitions from Wesleyan congregations against the grant. Mr. LAMBTON presented a petition against the Bill. Mr. CH RIS'I'IE presented a petition to the same eff' et. Mr. CHU 1 E presented a petition to the same effeet. Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition to the same eff,et. Mr. COLE presented petitions to the same effect. Petitions against the Bill were presented by Cu!. T. Wood ; Mr. Blight (53) from various parts of the country ; Sir James Duke, from Boston ; Mr. T. Egerten, from Warwickshire ; Admiral Dundas. Mr. Kemide, from various parts of Surrey ; Mr. M6Kenzie, from Peebles ; Mr. Cobden, Mr. Mangles, from Guildf.rl ; Mr. S. Wortley, from Yorkshire ; Mr. Labouchere, from Taunton ; Colonel Wood, Sir John Eastilopr, from Leicester ; Mr. W. 0. Stanley. from .Anglesey ; Mr. Lockhart, from Edinburgh; Mr. Ricardo (10) ; Lord A. Lennox, from Chichester ; and Mr. Crawford (30), from different places in England, Scotland, and 'Jersey. Mr. S. O'BRIEN presented petitions from congrega tions of Dissenters in various parts of Northumberland, against the grant to Maynooth. Dr. BOYD presented a petition from Coleraine also against the ralit. Sir W. CLAY presented a similar petition from Dis senters in the Tower Hamlets. yV Mr. lIAWES presented a similar petition from Clapham. Sir C. BURRELL presented numerous petitions to the same effect from places in Sussex. Mr. HINDLEY presented one hundred and thirteen petitions, signed by all classes of Dissenters in all parts of the kingdom, against any endowment to the Ront2n Catholic College of Maynooth. Mr. PATTISON presented petitions to the same eft; et, from several congregations of ProVstant Dissenters in London ; and a similar petition from the managers of the Sunday school on Fish-street-hill. Mr. G. BANKS presented sixteen petitions to the same effect, from places in the county of Durham. Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from a con gregation in Hertford against the grant, and also a peti tion in favour of the grant from another body of Dis senters. Mr. lIHME presented petitions from Montrose and other places against the grant. Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from Halifax, Bristol, and several places in the counties of Gloucester and York, against the grant to Maynooth, and also a pe tition from the Presbyterian congregation of Carlow, in Ireland, against any connexion between the College of Maynooth and the State. Mr. GROGAN presented petitions from the parish of St. Nicholas Within, Dublin, and from the Protestant Operative Association against the proposed grant to Maynooth. Mr. FELLOWES presented petitions from four parishes in Huntingdonshire to the same effect. Captain FITZMAURICE presented four petitions from the Wesleyan congregations in Buckinghamshire against the grant to Maynooth. Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from the Presby terian congregation of Newington, iu favour of the grant to Maynooth. Mr. PUSEY presented four petitions from Berkshire, and Mr. Gitnsox presented four petitions from Man chester; against the proposed grant to Maynooth. MAYN OOTH —ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. HAWES rose to move that the adjourned debate on the increased grant to Maynooth be resumed. He said that the increasing number of petitions presented against this Bill, and the deep interest taken in the question out of doors, would warrant him in coming to the conclusion that this Bill was a measure which was looked upon by the public at large as one of great vital importance, and yet if it should be only looked at attentively, and re garded as a mere measure of educational improvement, he did think it would be found nut to furnish grounds sufficient to warrant the strong opposition that had been offered to it on the one hand, or the manner in which the proposition had been introduced or received on the other. Now, let him ask, what, in reality, was this Bill ? It was simply one providing for the better education of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and the better Government of the College of Maynooth. Now he did not think that because the Bill had been so introduced, it should necessarily be looked upon as a measure exclusively confining itself to ecclesiastical education.—(Hear, hear.) His own opinion was, that it extended to lay as well as clerical education, for :0 far as the Bill itself was concerned, it ap peared to him to he one fur the purpose of extend ing Irish education.—(llear, hear.) And, surely if Those who belonged to the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland had not been permitted to share in all those advantages of et!ticatioa so liberally extended to the people of England, the latter could scarcely find a just ground for objection on that score alone. That the state of the College and system of education of May• nooth were such as were not creditable to the Irish Roman Catholic body was scarcely to be wondered at when it was remembered that that state and system were ascribable to the fact that the Roman Catholics of Ire land had not hail the means of devoting to their colleges that attent on which their grievous position demanded. —(Hear.) It was true that in this country there were several colleges not supported by public grants, but yet were in a conition very different from that of Maynooth ; but that fact was owing to circumstances into'which he need not here farther enter.—:(Hear, hear.) Now, he conceived that the measure now before the House should be considered as one intended fer promoting and ex tending education generally in Ireland, and not for the promotion of ecclesiastical education exclusively. It might be, indeed, that this measure was the means of introducing the discussion of great and exciting topics on this subject ; but in this point of view he begged to say that he by no means joined in the "Ne-Popery" cry that had been raised by those who appeared willing to oppose every measure for the advancement of education that did not concur with their views. —(Cheers.) He said then with regard to this Bill, considered by itself, that he had all along voted for this grant, and spoken in favour of' it before the House, and he fully and entirely concurred in the Bill pro posed by her Majesty's Government. But still he could not help thinking that the subject had been en tirely altered by the speech of the Hen. Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone). That speech had change , i entirely the aspect of this question and called upon him for some remarks, remarks wholly unnecessary h not this speech been made. The Hon. Gentleman had belonged to a Government, and he yet belonged to a party, which all along had opposed any modification of the revenues of the Irish Church. Was he to under stand now that that Right Hon. Gentleman, so lately e member of a Cabinet opposed to all modification, and now belonging to a party advocating the same views— was he (Mr. Hawes) to understand, from his statement, that this Bill settled the religious question as re garded the endowment of the Roman Catholic Col lege of Maynooth. If the religious question were settled, then the political question might be con sidered settled also. Now he (Mr. Hawes) could not consent to any endowment of the Roman Catholic Church out of British funds, until, at least, the whole question of the Irish Church was brought fairly be fore the House. He was of opinion that some means might be adopted to render the efficiency of that Church more in accordance with the spirit and object for which it was supported. It could not be pretended that, as at present constituted, the Church' instructed the people ; and the usual argument that the alliance of the Church was valuable, as a medium of communication between the State and its sub jects was, in this case, completely disposed of. He thought, therefore, that if any grant were determined on, it should be taken out of the Irish Church property. He considered the question as having been materially altered. Taking into consideration the written speech made last year by the Right lion. Baronet, he could not help feeling that this was only the precursor of a much more important and extensive measure.—(hear, hear.) And, under these circumstances, he thought it right to state that he could not consent to the ultimate mea sures, unless they were to look at the property of the Established Church as the source (with due re spect, of course, to existieg interests) whence provision should be made fur the Catholic Church. He would frankly state the course which he meant to take with reference to this Bid. Ile would not vote against the second reading. lie would vote for going into Com mittee. There he would support the motion of his lion. Friend the Member for Sheffield and should take the li berty of making two propositions, of which he wouldgive notice. He thought the grant ought to be annual and subject to the control! of Parliament, and ought'not to be accompanied by any provision for the mockery of visitation which at present existed. Sir J. GRAHAM said the mode of visitation proposed in the Bill was different frem that which at present es isted. Mr. HAWES proceeded to say the t he objected to the provision for Maynooth in its present condition. For forty-five years it had been subject to annual discussion, and ho thought the public mind had been rather benefited than injured by these dis cussions. Suppose, for a moment, that the proposition of the Hon. Member fur Sheffield should be negatived, and that he should fail in making it an annual vote, he would consider himself at liberty to take any course he might think proper. If he gave his vote on this measure as it stood, he feared he should be sanctioning the future policy which the present Government might think fit to adopt with re gard to the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland. It vrould in fact, be considered neither more nor less than a vote of confidence in her Majesty's Govern ment, with respect to their future government of t s o h a c d o o n w fi e d d e fo i r n t h th t e h m a . t h o did i f d e s se not d hoep oppose Ireland ; and th at p o li cy was so d ar kly a n d suspiciously policy s e o d f u th o e t the Government, because it was calculated to encourage the Roman Catholic religion, because he, with a large number of Protestant Dissenters, whom he knew, were disposed to concur in the resolution which had been come to by the Scotch Protestant Dissenters in • Edin burgh on this point. He would vote for the second Was that principle consistent with what they had done in other cases ?—( Hear.) They had introduced also another principle into the grant by taking the Irish Catholic Church into connexion with the State, without reserving to the State any controul over the new establishment.—( Hear. ) Was that the principle on which they had proceeded in other matters?— (Cheers.) It was not—and he stood there as an example of the opposite principle.—(Hear, hear.) When he came to the House with petitions and claims of right, from the Presby terian people of Scotland, setting forth the privileges to which they considered themselves entitled by ancient statutes, and by the articles of union—when he claimed that they should have in the Scotch Church the management of their own spiritual welfare and should not be interfered with by the State—he was told by Gentlemen who supported the measure now, that the claim was monstrous and inconsistent to have a Church in connexion with the State, over which the State should have no control. That was the case with the Scotch Church ; and four hundred of her most active ministers, and nearly a million of her most faithful people were driven from her pale. —( Hear. hear.) flow then could Gentlemen opposite come forward now to ask him, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, to support them, on public grounds, in a measure for placing the Roman Catholics in connexion with the State in respect to en dowment, not under the control of the State ?--( Cheers.) If they were right in this case, how unjust had they been in the case of the Scotch Church?—( Hear ) if they were right in that case, how could they turn round now, and take the oppo site course ?—( Hear, hear.) He understood the course of the Government as little as he understood the advice of the Right Honourable Baronet opposite to Irish landlords — advice, however, in which he (Mr Fox Maule) concurred—to give sites for the building of houses of worship. and of schools, and to assist their tenantry in the education of their clergy? Was it the intention of the Right Honourable Baronet to ad vise a member of his own Cabinet, sitting in the other house, to act in the same spirit towards his poor tenaritry in Scotland ? —,Cheers.) Was it the intention of the Right Honourable Baronet to remonstrate with that Member of his own Govern ment for refusing his poor tenants a site for building a place of meeting, for which they were willing to pay, or to allow them even to assemble on a corner of the old moor—so that they were compelled to inert for prayer upon the Sabbath at the place where three r ads met ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) The name was familiar to the Right Honourable Baronet.—( Hear, hear. ) But it was said that the Parliament ought to take compassion upon Irish roverty. He did not know that. They were told that there were eight millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland ; and he did not think that they ought to be behind band with the seten or eieht hundred thousand Presbyterians of the Free Church of Scotland, who were thrown upon their own resources, and in the last two years had erec:ed six hun dred chapels, and had raised a sum of hOO.OOO/. for various ecclesiastical purposes.—( Hear, hear.) No one would say that the members of the Free Church were of the richer class in Scotland, on the contrary they were of the poorer. Now he believed that no people held their religion more dear than the Catholics of Ireland, and he would say to them, „ instead of coming here for this endowment, you should follow the ex ample of the Scotch Presbyterians, and we will assist you, by repealing still further the Mortmain Act—and then you will be far more respected in this country than by coming here for an endowment."—( Hear, hear.) But they had heard a very extraordinary statement as to the condition of the Col lege, which they were told was so wretched as to call for legislative relief. But, last year. a countryman of his went over to Maynooth, and visited the College ; and he has published his opinion of its condition and arrangements—ln. meant Mr. James Grant. That gentleman de-criOed the situa tion of the place and its nature, and then went on to describe the interior. He said that all the arrangments were excellent, and well adapted to the purposes of such an institution. The young men were well fed, comfortably lodged, and cleanly clad. Mr. SHEIL—Oh ! that was a Scotchman's opinion.— (Immense laughter.) Mr. F. MAULE—It was the opinion of a Scotchrnan who was very hospitably received, and had every opportunity of jedging of what he described.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Grant did not write fike one who was actuated by a hostile spirit.— But from his description of the condition of the student, it seemed questionable that the statements the House had re ceived the other night were not in some degree overcharged.— ( Hear, hear.) With regard to the conciliation of this measure, he world say, that only two years ago, the Right Hon. Baronet told the House that conciliation had reached its ut most limits towards Ireland.—(Cheers.) This was one of the concessions which always came from the Right Hon. Baronet's party—and which always came too late.— ( Cheers ) Mr. O'Connell denied the conciliation, and thanked them for no more than the posses-ion.—( Hear, hear.) He said that he would go on with agitation until he got all that he wanted.—( Hear.) If they wished to conciliate, they ought to have done so in some way that would not excite the religious feelings of the people of this country.—( Hear.) For his part he was disposed to do justice to Ireland in the fullest sense of the word. But he would ask, was there no op portunity of doing so in matters in which the people of Eng land might have looked on as impartial judges in their poli tical character?—(Cheers. ) Was there no franchise in which concession to Ireland would create no religious rancour in Eneland ?—( Cheers.) What became of the zeal of the Right Hon. Baronet, when he passed over the franchise, which they might have proposed to equalise, and in which he, for one, would assist them with a liberal hand ?—( Cheers. ) There were other questions on which they could have laid their hands without violation to any religiou's feeling.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the Right Hon. Baronet could not allow this debate to close without stating explicitly whether the measure was intended as a prelude to the endowment of the Catholic clergy as a body.— ( Cheers.) He could not under stand how, after their conduct on the question of the Church of Scotland, they could propose to endow the Church of a different religion in a neighbouring country, and exclude the interference of the State. That would be an act of injustice to the whole hotly of the Dissenters in this country. For his part, he had always opposed the principle, and although he was a member of the Church of Scotland, and was a friend to Church extension, when Dr. Chalmers, ten years ago (in 1835), was making great efforts for that object, he at that time opposed a public grant, on the grounds of his present opposition to the measure before the Home—( Hear, and cheers) and whether from such an accidental union as that of the Right Hon. Member for Oxford, or from any other motive, he could succeed in stopping this Bill, he knew not. But this he knew, that the proposal would not allay agi tation in Ireland, whilst it had raised, up an agitation in Eng land to feelings of bitterness which it would take no small time to allay.—(Cheers. ) A great number of Members rose at once to speak, amidst great laughter, and it took the Speaker some seconds to decide that his eye had first been caught by Lord CASTLEREAGH, who said that as he was desirous of addressing the House upon this question, he was glad to rise after his Hon. Friend the Member for Perth, to whom he was extremely sorry he should be opposed; although he must also say that he was not so opposed to his Hon. Friend in any spirit of party.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend had alluded to a petition which had been presented in favour of the Bill from a body of Presbyterians in his (Lord Castlereagh's) county, and he ( Lord Castlereagh) was glad to have an opportunity of bear ing testimony to their high religious character and liberality. With reference to the question, the House or the country had no right to declaim for being taken by surprise. He (Lord Castlereagh) and his friends were prepared for some great measure being proposed for Ireland, and it was his astonish ment to find that this, the first one, was so exceedingly trifling. They had discussed his grant for fifty years. For fifty years it had been the unceasing cause of squabble and noise, and they had come down to the House with various feelings, but the great feeling that prevailed was, that the Irish people never thanked them for their parsimony ; they gave them 9.0001 , but they gave it to them gradually, and they did net thank them. He was glad that the first thing done in this rnea• ure was the setting at rest the question of whether the grant was to be continued or Lot. When that was the question, he voted against the grant, but not against his Catholic fellow countrymen, fcr Heaven knew that the first time he spoke in that House, he addressed it in the cause of his Roman Catholic fellow countrymen. He did not see what harm the emancipation had done them, or how it led to agitation. He was not one of those who believed that repeal was a re ligious question. Whether they had already reaped the fruits of that measure or not—and he was of opinion that they had— they would yet know that the boon they had given to the Irish could not be forgotten, and, sooner or later, they would reap sufficient advantage. The people of England were peculiarly jealous upon the subject of what he might call the "No Popery" cty. The petitions presented to Parliament would show the feeling of the people; but he thought it was the duty of the Government, under such circumstances, to temper the feeling, and to lay a broad foundation of justice, whereon to build a superstructure of good government.—( Chee-s. ) They should not yield to the pressure without; if they did, they would have yielded long ago to the Anti-Corn-law League; nor would they have resisted the repeal agitation, which, he was sorry his fellow-countrymen paid too much attention to. It was the duty of the Minister to temper such a feeling without laying aside his own intention, and a good intention of carrying out a beneficial measure. Honourable Members were pursuing a consistent course in opposing everything like concession to the Roman Catholics—they were afraid of Popery. He (Lord Castlereagh) thought that the experience of twenty years, and the information received from those who would bring forward their conscientious opinions in a Court of Justice, would have removed such prejudices.--(Hear.) He and his colleague received a requisition, signed by several young gentlemen of property in the county of Down, which he had the honour to represent. •It was signed by many of his earliest and best friends, who entreated himself and his colleague to give oppo sition to the Bill of the Hon. Baronet. A letter from a friend of his characterised the measure as one calculated to bring down national judgments upon them. He, however, had a duty to perform, irrespective of his constituents, and if they thought he acted wrong they could visit him with the conse quences of their displeasure. He deeply regretted this agita tion which had sprung up in England, at the head of which were many great names. He saw Exeter Hall again in the throes of childbirth—(Laughter) —and he saw placards and processions parading the streets because they were going to give a few pounds, as his Hon. Friend had said; but ho would say a sufficiently increased grant to the institution of Maynooth. He was not going to enter into a theolo gical discussion concerning the doctrines that were taught at Maynooth. He was not a Guy Fawkes or a Peter Dens ; but he woulersay that this grant was liberally proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet, who was not slightly abused or criticised in that House for the measure which he had the manliness to bring forward. When he first saw the flirtation between the Hon. Member for Oxford, the representative of the chivalry of his party and the beauty of Young England, he did not think that such an alliance would produce fruit—he was of opinion that it would be a spawn.—( Laughter.) He regretted to hear the caustic and sarcastic remarks of the Hon. Member fur Shrews bury, who he was sorry was not now in his place. Ile re gretted to perceive that his talents were used on the wrong side; he wished that he was raising his banner cry for, instead of against, them. In contradiction to the Hon. Gentleman he should say that they owed Catholic Emancipation to the Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, and to his coadjutor in the Howse of Lords. He regretted to hear the im putations which were east on the Right Hon. Baronet, and he could not help thinking that there was some remembrance, some deep sorrow hovering over the mind of the Hon. Gentleman, when he look e d aout and did not see the Member for Dublin in his place. It had been said by the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury that he should not have opposed this grant if it was brought in by the Members opposite. There was always an opinion, whether right or wrong, that Lord Melbourne's Government were more or less under the dictation er subservient to Mr. O'Connell. He (Lord Castlereagh) did not think that the Chapels' Dissenters Bill would have been carried but for Mr. O'Connell —( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. D'lsraeli) said that he looked with distrust at any measure coming from the Government, as they were not the people to give it, and he for one should oppose it. He could not, therefore wonder at his (Lord Castlereagh's) telling him that b e should' be rather jealous of any measure coming from the other side of the House, for he should not believe that it was through a spirit of conciliation or concession that it would be introduced, but under the dictation of Mr. O'Connell and his party. He was sorry for detaining the House so long, but he thought it necessary, as an Irish Mem ber, to address the House in approval of the measure, and he hoped and trusted that the Right Hon. Gentleman would go on in the career which he had adopted—( Hear, hear)—and if by the dictation of any party he should be left in a minority, he felt convinced that he could assure them that there would be found many by his side who would cheer him and share his fall ; and who would suppott his measures whether he was on this side of the House or the other. He would conclude by referring to a sentence in a pamphlet, written by a gentleman in that House, which contained much better language than he could express, and which said that it would be very sanguine to ex pect that Ireland should be incorporated in feeling or in laws with the rest of the empire, until they had laid a foundation broad and deep on which a superstructure of conciliation arid a union ef genuine cordial feeling should be built. A Mitoster who would attempt that would be conscientious of the great duty which he had performed. and would eejoy the sympathy of all that eas wise and good, and his memory would be at tended with that favour which crowns the benefactor of his country.—( Cheers ) The O'CONOR DON said, that so cordially:did he agree with the observations which came from the Noble Lord who had just sat down, that he brought down the pamphlet referred to for the purpose of quoting the same latiguage. It was said by an Hon. Member that he wishe I that this should be dealt with as an Irish question. If it were to he considered as an Irish question, he believed that an immense majority of the Irish people would he found to vote in accordance with the proposnion of the Right lion. Baronet. He was anxious to rise to answer a question proposed by the Honourable Member for Shrewsbury, who called upon them to repudiate the mea sure proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet. He (the O'Conor Don), for one, was dispesed to accept cordially the proposition, feeling, as he did, that it was one involving in itself the educa tion of a portion of the Irish people, and enhanced as it was in value by the manner in which it was introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet. He said that it was to be received in three ways : it was turned by the Honourable Member for Shrewsbury into that. ridicule aria sarcasm with which, in his opi nion, he was too conversant, but he did not for one moment venture to grapple eith the arguments made use of. He frequently -aid " this is the. euestien," but the question it self he totally avoided. The question was this, what was to be done with May nooth ? Was the grant to be discontinued, was it to be continued as it then was, or was it to be in creased? Could it be discontinued under present circumstances, and the state of feeling in Ireland, where there existed so much dissatisfaction? Where was the Government that would not remove one more element ef dissatisfaction ?—(Cheers. ) There could no doubt exist in the mind of any one as to the success of this measure. Was there any principle against the grant ? If there were, in what did it consist? It appeared that the principle was against that which would be sufficient— namely, 25,0001., but there was no principle violated in grant ing 9,0001. The principle in both cases was the same, in his opinion. In 1808, there was an increase proposed by a Pro testant Parliament, and yet no person accused them of yielding one principle which involved the principles of the Protestant Church. It was a principle recognlzed in all the colonies—in every one of them—( Hear, hear)—and was that princi ple to be objected to now in a case where Trelandwas to be con cerned ?—( Cheers. ) The interests of Ireland were as inti mately connected with this country, as the interests which ,t - ere more distant. As it was already thought advisable that that grant should be continued in Ireland, so ought sufficient be granted for the purposes for which it was made. The question was, whether the professors received an amount ade quate to their instructions, sufficient to induce them to spend the whole of their lives in teaching for the sum of 931. a year. There was one reason put forth for opposing it, which was the principle of those who would object to all establishments what ever. How was it that their indignation was only called forth when Iceland was brought under their consideration? When it was proposed to give anything to Ireland, then came forth that which would, at the other side of the water, be considered an anti-Irish feeling—(Hear, hear)—and which he regretted because he wished to see both countries on the best terms. He thought that it ought not to be considered an ecclesiastical en dowment, but an educational endowment. It ought not to be considered as a junction with the State. for he believed that a great many Irish Roman Catholics would object to it, but they would not object to a grant. to that College which would enable the members of that College so discharge the dutiesthey had to per form with advantage to the country. The Member for Newcastle objected seemingly to the grant on the ground that the profes sors were incompetent to teach, and that they were men of no education. He instanced the evidence of Dr. Cullen, to the effect that he did not know of the existence of the sixth boric of Euclid. Euclid was not the book taught at Maynooth, but there was a system used there of the science as it was taught by the Abbe Dare, and which was laid down by Fi ench mathematicians of the highest eminence. The substance of his (the O'Conor Don's) information was to the effect, that this man so vilified, so misrepre sented, so stigmatized, and branded as ignorant, was one of the most distiuguishsd men in the literary and scientific world in this day. He was eminent by his researches in the phenomena of galvanism and electricity, and his name was widely known and appreciated. The 11 , n. Memb-r for Newcastle had referred to the communications which had passed between the Court of Rome and the Trill Catholic ecclesiastics. He (the O'Conor Don) might be al lowed to make one short observation upon that subject. He would merely say that those hulls, no matter how numerous they were, were of no validity in temporal or civil matters ; and he would, with the permission of the House, exemplify this very shortly. When this country was threatened by the Court of Spain, and the formidable Armada was ap proaching its shores, then, notwithstanding the bulls promulgated by the Pope, the Roman Catholics in this country offered to serve in the foremost ranks, for her whom they declared to be their rightful and beloved Queen. The subiocts of Ireland could not be loyal to her Majesty without, at the same time, being loyal to her sub jecte It was said that 'eer Majesty intended to visit Ireland this year. He hoped it might be so. Englishmen had the advantage of her residence among them. Scotland had been honoured by her visits ; and now he trusted that Ireland would be similarly honoured, and certain he was that there she would be enthusiastically welcomed. Some Hon. Gentleman had said that they post poned Catholic questions until their boons were valueless, for the grants had become a neeess:ty, and the same Hon. Members again came forward and questioned the Right Hon. Baronet in such a guise that it was quite impossible for him to answer them. The questions answered themselves. He was glad, however, to find that, on his side of the House, the Noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), forgetful of his pary feeling and, on the other side, the Right Honourable Baronet, both concurring in carrying out this measure of justice towards Ireland. He would give his cordial support to the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet. Mr. LEFROY would give his vote against the second read ing of this measure, and he was anxious to do so in a manner the least calculated to give offence to the Right Hon. Baronet, or to any other. Hon. Member. He was the more anxious to explain his reasons, as on this question he should be opposing a Ministry whose general line of policy he had supported. He gave full credit to the Right Hon. Baronet for his desire to ad vance the best interests of the country, but in this case he thought he was opposed to the generally expressed opinion of the entire country.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The argument advanced by the Right Hon. Baronet see me d to him (Mr. Lefroy) particularly strange. He argued that, be cause the present system worked badly in the College of May nooth, they should try what the mere effect of pounds, slid- Hugs, and pence could do. He ( Mr. Lefroy) objected to this grant on two grounds ; the first, because it interfered with the theory and practice of their present Constitution ; and he objected to it on a religious ground, a lth oug h h e di d not mean to discuss this as a religious questi on . H e would put it to any man whether this grant to a Roman Catholic church was not against both the spirit and the letter of the Protestant Constitution? Whether it was not an express violation of the declaration signed by. the Sovereign of these realms? The Hon. Member for Newark had spoken very plausibly in favour of this measure. The Right Hon Gentleman had re corded his opinions upon the same subject, and it was but fair that the Members of that House should compare the two opi nions. (The Hon. Member then quoted from Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet, in which he strongly objected to the grant to Maynooth.) He should oppose the second reading of this measure. Col. T. WOOD said that he perfectly concurred in the propriety of the measure proposed by the Right Hon. Baro net, and he would state the grounds on which he intended to vote for it. The Hon. Member who had last spoken, had founded his opposition upon a religious principle. But he did not agree with Hon. Members that this measure would be an invasion of the rights of the Church of England. Let it be recollected that, by the Emancipation Act, every subject of the kingdom. to whatever creed belonging, was placed on terms of equality with his fellow man, in regard to the enjoyment of civil rights.—(Hear, hear.) It was true that that measure made an exception in favour of the Pro testant religion, so far as the successi'm to the English Crown ; but, while the English monarch would bo certain to uphold the dignity of the English Crown, the civil rights of the subjects should not be lost sight of. —( Hear, hear.) It wss upon those grounds that he felt disposed to give his vote in favor of the measure —( Cheers ) He would al-o give his vote in favour of it, because he did think the Government of this country were bound to provide a suitable education out of the revenues of the S'ate for the Irish people.—( Cheers. ) Let it be recollected that the Roman Catholic priests were the instructors of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland ; that the peop'e were necessarily thrown upon their clergy for advice and counsel, when they had none else to look to in a country long known as suffering from an absentee proprietary.— (Cheers.) In addition to this, let it be also borne in misel that hitherto the Catholic people of Ireland not only supported their own clergy, but were compelled by law to support the ministers of a religion which was not the religion of t h e ma jority of the Irish people.—(Cheers.) He would contend for it that this was a measure of justice that should of necessity have followed a measure of last session—he meant the Catholic Beqaests Act, and one which would tend more to promote the peace and welfare of Ireland, than any ether measure that could possibly be introduced.—( Hear, hear.) He would sup port this measure because it showed that some real attention was devoted to the state of Ireland by the Government since they came into office • and it should be admitted that the s t ate of that country for the past two years was unparalleled in the history of civilization. He regretted that the Roman Catholic priests should have taken part in the great political movement to which he alluded; but he did not mean to say it was the speeches delivered at their meetings, so much as the whole movement itself that made ar, impression upon the minds of the people.— (Hear, hear.) Now he would ask the house, in what manner would they be prepared to meet the agitation again, should it be renewed? Were they prepared to meet it by coercion and martial law, or by means of conciliation ?---( Hear, hear.) He would say they should meet it by conciliation alone; for if they tried coercion, and succeeded by that in promoting a temporary peace, still they would find at the end that conciliation alone would do.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) He felt pain at being compelled to differ upon this question from many for whom he entertained the highest esteem ; but still he would say that if it had the effect of conciliating Ireland he would not regret it.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) If this measure should have the effect of invalidating the claims or stability of the Established Church in Ireland, he would rather resign his seat into the hands of those who had honoured him with their confidence, than vote for it ; but he could not see how the en dowment by the State of the Roman Catholic Church in Ire land could have such an effect.—(Loud cheers.) In fact, Ireland was the only part of the world in which it was found that two Churches of opposite creeds could not exist in harmony and peace with each other.—( Hear.) Might they, then, not hope that the time was not far distant when they should see as happy a state of things in Ireland, and was it not the duty of the State to endeavour to achieve it 2—( Cheers from the Opposition.) It had been said that by this measure the Government would be only arming the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland with new weapons against the Protestant Church ; let them rather hope those clergymen would use their newly-acquired power in furtherance of renewed efforts at the suppression of crime and vice.—(Loud cheers.) The Ho nourable Member then sat down, whereupon, as upon every similar occasion during the evening, at least twenty Members rose at once, each endeavouring to catch the Speaker's eye, but Si: C. NAPIER having succeeded, he said he would not have presumed to have taken any part in the discussion this evening, but that he wished to set himself right with his con stituents, under all the circumstances, for giving his vote in favour of this measure.—( Hear, hear. ) He regretted that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, had not deemed it expedient to persevere with his motion, and take a clear vote of the House upon it, for he knew many Hon. Members who -would have supported him, in opposition to what they conceived to be an obnoxious measure. However, he had perhaps, after all, acted a discreet part in postponing it ; and when he did bring it forward, he (Sir C. Napier) hoped to see him do so in a way that would not cruse the motion to be thrown out altogether. He (Sir C. Napier) also regretted that the forms of the House would not permit him to bring forward a more moderate amendment than that of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, in the event of his failure, fur, if they did, he would move that it should be an instruction to the Committee, that in any Protestant parish in Ireland where it should appear that there were only four, or less than four, Protestants, that all the income and emoluments arising from such parishes should be applied to a fund for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth—(Hear, hear.) However, if the Honourable Member for Sheffield . should not succeed in carrying, his motion, then be Charles Napier) would suppi rt the Treasure the Governeittot.—(Cheers from the Opposition. ) He fe lt that in d sing this he would he giving offence to a great numb"' of his constituency. who felt very strongly on this q uestiol; but rimy, iihstandii g that, he would ever go straightforward lo the support of even measure that he considered just, and ftir; and reasonable.—( Cheers. ) When he considered the pre_en state of Ireland (though, at present, there was no need to ap; prehend a war with Ame r ic a ), yet, he would ask. Ras Just the time !o throw a firebrand into that country'?—(" e " -) Sine, this measure had first heen Lard of one that was in tended to be laneugle forward by the Gevetnment—t t h e , tb . er ise yor trot, was not fir him now to question—he wo uld , • t that had been looked forward to with so much anxiety, Hui, the rejection of it stow would have the effect of placing I relatto in a wo-se position th..n ever.—( Hear, hear.) He et a c° ," ceiv, , that this eountry was bcurid by every tie to conciliate tut In h people. He was not the man to encourage Continents, Cathelie ' , unifies to excite Catholic Ireland against Pro testant _ England—(Hear)—but he would ask, would it not be wise 1° to give the Irish people any excuse fix any other counts y against this?—( Hear, hear.) He had ho t . much from the Hon. Member fir Oxford that he regre ! ted t° have heard ; but he would recommend that Hon. Member to deliberate well upon the course he was pursuing, because jr land, in time of peace, was not to be quieted but by kin''cestle and conciliation, and if she were not conciliated, in ti me ht war she might become dangerous.—( Hear, hear.) He be told that it would be folly to attempt to invade Irelan d ; those who said so in ht be mistaken. He had heard of the French Government sending out e n o r mou s vessels to all 1 0, 4 cf the world ; and let it not he forgotten that Ireland would et one time have been successfully invaded under Napoleon, lcsh for the disobedience of his admirals. He saw, by th e se t i g l paper he had received to-day, that several enormous ships not been built in that country, intended for foreign stations; het o n having answered the purpose, they were about to be converted i 17 . steam war vessels, each containing 9 ,009 men, and well e a r culated for the service for which they were intended.—( Hee i hear.) On those grounds, then, he would say, make Irelen_ happy and contented, and he would defy the world to r e v ; duce more brave and loyal subjects.—(Cheers.) If they "' b r at treated in a contrary spirit, then it was impossible to say w st might be the result. Nothing was more likely than tilt', foreign Catholic nation should be roused against Engh leu i and then if the Catholic people of Ireland, or a great portieto them should join that country, see what a position Erig. e i n .. would be in by having her best subjects severed from her bLe justice and discontent.—(Cheers ) The proposition of ~A Government was no new question. The Legislature el; already established the precedent for voting a portion of public money to the education of Roman Catholic priests, a rl .o therefore, it was only carrying out that principle to ine rt, the amount.__( Hear.) He was surprised to hear the °e, Member for Oxford argue against this, for surely , if men A were well educated, it would be much more easy for ` i , e te to see into the true lights of the Gospel, than if the! "s e t badly educated.—( Cheers.) This country had been trying the last three hundred years to make Ireland a Protest/et nation—(Cheers)—anti as they had not succeeded, to w • s , them try to conciliate them by making them better Catholleo —(Cheers.) He did think that this was the first step tow i er , oo an act of justice towards the Trish people, and coming ",,w, an opposition Government, call it what they would. Co nser e, tive or Tory, he was glad to see it. It did them great cc and he would give it his strongest and warmest support. , rb e Mr. S. O'BRIEN then rase to address the House• ors question of the Endowment of the Irish Church could not the he passed by ; it must new be stated in what manner so Catholic clergy were to be paid, and from what fund• Ac ing isolated question, he considered the present measure a n r , nio but a boon. The worst kind of education was that o,„"roas taught its pupils that which could do them no good. r ese nt what had already taken place, he could only consider the P r e t o as part of a great measure. There was no one more e°,o to act straightf trward than himself. He believed th at Noltle Lord the Member for London, if he had brougLt t7O, ward this measure, he would have been justified in do ing and would not have violated any principle he had hitherto feseee ; but could that he said of the Right Hon. Ber° lle , i 'sric ( Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dl' ewes ' had stated that England and Scotland were against the %el sure. He mieht with eq al truth have stated that the Prot es of Ulster Was also against it —( Hear.) For his own Pa r tens Inns' eonf,s, after giving the measure the best consider o ld in his power, he could not give his consent to it He r roe ask this question. suilio , ing the Noble Lord, the Membe for London, sitting on that side of the House, had brought that ward the measure, would it have rec. iced the sanction ° f te risi House? and would thoae who now sit on the M itn 'ese e benches, if they had supported it, at a new election 0 .) come hack with the majority they now had ?—(C h .,,, e r fer, H. feund in the course that the Right Hon. Mei n " - mo o ed Newark had pursued, a warrant for the course he felt h°,,4 to sdept ; he believed th-t the rea-ons that had been ll r r,l in favour of the Bill were extremely erroneous, a nd n i ° o it all caleu'aeed to carry it into effect. They might dis e ,g li t helie as they would, but there was an allegiance in the 'e s ' et elf priests to a Foreign Power, that would t ip on r - ere , be dangerous to this country. He did not blame the 0° t ee mert for bringing forward this measure, he did not bletl k be Right Hon. Baronet for its introduction, nor did he ti n n ed; was to be charged with inconsistency in bringing it fori"ei he, however, co u ld no t g i ve hi s su pp or t to a measure wh ißs e) considered tended to shake confidence in public inen.- 4 ,„ 0 0 s He believed that upon this subject there was out of on - lest general distrust of that House, which he would be °lll party to lend himself to increase. For these reasons he • not support the motion. At least twenty Members rose to address the House , b uttes Speaker called upon riot Mr. WYNNE, who said that the Hon. Member W o ol' thampton had alluded to the names Whig and TOY, e n o e ars', ing that the principles of each party had changed of /at' 3' 11 Now he was one who had never assumed the name of 1 1;10 he had done so, he should say that the course of events of t ot, forty or fifty years, during which he had been in Par lis bee° had been sufficient to convince him -that that party ban g the mistaken.—( Cheers.) He had seen the Whigs me,, ge repeal of the Septennial Act, and the Tories resisting I"__air had seen on the ccca'ion of the Regency Bill the Tories o' tea taining the right of that House to provide absolutely f er bo tl, care of the Government, and the Whigs, on the other It bad hina db that t r h e He the rotou s eb } : e adoptedTach-ijts, contending for the right of the heir apparent to do s ° . been said t w ha it t h th th is e Bill, eehr w as s w e h w ic h h ich the Tory party. Was it not consistent with the course adoPos by the Right Hon. Gentleman consistent with the course adopted during the whole al/ litical life by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. " 1. . 0 -s ates who sat near him? Was it not consistent with th e H one adopted by the Noble Lord who had lately left tha t (Lord Stanley)? With respect to himself (Mr. WYe2.iel be ; be was proud to say, that during the forty or fifty years 11 1 0 0' had had a seat in Parliament, he had uniformly suppo rte sores of this character.—(Cheers. ) H e remembered "P in this question was first debated in that 1 100ie b , 1807 or 1603, that the grant to the College of Alayn ot ". supported with the view of drawing close the ton ne= teat this country with Ireland. At that time they kne,elbe Bounaparte had tried, by every temptation, to induce woe tholic priests to go over to France. He offered to , sta e schools and institutions for them, but the offer vvasrefuselteet refused most faithfully and generously. He should m e . de that he had been much surprised at hearing, through th e bate, Mr. Burke quitted as an authority against such Wool; as this, which had been proposed by th e p rese nt Gove r %e , Only two sentences had been quoted, from the 0 1 0 rd she , Mr. Burke, in proofof Mr. Burke's opi n ion s being egaat'(qlo grant to Maynooth. Instead of these two sentences be m , r vt , Wynne) wield have referred to the bulk of 1% n t eti' writings, for there it would have been found that the a t ee gli tion of Maynoooth was one w hi c h h a d been ° tr. ' SS supported by that great man —( Hear, bear.) w heo ( Air. Wynne) recollected that Lord Fitzwilliamt o res. Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, recommended from the throodge, endowment of Ma}nnoth ; and his successor, Lord C a fe s i dwelt, in hi s speec h a t t h e c l ose o f t h e sess i on , o n the ' S u e his having laid th e f oun d a ti on o f th e C o ll ege . He d' o4 .„, t e seli , this tact n ot as havinglaid the foundation stone, by `7lor smearing the s'one over with mortar, but as showing s fist s sition, on the p ar t o f th e G overnmen t, to su pport end c e stri such an instituti on . The s am e v i ew was t a k en up by 0 1 1:4 to which the Hon. Gentleman (Mr O'Brien) belong! •Dfr. Mr. Pitt, by Lord Castlereagh, and by Lord c oe s t waill'gse' Pitt hart sta.ed in that House, that the establishment 0 ' c ool, nooth would be the means of uniting the tys° e ) di e s tries. in considering this question, he (Mr. g r Yn - e ee", no' look to what was the intern-t of the country fifty y 0 ago, but what was the interest of the country at the n e 90 0 time. He felt that the; Bill would confer great ben e t ,, g l3iP the country to which it was intended to apply. IP st etsif would, to a vertaie extent, do away with the voluntary' Onion and on that ground he supported it. The effect of the sa d e' tary system w a s to m a ke the pri es ts th e f o llowers in s f e d bi the leaders of the people. Where a priest was streP e t ree% the coon ibution from the parish, there would be s f te e temptation for him not to run counter to the wish e° , ° wit's parishioners. He remembered the case of a pri es re the, 'f having denounced from the altar certain parties who ~.- e f ov, leaders of some public disturbance, was deprived of hisilisb) , contributions. He (Mr. Wynne) thought that hi s so d O . , Hon. Friend was entitled to great credit for the Ma n " ? ' courageous manner in which he had brought for war d the` measure, and he holed, and had the fullest confiden c \ he would carry it to a successful termination.—(Cbe e t i e Mr. COWPER, who was very indistinctly heard in t o r. lery, said he was anxious to state the grounds on which 0 7,bicP ported this me'asure. He thought that all the objectiene " had been urged to it had centred in religious grounds., 0 0 thought that any other objection which might be urge h ", t ee hardly worth debating. and he was confirmed in this vie w , j speech of the Hon. Member for Newcastle( Mr.Colquhono/0' ber (Mr. Cowper) agreed both with the Hon. Baronet the It'. for Oxford and the Hon. Member for Kent, in their ° P l eb with respect to Protestantism. But, although he a greed % t ee great portion of their premises, he could not come to the conclusion which they had done. He believed that the g r t iiett possible blessing hail flowed on this country from Protestnnotisei and nothing wou'd grieve him more than that Prote sts iyst i , should be endangered. Protestantism gave the right Of P e s ou judgment, allowed the supremacy of individual cons cience' g ot toleratiEi em for those who differed from it. Still be c ' p r o. think that the present Bill would affect the principles °' ) feet' testantism. Thegronnd upon which the Hon. Baronet the f to her for Oxford resisted this Bill was that we ough t %ion! vote any money in support of religioilusearllarth./ which we be believed to be erroneous.—( There were, indeed, Acts of Parliament to be found 1 00' time of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabetbnio esso one religion was called false and another true; and if, &SOP stated in an Act of Parliament in the reign of Queen th e sei the present measure stated that this grant to Mayn°°,o io given for the maintenance of teaching of truth, he !e h is that case resist it to the utmost—he would rather pe r " s lot: than vote for it.—( Hear, hear.) i.„ But as thi! 7 e at did not state that it was to support the truth ie grant was to be given, and as there was ne=ws the Bill to show that the doctrines taught at 0 "i frow were erroneous, there was no reason to prevent W o of ° voting for it. Another argument urged against the ants to was that it was a violation of the conscience of Protest°, hi contribute money to maintain what was considered er i li tho, them ; but it was not altogether true that Protestants Pailbeteo money, for Roman Catholics as well as Protestants conttestote to the consolidated fund. Besides he thought the Pr n ct t eel o of England owed some compensation to the Roman Lia es eel• of Ireland for the manner in which they treated their rel' e srer It ought not to be forgotten in those discussions that t n _hey the lies' made any se t iou s efforts to convert the Irish Roman tia . pa tiee for they never preached the Gospel to them irrtbei r te e is e_ei s o t 1 tongue. And Dr. King, Archbishop of Dublin , Pro t convocation against the conduct of Parliament :elle ground. He did not think it would be much es isting to Pretestanism that it adopted the present mode of r os eat e this grant. He thought that Protestants ought rather. `terfers fine themselves to argument and persuasion, and n ot with a measure which was calculated to do justice L'" la Mr. Hear, hear.) mar Mr. GREGORY did not think that the presen t o dd' had been discussed as fully as one of such importance den? lief! He wished Hen. Gentlemen w old dismiss theoretics, e, from their consideration, and look at the present Ineas sr afeet i in an absolute, but a relative, point of view, and to sh e en pre' which were likely to arise from it. He thought tbat Ch ar sent measure, like the Dissenters' Chapels Bill and the 0100' table Bequests Act, would have the effect of still more vi s Oen° ing the Protestant establishment in that country. , e ` esc e "W , hear.) He doubted whether the measure :" t n • e P it, e .. the result which was anticipated from Ir e smoothing the angry feelings of the Roman Cath o lics 0 , 0 0 land towards this country. He did believe that, as th e lO haclo Diind became more elevated by education, it also w- air