The Sun. — London, England, 1845-04-18 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) SOUTH EASTERN LINE. This Committee met yesterday at Twelve o'clock, in Committee Sub-room No. 4, Sir W. Heathcote in the chair. The first question argued before the Committee by the petitioners against this line was, that the contracts were bad, inasmuch as that the money subscribed had been borrowed money, and not the money of the parties themselves. The Committee decided that they had nothing whatever to do with the question. MAIDSTONE AND ROCHESTER LINE. The Committee decided that the standing orders in this line had been complied with. TUNBRIDGE WELLS LINE. In this line it was decided by the Committee that the AS s tanding oers had not been complied with. ASHFORD AND HASTINGS LINE. Standing orders not complied with. DEAL EXTENSION LINE. In this case the Committee declared that the standing orders had been complied with. LONDON AND GREENWICH LINE. In this case the Committee found that the standing orders had not been complied with. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—The Tory supporters of the Maynooth Bill (we now speak only of those) chiefly patronise two lines of argu • ment—one cheap and easy—the other in a very high degree damaging and dangerous. It is cheap and easy . to deride fanaticism, and condemn calling the Pope " Antichrist." These may be fit answers to ignorant declaimers, but not to calm critics. They may be answers to those who would deny all large measures of justice to Roman Catholics ; but not to those who think themselves at liberty to question the structure or the source of this one small one. We should no more adopt the Biblical Billingsgate of calling his Holiness the Pope " Antichrist," than enlightened Roman Catholics would approve the Tablet in almost calling Mr. Sheil "Anti christ," because he expresses some sort of esteem for the Church of England. The other Tory line of argument — the damaging one—is that which, as we have said, has been most practised by those Members on the Ministerial side, who have hazarded any wide range of argument at all. What a damaging speech was Lord John Manners', to the Ministerial party, as regards the consequences of the mea• sure which he accepts and contemplates. It would be un fair to say that those consequences are contemplated by its supporters generally ; but it is quite fair to say that such anticipations, from that section of Anglican churchmen, who have recently won themselves a " bad eminence" (as regards public opinion in England) are enough to warrant alarm in all who still call themselves Protestants ; and to demon strate (if the will of churchmen like Lord John Manners were seconded by the power) how soon all that constitutes Protestantism—all independent and private judgment — would be crushed under the Juggernaut wheels of Church idols—irresponsible clerical powers. It is these, as we have said, that constitute Popery—we care not one single button whether their future head-quarters should be established at Rome or Lambeth—or rather, if we do care, it is merely because Rome combines the dangerous qualities of irresponsible spiritual dictatorship with the subtlety, and foreign standing room, of an Italian Court. To that extent, we maintain " No Popery" is a rational ral lying word—to that extent every vigorous prince in our history inscribed it on his banners ; and it was left for a soft scion of the " old nobility," misrepresented by him, to find out that the way to manage Rome is to admit, and exaggerate, its " tremendous power." That power is a power founded on moral weakness in those who truckle to it. None of the great States of Europe do • but if Lord John Mannerses fishify our flesh, we shall. Ve repeat, that Protestants would have a right to be alarmed (were the champions a shade more vigorous) at the new-old notions of exclusive Catho licity (a contradiction, by the way, in terms) which these Young Englanders would import from college cloisters into political affairs. Catholicity is asserted by Rome of herself solely—and by these young gentlemen of Rome and England. tntil we force ourselves into Roman alliance (an alliance which Rome disclaims, and knows of nothing teat re bellion or subjection to her authority)—until we do this impossible, we " separate ourselves from the whole of Catholic Christendom"—Catholic Christendom, according to these fancy churchmen, not including the Scotch, German, or American Churches of any model but our own—and, according to Rome, just as little including the Greek Church, and the English Church. This will-o'-the-wisp if we pursue properly, in couples with those who won't couple with us, Lord John Manners almost engages " to render England again what she was once, the queen of the nations, towering aloft amid the empires of the world, striking her roots down deep and wide into the richest memories of the past, and spreading her fruitful branches to the measureless expanse of an un seen futurity." It is difficult to nail Young Englanders (gentlemen who seem resolved never to get older) to any thing in the nature of facts, and dates. If we could hope to do so, we should ask Lord John Manners which is the happy era he refers to, when England was once " the queen of nations ?" We, however, partly learn when it was not. " Those who liked," said this young Old. Noble, " might refer all the glory and renown of old English monarchy back to the Dutch conquest of 1688, which.subverted it, but he claimed a right to ascend higher, and to consider it just as if William 111. had died Stadthol der of Holland." If William 111. had died Stadtdolder of Holland, Louis XIV. bad very handsome prospects of adding England to his European dependencies. We are sorry to learn that Somers and Marlbo rough did nothing for England's greatness—but let that pass. How far back are we to go for times truly imperial ? William and Mary won't do. Will Philip and Mary do ? Cer tainly not Elizabeth, erroneously supposed to have done Eng land some credit. That heretical drubbing of the Invincible Armada, doubtless aided by le diable, qui tuva les uutres— separated us sadly from "the whole of the Catholic Chris tendom." Shame, shame on the son of England who reads her annals through priests' spectacles ! England, to have retained her greatness in Lord Manners' eyes—must have lost it. She must have first tyrannised, then stagnated, like Spain—must have lain in cold obstruction, and rotted, beneath her Jesuits and her Inquisition. Truly, Austrian and Bourbon Charleses and Philips, who preserved that monarchy, were other guess people from Dutch William, who subverted this one. There can be no doubt that the " monarchy" would have flourished vastly under Kirke and his lambs, under Jefferies and his juries, under the pupil of Father Petre, the introducer of standing armies, the royal restorer of Oxford hack to the bosom of" Catholicity." Why will these boys provoke us to these remembrances? We will be provoked no further by them. STANDARD.—The debate on the Maynooth grant was once more adjourned last night. The best speeches delivered in last night's discussion were those of Mr. G. Hamil ton, Member for Dublin University, and Lord Ashley against the Bill, that of the Chancellor of the Ex • chequer in its support. Mr. Hamilton, who is, indeed, a fine contrast to his colleague in talent, as in all else, judiciously for his purpose seized upon the mis chievous arguments of Mr. Gladstone and Macaulay, founded upon the duty of religious (indifference, and easily disposed of them. But these are not the arguments upon which the real friends of the Protestant faith found their support of the Bill. We must ever approach Lord Ashley as an opponent with the greatest diffidence, and we have given, we trust, sufficient proof that no difference of opinion can ever impair our veneration for his noble character. On the question now before the public, it is our misfortune to differ from Lord Ashley, but as his Lordship has reminded fts, not for the first time, though sixteen years have intervened. Lord Ashley was a party to the granting of power to the Roman Catholic popu lation in Ireland. We trust that we need not say what part we acted upon that occasion. Lord Ashley too, as he stated last night, was not, like the Minister, an unwil ling giver in 1829, and he seems still to adhere to Vie wisdom of that most unhappy gift, irrespective of the temporary necessity, which is the real justi • fication of the Duke of Wellington's Cabinet. His Lordship says that in 1829 he assisted to give freedom of action to the Roman Catholics; as if they had not, as a body, far more freedom of action before the Emancipation Act than they have had since. His Lordship, no doubt, did give freedom of action to the Roman Catholic priests with a vengeance, as hfis been proved by their power of driving electors to the hustings and to monster meetings— as has been proved by their extortion of hundreds of thousands of pounds from the most miserable population of Europe to bribe lay agitators, and millions upon millions for themselves—the priests. Yes, ample freedom of action was given to the priests, but to the Roman Catholic popu lation, such freedom of action as is enjoyed by the cattle driven to Smithfield, and the sheep shorn to the quick. Once mistaken, even if not still under a delusion upon a matter so important, Lord Ashley may be mistaken again ; and, indeed, even in the matter of fact his Lordship is plainly misinformed. Generally in his speech the Noble Member for Dorsetshire rates the Irish Protestants as below one million ; and, in one calculation, actually rates their number as less than half a million. The truth being, that the Irish Protestants are in number much nearer to three than to two millions. We rejoice to cite these inaccuracies, because they prove that one who always feels rightly and always reasons rightly when his promises are sound, forms an erroneous judgment, solely be cause he is niiiinformed. Lord Ashley, again, says that if he voted for the Bill before the House of Commons, he must feel bound in honour to follow up the vote by voting for the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy ; because he could not think of educating men to qualify them for a certain rank without maintaining them in that rank. What does Lord Ashley say to all our public schools, in all gradations of rank ? Take a medium school—the Blue-coat School, in Newgate-street. Are all the boys educated in that noble establishment annuitants for life upon its funds? Has any such principle as that asserted by Lord Ashley ever been admitted as a condition upon the gift of education ? And here let as parenthetically remark, that in considering the Maynooth Bill as anything less than a part of a general system of education, much too narrow a view is taken of the religious as well as the po litical bearing of the subject. The religious grounds upon which the question is opposed. carried to their legitimate ex tln, would withh o ld a ll e d uca ti on f ro m a ll Roman Ca tholics, lest they should read the Breviary or the Cate chism of Trent. We are not, however, afraid to teach Roman Catholics to read, even though the first use they will it;roootb,lbym_ake of e the power will be to read Roman Catholic books, because kn ow that with the power of reading these Bible. Apart fro m this power also of reading the may be perfectly at eas e upon Lord Ashley upon the point of honour. .There ie no danger of the Roman Catholic priests being edu cated above their means of liv?nngtihnetahveevrearyge,theß cheapest p., single m i e n n g ,. man Ctatholic country o f her Majesty s F.uropean dominions, have " in O m x es ford than the highly moneys rounbered" larger incomes Cambridge, educated English clergy from far higher incomes than the clergy educatedana(tlTrinity C e le the grant to lege, Dublin. As to any other reason wl of the klaynooth must be followed by an end lY Roman Catholic clergy, we are wholl o y wment guess at it. We are quite persuaded, too,atthaat nloostionte of twenty who support the Ministerial Bill acknow ledges the obligation in honour to which Lord Ashley refers, and of course they who, u p on principle, oppo se the grant to Maynooth of 17,000/., are not very likely to approve of a grant of two millions or two millions and a half to the Roman Catholic clergy ; and less would not compen sate to them their present revenue. - - - - Tu SEASON AND THE CROPS.—The weather still continues very cold for the season of the year, but now that the rain has begun to fall freely, the temperature is likely to be come milder. There has never been a better season for getting the spring crops into the ground than the present, or one when the ground was in finer order for receiving them. In some places the wheat is said to have suffered, but that is not the case in this neighbourhood. Daring the last fortnight It has rallied wonder. fully, and with favourable weather for the rest of the season, will prove a very good crop. The great Want at present is the want of grass, the pastures being bare beyon I all example.—Liverpool Times. GLASS Gas PIPES.—We understand that James Hartley, Esq., of the Bishopwearmouth glass-works, has been engaged is determining the practicability of mak ing glass pipes suitable for the conveyance of gas or w 4 ter ; and we are happy to learn that he has been en tiraly successful—that he has proved that pipes, stronger flwri the ordinary metal pipes, and much cheaper, may be made of glass.— Gateshead Observer. GRANT TO MAYNOI/TH. The great question raised by the Maynooth Bill is really this—How is the government of Ireland to be carried on? This is the question which every man who pretends to statesmanship must answer clearly to his own mind, before he can say " ay" or " no" to the Go vernment proposition. Is the government of Ireland to be maintained by force, or by gaining the good will of her people? Looking to the safety and integrity of the empire, this is the great and urgent question of the present time. The: repeal of the union may be impos sible, but war with America or with France is not im possible, and in either case a union supported by Eng lish troops would add at least as much to our anxieties as to our strength. The main argument for the May nooth Bill, then, is, that it is a measure of conciliation. It will confer solid benefits on the religious instructors to whom the Irish people are attached, and, however it may be used by the leaders of agitation, it will be re ceived by all men of common sense as an evidence of the friendly disposition of an imperial Parliament. We have no doubt, indeed, that many of the most ardent opponents of the union secretly dread the success of the measure, on account of its tendency to allay the fervour of the popular hostility to England. By whom, then, is the Bill opposed? By two parties who, on all other questions, religious and political, and even in the reasons of their opposition to this measure, are as much opposed to each other as light and darkness. Of one of these parties we would always speak with the respect which is due to honesty and consistency. Protestant Dissenters, who, on the ground of the voluntary principle, oppose the Maynooth grant, are open to no imputation, except one, and that is, that they are suffering themselves to be egregiously duped by the more powerful party, from whose intolerant and exclusive principles they themselves have long suffered. The voluntary principle is in itself free from every taint of injustice, and, whatever may be thought of its practical effects, it must be admitted to be a grand conception. It arises in religious minds from zeal for the purity of the Christian faith, and it implies an entire reliance on the power of that faith to maintain its hold upon society without legal institutions. Its ad vocates, too, may plead that it would furnish one mode of removing the difficulties of government in Ireland. They say, " Leave the education of Irish priests to be supported by those who want their services. Withdraw the Maynooth grant altogether—but withdraw also the endowments of the Protestant and Presbyterian Churches. Sweep away every vestige of the legal establishment of religion now existing in Ireland. Let the whole of its Church property, the Presbyterian regium donum, and the paltry Maynooth grant, be applied to general education, or to some other purpose of general utility. Place the ministers of all sects on the equal footing of dependence on the contributions of their flocks, and leave Protestantism to contend with Popery, by its own intrinsic strength alone." This is, at least, a clear and consistent answer to the question, "How is Ireland to be governed?" The scheme, too, is precisely that which would be most welcome to the Irish Catholics. They would admit its perfect justice, and close with the proposition at once. Whatever might be its effects upon the character of religious teaching, it would undoubtedly remove that which supplies the chief fuel to popular dis content. But the reasons for insisting on the voluntary principle in reference to Ireland derive all their force from the assumption that it can be applied there in its integrity. 'to enforce it upon the Church of the ma jority, and not upon the Church of the minority, is both unreasonable and flagrantly unjust; and it cannot be re garded by the Irish in any other light than as an injury. The Irish Catholics are very well disposed to the volun tary principle; but if they find its English advocates em ploy it to defeat a Maynooth grant, while they are unable to disturb the rich establishment of the Protestant mi nority, they will hardly give those advocates credit for the friendly feeling and love of equal justice which they profess. We cannot but think, therefore, that Pro. testant Dissenters, who upon this ground are joining in the present No-Popery agitation of Tories and High- Churchmen, should consider well what is likely to be the result of their efforts, and whether, if successful, they will not contribute to the triumph of the greatest ene mies of religious liberty. Let it not be forgotten that a Whig Government tried, not to abolish, but to reduce within moderate limits the Irish Protestant establish ment, and failed in that attempt for want of popular support. The history of the appropriation clause does not furnish much ground for expecting that Protestantism in Ireland can be made dependent on the voluntary sys tem. Is it wise, then, that Liberal Dissenters should now aid the supporters of Protestant ascendancy in that country, in withholding from Roman Catholics a slight but welcome alleviation of the injustice which they sus tain? Under the circumstance of the case, neutrality would be wise and becoming. If they ever become strong enough to enforce their principle, let them get rid of Maynooth grant and Protestant establishment to gether ; but in the mean time let them not lend the strength and moral influence of that principle to the achievement of a most sectarian triumph for its greatest foes. It is obvious that the defeat of the May nooth grant, - if it should be defeated, will not be a triumph of the voluntary principle. It will be a triumph of No-Popery passions and prejudices. The victory may be won by the junction of two parties, but the stronger of the t'vo will absorb the fruits of the conquest. When Liberal Dissenters find themselves following Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Piumptre, and ad ding their voices to aNo Popery war-cry raised by clergymen of the Establishment, they ought surely to have some misgivings as to the course which they are taking. It may be true that z4ir Robert Inglis and his friends are using suicidal arguments ; it may be true that, in declaring it wrong to be obliged to pay for the inculcation of doetrines from which we dissent, those persons acknowledge a principle fatal to all State endow ments ; but after such arguments have served their tem porary purpose, of what value will they be ? Are they not evidently taken up for the occasion, and will they not be thrown aside with the saole discreditable facility? What if Dissenters, attracted by the voluntary principle arguments of Sir Robert Inglis, should first enable him to defeat the Maynooth grant, and then beg the very small favour that he would embody his new views in a Bill for the abolition of church -rates, would not the High Church leader smile at their simplicity ? The present agitation is, we repeat, a No-Popery agitation. No- Popery is the burden of the speeches by which it is carried on, and even some advocates of the voluntary principle are so far carried away by religious excitement, as to mix up that principle with appeals to sectarian and unsocial feelings. We cannot but think that the excite ment of a No-Popery cry, however honestly engaged in, involves at the present time a peculiarly deep respon sibility. Considering the difficulties of the question with which we started—the question of how Ireland is to be governed--it is a course fraught with peril to develop to the utmost possible extent the religious an tagonisea between the two countries. When the religious feelings, potent as they are, become blended with party movements and popular agitation, they easily acquire a fierce and fanatical character. What will be the pros pects of the empire—of the union—of religious liberty —of social tranquillity, if Protestantism in England and Catholicism in Ireland are excited by all imaginable stimulants to mutual and deadly hostility? Men may persuade themselves that they always distinguish between the belief and the believers, and that when, with passionate fervour, and in the presence of excited multitudes, they denounce doctrines as false and immoral, they do not give admission to a shade of hostile feel ing towards those by whom the doctrines are held. We do not know how far this blending of the fierceness of zeal and the mildness of charity can take place in our frail human nature, but it will hardly be denied that the hot No-Popery invectives, in which members of the Tory party are and have been so much accus tomed to indulge, do produce irritation and bad feeling in Ireland. If the tone of Exeter-hall should unfortunately become so prevalent as to appear the tone of the English people, and to govern the deci sion of the House of Commons, we really de not know by what arguments the connexion b e t ween th e t w o co un t r i es is to be maintained. By " shr a p ne ll an d gra p e - s h ot " the thing may, no doubt, be done; but it will not be much to the honour of our Christianity if we should ever have to think of such means.—Chronicle. THE IRON TRADE. DUDLEY, SATURDAY NIGHT.—The last of the iron masters' quarterly meetings was held this evening. The prices agreed upon at Wolverhampton were maintained, and may be quoted as follows X. s. d. Bars - 12 0 0 Common nail rods Rails l4 0 0 Hoops Plates Sheets Pigs (Shropshire) Pigs (Staffordshire) There is a prevalent opinion that the last advance of 21. was uncalled for, injudicious, and likely to prove in jurious both to masters and men. This extraordinary price is, however, justified upon several grounds. The great advance which has taken place in the price of coal and limestone, combined with at least 25 per cent. in• crease in the wages of the miners has unquestionably compelled the iroumasters to put a high figure upon their make. Coal at the present moment, owing to the preva lence of local strikes in certain districts, is extremely scarce, and in many other parts, where the men are ap parently satisfied with the wages given, the miners do not work more than four days a week. It is a fact to be regretted, seeing the great demand for coal, and the ad vance of miners' wages, that the men in many districts of the Staffordshire coal-field, in consequence of their absenting themselves from their work, are in the receipt weekly of little more than when the iron trade was at its lowest ebb. The advance in the price of coal in con sequence of the flourishing state of the iron manufacture and the demand of the colliers has not been less than 3s. per ton. Still, it is thought, that even the increased demand, great as it was, and the hi h rice of materials, did not justify th e a d vance in bars a P t one sudthia step from 101. to 121. One sin,gular reason, however, in addition to the more plausible ones already urged, has been given for t s h om is e a: i l i va th n e ee. It is stated, that it was suggested by This may appear somewhat absurd view , t b o u s t t stop great firms, with afurther orders isto be relied o t r ipo th n, e it is nevertheless true g . o Staffordshire have more t ord ex er te s nsive houses in South od lt a i u s t h a o fa ri e t t y: that many months to t o cause Cki ea r p a h u a s u e d i than il th they e de m a c n a d n . e u x ie ue rn ut e e a f h o s r and it was hoped, by m alluded any to, Unfortunately, however, some degree it was), while it answered this manoeuvre (if such has inpurpose in jured other interests. Buyers imagine by whom it was projected,of those something unsound in the rise--that thet t thQr® is arti ficial, and cannot be maintained. As a mati:erriceofis there is at present considerable hesitation in the market —a —a hesitation which has proved extremely detrimental to the manufacturers and dealers in hardware goods. Travellers from Birmingham houses, during the last four months, have in some instances been compelled to decline orders, in consequence of the extreme rise or uncertainty in the price of iron. The factors of Bir raingham have suffered severely on this amount. With respect to Staffordshire pig iron, the opinion is it will fall. It will be observed that, in the list given above, the prices of Staffordshire and Shropshire pigs are given as the same. So they were quoted in Bir mingham on Thursday. It was, indeed, stated that Staffordshire had been sold at 71. ; but the purchaser could not be ascertained. Now, the ground upon which a reduction in Staffordshire is expected is the known superiority of the Shropshire pigs, till lately selling at 61. 55., and now at 61. 10s. It is thought that the Staf fordshire makers cannot maintain an equality of price with their Salopian neighbours. It is but justice to the iron and coal masters to state, that hitherto they have, daring their brief period of prosperity, exhibited a spirit of fairness and justice towards the mining population ; but it is to be feared that at the present time the colliers in some districts— in districts, too, where when wages are high men will not work full time—do not reciprocate the good and fair feeling manifested by their employers. Wages amongst the thick-coal men have, as before stated, risen 25 per cent. In the neighbourhood of Dudley a large number of men have, notwithstanding, struck for a further ad vance of 6d. per day, and the consequence is, that some of the furnaces have been brought to a stand for want of coal. The men have now assumed the mastery, and in sist on the price of labour keeping pace with, and even outstripping, the advance in iron. The advance of 6d. a day in a man's labour is estimated at ls. per ton on coals—a material consideration in the ironmaster's out goings. It is hoped these isolated local " strikes" will speedily be at an end. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, April 17. SOLOMONS v. LAWSON. This was a case of libel against the Times newspaper, which was tried at the last assizes for Surrey, in which the plaintiff obtained a verdict to the amount of 5001. damages. The ease originated in some letters which appeared in the Times, respecting the state of health in which the passengers of the ship Moffat arrived in this :country, in consequence of the badness of the water supplied to her from a vessel, fitted up, as was alleged, with copper tanks, belonging to the plain tiff, who is an hotel-keeper in St. Helena. Mr. Sergeant SHEE now moved for a rule for a venire de novo, or for an arrest of judgment, on account of excessive damages.—Rule granted on the latter ground. COURT OF EXCISE, April 17. (Before HART Davis, Esq. J. F. STEPHENSON, Esq., and :J. C. HERRIES, Esq.) Thos. Edwards, of 23, Norfolk-street, Strand, private boarding-house-keeper, was charged on four informations with retailing foreign wines and spirituous liquors, without license. Sir Francis Doyle conducted the case for the prosecution ; a solicitor appeared for the defendant. From the evidence of an officer of Excise, it appeared that on the 29th September he went to the house of the de fendant, where he took lodgings. He ordered dinner, and was then asked by the waiter whether he would like to have sherry with dinner, to which he replied in the affirmative. A pint of sherry was brought up at dinner-time, and after wards he was supplied with brandy. He was supplied with wine and spirits also on the two following days, without the slightest hesitation. On the morning of the fourth day he stated that he was about to go into the country, and re quested the bill to be produced of the expenses of his stay in the house. The bill was shortly afterwards handed to him for 1/. 7s. 4d., the waiter at the same time asking for 9s. in addition. Upon witness inquiring what the latter sum was for, the waiter replied that it was for spirits and wine. The sum was then paid, and the last item was entered upon the bill. Cross-examined--When witness entered the dining-room, was asked by the waiter whether he would take sherry. Did not say, I usually took sherry with dinner. When I paid the bill, no second bill was produced. The 9s. was added in my presence. It was written at the bottom of the bill at my request. Will swear positively I was asked but once that the 9s. should be put at the bottom of the bill. Re-examined—lf any second bill had been produced, should, of course, have received it. Never asked any waiter to make advances of money on my account. . . The SOLICITOR addressed the Court for the defendant, and contended that the officer had gone beyond his duty, and had used every means in his power to entrap the defendant into a breach of the law. Whether such was legitimate evi dence to be received, he would leave it to the Court to deter mine. 'fhe waiter was then called, who asserted that it was only on the pressing wish of the officer that he had advanced the money for the wine and spirits, and that he frequently told him that his master had no license. He considered the sum of 9s. a debt between himself and the officer alone, and that his master had nothing whatever to do with the transaction. Mr. Commissioner HART Davis, in giving judgment, said that they considered the law against the defendant, indepen dent of the discrepancies in the evidence. Were the Court to allow waiters to enter into contracts of this sort, it would open the door and lead to collusions between servants and masters for the purposes of fraud; and the judgment of tile Court was, that the defendant be fined in the penalty of 251. Henry Lamplough, chemist and druggist, of Farringdon street, was convicted of selling spirits of wine without license, and fined 2/. George Gall was convicted in the penalty of 101., for sell. hag by auction, at the Baltic Coffee-house, ; Threadneedle. street, without license. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. SENTENCES AND SESSIONAL RESULTS. Death—Thomas Henry Rocker. Transportation for Seven Years—Mary Ryan, R. Walker, T. Dimsley, H. Jenkins alias Bates, C. Madden, G. Widgett, T. Hatcher, J. Jackson, J. Smith, F. A. Arkell, J. Matham, A. M'Coy, M. Heavy, H. Hurry, J. Clark, S. Lewis, R. Slade, W. Hare, G. Kirby. For Ten Years—Julia J. Payne, Margaret Doolan, Mary Ann Birch, H. Cavanagh, S. Langdale, J. Proctor, J. Parish, F. Payne, W. Young, H. Pratt, W. Wright, W. King, C. Hunt, R. Fox, W. Judd, R. Slade. For Fifteen Tears—J. Darby, J. Stock. For Life—Edward Spicer (the mail guard). IMPRISONMENT AND HARD LABOUR. _ _ __ For Two Years—J. Claverie, J. Vivian, W. Jagger, J. Cor• nigh, W. Cannon, J. Power, W. Abbott. For Eighteen Months—Ann Forrest, R. Bannister, J. Page. For One Year—J. Dolan, J. Hocking, C. Gregg, J. Heath, H. Thomas J. Ellard, J. Hunt, F. Cole, J. Moore, J. Allum, J. Clark, M. Lee, Mary Wilson, Jane White, Eliza Dunbar, J. Hawkins, W. Winter, E. Connor, J. Herbert, S. Randall, H. Haylor, J. Caffyn. For Nine Months—Ann Eliza Brown, E. Owens, R. Smith, J. Smith, W. Heath, S. Dawkins, J. Forrest, J. Collins, M. Hawes, W. Cummins. For Eight Months—J. Smith, J. Brown, J. White, M. A, Smith. - For Six Months—Mary Morris, Ann Smith, Mary A. Brown, Jane Williams, Catharine Murphy, Mary A. Davis, Susan Wilson, Elizabeth George, Hannah Leary, J. Williams, J. Howard, R. Roberts, J. Bruncker, J. Edwards, H. Groom, J. Jones, J. Ward, G. Davis, S. Davis, T. Mobbs, W. Hays, J. Nash, W. Wood, M. Hind, C. Brady, W. Banks, G. Just, J. Pratt, J. Booth, G. Bragg, W. Hemming, J. Stennett, W. Harrison, J. Cormack, M. Vaughan, R. Roberts, J. Picker ing, H. Parrott, R. Dunnett, J. Dunsby, J. Bastable, J. Whiteley, C. Wagstaff, J. Shargold, J. Powell, G. Powell, J. H. Hughes, J. Sibley, J. Morrell, H. Watkins, J. Peter son, J. Brumell, James Williams, Isaac Newton, W. Thomp son, S. Axford, C. Sullivan. For Four Months—J. Piddington, Wm. Kibbon, J. Wil liams, W. Gill, G. Smith, J. Scott, Mary A. Brown, Sarah Coe, C. Coxhead, Mary A. Coombs, Sarah Smith, Esther Hart, Eliza Brown, Deborah Raven. For Three Months—E. Gillett, J. Easton, J. Harvey, J. Doughty, M'Carty, W. H. Warren, A. Wright, G. Wit hams, T. Jones, J. Ball, E. Court, E. Lewis, R. Lewis, G. Jones, T. Jones, T. Davis, G. P. G. Day, J. Harrison, John Williams, C. Williams, H. Williams, T. Russell, J. Lopez, Sarah Smith, Esther Gilbert, Sarah Limb, Charlotte Single ton, Eliza Jane Day, Mary A. Comber, G. Jackson, J. Keys, J. Brown, J. Kemp, M. Steele, E. Rushton, J. Easton, J. Halliday, Cyrus Cymes, J. M'Carty, H. Doughty H. Hayler, E. Palmer, W. Goodale, Eliza Merewether, C. Wiltshire, D. Thompson, J. Rainbit, W. Warren, J. Holbrook, J. Battersby, J. Smith, jun. For Two Months—Elizabeth Craddock, B. Washbrook, H. Siebrichat, W. Barnes, J. Barnes, E. Ashton, J. Watkins, J. Smith, E. Flarty, J. Gurney, J. Hughes. SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ALL THE SESSIONAL ADJUDICATIONS AND RESULTS. Sentenced to die, 1 ; transportation for life, 1; fifteen years, 2 ; ten years, 19 ; seven years, 22 ; imprisonment for two years, 7 ' • eighteen months, 3 ; four months, 14; three months, 51 ; two months, 11 ; one month, 3 ; three weeks, 3 ; fourteen days or under, 4; acquitted, 51 ; judgment respited, 4 ; remanded and traversed, 5 ; bills ignored and discharged by proclamation, 6 ; surrendered, 6 ; bailed, 1 ; prosecutions withdrawn, 5 ; confessed guilt, 29 ; called on recogni zances, 2. ADJOURNMENT OF THE COURT.—The Court at its rising ad journed to Monday, the 12th day of May next, when, by rota, the following judges will preside, viz., Lord Chief Justice Denman, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Coltman. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MARYLEBOIVE. Mr. Edward Raleigh Moran, a gentleman connected with one of the daily papers, made an application to the sitting Magistrate, Mr. Long, on the subject of a forgery of his name, by which some person representing him, and describ ing himself as the applicant, had obtained forty shares through the medium of his forged application, in one of the Paris and Lyons Railway Companies. Mr. Moran stated that the secretary of the company was the son-in-law of an intimate friend of his, and that through that gentleman having written to him stating that the allotment of shares for which he applied bad been made 'to him, and would be forwarded to his address, No. 38, Manchester-street, Man chester-square, he obtained the first intimation of the fraud attempted to be put upon the company in his name. The applicant here handed to the Magistrate, through Jones, the usher of the Court, two letters, the first of which was that having the Christian and surname " Edward Moran," with a description of the paper to which he stated himself to be long, as also the place of residence and address, as required by the Company, " 38, Manchester-street, Manchester square," and giving a reference to the proprietors of the news paper upon which applicant was engaged. The other letter contained the announcement made in the usual way, that the forty shares applied for had been allotted. The applicant further stated that he had obtained those documents through the secretary of the Company, and the object of his present application was to know from the worthy Magistrate if he could not obtain some redress ; and if so, of what nature that redress was ? _ _ _ Mr. LONG, after perusing the papers, declared his opinion that as the applicant had not been injured in the transaction, he could give him no assistance. A FAMILY OF DWARFS.—Judging from the success of General Tom Thumb's visit to our shores, one may reasonably conclude that dwarfs are not quite so plentiful as blackberries, and yet, at Kishorn of Applecross, there is a family of that genus, each of them being of less di mensions than and as proportionate as Tom. The father of these pigmies (John Finlay) is a poor cottar of the ordinary or middle size, and the mother is rather beyond it. The eldest son, Master Finlay, is upwards of 20 years of age, and stands two feet 10 inches in height. The next is a girl, somewhat the .; unior of Finlay in years, and considerably less in stature, and the third, and last, is a boy, aged 15, a mere pigmy. It is ludi crous to see these little creatures sit around their little Honest 0 h n dinner tabl e ; b u t t o o b ser ve them dance together, re minds one f oro ibly o f th e C e lti c accounts of dancing elves (the fai r i es o f t h e Hi gh l an d s ) , w h ose f an t as tic measures so oft b egu il e d the wayworn Highlan d er, as h e saw , or dreamed sawt them u t i r d i p try it hisi h lightly fortune o n in the the mountain south, aide. he John where wonders always tt a ract, one of the large gentle men playin g th e pip Romhire el - e would complete the matter.— TTIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING-, APRIL 18 1845. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT: HOUSE OF LORDS, April 17. Their Lordships met at Five o'elock. The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, praying that the corn and wheat of that colony may be admitted into this country on the same terms as the corn and wheat of Canada. GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions against the additional grant to Maynooth, the sale of intoxicating liquors on the Sabbath, Sunday travelling, and the system of national education in Ireland. Lord FARNHAM presented petitions against the grant to Maynooth and railway travelling on Sundays. Petitions against any further grant to Maynooth were presented by the Bishop of Lichfield and several other Right Reverend Prelates. The Bishop of CHESTER presented a petition from his own diocese to the like effect. The Right Reverend Prelate, however, heartily concurred in the expediency of the Government measure. He considered it was a measure of concession, and by no means a violation of the sacred rights of the Protestant religion. Lord FEVERSHAM presented a large number of petitions from various places in Yorkshire against the grant, and took occasion to declare his perfect concur rence in the prayer of the petitioners. RAILWAYS. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from five individuals, who were the creditors of certain turnpike trusts, complaining of the injuries they sustained from the construction of railways in this country. In this country the credit of the turnpike trusts amounted to nine millions sterling, in Ireland to half a million, and in Scotland to somewhat less. For thirty years past the interest amounted to nearly five per cent. ; but owing to the advancement of railway communications, it had been considerably reduced. A trust that paid 4,0401. in 1838 now only paid 1,5001., and in another instance where the amount was 1,8001. it now only paid 9001 The petitioners, therefore, thought they had a large claim upon their Lordships' consideration. In the north of this island the inhabitants are said to possess a peculiarly good sense of perception of their comforts, and of providing for them ; and whilst we in England were hoping for the omission of turnpike charges, they in Scotland were enjoying an immunity which we in England could not obtain, for after obtaining the benefit themselves , the excellent Scots came down to the ether House and voted against them. He held in his hand the Railway Consolidation Clauses Bills for Scotland and England. In the first of these a clause, the 56th clause, there was a provision for the turnpike trusts, but in the latter there was no such clause, and this he took leave to think was an unjust omission. He hoped he should not be charged with want of feeling if he made a selection of the cases which had been confided to him ; but he would for the sake of their Lordships' time select one. This was the case of two ladies, and a gen tleman who had married a third sister, who possessed a farm of two hundred acres, through which one railway already passed, but now they were called upon to suffer six other railways to be made through it. The estate was, he believed, at present in a flourishing condition, but if these Acts passed, the Diss and Colchester, the Diss and Chelmsford, the Harwich and Colchester, and other railways, which, if carried into effect, they would cut up this estate into pieces, not larger than their Lordship's table, and thus these parties were sub ject to seven wicked spirits instead of one. He (Lord Brougham) was almost tempted to establish a company himself ; he should, indeed, be very liberal in the pre sentation of shares to their Lordships ; he should take care to have a full and proper list of the owners and the occupiers of the land through which his railway would pass, so that there should he no possible objection to it from want of form, and he should take care to select his directors, chairman, and all the subordinate officers from among their Lordships, so that there should be no difficulty in passing his Bill. If this railway did interfere with the property of land owners in that House, of what consequence was it, com pared with the good of the public? He was aware that since a plea had been put in, in favour of additional drainage and improved farming, and he was quite ready to concede the claims—the reasonable claims of the landed interest ; but still he must say that that interest ought to yield to public convenience, and he could not con sent to allow even their claims to interfere with his company. But seriously speaking, he thought that the pleas of the party who had intrusted him with their petition, and who had affirmed that they were able to prove their case before their Lordships' House, ought to be taken into consideration. If a man went into a court of law and proved his case, he obtained costs against the wrong doer, and he (Lord Brougham) thought that the same principle ought to prevail with regard to railways--(Hear, hear)—and he should, therefore, beg to lay an order on the table of the House which would compel railway companies to pay costs to the parties aggrieved who came before the Com mittees of Parliament to establish their rights. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE so entirely agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend, that he was unable to refrain from expressing his assent to the order which he had just preferred. It was now impossible to remedy the evil with regard to many English railways, but with respect to Ireland they had a carte blanche, and he hoped that, as the at tention of Government had been called to this sub ject, they would not compel parties in that country, who proposed a railway which was likely to pay to a certain distance, to carry it on to a termini where it was sure not to pay. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that though he was as anxious as his Noble and Learned Friend to put an end to this gambling mania of which he had made so much complaint, yet he trusted that be would not as he proposed throw an obstruction in the way of forming railways, and give, as this order appeared to him to give, a bounty to litigation. He thought, that if something like the French plan were adopted of making the interest in these properties terminable, that there would then be a prospect of public utility which might justify such great encroachments on private property. After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, th matter dropped. MAYNOOTH. Lord KINNAIRD presented two petitions from the working men of Leeds against the Maynooth grant. Several other Noble Lords presented similar petitions. Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the inhabitants of Coventry, complaining of the Bill passed last session for abolishing imprisonment for debt, and praying the House to pass a Bill establishing County Courts. The Bishop of St. DAVID'S presented a petition against the grant to Maynooth, and nine petitions against the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. The Right Rev. Prelate also presented five petitions from cer tain parishes in Wales, and two from Monmouthshire, praying the House to establish Local Courts. The Earl of BREADALBANE presented upwards of 40 petitions from the Free Church of Scotland, against the grant to Maynooth. The Noble Earl reminded their Lordships that the Free Church of Scotland brought up and maintained its own clergy. It had never re ceived any support from the State, but on the contrary, it had been frowned upon and persecuted by those who ought to have supported it. SHERIFFS (WALES) BILL. Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the second reading of the Bill for assigning Sheriffs to Wales, the object of which was to place sheriffs of that principality on the same footing as those of England. Lord CAMPBELL regretted that the provisions of the Bill did not extend to Scotland. The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be committed. THE MUTINY BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. THE MARINE MUTINY BILL. This Bill was also read a third time and passed. GLASS DUTIES BILL. The Bill for repealing the duty on glass was read a third time and passed. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that on Tues day next be would present a petition from the Le gislative Council of New South Wales, complaining of certain grievances, and especially of the Act passed two years ago, in so far as it related to the disposal of land in that country. NEW CHURCHES. The Earl of CADOGAN then brought forward his motion, of which he had given notice, relating to certain returns concerning the building of new churches. The Noble Lord said it had been stated in another place that the matter was of little or no importance, and affected the interests only of private individuals. So far, however, from this being the case, it involved the administration of public funds by a public board, and the invasion of the rights of one party by another. He would proceed to give their Lordships an idea of what these acts were ; he would quote the Act 58th Geo. 111., by which this fund was created, which gave a complete power to apply the surplus pew-rents to the rector of Upper Chelsea, instead of appropriating them to the erection of rectory houses, regard being had to the extent and popula tion of the parish. Under the Act of 3d and 4th Victoria had arisen powers of an unlimited nature, and which enabled them to transfer for ever the surplus pew-rents to the rector, instead of applying them, as they ought to have been applied, to the building of a rectory-house, The Right Rev. Pre late (the Bishop of London) bad stated that he bad expressed displeasure, when in reality displeasure was not the word at all which should have been applied to his observations ; but it was true that he did object to this proceeding, and he would show the grounds on which he objected. By the surveyor's report, he found that the new residence for the rector was to cost 1,500/. or 1,600/. when a place which w as equally appropriate as that which had been selected might have been chosen, and on that a house might have been built for 1,1001. or 1,200/. ; and thus a house would have been obtained in seven or eight years, as useful as that which would now require fifteen or twenty years to erect it. With respect to the parish of Paddington, the population had in creased, while in Upper Chelsea the population had very greatly decreased, rendering an addition to the income of the rector quite unnecessary. He would now explain to their Lordships the peculiar nature of the funds derived from the pew-rents. This was not a fixed but a fluctuating suns ; and that made it a very different matter, and he believed that the application of this sum was not only unjust but perfectly illegal. With respect to the assignment of this sum, he had no objection if it were rightly applied; but the present rector was in good circumstances ; and there was no need whatever for increasing his income. He wished to know if all the communications and papers which had passed between the rector and the Board of . Commissioners had been laid on the table of the House; because, if they had not, he thought it was essential for the interest of the public and the Church that they should be. The Noble Earl concluded by moving for a Select Committee to inquire whether the assignment of the pew-rents of St. Luke's, Chelsea, to the rector and his successors for ever, by , the Commissioners appointed for regulating the building of new churches, was advis able or not ; or whether it would not have been more advisable to invest the money in Government Securities, and afterwards appropriated it to the building of a rec tory house ? The Bishop of LONDON did not feel himself bound to say whether any private communications had taken place between the Commissioners and Mr. Burgess on this subject ; but he could assure the Noble Earl that every document which had been submitted to the Board in its public capacity had been laid before the House. The question more concerned the private interests of the Noble Earl than the welfare of the public or the Church, and he could therefore see very little ground indeed calling for a Parliamentary inquiry. The pew-rents had been considerably increased by the talents and popula rity of the rector, Mr. Burgess, and in his opinion it would be extremely bard to take away that emolument which had accrued to the rector from his own zeal and exertions, merely to provide for the convenience and comfort of some future incumbent, or to swell the value of a particular advowson of which the Noble Farl was himself the patron.—(Hear, hear.) He did therefore trust that their Lordships would not for one moment en tertain the motion which had been proposed by the Noble Earl, because he did think he had given sufficient reasons for the rejection of the motion. The Earl of CADOGAN complained that the Right Rev. Prelate had thrown out as unjust an aspersion upon his character, as it was possible for one man to throw out against another. He said that he (the Earl of Cadogan) made this motion through interested mo• tives ; such motives he despised, and considered that they could be entertained by no one sooner than the person who imputed them,—(Laughter.) The motion was negatived without a_4ilivision._ ENTAILED ESTATES IMPROVEMENT. The Duke of RICHMOND was induced to submit a motion connected with entailed estates, because the improvement of such estates was closely connected with the improvement of agriculture ; and he believed that there was no person who was not satisfied that thorough drainage was one of the principal means by which that improvement was to be effected. There was an Act in existence in Scotland called the Montgomery Act, and in 1840 an Act was passed to effect something of the same kind in England, through the instrumentality of Mr. Pusey. But in those Acts entailed estates had been overlooked, and it was evi dent from the owners only having a life-interest in such estates, and from the natural anxiety which they felt to provide for their younger children, that these estates would not have fair play and share in that improvement which was necessary for the general benefit of the coun try. The passing of such a motion as he had to make would have, if passed, the effect of providing for the in dustrious and worthy agricultural labourer that employ ment which he now too often sought in vain, and of giving him a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. He saw, with much satisfaction, that the commission of which his Noble Friend (the Earl of Devon) was the head, had recommended such a measure as this for Ire land, and as he (the Duke of Richmond) believed that it was calculated to do good to both countries, he should move that a Select Committee be appointed, with a view to some legislative enactment for enabling the possessors of entailed estates to charge such estates with a certain sum, to be limited, and to be expended in drainage for the improvement of the same. The Duke of CLEVELAND said that as the object of this motion was to improve these estates permanently, and would be as much for the benefit of the successors to the estates as for the possessors of them, and as drainage was an improvement that would last for ever, he thought that no objection could be possibly enter tained against it, and he should therefore very readily second the motion. Lord ASHBURTON saw no great objection to the motion, but he thought that the charge ought to he for a certain number of years, and not a permanent charge. Lord BEAUMONT suggested that there were certain drainage companies in Yorkshire and elsewhere who would by such an Act as that proposed by the Noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) be enabled to enter into ar rangements with the owners of the entailed estates. By the plan of these companies the possessors of estates were enabled to drain their lands by allowirs , certain portions of the profits to the companies. There' were some thing.] which would have to be guarded against, but that could be done in Committee. The Duke of RICHMOND assented to the sugges tion of his Noble Friend, and would be glad to go into details with him in the Committee. . The Committee was granted, and, on the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of Cleveland, Lord Brougham. and several other noblemen, were nominated. LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL. On the motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, The House went into Committee on the Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill. Lord REDESDALE objected to the clause which gave power to the railway companies to deviate to the extent of 100 yards on each side of their line, and also to the paragraph which empowered them to enter upon land to the extent of 500 yards, for the purpose of dig ging clay or gravel. The remaining clauses were agreed to with amend ments • and the House having resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported progress. LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (SCOT LAND) BILL. On the motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Bill went through Committee. AUCTION DUTIES BILL This Bill was read a first time, and the klouse iml journed. Aa r : ' HOUSE OF COMMONS, April f . The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. RAILWAYS. g s Mr. Fox Manicn• presented a petition in favouof . Edinburgh and Perth Railway ; and petitioinciVo're 1 sented by Mr. Ward, from the shipowners Of , ,Nevie let against the New-castle-on. Tyne Railway ; t by ~ M r. Becket, in favour of the Caledonian Railway, And against the London and Richmond Railway ; by Mr. Lockhart, from the Chamber of Commere of Leith; the Town Councils of Inverness and Lochmaben, and the inhabitants of Lochmaben, in favour of the Caledonian Railway. TIDE-WAITERS. Sir JOHN HANMER presented a petition from the Mayor, Corporation, and other inhabitants of Hull, stating that:the tide-waiters are underpaid, and their belief that the revenue suffers thereby. FORTH AND CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. BIRMINGHAM AND GLOUCESTER RAILWAY EXTENSION. On the motion of Mr. KEMBLE, this Bill was read the first time. YORKSHIRE RAILWAYS: Mr. FERRAND presented petitions in favour of the Leeds and West Riding Railway, against the Leeds and Dewsbury Railway, and against the West Yorkshire Railway. MAYNOOTIL Mr. HINDLEY presented sixty-two petitions against the Maynooth grant from the following places :—The Inhabitants of Over, Cambridgeshire ; Belton and its vicinity, Rutland ; Ridlington, and its vicinity, Rut land ; Melrose, and its vicinity ; Winston, Durham ; Protestant Dissenters, Wilmot-street, Bethnal-green ; Christian Instruction Society, St. Paul's, Shadwell ; Hanover Chapel, Stockport ; Maberley Chapel, Kings land, Middlesex • Princess-street, Devonport ; Lake street Chapel, Leighton, Bedfordshire ; Downs Chapel, Altringham ; Willingham, Cambridgeshire ; Bed minster, Dorsetshire ; Ascott, Oxfordshire ; Oak -street, Accrington, Lancashire ; Hartlepool, Durham ; Pataly Bridge, Yorkshire ; Shipston, Oxfordshire ; Zoar Chapel, Neath, Glamorganshire ; Godney Hill, Lincolnshire ; Sutton St. Edmonds, Lincolnshire ; Edington Aston, bear Birmingham; Hallaton Hawston ; Milton, Oxfordshire ' • Bethesda Chapel, Forest-row, Sussex; Tunbridge Wells; Ashwell, Hertfordshire; Ch ad lington, Essex; Providence Chapel,Throwley, Devonshire; Shilton, Leicestershire ; Nairn, Scotland ; Beerford, Ox fordshire ; Havant, Hampshire ; Baptists, Wandsworth ; Heasham, Derbyshire ; Whitefriars-lane, Coventry ; St. Clement's, Norwich ; Downton, Wiltshire ; St. Mellon, Monmouthshire ; Fishguard, Gloucestershire ; Old Larapford, Essex ; Dublia ; Kingsland, Mid dlesex ,• Wesleyan Methodists, Ramilton, Done gal ; Skibbereen, Cork ; Ballinasloe, Galway ; Clough jordan, Tipperary ; Ballyshannon, Donegal ; Far ringdon, Berkshire ; Petigo, Donegal ; Cwm, Avon; Michaelstone, Glamorganshire ; Bromagrove ; James Cameron, minister, Dumfries ; Calvinistic Methodists, Hay, Brecon ; Forest, Brecon ; Teachers of Sunday- Schools, Carnarvon, North Wale ; Leighton, Bedford. shire; Hallaton; ok-street Sundoy-Sohool, Accrington. Lord BERNARD presented petitions from Brandon and from several parishes in the county of Cork against the Bill for the endowment of the College of Maynootb, and also against the system of national education. Mr. STUART WORTLEY pre tented petitions against the Maynooth grant, and also against the Parochial Set tlement Bill. Lord ALFRED LENNOX prestonted a petition front a congregation assembled at Providence Chapel, Chi chester, against the Bill for the endowment of May nooth. Mr. DARBY presented a petition from the Wes leyans of Slough to the same effect. Lord NORTHLAND presented. a petition from the town of Southampton against the Idaynooth grant. Petitions against the grant were also presented by Mr. Hastie, Mr. Turner, Mr. Plumptre, Mr. Buckley, Sir John Hanmer, Mr. Bright, Mr. Octavius Duncombe, Mr. Tufnell, Mr. Shaw, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. M. Gib son, and several other Honoarable Members. The Earl of MARCH presented a petition against the Parochial Settlement Bill. Petitions against the grant to Xaynooth were pre sented by Mr. S. Crawford from £'ifeshire and other places, Mr. Stansfield, Mr. S. O'Brien, Mr. Blewitt, Dr. Bowring, Mr. Williams, Mr. Ruthe rford, Mr. Newde gate, Mr. Gisborne, Mr. Adderley, Mr. J. Neeld, Mr. Wodehouse, and Mr. Duncombe. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented t petition from the colliers of Northumberland, com Waining of the state of the collieries in that county, and. praying for inquiry. Petitions against the grant to lilaynooth were pre sented .by Mr. Howard, Mr. Botrkett Denison, Mr. Villiers Stewart, and other Hon. 1' /lumbers. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented several petitions against the West Riding .Junction Railwa) JUSTICES' CLERK. S BILL. Mr. T. EGERTON presented a petition against this Bill by the justices of the county o f Chester. mAyNootri , Lord 'TARRY VANE present( ,d several petitions in favour of the grant to Maynooth. Mr. ENTWISLE presented sev( .ral against it. Mr. HAWES presented seven petitions from places in Surrey, against the grant to Mayne. oth. Mr. TANCRED gave notice that 4 on going into Com mittee upon the Maynooth Bill, he would move that it be an instruction to the Committee to make an assessment on the land in Irela pd equivalent to the reduction made by the Tithe Commissioners, and upon any surplus in the hands of the Commissioners, for the purposes of the Maynooth College Act. SIR 11. POTTING ER. Mr. HUME postponed to this day fortnight the mo :ion of which he had given notice for this day respecting the services of Sir li. Pottinger. POOR-LAW (IRELAND) Sir R. FERGUSON moved for a return, giving the date of the formation of each union under the Poor Relief Act in Ireland ; the late of the first admission of the poor ; the expense (prepared from the audited ac counts) in each first and each subsequent half-year for which the accounts have been audited, with the sums paid for maintenance and clothing in the first co lumn ; those paid for the proportion of establish ment charges, repayment of workhouse hen, collec tion, burial and all other expenses, in the second; and in the third, the total expense, the number relieved in each workhouse in each half-year, the average number re lieved half-yearly, the average cost per head per week for maintenance and clothing in each half-year, and the date at which each half-year ended. and marking the half-years in which instalments of the workhouse loans have been paid. Return, giving the names of the unions in Ireland in which the provisions of the Act 6 and 7 Vic. c. 92, have been acted on in re.pect of fever pati nts. spe cifying the cases in which the Poor-law Commissioners have sanctioned, first, the appropriation of a part of the workhouse for a fever hospital ; or, secondly, the build ing of a fever ward, its distance from the nearest point cf the workhouse, the number it is calculated to contain, the cost of it, and in what manner the money is ob tained ; or, thirdly, the hiring of a house, the number it will contain, and the rent thereof. Also, a return of the number of fever patients relieved under the 15th, and of those relieved under the 16th clause of the above named Act, and the average weekly cost of each.— Ordered. SHERIFFS-SCOTLAND. Mr. HUME then moved for a return of the number of days in the years 1842. 1843, and 1844, on which each sheriff, in Scotland (excepting those ft r the counties of Lanark and Mid-Lothian), officiated as judge in his county court, and whether the nature of the business was civil or criminal, or both, each clay. Similar separate return for each of the counties respectively of Lanark and Mid-Lothian.—Ordered. THE MAYNOOTH GRANT. Colonel SIBTHORP moved that there be laid before this House a return of the numbers of petitions that have been presented for and against the present pro posal on the part of her Majesty's Government, of an increased grant out of the Consolidated Fund to the Col lege of Maynooth in Ireland, with the number of signatures annexed thereto ; distinguishing, where possible, Ist, those petitions which object in kik to all endowment of any religious worship ; 2d, tlioserpetitions which object to any grant of any kind to Maynooth ; 3d, those peti tions which object to the measure of her Majesty's Go vernment. The above return to be made up to Friday, the 18th day of April. Mr. THORNELY said that, as Chairman of the Committee to whom petitions were referred, he begged to inform the Hon. and Gallant Colonel that reports were made twice a week to the House of the number of petitions and the number of signatures attached to them. On Tuesday last the Committee made its lastreport, and the number of petitions up to that date presented against the Maynooth grant were 671, to which there were attached 88,378 signatures. A further report would be made at the proper period, but it would be perfectly impracticable to comply with the Hon. and Gallant Member's motion before that time arrived. Colonel SIBTHORP—What can't be done can't be done.—(Laughter.) The Hon. and Gallant Officer then withdrew his motion. CALICO PRINT WORKS BILL. Lord ASHLEY, on the House going into Committee on the Calico Print Works Bill, moved that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the pro visioms of the Bill to the restulation of the labour of young persons and women, and to all print works, and to the processes incidental to the ia'our in print works. —Agreed to. . _ The Bill was then re-committed to Wednesday ne x i anti ordered to be prioted. MAYNOOTH. Petitions against the Bill were presented by M Protherot.... Mr. Co,ke. anel Mr. THE ADJOURNED DEBATE. The question having b.en put by the Speaker, Mr. C. BRUCE said that when the question was first introduced to the House, he felt it his duty, in com pliance with the feelings of his constituents, to expre-s his own convictions regarding the measure. He op. posed this Bill on that occasion both on principle and on the ground of expediency. He would ever sup port to the utmost of his power the Protestant religion. The title to the British Crown rested upon it. The rights of liberty rested upon it ; and under its protection our national greatness—witness our prosperity and our pre-eminence in learning, in the arts and sciences. in ma nufactures and commerce—had been created. Under it, protection this country had attained its present glorious position. Its roots were deeply imbedd , ‘d in the firm soil of English hearts, and in the consciences and convictions of the Scottish people. Like the oak of England, the storm passed over it and harmed it not. It might echo through its branches, and scatter its green leaves to the winds, but after the storm had passed over, it stood aloft in the glory of its position and the magnificence of its strength. Like the meteor flag of England, its banner had braved for upwards of 300 years " the battle and the breese"—because the favour of God was upon ,it. He who alone governed the destinies of nations, 10(.1 Nato was greater than all the world in arms. .Rs fgared that Right Hon. Gentlemen had forgotten the principles which were inculcated by their common Alma Mater. The course of his Right Hon. Friend's vision seemed to be dimmed. Time was when he (Mr. Ernep) had learned from him that the principle the tit,*snsent was now advocating was wholly visionary. oyvtipiary of Maynooth would be a thorn in the 'sltietofi - tis.country, as long as it continued. Such had been triMictum of the Right Hon. Gentleman and his .argumentiand reasoniNg had convinced many ; but his liklitlibn. Friend had now made the discovery that the principle was only vicious because it had not been prac tically 'carried out, and they were now given to under stand that it only wanted the endowment of the Catholic clergy of Ireland to effect that improvement. Mr. GLADSTONE—No, no. Mr. C. BRUCE was glad to hear that his Right Hon. Friend did not hold the doctrine of venial and mortal sin as propounded by the Church of Rome. The Roman Catholics held that if they stole 9,0001. from a rich man, that was a moderate sin ; but if they stole 30,0001, that would be a mortal sin. But the Right Hon. Gentle man thought differently. With him 9,000/. was a mortal sin, but 30,0001. was no sin at all. His Right Hon. Friend ascribed the practical failure of the College of Maynooth to their not carrying out the intentions of William Pitt, to their not endowing the Catholic clergy of Ireland. In giving up his former principles, the Right Hon. Gentle man had fallen in with others which would not meet with equal approbation from the people of England— principles which, to use a homely and common phrase, were " penny wise and pound foolish." He deeply regretted that the Right Hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary, even for a single mo ment, to deprive the country of those services which from his habits of industry, from his high intellectual attain ments, and from his honourable feelings, he was so well qualified to render to it. He greatly regretted the retirement of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and he regretted it still more, because it had been the moans of attracting the attention of the c-untry to his change of opinion—he would not say to his change of principles. He had raised up obstacles to his ability to render for the future any ssrvice to his coun try. He could not imagine any speech more calculated, he would not say to shske the confidence which the public reposed in its public men, but to bew.l ler tt e minds of the people as to the principles professed by public men, than the speech of the llon. Gt ntleman on this sudden change of opinion. He regretted it exceed ingly. He did not question the sincerity of the Rig h , Hon. Gentleman's motives. No person was more en titled to the respect of the country than the Right Him. Gentleman, but he could not but feel that such would be the effect of tne Right Honourable Gentlem a n' s su dd en . . .... .... change of opinion. The Right Hon. Gentleman Might . depend upon it that if the mind of England could find no exponent for its convictions among the leaders and statesmen of that House, it was not so destitute of ability as not ere long to find other leaders, or so benumbed and paralysed as not to make every effort to endeavour to find them out. He the more regretted the course the Government adopted on the present occasion. bt caue, on all other occasions, he had been its advocate and supporter ; and he deeply regretted that anything should have occurred to shake, not the position or the Government—for he had no fears on that score—but thy confidence and respect which they had hitherto so fully enjoyed and deserved for the able manner in which they had conducted the business of the country. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, in a speech characterised by that ability which characterised all the speeches of that Right Honourable Gentleman, had divided his argument into two branches. Like a Scotch sermon, he had divided it under two heads, each of which contained various subdivisions. Under one of these divisions he gave her Majesty's Government credit for their superior party tactics in introducing this measure. He had listened to the speech of the Right Hon. Gentle man opposite (Mr. Macaulay) with great attention, and he felt compelled to say that the arguments of the Right Honourable Gentleman, in his wonderful oration, were rather fallacious, while the speech it self was full of specious and unconvincing de ductions. It was a tissue of ingenious sophistries, in which he had drawn a picture that exhibited a magnificent embodiment of enthusiastic fanaticism and indomitable courage in one of whom he was speaking, and therefore it would not be wonderful if the Right Hon. Gentleman • had imbibed some of that religious spirit which he appeared desirous of infusing into the House. In Maynooth the students appeared to be still inspired with the spirit of that character, the great original of which the Right Hon. Geutleman had spoken of in such glowing terms ; but he (Mr. C. Bruce) would be far from saying that the House had adopted any of the views or feelings of the Right Hon. Gentleman. The Right Honourable Gentleman abused the Go vernment for their conduct in respect to the Free Church •of Scotland ; but it was his opinion that the Government had acted in accordance with the opinions of nineteen-twentieths of those who were interested in the matter, and they deserved the thanks of eve, ry Scotchman for the course they had lie did not agree with the Right lion. 114 4r ,b,,, , , l c . ) ; Perth iu his statements respecting the flout',ehie tion of what was called the Fre e Ch urc h .. A condi tion to the boast of the six hundred new churches --',:hat was only part of their tactics. They built a church in every parish, and built it as near - as possible to the parish Church, whether ti . . e site was convenient or not. With regard to the EP:.gument that the present measure was necessary to tarry out the implied faith of the Act of Union, and the spirit of the Emancipation Act, be must say that he did pot think the en ris dowment of the Catholi:Churcb ev part f elite ok The grant to Maynooth by the Iris h Parliatnen t eut it measure for the removal of civil disabilities , eau would be absurd to say that the present then o could be looked upon in that light. ne. n pair that the Irish Parliament were wr," 4 br jog* that measiire ; hut their conduct otr, much worse, and they would be more Pi s r ob agreeing to the present measure, for it was ° A Wee ° f graver and more serious character. He wont Fred tte the expediency of the grant to Maynooththe ear fruits borne by Maynooth. Looking t i „ r iao diet pursued by the Roman Catholic used —to the language which had been r oue of Dr. M'Hale and others towards the ,sv en i n gto o Wellington, he did not think the Duke of th " . could be accused of using exaggerated langllf%ukeoi sued the language which had been used by Ormond in speaking of the Roman as reportteheo bf of his time. His words, Walshe, himself a Roman Catholic, we re had % He declared. For these 30 years that to o! do with the Roman Catholic Bishops, I n ever ° . , ei orti of them either to speak the truth or t , ( l ) , be v se e ret his promises."—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh. " ) , ro e 01 191 ' not his (Mr. C. Bruce's) words—(Cries of " m oor they were the words of Walshe, and dto by saying that the Duke put his ha" o i te heart, as a man and a Christian, nnd e r aft e , t i an earnestness which he had never seen before., it eon. That state of things had lasted fifty years, all u the per not be denied that it had utterly failed ill bo ld pose for which it was established. Thepallt therefore, altogether withdrawn. He mi ri tle no oth Catholic iciDib author, to show that the education at M u ci r- bee e etw e i most imperfect and improper. Men who P a " 11% and ot her r tb o cated there—Crolly, O'Beirne, language of censure in this respect much etP that used by Mr. Walshe. Did the Govern b ear.), , 'Two," to remedy this state of things ?—( 11 " r ' from it—they meant to increase the gran 4 0 0;1 el any attempt to remedy the faults of ' s there. He knew Roman Catholic Mer nber e loctr ie el tell him that they did not hold these wel l " —they repudiated them, but if this were t he e tber';l alt the were they not expunged and rejected (Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Baronet at L et V° of the Government said he did not wish to de trti t OF; the grace or favour of the grant. He had r a re, aisle rity to quote—that of a great statesman, who, in gr el , s ted the House in quite another manner. The grit, StrOl e r oll tee _bees for Kent introduced a motion for withdrawing a itow - beS Maynooth, as the motion itself was subsequenttY, but this eminent statesman to whom he had allsnifl' e le, e„ I words, to which he invited the attention of the .sieotri e r cularly the Hon. Member for Bath. pr event to e that such compact existed as ought to ference of the Legislature, if the grant was Ise r°erte oli e ' t6l o He did not agree in the opinion that the 51sta:10(000v tion pursued at Maynooth ought to be a matter of 1 4 00°,0 1 to the House. He had not heard such an obser f ' hie , a s ' by the Noble Lord, but he had heard it impel 7ts e per the Noble Lord did not deny it.—( Hear, be e ?' t it° : 0 V bounden duty of the House, if they lou n eer oie e ,re nicions doctrines were taught there—doctrines r a id Ptis the welfare and safety of the empire. He for one h el be th° 6 it concur in the principle of indifference, whi e " oe sti lo should be repudiated. It woUld be a very prope r ,et obst that case to submit to the House, whether the gre'dtbs`4l discontinued or not ?" The statesman who expressiel To o ) nion was his Right Hon. Friend at the head of i t t i e e b e i 00 —he who now introduced the present measure. --4 ; l e sloe He (Mr. C. Bruce) had not been induced to alte r / 60 1 ,1 04 which he had formed on hearing that speech di tte .esio T t e o Friend. He maintained that the system of edg e ",t e d , ifr in Maynooth was not such as ought to be sulli ° ' a gow t c , o , not the place from which to expect loyal subject' or 0, 0 0 tens. If any Hon. Gentleman doubted that, h e . as set f er agge reo ooo o from works on the subject in support of his of No, no," and laughter.) His Righ t , the 10 Friend had said that this grant would raoef ratter of Maynooth.—( Hear. ) What class ;or " / „ ° Ofe, (Mr. C. Bruce) would ask, were better educat e- Las, s'i s ir to move in the highest orders of life, than the Jeg - e - e olla, that class of persons had been expelled from eveiesir,fer Europe, even from the dominions of the Pope? taa , tbe7 b bl ence, however, was extended to Maynooth. Ais'et*ter said that they could not mend the education of eotf merely increasing their grant, giving the s ", i - e re ter clothing. or by giving them better ateatee i ' House then would see that they would be doing 11- eir!'" ) ;" grant if they did not give to the whole acquiring a geod, sound, practical, and moral cities! tioo.o.e eo ntrY t t io sl , , e ,ii that no other weuld give sati 'faction to the reop i e tese st how well or liberally they might endow the ed ces tbef tutions.—( Hear, hear ) Therefore, he would sal be disappointed if they expected that this gra nt t o c' es el o el s ' would give publi saeisfaction; on the contrail', ' st et oie j have the effect of outraging the feelings of the e e as t,, ° the country, while it would effect no good. 11 , 1 e ae't e v. was that this grant would have no other eiree' ro po ‘ se" given, n whetting om a nfoi the nr atho appetites euo use additional o f o f ri t o h ow o r s he e sosme t o . _h w e( h H o h m easdr i C a s r e ' r lb re PI ( to ` a gresteepor tjt esteem than the Right Hon. Ge n tleman the Of Exchequer ; but he would ask him, if he appr'y e ""c sec - ,0 14 a ibe 00 1 how could he consistently refuse to endow all fbe re might apply for that purpose ?—(Hear, hear.), t 041, some sects who would not have any such grant ; H e art rO a great many others who would not refuse re or„°` s d That was not the place to discuss the truth or e t otSao gion, but as our ancestors had decided that PO tee te , tbe:00 1 , necessary for the well being of this country! i t ' I g a y o , o gr not necessary to discuss it. He did not wok to be tb/ bot tio Go disrespectful of the Roman Catholic Clergy , they taught what was erroneous. He wished tha t ea ell, went would leave them to teace their religion thewbo act spare the consciencies of serious and earnest ellen: t oil' be shocked at the blow which they were Om" 00 ? their Church. fO es lo j Mr. W. GLADSTONE, rose in explanation of r which had been misrepresented by the Hon. Afe a l e be tbe just sat down, by other Members who had ;pokes' '&0 1 40 of the debate. They seemed to intimate that the ' i l l s te j expressed their intention through him of pensioni o ..,g trY O O, Catholic priesthood. What he (Mr. Glac'stone) that he felt that the acceptance of this roe""ob put out of the way any religioise t to the payment of the Roman Catholiertilder And also a very great question would arise Wi s t h eale their payment. What he meant or said was 0 ' ' n 'aes` t o tance now, but he wished to relieve the Ge yer- 0 1 ? anything that he might have been supposed t ° f ss them, for he had no knowledge, no recollection ° to ss tb ef connected with this subject which could enable 110 that they entertained any intention of that ki° 4 ool 7 o oo ° that he recollected or heard could justifY isi ttl e ; the that they entertained the intention of pensionine tit Catholic clergy.—(Cheers.) length Sir G of E t O hi ß s GdErhatGe,RhEeYwasasiddestihroaut,i onfotsrstai,thill3,7,lloord,./ came to a close, the grounds of the vote wine' ""5 e„ 0 . s j e tention to give. He was desirous to do so, h ee o f wr hisbe opspoopsedp ortetors,the who s s t e rong oo rfierdmuenoonoestthranebeees of which confidence he would n r isk e el' tO ,O by the vote he found he would h e r ilo, es ere se l d r give en so important a measure, a il ° , eskie " 2 1 welfare of Ireland was so deeply interested. regret at the tone and spirit in which the P e . °- e e t eolra A V. tleman (Mr. C. Bruce) spoke of the Roman " - ve t :eV:l He believed his speech would present a strong_ e ! o e f tbs j u otl', made by Honourable Members during the c oursz he br at a) and he earnestly hoped that the example which iti t 'etee raking up extracts from old records, would not be 0 lo t% the debate. He had said that his consistency t ee „t; in the vote which he should give upon this occ es. o - 0 fe r ", did not refer simply to votes which he had gi°,. en a - 00 01. ,5 - o‘ j s casions when he supported the smaller grant 0 1 ." re , If he thought that the present measure was anti e 'bat the vote from 9,0001. to 26,0001., he should fen . " 0 .01 1 " tion . of principle could by possiblity arise on the to tbeoelri, ing which would justify his refusal to 35 5 ° 4 de grees 0 ' reading. It would then be a mere question of e Of; h it t for h e D believed o r s e ts r w e of principle, and that was entire' settled °tees ith that his no N t a grand principle, was involved in t "l 9 ;e r e eb namely, the recognition of the Roman Catb° - 0 ell' ' Noble Friend Friisendrijactoioeiesii;refr; t t ( Hear. hear)—the recognition of that Churc h great body of the inhabitants of Ireland were s° br oscat d , tached, and in the communion of which they "', e l ,7fec t ;s4 t e the o the recognition of that fact, and not only a " J iee, r eci t e wise principle that it was unjust, in i P t o f ° je t O r olf z to disregard the opinions of the great bodY, hia ea ( 0 t , and to maintain and support a Protestant Estabi? 0 11 1) 00 1 0i midst of a teeman Catholic country.—(Cheere., re to ss P eft s ot occasions he maintained that opinien and he w fipo 4o l 0 y repeat it now, that such a principle was in °' 0 113 " r first principles of justice-( Hear, hear)—that :00;31 s a i s ti t en to the obvious dictates of sound polieY - " ( e od e% hey knew tit?) , were opposed to the practice e i 0 0, t ry every country in Europe. —(Cheers.) I r eland ba a ,A country in which that experiment failed, an d b „, e once to judge of the results whieh had taken 1 1 %014 o e' hear.) He would say the same, if it rat,: r' e Cis y establish and maintain a Catholic Church e ,'7,eoraq esmutry—(Hear, hear)—or to maintain an reV - e seli t e in a Presbyterian country—(Hear, hear)—an d „„"adit e loi', gree of shame and regret that Scotland bad here against the proposed measure, when he rem 0 0 ‘ l 4 l tempts made by this country to impose episcoP ac i ,' s pi he and how the attempt was defeated by tbe ste r e - is eil,r t i c ( i / northern fellow. countrymen. —( Chem s. ) 0 be told—and he had heard it durieg the del' s.- f P'b e ifir principle were admitted, that the great majoritY °,tebOof were to determine the religion which should be , e eato toil any country, that it would lead to the establishilf;loalie d ooism or Mahometanism in many portions Of shelf tended empire. He denied th a t inference. g e e d of there was a proper, a distinct, and a broad lin e :l'l 4 7o, l e! between those professing Christianity and oth er :m:o freelir then darkness, and in the performance O f heath teelasfee) would ask those who used this argument s'hY as ;JO acted towards the Roman Catholics of Irelaoles" acted towards the Hindoos and Mahomesians ? " a s s ine et r eoref Had it ever been thought politic by the Goo - t he I . 1 East to withdraw from the religions cherishecluhLsalletiffl their eastern possessions, the revenues whic h " - s ee i ° C010; appropriated to their support ? What was the se e nt osn etse e e At the time of the reformation they found the Teirg e o o,, Establishment in that county inpossession °" t een,,', e rfr tensive revenues. And what course did they ( ele: A ir r e sl i - They acted m os t un f a i r l y an d mos t unjustly trer c ar and cheers)—for they not only deprived them l a o 'oooo Imes, but they transferred them to the suProd er ee t r o d clergy and another faith. The people still ren l 0 0 0 ' ) to their ancient faith, and yet this by a strang e 0 016 called the Protestant reformation, and by an t,b ; e 4 te,Y, hallucination they termed the Protestant C l ' ll' o P .- re ° if of Ireland.--( Cheers.) He could not fail to g' efe r",6e assent to the second reading of this m easure: Gat'er k li be r e / what might b e th e i n t en ti on o f her Majesty osl granting this Bill to the Irish people, he b id o , a rliareoY sure a step taken on the part of the Bri t oo e es' would do themselves credit, and be fully 'oad i er :o 014 1 ;40 1 „f predated by the people of Ireland—a, steep th e `„ t or, b`; s:e Irish nation that their Chur.cb s hould ) 3 ° oif e csv,:t stamped with odium, and that ProtestanTpeed 01 11 14 might deplore the errors which they 14 1 - e V r i er d professed, would not -, et deny them b e and their . '‘. l l l P°rt. t *s . te did n ot a e " ee sololos, the Mee:sings of the Protestant Reformation,gematt tbe.os' sanpathise with the petitioners who had app ay thsol;rir upon that important question, but he rou' t floc h Yte to advance the blessings of Protestantism r o ." proa: 10 4 0e , bition of ultra-exclusiveness ; the way `„„s ff: s ; tianity was not by attempting to coerce Pee'r, e n Os, Cession of it, a mode which was alike contrary - sVit, h orV e God and repugnant to their fellow-creatures • that te l e . i tb ciples of several of the petitions presented t° sly agreed', he presented one of them himself, he perf pr oerstelee , i petitioners founded their opposition to the 131 t hat s ll t hel, 0 1 ,1 Right Hon. Barenet on te l nod t tr genera pri , 1 , 0 4 ft dowinents were c on t ra ry to h the Word o. - on prepared to refuse to the Roman Catholics all e tt e i) would, on a s imilar principle, have refused t. W denominations. But witeit be (Si)'