The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-29 00:00:00

TRADE.

Sir G. CLERK stated that the documents which had
been laid before the Raiway Committee of the Board of
Trade were now deposited in the clerks' office of the House.
He thought that the best way by which they could be
rendered acceptable to all the parties interested would
be by referring the several documents to the Railway
Committee upon the different Bills to which the docu-
ments related. He should, therefore, move that the
documents be now so referred.
Mr. HASTIE presented seven petitions against the
grant to Maynooth.
Colonel ACTON presented several petitions to the
same effect, from Wicklow.
Several petitions were presented against the proposed
Maynooth grant.
Lord BERNARD presented several petitions from
places in Cork against the increased grant to Maynooth.
Sir J. HAMMER presented a petition from Beverley
in Yorkshire against the grant.
Mr. S. GRAWFORD presented petitions from various
places in England to the same effect.
Mr. HINDLEY presented 30 petitions against the
Ilaynooth grant from the following places :—The
inba-
bitants of Damerham and Martin, Wilts; Chatteris,
Cambridgeshire ; Shaffington, Bucks ; Spettisbury,
Dorset ; Sturminster Marshall, Dorset ; Heul-
lan, Denbigh ; Palham and Waxham, Nor-
folk ; Protestant Dissenters, Node Chapel, Isle of
Wight ; Foulmire, Cambridgeshire ; Park-street
Chapel, Cotteris, Isle of Ely; Blackwood, Monmouth-
shire ; Trefyam, Pembrokeshire ; Carzard, Cornwall ;
Newton Chapel, Staidburn, Yorkshire ; Ministers meet-
ing at Alton, Hants ; Oatwood, Surrey ; Calvinistic
Methodists, Northampton Chapel, Clerkenwell ; Bap-
tists, Chatteris, Cambridgeshire ; Uckfield, Sussex ;
Aberdare, G lamorganshire ; Wesleyan Methodist
Association, Stockton-on-Tees ; Norley Tabernacle,
South Lincolnshire; Appleby, Westmoreland ; Lynn,
Norfolk; Besde, Cornwall ; Holmes Chapel Cheshire ;
United Association, Avon-bridge, Stirlingshire.
Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from a parish in
the county of Ayr against the Government measure
with respect to Maynooth. It stated that endowing- the
Roman Catholic priesthood would be to support idola-
tors, and to render them partakers in the sin of idolatry.
—(Laughter.) He also presented petitions from several
parishes iu the counties of Suffolk, Perth, Down, and
Stafford, to the same effect.
WINWICK RECTORY BILL.

Sir R. INGLIS, on the report on this Bill being pre-
sented, took occasion to eulogise the conduct of the
Rector of Winwick, who, he stated, endowed seven
parishes out of his rectorial income.—The report was
received.

COLONIAL BISHOPS.
Mr. COLLETT put a question relative to the pay-
ment of Colonial Bishops, which was not audible-.
Mr. HOPE, in reply, said it was true Bishops had
been appointed at Colombo and at New Brunswick, but
neeither were paid fur by the people of this country.
Theßishop of Colombo was paid for by the colony itself,
the Bishop of New Brunswick by a fund raised in this
country fur the endowment of colonial bishops.
Captain BERKELEY wished to know whether it was
true that the Commander-in-Chief had ordered the
officers of the two regiments of Life Guards, to provide
for the payment of bands as in the line, and if so to lay
the copy of such orders on the table of that House.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said it was quite true that
such an order had been issued. He would ascertain
whether it could be laid on the table of the House, but
at present did not think it was a matter in which Parlia-
ment should interere.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY asked Sir James Graham if he would
consent to a motion for a return of a copy of the answer
addressed to the Committee of the National Association
of General Practitioners by the Council of the Royal
College of Sup;eons.
Sir J. GRAHAMI said that in a day or two he would
lay on the table of the House the correspondence to
which the lion. Member referred.
THE BRAZILS. _ _ _

Sir R. PEEL said, in answer to a question from Mr.
Grimsditch, that the information which her Majesty's
Government had received upon the subject had
been but very recently received, and had been
handed to the Queen's Advocate to report
upon, and when that report should be received, he would
take care that the lion. Member should be made ac-
quainted with the nature of it.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said he had had many com-
munications upon the subject just referred to by the
Right Hon. Baronet, in consequence of which he had
placed a motion upon the paper to the effect that he
would move for copies of the correspendenee that had
passed between the authorities at Rio de Janeiro and
the Government of this country on this question; but
if there was any objection to the production of them, he
would not press his motion. However, this he would
say, that great alarm had been felt as to the position of
their commercial relations with Brazil ; and it was felt
that the great difficulty of their recent relations bad
been owing to the unfortunate policy of this country
towards Brazil upon the Brazilian sugar question—
(Hear, hear)—and, in fact, until the Government
should retrace their steps on that question,
nothing else that they could do would have
the effect of re-assuring, the British subjects in that
colony that they were replaced in the full enjoyment of
those privileges which they had a. right to enjoy.—
(Hear, hear.) However, as he had stated, he would not
press for the correspondence, if there was any objection
to it.
Sir R. PEEL said ho had before him a document is •
sued by the Brazilian Government, in which it was
stated that British subjects in that country should
be restored to the fullest enjoyment of all their privi-
leges. He could not see the expedienoy of producing
the correspondence alluded to by the Hon. Member.
Mr. HUME said he thought those evils had resulted
from the Government of this country interfering in the
internal regulations of other countries.—(Hear, hear.)
He felt satisfied that the Government would act wisely by
rescinding its acts in reference to Brazil, and in leaving
every country to carry on its institutions as it deemed
fit. He was sure that if any other country attempted
to dictate to this what its institutions ought to be, he
was sure that this country would reject such interference
immediately.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said he had a letter in his hand which
he had received that moment, an extract from
which he would read to the House. This letter was
directed to a firm in the City, and it stated that a gen-
tleman, named Harvey, who died on the 11th of
February, left a will, under which a person named
Castell was appointed to act as executor. At the time
of this gentleman's death he was loading a vessel, and had
put into it about 1,5001. worth of goods, for the pur-
pose of liquidating a debt ; but a judge claimed to
have the property, which was actually sold, and the pro
ceeds placed as a deposit in his court. A great inconve-
nience and loss was occasioned by the power now assumed
by the Brazilian authorities, and in this instance the
property which was valued at 1,5001. bad been
sold by the Judge for 900 L He agreed in the
observations which had fallen from the Honourable
Gentleman the Member for Montrose, but he
would submit that this was an evil which
was occasioned by that combination of monopolists under
whom the Right Hon. Baronet had to some extent sub-
mitted his Government This was characterised as an
unfriendly act of the Brazilian Government ; but
hshowuldcoeunldter
ittainbeanyezrecnteddly tfhaltingsthattowGaordvesrnthmeemnt,
to w
countryhiblee, oi; nwadaesi;
froamracttreard—i
trading
ef
fairly
yh e
withar) tthhi
the
Brazils—(Hear, hear)—and in the district from which
yppraeocvrepinrtt-emetaaerh whichee they all believed
he came there was the greatest possible dread that
g ere det millionutfhrrnoo
muhgi
their trade with the Brazils, which amounted
hsttahtettehcnootiußornisgethotwtbhifie:lsioßo.razeilsin
trade,t jeopardisedremuhadaynwdoaun Idd
and a halfw
teondaan
taken.
do w toH
en-
deavour to make some wise and salutary regulations with
regard to it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON said he had received several
representations from the place which he represented, on
the subject of the oppressions to which the merchants
were subjected to in Brazil, and great alarm and ap•
prehension was entertained as to the security of
their property and interest in Brazil.—(Hear, hear.)
He was glad that her Majesty's Government had paid
attention to the subject, and he trusted that something
would be done to remedy the evil.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS trusted that her Majesty's Ministers
would not follow the advice of the Hon. Member for
Montrose. There was not a sacrifice that the
ptople of
this country were not prepared to make—there was no in-
crease in the price of sugar, or any other article,
that they were not prepared to hear—if there were a rea-
-

sonable certainty of stopping such a crime as traffic in

slav,ry.

Mr. WARBURTON could not believe that the
people of this country were so insensate as not t) see
the effect of the returns which had been made
to that House with respect to the slave trade. From
those returns it appear( d that the numter of slaves
which the British cruisers had arrested in their progress

.....-.. .
from Africa to the Spanish colonies or the Brazils
not amount to more than three per cent. of
the whole number carried from Africa to the
opposite coasts of the Atlantic. When the British
public looked at those reports, they could not but see
that the measures which had been taken by the Goverro
rnent for the suppression of the slate trade were totally
inefficient-.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the former treaty
entered into by the present Government with Portugal,
a treaty of trade and navigation had been entered into,
giving protection to the lives and property of British
subjects. He wished to know if, in the treaty
isith Brazil, the Government had acted in a similar way?
Sir R. PEEL said that attempts had been made to
complete the treaty in a similar way, and he had every
reason to believe that by that time the signatures of the
plenipotentiaries had been affixed to the treaties.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that that was not an
answer to the question of his Noble Friend. The
question was, whether the separate treaty would be
signed before the other had expired on the 18th of No-
vember.
Sir R PEEL did not anticipate any difficulties in the
way of signing the treaties.
Mr. SHEIL thought such a desultory conversation
tended to no certain purpose. He was of opinion, there-
fore, that a resolution should be moved expressive
of the opinion of the House with regard to the
impolitic course pursued by the Government
in its negotiations with Brazil ; and if no other Hon.
Member would propose such, he (Mr. Sheil) should take
an early opportunity of doing sc.
The conversation then dropped.
MAYNOOTH. _

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said that be was
afraid that he could not, consistently with the orders of '
the House, bring forward the motion he had given notice
of with regard to Maynooth till the report of the Com-
mittee of the whole House were brought up upon the
Bill. He would, therefore, take another opportunity of
bringing it forward.
Mr. HUME presented several petitions against the
grant to Maynooth.
Lord CASTLEREAGH presented several pet;tions
against the grant, and also several in favour of it from
parishes in the county of Down.
Numerous petitions against the grant were presented
by Mr. G. Duncan, Mr. Hindky, Mr. Evart, Lord San-
don, Sir A. Brooke, and Mr. C. Berkeley.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented several petitions
against the grant, and one of which was signed by
1,800 persons, who expressed their surprise that the
public voice was not attended to in the House.—(Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) They prayed the House to reject
the grant, and to consider the propriety of discontinuing
the connexion between Church and State.—(Hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition from the mayor,
aldermen, common-council, and seventeen magistrates of
Manchester in favour of the grant, and expressing the
opinion of the petitioners that the welfare of the whole
empire was dependent upon the conciliation of the Irish
people.—(Hear.)
he HoN. MEMBER presented also five petitions from
religious congregations in Manchester against the grant.
Mr. FERRAND presented three petitions from places
in the county of Tyrone against the grant. The peti-
tioners had requested him to present their petitions,
because they had no confidence in their own repre-
sentatives.
Sir R. PEEL had been requested to present a petition
very numerously, and he believed very respectably
signed, from merchants, bankers, and traders of Liver-
pool, in favour of the grant to Maynooth College.
The RIGHT HoN. BARONET also presented petitions
in favour of the grant, from Presbyterians in the county
of Antrim.
Lord INGESTRE presented a petition against the
grant to Maynooth ; and petitions to the same effect
were presented from several parishes in Norfolk.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL.

On the report on the Maynooth Endowment Bill being
presented by Mr. Greene,
Mr. LAW said that he rose to offer to the considera-

, ---- ---
;on of the House his motion to negative, if possiWe, the

proposition of her Majesty's Government, that all the
charges, expenses, and burthens of the measure affecting
the question of Maynooth College, be defrayed from
the Consolidated Fund, and that the permanent
State endowment of that Roman Catholic Col-
lege be drawn from the taxes of the people of this
country. He repudiated both these propositions, and
threw himself on the indulgence of the House in
stating such reasons as he might be enabled
to advance why the consideration of these resolutions
should be indefinitely postponed. When he looked at
the magnitude of those interests which had been af-
fected, he felt that all hope and expect ition of an adequate
discharge of public duty on this question should fail.
In proportion as the principles involved in the measure
were of vital importance—in proportion to the universal
interest which the people of England and Scotland
took in it, directing all their energies to the
matter under the consideration of the House,
he threw himself on the kindness and indulgence of the
House to allow him, in as concise a form as
possible, to state the grounds of his opposition,
and the reasons for which he was now, and for
ever would be, opposed to the measure. It was
desirable that the principles of the Bill should be kept in
view, and these, he apprehended, were twofold. First,
that it was desirable to make a permanent
endowment in favour of the , Roman Catholic
priesthood ; and, secondly, that the empire should
be taxed in order to pay a permanent charge for
such education. The latter was the main f'..tittre of
the measure—the permanent State endowment of an
establishment for the forming of the Roman Catholic
priesthood. lie (Mr. Law) was of opinion that the
State should enter into no such alliance, and deprecated
the principle of taxing the people of this country for
any such purpose. This measure was introduced by the Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government to that
House, and introduced, too, under circumstances that could not
be approved by those who sent the supporters of it here, whe
sat at this side of the House ; but this measure was supported
and carried through the first reading owing to the aid which
the Right Hon. Baronet had received from those who were
usually his political opponents. In like manner was the Bill
presented to the House a second time, arid a second time was
it suscessful through the aid of political opponents ; and it was
most important to observe that a great portion of those who
supported the Bill did so for the purpose of extinguishing the
opposition to the Bill. Then, with respect to the Bill
itself, the House was left in the dark as to how
many colleges there were to be established, or whe-
ther they were to be for academical education. The
Right Honourable Baronet had, up to this moment,
maintained the most profound silence. He had not given
any information as to the nature or extent of his plans, and
would not do so until he had succeeded in procuring the ap-
probation of that Horse that the mosey was to be paid out of
the Consolidated Fund. The House knew not whether the
colleges were to be for religious education in separate col-
leges, or whether there were to be scholarships or fellowships.
In fact, they were asked to take a step that would be a leap in
the dark. History, in recording the transactions of that
House would have to record that the Right lion. Baronet
threw himself for support on those who usually opposed
him.—( Hear.) And even if he gained a triumph, if
triumph it could be called, it was gained by
following and not by leading the Noble Lord opposite into one
of the lobbies of the House. One hundred and eighty Gen-
tlemen on the other side of the House voted for imposing this
tax on the people of England for the permanent endowment of
the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, and if they once
sanctioned that principle it would be impossible for them here-
after to retrace their steps. He did not object to the amount
of the money proposed to be given to Maynooth, but he ob-
jected to the principle of paying one sixpence from the taxes
of this country for the endowment (-1 that College.—( Hear,
hear.) He was influenced by no unkindly feelings towards his
Roman Catholic fellow - subjects, but in principle he
was opposed to the endowment of the College of Maynooth.
When he said that he was influenced by no unkindly feeling
he trusted that he might fairly have credit for that declaration.
He respected, as much as any man, his fellow-subjects opposed
to him in religion—he had the most perfect and the most
unbounded respect for his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects,
for it was impossible for any liberal mind to feel otherwise
when it was remembered that for conscience' sake they had for
so long a period of time suffered deprivation of the highest
offices of the State. But he took a broad distinction be-
tween commiserating our Roman Cathoils fellow-subject=,
and the principle of endowing the Catholic Church. It was to
retain that broad distinction that he ventured to trouble the
House with his observations on this occasion. Why did not
the Right Hon. Baronet act upon the principle which he
had recognised in the Charitable Bequests Act of last year ?
By the 15th clause of that Act, power was given to the
Roman Catholic Church to benefit by bequests for the purpose
of building parsonage houses, and endowing Roman Catholic '
places of worship. Instead of that, the Right Hon. Baronet
now proposed to establish an irrevocable grant to the
College of Maynooth. This involved a principle mischievous
to the last degree. If, several years ago, the College of
Maynooth had been supported by the voluntary contributions
of the Roman Catholics themselves, it would have been now a
flourishing establishment, and there would have been no neces-
sity for such a Bill as the present. The Roman Catholics of
Leland were distinguished for,their liberality and their charity.
They were moreover in the possession of the most abundant
means. Means which enabled them not only to provide for
the sustenance of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, but
also to send Roman Catho;ic clergymen educated in Ireland as
missionaries to other countries to propagate their doctrines
there, instead of retaining them in Ireland to assist in the edu-
cation of the Catholic people in that country. He felt it to be
his duty to oppose this attempt to burden the Consolidated
Fund with their maintenance for the education of the Roman
Catholic clergy of the College of Maynooth. If the grant were
withdrawn altogether, he believed that the Roman Catholics
of Ireland would take the maintenance of the College into their
o"i.,nir ' show the extent of
th be said that this hzaeaild sa,nadnodf wt
hoeuilrd
c,
hbftyr
ity. maintaining
It mig
might
sub-
scription had been continued fir so many years that it had
created expectations of its continuance in the minds of the
authorities of that College, which would be disappointed if the
fund from which they had for so many years derived assistance
were suddenly done away with. It would not become him to
suggest to the Right Hon. Baronet the mode in which he might
meet this difficulty, but he (Mr. Law) thought that the Mi-
nister who hail not scrupled to draw from the Consolidated
Fund—from the taxes paid by the people of Great Britain—a
perinanent allowance fir the endowment of the College of May-
neoth, need not have hesitated at severing the connexion
between the Protestant Constitution and the Ro-
man Catholic Church of Ireland. He might have
brought forward some such prop ssition as the following l—
it appeared to him (Mr. Law) that the Right Hon. Baronet
might have said, with much better grace, " We have passed
the Catholic Emancipation Bill —we have relieved from civil
disabilities our Roman Catholic---"" •
fellow-subjects—we have as-
mitted them to equal• •
rights and privileges with ourselves, and
that the period had
now arrived when State expediency de-
manded that concessions should be made also in this particu-
lar." lie should have
added,
that it appeared to him on the
whole right that, while
make, at the same • conceding this measure, he should
time, the broadest • distinction
the subject of the Protestant E possible on
Catholic Church. In thus departingsta.blisfhment and the Roman
principles—in changing hisviews, and
ro
surrenderinghis earlier political
views and those principles to an urgent
expediency,le thoseust
at least engage that on a Church question which regarded