The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-14 00:00:00

tab Erb 'ambition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

ENDOWMENT OF MAYNOOTH.
(THIS DAY.)

PUBLIC MEETING AT THE LONDON TAVERN.
Mr. LABOUCHERE (in continuation from our After-
noon Edition) said—Why were they called on to give
their money towards such an institution ? On political
grounds he might oppose it. He might clearly show
that, instead of conciliating the Roman Catholic popula-
tion, the efforts of the Government had, on the contrary,
conduced to greater hostility. He might show that the
Catholics themselves were neither desirous nor under the
necessity of asking for such a grant. But he argued
against this grant neither on political nor on any secular
grounds ; but he did argue against it because he con-
ceived that the Church of Rome was imbued with despe-
rate and fatal errors, and he could not assent to a grant
to Maynooth, because it was helping to propagate such
errors. He then moved " That this meeting regards
with the deepest repugnance and apprehension-the pro-
position just submitted to Parliament by her Majesty's
Ministers, for the permanent endowment of the Romish
College of Maynooth, considering that measure to in-
volve a distinct renunciation of the national Protestantism
to which it would humbly ascribe that Divine blessing,
which has raised Great Britain to its present elevation of
power, and wealth, and prosperity."
Mr. 1). GoULD said that he would not have presented
himself before them, if he had thought that discussion
or argument was at all necessary in order to oppose a
grant like that to Maynooth, in the most Protestant city
of the most Protestant country in the world, and he,
therefore, seconded the resolution, which was carried
with some opposition.
Mr. J. J. CUMMINGS, in moving the second resolution,
said he did not feel himself justified in taking the same
ground as Mr. Gould, on a question which he regretted
had met with so much favour in Parliament ; because
he thought that, in giving his suppoi t to a resolution
such as that which ha held in his hand, he was bound to
state the reasons which had influenced his own mind ;
and he would not have taken part in the proceedings
of this meeting, if he had net been impelled to do so
by conscientious motives. They had been discussing
points in which debatable positions were introduced.
But they had now come to a point in which it was not
toleration, but participation which they were called upon
to take in what they all conceived to be a sin against
God. The Roman Catholic had been admitted to a full
and fair participation in all civil rights ; but to cross the
line, and themselves voluntarily to support that which
they were well aware was in itself nothing less than
idolatry--
The LORD MAYOR interrupted the speaker by remind-
ing him that it was a contract.
Mr. CUMMINGS said his Hon. Friend had reminded
him that it was a contract, and the very name of a con
tract reminded him of that which would carry with it
the principles of every high and right-minded merchant.
Bsse in this instance they were called upon to bind
tßamselves hand and foot to—not the support of May-
nooth alone—but also for the endowment of the
Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. They knew no-
thing of such a principle of expediency as this. The
attempt to conciliate the Roman Catholic people of Ire-
land was a vain and a fruitless effort. There was an
expediency that was allowable, but that expediency was
limited by the word of God, and they were now called
upon to give their adhesion to a principle which
transferred the honour due to God alone to a
faith which gave that honour to graven images.
They were all aware that the prosperity of
the nation depended, not on their merchants,
their commerce, and their manufactures, but upon the
fiat of God alone—and if God did but for one moment
frown upon them the whole of the prosperity of the
country would vanish in a moment. Having thus ex-
pressed his views he moved--" That this meeting,
contemplating the measure in the light in which
it is viewed by leading statesmen on both sides of
the House of Commons—as the first step to the
establishment of the Romish priesthood in Ireland—is
of opinion, that before attempting the introduction of so
great a change in the national policy, there ought to
have been offered, on the part of its promoters, some
distinct explanation'of the course intended to be pursued
on the great question of religious endowments. And,
without implying or admitting that such a question
ought to be entertained at all, this meeting considers that
those who have propounded the present measure should
at least explain whether their object is to establish two
religions in Ireland, or three, or what number."
Mr. A3IBROSE AlooßE said that no one could doubt
the splendid abilities with which the Premier had been
endowed, but as he had not stated what was his
particular object in proposing this endowment,
it was was plainly clear that the people of
England had a right to require them. This measurse
was not opposed by any one or two sections of the com-
munity, and he conceived that the combination of parties
by which it was opposed was the happiest union of parties
which he had ever witnessed. He thought that if they
looked at the Bible Society, and the other religious so-
cieties, who collected hundreds of thousands of pounds
for specific objects, they would hardly think that it was
either fair or just that this money should be taken out
of their pockets for a purpose to which upon every
principle they were opposed. He then quoted a passage
from the last pamphlet of the late Sidney Smith, to
show what he conceived to be the misconduct of the
Roman Catholic priesthood in the administrations of the
sacraments of their church. With respect to the only
principle contained in the Premier's speech—namely,
that Ireland should be governed through the agency of
the Romish clergy—on this ground alone be would have
opposed it, for he was of opinion also that Mr. AP-Neill
was right when he asserted that the less temporal power
the better, and much as he respected the clergy of the
Church of England, he would rather they were without
any power at all than that they should possess the power
with which the Romish priests were now to be endowed.
He thought that the policy of this grant was the very
worst that could possibly have been pursued, and thus
thinking, be seconded the resolution.
Mr. DANIEL WHITTLE HARVEY said that when
he recollected that brilliant eloquence which had
been used both in favour and in opposition to
this grant. he regretted that he had not had more
time to brush up old recollections than that which was
allowed from the time he entered the room. He was
no advocate of intolerance ; he had never drank at the
fountains of sectarian bitterness ; and it was not because
he was no friend of the Church of England, and still less
a friend of the Church of Rome, but because he
thought that religion was too sacred and unearthly to be
at all upheld by State endowments that he opposed it. If
the principles which he had heard propounded to-day
were to be carried into effect, the Church of England
ought to send into Ireland an army of clerical crusaders
to e rotestantise Ireland.—(The speaker was here inter-
rupted by great clamour and confusion.)
The LORD MAYOR interposed, and stated that if he
were not allowed to keep order, he must quit the chair ;
but he must remind his friend (Mr. Harvey) that this
meeting was called for a single purpose.
Mr. 11ARVEY readily recognised the rule which the
Lord Mayor laid clown, and he conceived that every
speaker was bound to state his own reasons for opposing
the grant to Maynooth.— (The speaker was again
interrupted by great claracur.) He was opposed
to the grant on two grounds. First, that the
grant was uncalled for ; and secondly, that if
made, it ought not to be made out of the taxes.
In his opinion, if this grant was made, it must ultimately
become a rule of State, and on this ground he was en-
tirely opposed to it. It was an objection to this step,
that-if they were to have an Established Church at all,
they must have the Catholic Church, for it was for them
to say whether it was right that there should be a people
fur a church, or a church for a people. But it
should be recollected that there was a nume-
rous and highly respectable body of people, who
would put iii the same claim, and he would ask them
whether they were ready to concede an endowment to
every dissenting sect in the country? If not, they must
refuse this grant. He knew that many people liked to steer
their course by their political leader, and he was sure
that Sir Robert Peel's followers would be grateful to
him for reading a few lines from a speech of that Right
lion. Baronet himself. It should be recollected that about
ten years ago the Whigs, in order to turn out the friends
of Sir R. Peel, brought in what was called the celebrated
—now it was called the notorious—Registration
He then read part of a speech made by Sir R. Peel
after his exclusion from office, to the effect that the
Whigs, if powerful in the House, were powerless without
it, and that there was a public opinion superior to
all majorities, and which must ever hereafter become
an element of every Government of this country. In
compliance with the suggestion, he came there not to
oppose the Government of Sir R. Peel, but to assert
the power of that Opinion, and to coalesce with them in
opposing whatever might be an imposition on
liberties or a plunder of their pockets, and with this
feeling he should most cordially move " That this meet-
ing feels entitled to complain of the unprecedented at-
tempt now making, by a coalition of the two
Parliament,
par-
ties in tire Legislature, to force through
with unusual haste, a measure, including
public money, in spite of the deep repugnance co
manifested by all classes, degrees, and stFongly
denominations of
the British people." a grant rlaomfeenete'
Mr. WnEELTort moved the adoption of a petition to
Parliaislent to the effect that the grant to Maynooth was
the first step to the endowment of the Roman Catholic
Church in Ireland, and that some explanation of the
extent of the intention to establish one or two, or more
religions in Ireland, was necessary.
Air. RIDLEY seconded the resolution, and the petition
was adopted.
rl he Rev. Dr. BUNTING then rose to propose the next
reF.-oi:ltion—" That the sincere and grateful thanks of this
Ineettiw, be given to the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, for
his kindness in calling the meeting, and for the ability
and tootles}}' with which he has presided
ly
over it." I e considered that his Lordship was
entitled to their thanks for prompt3y calling such a
meeting, and of giving the citizens of Loeidon an oppor-
tunity of declaring their sentiusents on this important ques-
tion. lie saw no reason why the Protestants of this couutry
should support the Roman Catholic religion and Roman
Catholic establishments in Ireland ; hut at the same time
be thought that their Roman Catholic brethren in that
country ought not to be subject to any civil disabilities
cn aceunt of the religion which they professed.
But becaOse he was of this opinion, was he to be asked to
liar and distinctive
tort her and LI Int" 1411 their pecu
doctrines ? Could !WV git ilobert Peel have adopted
some measure in &yogi' of the Boman Catholics
without placing a tax on Proiergtents to effect
to it 2—(Hear.) Had a measure !veil propso
to conciliate the people of Ireland, 77{thOut
entailing upon the people of this country the expense of
supporting it, he thought they would have given it their
hearty support. But it was a monstrous principle to

tax the people of this country by a property-tax —for, in
fact, it would have to come out of this tax—to support
doctrines and establishments to which they were so
strongly opposed.—(Cheers.) Conciliate Ireland. Let
them do what they could to allay religious animosities,
but do not let them effect it by the sacrifice of religious
principles. Religious peace was a great object to attain,
but to maintain religious principle was a greater object
still.—(Hear, hear.)
THOMAS FARMER, Esq., seconded the motion. He
considered himself honoured by having been called
upon to support it, and perfectly concurred in the sen-
timents of the Rev. Gentleman who had last spoken, and
in those of the gentlemen who had addressed the meeting.
The motion was then put by Mr. WIRE, and was car-
ried by acclamation.
The LORD MAYOR then rose and said it was a source
of great satisfaction to him, in the discharge of what
he considered his public duty, to receive so unanimous a
testimony of appreciation as to the manner in which he
had conducted the meeting. His Lordship resumed his
seat amidst general cheering.
Mr. WIRE called upon the meeting to sign the pe-
titions which were lying in the tavern for signature, and
to use their exertions to induce their friends and others
to agitate the question which had been mooted.
The Lord Mayor then left the chair, and the meeting
separated.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAI.
GLOBE.—It was already known that John Tawell, the
murderer of Sarah Hart, had, a few hours before his execu-
tion, placed in the hands of the Rev. Mr. Cox, the chaplain
to the county gaol, a written confession of his guilt. The
contents of that document the rev. gentleman declined to make
known. It was, in his opinion, a confidential communication ;
entrusted to him in his official character as a clergyman ; and
therefore sealed from the knowledge of any other individual.
But for the criminal's verbal admission to the governor, after
he had delivered the written statement to the chaplain, the
public would have been ignorant of any confession f his
guilt. The extravagant hypotheses of his counsel on his
trial, and the equally preposterous assumptions put forth
by certain catch-penny pretenders to. science after
his conviction, who endeavoured to impugn the
medical testimony by which his guilt was esta-
blished, would have been gathered up and expatiated
upon by the ignorant and credulous. The danger of con-
victing on circumstantial evidence would have been dwelt
upon ; and John Tawell would have been chronicled as
another martyr to its defectiveness of proof. The county
magistrates of Backs, at their Quarter Sessions held on
Thursday, very properly took up the subject of the chaplain's
retention of John Tawell's written confession. It was preposed
by Mr. T. R. Barker, and, after some discussion, almost unani-
mously agreed to, that the chaplain be sent for, and asked,
" whether any, and if any, what confession was made by John
Tawell, and under what circumstances it was made ?" Lord
Nugent was among the few dissentients. His Lordship al-
leged that that "the confession made to Mr. Cox might have
been under a solemn promise, or dying wish, that it might not
be made public." His Lordship's objection was supported
by the Rev. J. Harrison, who contended that " Mr. Cox
stood before them as a clergyman of the Church of Eng-
land, and the fact of being their chaplain would
not alter his position. He thought no questions
should be put to Mr. Cox relating to a matter
of so strictly a confidential nature." We have stated the
grounds on which those magistrates who objected to the
question being put to the chaplain rested their objections,
because they were actually those on which Mr. Cox, when
called in, rested his respectful refusal to answer the inquiry.
We are not about to argue this important question on gene-
ral grounds ; nor to enter into the obviously difficult inquiry,
whether a confession of guilt made by an accused
party, before trial, to a clergyman of the Church of England,
ought to be used as evidence against him. The caae of a
convicted party about to pay the penalty of his life for a
crime which he had pertinaciously and circumstantially
denied, rests upon other grounds. The question is brought
within very narrow limits. It is simply, whether the con-
solations of religion and the hopes of forgiveness from the
Divine Being can be consistently held forth by a
Protestant clergyman to a man on the threshold of
the scaffold who declines to make an unreserved and
unconditional confession of his crime as the only repara-
tion he can make to society, while he is willing to make
a confidential and conditional confession to the chap-
lain, if that officer will keep it to himself? That is the
question in issue : and to that question we give a decided
negative. The affirmative would be to cherish de-
lusive hopes in a wretched man about to pass into eternity ;
and would be of dangerous influence on the public interests.
By concealing the confessions of guilt made to a clergyman,
at the last moment,by criminals who have strenuously denied
their guilt of the offence of which they were convicted, the
juries who convicted them areleft under apprehension that they
might be mistaken in their verdict. The impression produced
by the facts, or the circumstances on which they arrived
at the conclusion, though strong as proofs from holy writ
when in the jury-box, becomes weakened by the opera-
tion of time; and the fear of having doomed a fellow-
creature to the scaffold on inconclusive evidence, haunts
the imagination, and destroys the peace of conscientious
but highly sensitive minds through future life. All this
agony of doubt in such minds would be spared, were
the confessions of guilt made by criminals to chaplains
only to be made public by them immediately after the
law has received its penalty. We contend that a clergy-
man ought not to become the depository of a conditional con-
fession. His intercourse with the prisoner is in the character
of a religious instructor. His office is to make known
to the wretched criminal the Gospel terms on which he
may obiain forgiveness and reconciliation with the Most
High. If in the recesses of his guilty soul the convict
cherish hopes of escape from the death to which he is
doomed by " cloaking" his offence especially if he
secretly admit his guilt to the minister of religion, while
he adheres to the denial he has put forth to the
world—then, in such a case, it becomes the imperative
duty of the clergymen to show him the fallacy of resting in
such a confession, destitute as it is of the elements of contri-
tion, and to publish his confession so soon as the wretched and
deluded man has passed into the unseen state. For a Protestant
clergyman to lock up in his escrutoire such a document as
that which it is admitted Tawell placed in the Rev. Mr.
Cox's hands, is, in our view, alike ineonsistent with his
duty to the Church and to society. It assumes some
mysterious efficacy in auricular confession, which the Pro-
testant Church repudiates. " If," said the memorable
John Hales, " a man be stung by an adder, will he
obtain healing by whispering his misfortune into the ear of
an ass ? Equally absurd is it to suppose that secret con-
fession of sin to a priest, who is but a man, can avail to ob-
tain deliverance from the punishment which God has de-
nounced against it.
STANDARD.—Sir Robert Peel has not said that he will
retire from office, if defeated upon the question new before
the House of Commons. Probably the Right Hon. Baronet
feels that such a declaration on his part might be construed
as disrespectful to his usual supporters, if not to the House ;
but though the Premier may observe a respecful silence
upon the point, there than be no doubt that if defeated he
must resign. His own resolution of 1841—that a Ministry
unable to carry through Parliament measures which it con-
siders important to the public interest is unworthy
of the confidence of the Crown and the country—
would stare him in the face after such a defeat
as we suppose. And nobody acquainted with the character
of the premier, can doubt that he has made up his mind to
act in the spirit of his own resolution. Upon the result of
the debate now in progress will, therefore, we may be very
sure, depend the fate of the ministry; and every man who
shall vote against the ministerial bill will, in effect,
vote for the dismissal of the Cabinet of September,
1841. We are very far from saying that,
in a very clear case of moral or religious duty, a man ought
to allow the fate of a Ministry to influence his vote: But
we hold, and we think no reasonable man will dispute the
proposition, that every one who meditates a step tending
to produce a violent, and what may be a mischievous,
change is bound to satisfy his conscience that the moral
or religious duty which he thinks himself bound
to discharge, is clear and certain. Let us add, that con-
science in this respect is not to be properly satisfied by the
echoes of public meetings, or the mechanical mul-
tiplication of petitions, but by the appeal to each
man's own reason and judgment. The award upon
such an appeal, fairly and calmly made, cannot,
in our judgment, be doubtful. The Bill be-
fore Parliament does not introduce any new principle, this is
I certain. It does not go to increase the number of the Ro
man Catholic clergy. On the other hand, it for the first
time limits the number of these clergymen to be educated at
the public expense. It does not go to augment the
influence of the Roman Catholic clergy—that is impossible,
except by, if possible, making both clergy and laity more
ignorant than they are. We do not hesitate to say, that the
present influence of the Roman Catholic clergy is at the
maximum, and that a more learned and polite clergy would
possess much less influence—that Angelo Alai or
Doctor Wiseman, for example, would have no chance
whatever in competition for influence with Father Tierney
or Father Tom Maguire. The State finds the Roman
Catholic clergy, such as they are, in possession of
unbounded and unincreasable (if we may use the would)
influence, and the Government purposes to soften the exercise
of that influence, by means which we think (whether we
are right or wrong is no matter) must weaken its founda-
tions—which certainly cannot strengthen them. Is the
obligation of moral or religious duty to resist this measure so
very clear, that men are bound to incur a very serious risk
in its discharge?

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
Several Bills, amongst which was one for affording
better protection to works of art, were brought up from
the Commons.

MAYNOOTH.
The Marquia of ANGLESEY presented several pe-
titions against any further grant to Maynooth.
The Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions,
from different parts of the country, against the sale of
spirituous liquors on the Lord's day. The Right Rev.
Prelate also presented petitions against any further
grant to Maynooth, and against the Irish Education Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a number of petitions
against any further grant to Maynooth. The Noble
Lord did not agree with the prayer of the petitioners.
Lord ARIJNDELL presented several petitions to the
like effect, and also disclaimed any participation in the
prayer of the petitioners.

ENTAILED ESTATES.
Lord REDESDALE gave notice, on behalf of the
Poke of Richmond, who was unavoidably absent, that on
Thursday next hia Noble Friend would move for a Select
Committee to inquire into the expediency of pass-
ing a legislative enactment to empower the holders
of entailed estates to raise money upon them for the
Furpo:e of effecting permanent improvements on the land.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented peti-
tions from several towns and congregations in Scotland
against the grant to Maynooth.
Th;,3l3ishop of Llandaff also presented petitions against
the grant to Maynooth ; as did the Marquis of Nor-
manby and Lord Monteagle ; the last stating his
difference with the petitioners, and declaring that he
grant had been so long withheld, and
that rehteshteuald the
give tha grant his most hearty support.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS IN SCOTLAND.

Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the
Commissioners of the county of Fife, which com-
plained that there was po provision for the care
of criminal lunatics, and stated that there were no
means provided for their ree(Yiery. One criminal
was, from want of any other place of coanemeni, plfteed
iii a solitary eew Jie was a monomaniac, and on all
other subjects, except that on which he was deranged,
he was a most intelligent man. The Commissioners

had done their utmost to provide him with some other
place of confinement, but their efforts were ineffectual, and
he thought the Government should take the subject up.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE regretted that there was no
provision. Until the 39th Geo. 111. there was no enact-
ment on the subject ; but that was insufficient ; and he
promised that the subject should receive the best atten-
tion of the Government ; and in the meantime they
would make every inquiry so as to provide a remedy.
RAILWAYS.
Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that he should to-
morrow move for the adoption of certain standing orders
respecting railways, mad that he should found a motion
on the subject for a future period.
The Bishop of St. DAVIDS presented a petition
against any further grant to Maynooth. The Right
Rev. Prelate wholly dissented from the prayer of the
petitioners, although he agreed the object of the peti-
tioners might be good.
The Bishop of HEREFORD presented petitions from
Ludlow and other places against the grant to May nooth.
The Marquis CAMDEN presented a similar petition,
but could not concur with its prayer.
Lord DENMAN presented similar petitions.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS also presented several
petitions, but disagreed with the prayer of the petitioners.

IRISH RAILWAYS.
The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE wished to ask the
Noble Eord opposite the President of the Railway
Department of the Board of Trade a question of
considerable importance relating to the projected
railways in Ireland. He wished to ask whether
the line recommended by the Board of Trade
was the best possible one which could be
marked out, or whether it was only the best of two
or three which might have been submitted to them?
He was induced to ask that question by the terms
of a report which was laid on their Lordships' table
on the 3d of April, and which referred to the lines pro-
jected in the particular part of Ireland with which he
was connected. Without entering into a discussion of
the merits (of the two lines reported on, but
he might state that neither of these two lines
was the best which could be contemplated.
In dealing with railways in Ireland, Government was
placed in a very different position than when they were
legislating upon railways in England. He thought in
Ireland Government might more directly interfere in
procuring for the public the best line which could be
suggested, and not confine themselves to any two
or three which a number of private individuals might
mark out. He wished to ask a second question, namely,
as to how far the Board of Trade in examining the
various schemes which camebefure them inquired whether
the promoters which came before them had conformed
with the provisions of the Registration Act, so as to
enable the promoters or shareholders to call themselves
a company. The regulations of the Registration Act
were certainly very stringent, and the Board of Trade
or Parliament agreed with him they ought to be altered.
Until, however, that alterations were made, theprovisions
of the Act ought, in his opinion, to be strictly complied
with. He should move for a paper stating the names of all
pers. ns who were really and truly connected with the
several schemes; and he thought that the public ought
not to be misled by the imposition of certain names on
the lists, which might give a false colour to
the concern to which they were attached. He
had lately seen the names of certain Noble
Friends of his attached to schemes with which they had
nothing to do, and he thought that this ought to be
obviated.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said that before he re-
plied to the question of the Noble Lord, he would beg to
make mention of the circumstance to which the Noble
Marquis had alluded. The fact that reports of the
Board of Trade appeared in the newspapers
before they were placed on the table of their Lordships
arose from their having been placed on the table of the
Commons, and the consequent report of them through
the press before they were submitted to the House of
Lords. With respect to the second question, whether
due deliberation had been used in carrying
their decisions, and especially with respect to
Irish railways, he would say that he was aware
that the Acts of last session was very stringent, but with
the effect to the compliance with the standing orders the
Bo -se of Commons were alone to judge. The business
of the Board of Trade was simply to report on tqe merits
of the sceme, but with respect to the registration the
Board had nothing to do.—(Hear.) He conceived
that the Board for enforcing the Registration Act
had not been negligent of their duty. They had in
several instances issued notices to all parts of the country
to warn shareholders of the risk they ran. As to the
Stock Exchange their Lordships were aware that the
proceedings of that place were kept quite secret, and
though it was notorious that many of the transactions
of that place were notoriously at variance with the
law, but it was quite impossible to punish the
parties to those transactions.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that the
terms of the Act were much less difficult than the Noble
Earl imagined. The Noble Marquis then read the
clause which obliges a deposit upon shares before they
were transferred, and he thought that the projectors,
who precisely adopted the line recommended by the
Railway Commissioners, and he thought the Govern-
ment ought to be very particular in recommending lines
for the adoption of the public.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that with regard to
to the clause for the registration of shares, he took leave
to say that every care had been taken, and if it had not
been taken it was no part of the duties of the Board of
Trade to interfere with such registration, and further he
thought that every care had been taken to avoid any-
thing like disregard of public interest.
GLASS DUTIES BILL—CUSTOMS EXPORT
BILL—MUTINY BILL.

On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, these Bills
were read a seeond time.

rLEFT SITTING.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
NEW WRIT.

Mr. S. YOUNG moved for a new writ for the elec-
tion of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for
West Kent, in the room of Lord Marsham, now Earl of
Romsey, who has been removed to the House of Peers
by the death of his father.

The Aberdeen Railway Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.

The Hartlepool Pier and Port Bill, and the Yar-
mouth and Norwich Railway Bill, were also read a second
time and ordered to be committed.

Petitions were then presented against the Yarmouth
and Norwich Railway Bill.
SHEFFIELD AND TINSLEY CANAL.

On the motion of Mr. B. DENISON, this Bill was
read a second time.

The Chelsea Improvements Bill was read a second
time.

CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN
RAILWAY.

Mr. BERKELEY presented a petition from Thomas
Watts, surgeon, of Cheltenham, against the Cheltenham
and Great Western Railway Bill, and the petitioner
prayed to be heard by counsel against it.—Referred to
the Committee on Standing Orders.
BOARD OF TRADE•—RAILWAY DEPARTMENT

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE begged to postpone his motion•
relative to the Railway Department of the Board of
Trade until Thursday next.
On the motion of Mr. W. PATTEN, the North Union
and Ribble Navigation Branch Railway was read a
second time.

Mr. BARRY BALDWIN presented a petition against
the Wolverhampton Watery% °His.

TM; MIDLAND RAILWAYS.

Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER brought up the report
of the Committee on this Bill, declaring that the
standing orders had not been complied with, a clause
having been introduced into the Bill without
any previous notice being given to the parties interested
of its nature or import.
Lord O. SOMERSET thought the report showed a
gross violation of the standing orders, but the House
would observe that the Committee did not
state the circumstances under which the resolution was
made. He was, therefore, strongly impressed with the
belief that some further inquiry ought to be instituted,
n)t with a view of inquiring further into the
fact of the irregularity, but to ascertain the
circumstance under w hich it had been fallen into. He
had been privately informed that the agt nt was cogni-
sant of the introduction of this clause, and therefore the
agent had been guilty of a serious error. He moved
that the clause be referred back to the Committee, with
power to inquire and report specially to the House by
whom, and under what circumstances, the standing
orders had been violated.

Sir J. Y. BULLER said the reason why they did not
report how this clause got into the Bill, was because the
majority of the Committee thought it was only their pro-
vince to ascertain if thepromoters of theßillbad complied
or notwith the standing orders. He agreed with the Noble
Lord, that the matter had better be referred back to the
Sub-Committee, giving them leave to report specially
to the House. He thought also that, in referring
the case back to the Committee, it should be an
instruction that the evidence given erroneously by Mr.
Burke should be written out for the consideration of the
Committee.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said it vt as quite clear a most
gross, flagrant, and dangerous breach of propriety
had been committed on the part of the agent for this
case, and it was equally necessary that the circumstance
under which that breach of propriety was made ought to
be inquired into. He, therefore, thought the House
would do well to adopt the course recommended by the
Nob!e Lord. _ _

The clause was then ordered to be re-committed.
SECOND READINGS.

The Taw Vale and Dock Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.
The Forth and Clyde Navigation and Canal Junction
Bill (No. 2) was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
The Bungerford and Lambeth Suspension Foot
Bridge Bill was also read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.
The Southport and Buxton Junction Railway Bill
was passed through the same stage.
The report upon the Forth and Clyde Navigation
Bill was further considered and received.
LAW OF SEITLEMENT. _ . .

Colonel WvrimAm and Mr. GORE presented petitions
against the new Law of Settlement Bill, but we were
unable to catch the designations of the petitions.
GRANT TO MAYNOOTII.
Mr. HOWARD presented a petition from Carlisle,
against the proposed grant to Maynooth College ; the
petitioners qepressing, at the same time, their opinion in
tavour of a grant for the purpose of uniting the Irish
colleges into one university, and throwing the university
open to all denominations. The Hon. Member said that
although he did not concur in the prayer of the
petition, yet he had not objected to present it, because it
was not characterised by bigotry. He was proceeding
to speak further on the petition, when he was called to
order by the 4ealier.