The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-11 00:00:00

SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES.

Lod CAMPBELL presented a petition against the tests in
the Scotch Universities.

RAILWAYS.
Tne LEA RFED LORD also gave notice that on the second read-
ing of the Brandling Junction Railway B►ll he would draw atten-
tion to the important subject of railway companies purchasing
railways and canals, and thereby forming a monopoly contrary
to the intentions of the Legislature.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition relative to the
purchase of a canal by a railway company, and in doing so
must say that he heartily approved of the motion of which his
Noble and Learned Friend had given notice.
The NOBLE and LEARNED Loan' also presented a petition
from Mr. H. C. Talbot, against the Wilts and Somerset Railway.
Also a petition from John Free, M.D., who held land in the
county of Devon under Sir Stafford Northcete, against a rail
way there, which intersected his property, and cut up
his gardens and lawns. The Noble Lord referred
to the transactions that took place between him and Sir Staf-
ford Northeote, in reference to the railway, and characterised
the conduct of Sir Stafford, or his agents, as being the most
dishonourable that ever came under his notice. The doctor
applied to Sir Stafford in reference to the injuries he would
sustain, and the only satisfaction he could get from him was that
Sir Stafford Northcote had been settled with. He had been

bought, and did not say a word against the Bill now. He did
not care what was done with either the lawn or garden now,
because he had received a great deal of money, and,
therefore, he left his poor tenant, the doctor, in the
lurch. The doctor was not allowed to be heard, and the con-
sequence was, the Bill was suffered to pass.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said his Noble and Learned Friend
had stated the case with perfect accuracy, as far as he himself
knew of it.

Lord CAMPBELL had never heard of such an act of op-
pression as the Railway Company proposed to commit, and the
Company that would take advantage of the poor doctor's situa
tion, and would not allow him to be heard, surely deserved no
favour at the hands of their Lordships.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS considered that the Noble
Lord (Lord Brougham) had taken a most unwarrantable
position of late with respect to subjects like the one before
their Lordship,. The subject could be thoroughly considered
by the Committee on the Bill, which might be rejected on the
third reading. He hoped tLe House would not listen to the
proposition of the Noble Lord.

Lord REDESDALE considered that Dr. Freer was worthy
of credit, and that there could be no doubt of the correctness
of the facts set forth in the petition. After a company had re-
fused lo give a person a fair compensation, he was told he might
go to the Committee on the Bill. By doing so he might lose
more money than the property for which he claimed compensa-
ti n was worth.

Loyd BROUGHAM considered that the Noble Earl (Earl
of St. Germans) had not held a seat sufficiently long in that
House to entitle him to interpret the forms of the House better
than he ( Lord Brougham) could. The Doctor went before
the Committee, but the landlord objected to his being heard,
so that Sir Stafford Northcote and his son stopped the mouth
of Dr. Freer, and prevented hi.n from petitioning. They
then, after inducing him to fellow their advice, made terms be-
hind his back for the injuries the railway would cause his pro-
perty, taking advantage of his own error, and they now came
forward and told him that it was no use for him to look for
compensation, as he had not petitioned. He (Lord Brougham)
never, in the whole course of his life, knew such a case of
practising upon a man as this case of the Northcote family. If
this rule were established, no matter what grievance a tenant
had to complain of, he had no remedy if the landlord alone was
to be heard.

The Earl of WICKLOW complained of the irregularity
which had lately become prevalent, of raising discussions on
the presentation of petitions, and more particularly of the
practice of his Noble and Learned Friend opposite, of making
a long speech upon every petition he happened to present. The
Noble Lord was not satisfied with stat►ng the nature of the
petition, but he took upon himself the gratuitous task of making
attacks upon individuals, and when a friend of those indivi-
duals happened to get up to defend them, the Noble Lord be-
came exceedingly indignant. If any one was dissatisfied with a
railway company, he had nothing to do but to send a petition►
to the Noble Lord. and he might be sure the Noble Lord would
make an ex parte speech on presenting it.
Lord BROUGHAM said there was never anything more
wi hout foundation than the latter remark of the Noble Earl.
There was scarcely one out of every fifty petitions forwarded to
him that he selected for presentation.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL, the matter
dropped.

PUBLIC PETITIONS &c.

Lord PORTMAN gave notice that on Thursday next he
should introduce a Bill relating to tenants andtenancy in Eng-
land. _ _ _

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from a
Dissenting congregation in Dublin, in favour of the grant to
Maynooth.
The NOBLE AND LEARNED LORD laid On the table, by
command of her Majesty, the report of the Commissioners on
Criminal Law.

The Bishop of NORWICH presented a number of peti-
tions from Dissenters in Suffolk against the grant to Maynooth.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented a petition
from Members of the Free Church of S'cotland against the
grant to Maynooth. He stated that they had erected 630
churches. He also presented petitions of a similar tendency
front the members of the congregation of Albion chapel,
London, and from the members of different religious de-
nominations from Staleybridge, Loughborough, Dewsbury,
Halifax. Plymouth, and several other places.
The Earl of H ADDINGTON did not mean to say a single
syllable on the subject that arose out of the grant. He rose to
dissent from what was expressed by the Noble Marquis as to
the cause of the disruption that had taken place in the Free
Church of Scotland. It was not in conseque-ce (as he un-
derstood the Noble Marquis to state) of the Auchterarder case.
That was not the cause of the disruption. They stayed in
several years afterwards. It was because of the conditions
which were afterwards imposed upon them, and which they
could not conscientiously submit to.
'the Earl of CH A RLEVILLE presented petitions against
the grant to Maynooth and the national system of education,
and postponed the motion of which he had given notice for to-
night till Monday next, so as to afford the given
Earl time to
procure certain papers in reference to it.
ENDOWMENT OF MAYNOOTH.
_ _ _

The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the order of the day
for the House going into Committee on the Bill for the en-
dowment of Maynooth.
The Duke of LEINSTER said he had had no opportunity,
during the former debate, to address their Lordships on the
subject of this Bill, and he wished now to detain the House
for a few minutes while he removed some of the aspersions
which had been cast on the College of Maynooth. He had for
several years resided near to that College, and he could assure
their Lordships that he had never heard of the least miscon-
duct, or of anything improper having been committed by the
inmates, or the principals cf the establishment. He had the
honour of being personally acquainted with some of them, and
for his part he hail never met with more worthy men. They
always abstained from participating in._politics, and were loyal
and true subjects of her Majesty. He begged to thank the
Government for having introduced the measure, and to assure
them that he thought it would prove a great boon and a great
benefit to Ireland.

The Earl of CL A NCAR TY said, notwithstanding what had
fallen from the Noble Duke opposite, it would still be his duty
to move that the Bill be committed that day six months ; be-
cause he thought it was opposite to the Constitution, and in
direct violation of the principles of the Established Church.
He called on Noble Lords to consider well the consequences
which would arise if the Bill were passed into a law, and
trusted they would not allow the Anglican Church to rest on
mere sufferance, by recognising the principle that the Roman
Catholic religion, or rather an antagonist church, was deserv-
ing of the support of the State. The Christian religion was
not founded on expediency, but on the Scriptures, and as a
member of that religion, he never would consent to a measure
to perpetuate an institution, the education taught in which was
in direct opposition to the tenets of the Church. They talked
of the hardship of giving some of the professors in the College
of Maynooth so small a stipend as 150/. a year, whilst
a cura•e in the Protestant Church, who might have
a large family to support, received no more than 751.
a year, but who was no less a gentleman because
he was in want of the necessaries of life, for he held
that the true characteristics in the education of a gentleman
were to be found in the Christian religion. It was stated that
they could not enter Maynooth without perceiving evidence
of the poverty of the institution in the filth and dirtiness which
abounded in every part; but if they went into a poor curate's
house they would perceive, instead of filth and dirtiness, fru-
gality and cleanliness. Then with respect to the policy
of tne measure, the ostensible object of the Govern-
ment in proposing it, was to strengthen the union be-
tween this country snd Ireland, which was a great and im-
portant design; but they should have considered whether the
people of England were in favour of strengthening their union
with Ireland by charitable endowments. The Protestants of
England and Ireland, and the Presbyterians of Scotland, con-
demned the measure as impolitic, and as uncalled for. He
gave credit to the Government for their motives, but he could
not conceive a worse moment than the present for proposing
a message of peace. Ireland would say the concession was
wrung from a reluctant Parliament. lie called upon Noble
Lords to state whether the petitions which they had presented
against the Bill contained the genuine sentiments of the pe-
titioners or not. lie was clearly of opinion that the feelings
of the people of England were against the measure. Let that
question be adjourned, and let others be brought forward, like
the one before their Lordships last night—measures that would
take care of the poor, and be of a beneficial tendency to the
country—then such a measure would go over approved of by
the people of England, and would be received by the people of
Ireland as a
" message of peace" indeed.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that he would not detain the
Hou.se long. The question had been so much debated already
that nothing new could be said upon it. He considered that
her Majesty's Ministers were influenced by a regard to the
public welfare in bringing such a measure forward, but much
as he approved of it, he would not regard it with such satis-
faction if it were not an index of other measures, having for
their object the welfare of the people of Ireland. There was
another subject which he would allude to, and which was almost
suggested by the measure at present before their Lordships—
he meant the endowment of the Catholic clergy of Ireland.
That was a question which he had long considered was impera-
tively necessary, and he was quite convinced that it was merely
a question as to time and mode. There were, he thought, two
ways by which it was proposed that this should be accomplished,
either by making it a charge on the Consolidated Fund, or by
taking a portion of the funds of the Protestant Church for that
purpose. The first he considered an objectionable mode, and a
mode which would not be sanctioned by the Government or the
country. The second was also objectionable, for he could not
be a consenting party to any measure that would despoil the
Protestant Church in Ireland of its property. He considered,
however, that something must be done in reference to this sub-
ject, and if they deferred it long, he foresaw that it would
ultimately become a party shiboleth, and agitate the
country to as great an extent, if not a greater extent,
than the grant to Maynooth. What he would propose to do,
instead of the two modes that had been frequently suggested
for the endowment of the Cathol.c clergy of Ireland, was to
make the endowment a rent charge. This charge, he con-
sidered, was one to which the landlords of Ireland could have
09 objection, for, on referring to the Tithe Adjustment Act in
1737, up to the Church Temporalities Act, he found that the
landlords had benefited to the amount which had been taken
off the revenues of the Church. By the recent Church Tem-
poralities Act no less than 60,000/. was taken from the Church
and put into the pockets of the landlords ; and if this were
added to the 195,000/. referred to, it would make a sum of
255,000/. He thought it most strange, also, that when the
25 per cent. was struck off the 750,000/., which was the
revenue of the Irish Church, there was nothing like the outcry
on the Opposition benches which had been given to the mea-
sure at present before their Lordships. Now, if this sum of
255,000/. was put on as a rent-charge for the endowment of
the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, he considered that it
would do exactly for that purpose, and, by making this pro-
posal, he would be only asking their Lordships to place the
landlords in the same position as they were twelve years ago.
Surely, then, if (as he believed) a measure of this kind
would give satisfaction, and promote the tranquillity which