The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

110 USE OF LORDS, May 2.
The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.
Messengers from the Commons brought up certain Bills.
The Earl of ROSEBERRY presented several petitions
from different places in Scotland against the Maynooth Bill.
Ile did not concur in the prayers of those petitions.
FRESH-WATER FISHERIES (SCOTLAND.)
The NOBLE EARL also presented a petition in favour of the
Bill for the protection of fresh-water fish in the rivers of Scot-
land. The Noble Earl gave notice that on Monday he should
draw the attention of their Lordships to the report of the Com-
mittee on the subject.
W BANKRUPTCY BILL.
Lord: CAMPBELL presented a petition from Boston,
praying for a revision of the clause in the Act of last session
which did away with imprisonment for debts under 201.
ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.
Several petitions were presented praying for a repeal of the
Act for the union of the Dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor.
MAYNOOTH.
The Bishop of SALISBURY presented several petitions
against the Maynooth Bill.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S had two petitions to present.
on the subject of the ad(iitienal graet to Maynooth, the prayer
of which differed from that of many of the petitions which had
been presented on the subject. Toe petitioners were in favour
of the grant. They were both from the borough of Carmar-
then, and were signed by the Mayor, Aldermen, mem-
bers of the Town Council, and in fact by almost
ail the respectable inhabitants of the borough. He
thought that he had better read to the House a portion of the
petition. The petitioners stated that they were al! Protes-
tants, but that thee were desirous of seeing justice done; and
that believing that- the Maynooth Bill was founded on the
good old axiom, tt to do unto others as we would that others
should do unto us," they prayed the House to consent to the
Bill. He felt bound to say that he found that in some few
instances, and they were but a few, the same names were attached
to both petitions, but he believed that this had arisen solely
from inadvertence.
The Bishop of CASHEL presented several petitions from
various places in Ireland, against any additional grant to May-
noeth. There was one of these petitions to which he wished to
draw the particular attention of their Lordships. It was signed
by only a small number of individuals—only by 18. It was
from Dingle, in the county of Kerry. Of these 18 individuals
only three hail been born Protestants. The others were con-
verts from the Roman Catholic faith. They said that the
tenets taught in the college of Maynooth were uncharitable
and full of persecution, and that the petitioners had suffered in
a violent degree from the persecutions of the Maynooth-bred
priests, because they had exercised the right of private judg-
ment, and had become converts to the Protestant faith. Only
three of the petitioners had been originally Protestants, and
the others had been converts from the Roman Catholic faith.
The number of Protestants originally in the parish had been so
few that had not these petitioners been converted the parish
would have been susp' nded under the Church Temporalities'
Act ; but in consequence of these conversions of heads of fa-
milies the Protestant congregation had been increased to nearly
sixty persons, and the parish had been saved in consequence,
and these fifteen heads of families had suffered great persecu-
tions from the Roman Catholic priests on that account.
The Marquis of BRE ADAL B INE presented 82 petitions,
signed by 10,604 persons in different parts of Scotland, chiefly
from the congregations of the Free Church in that country,
against the grant to Maynooth. He would take this oppor-
tunity of expressing his surprise at the mode in which
her Majesty's Government were pushing the grant to Mayncoth
through the Houses of Parliament—this, he might call it,
unconstitutional mode. It appeared that, however numerous
the petitions might be, and however earnest the expression of
the country against it, yet the Government were determined,
in consequence of the majority which they possessed, to carry
this measure through both Houses of Parliament.
The Duke of WELLINGTON felt compelled to say a few
words in consequence of what had fallen from the Noble Mar-
quis who had just sat down. The Government were not pre-
pared to push this measure in an unconstitutional manner, but
they were prepared to take the sense of Parliament, and on
that sense they were prepared to act.
Lord BROUGHAM, in rising to present a petition from
Lord Kensington against the West London Railway, took the
opportunity of saying that it was a very great mistake, he
would not say a misrepresentation, but it was a very
great mistake to suppose that because the majority
of the country had not petitioned in favour of Maynooth, that
they were against the grant. The contrary was the case. They
who were in favour of the grant did not think it necessary to
petition, but, as a Noble Friend of his had observed, if there
were four persons in favour and one against it, the fifth, be-
cause he was the most noisy person of the lot, got all the
notice.

BEES AND SPIRI I" HOUSES.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented an immense number of
petitions from all parts of England and Wales against the sale
of spirituous liquors on the Sabbath, and for the diminution
of houses for the sale of spirits and beer. A great alteration
had been made in the law in 1829, which had grievously disap-
pointed those who had advocated it. He was one of hose who,
in the House of Commons, had voted against that measure,
and trusted the House would entertain the prayer of the peti-
tioners. . .

The NOBLE EARL also presented seven petitions from
Carmarthen, in \Vales, against the union of the sees of
Bangor and St. Asaph ; likewiae a petition from the county of
Somerset, against the Maynooth Bill.
Lord NORMANBY presented a petition from Diss, in Nor-
folk, against the 3laynoolh Bill ; also one from the tradesmen
of Hull against the 20/. clause of the Bankruptcy Act of last
session.

The Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions against
the proposed union of Bangor and St. Asaph.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented a petition in
favour of the g-eat Irish railway from a place in Ireland whose