The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-12 00:00:00

srx LOWDON; SATURDAY - MORNINGL

ollas7fet,"'etild nidaled I:vihspretessees. which wetee held
tita th.•,i) by the Iltitish Geverurre-nt.
Lod l3i OLIG Ft AM. felt corn. elled to differ from his Noble
Friend on one or two points. The object of this Bill, was not'
to make out a difference between countries tahich used slave
labour and free labonr, but the restriction really intended was.
that between those countries which had refused and which had
not refused to abolish slave labour. He was not one of those
Phara,aical pretenders who said " we are purer than you are,"
as was the case with those enthusiastic, but, it might be, very
well 'intentioned persons, whose zeal was much more conspi-
cuous than their knowledge, and whose enthusiasm was far
mee influential than their judgment. Complaint had been
made that America had not followed the example of England ;
hut it should be recollected that the example was not of Mid-
dlesex and Yorkshire, but of Barbadoes and Jamaica, and it
was n-e because they did not follow our example, but because
they followed it. a great deal too closely that they were to be
cried down. The fault was not that slavery existed there, and
that they had not extinguished slavery so soon as we did, but
that they cried up alas ery as a good ard advisable thing, in-
stead of decrying it, as they ought to do, as the pest and the
infection of their society. It was for their gross injustice
and inhumanity in keeping up the system of holding in
bondaxe so great a number of their fellow creatures,
and from their wish to introdue_. in the valleys of
neighbouring countries the blessings of domestic la-
bour. It was for this inconsistency that he blamed
them. It was not the whole of she United States, but a portion
of its population that he blamed tor this. By the encourage
-tient of the sugar of these slave-growing countries he gave to
those countries an inducement to introduce more slaves from
Africa, just in proportion to the number of hogsheads of sugar
which he camed to he introduced, and if these 17 lbs. of sugar
3er head was to be doubled or tripled, and that that ins-ease
was to be met by better agriculture, or better treatment of the
slaves, then he could not tells it, and he was bound to increase
the comforts of his own people. But was that the case with
Cube ? No ; it was a sudden increase, and that was only to
be met with a sudden, a rapid. and a miserable increase of the
slave trade; and that, so far from making a similar argument.
was a precisely contrary effect to that which the Noble Lord
had assumed. God forbid that any man should consider the
horrors of the middle passage, or trepanning their fe4low-crea-
tures, was to be esteemed other than a horror and a crime, and
a crime of the deepest dye. They made' a difference in the
slaves employed in the culture of coffee, and other tropical pro-
duce, but really to those there was comparatively little objec-
tion. The culture of rice was unwholesome wherever carried
on, but that of sugar was decidedly the worst.'—(Hear.)
In 1807 we abolished the slave trade, and cut off
20,0001. a year ; but that was only the letter of the law, for a
man would run the risk of losing four or five cargoes for the
sake of saving one. But by his Bill the act of carrying on the
slave trade was made criminal ; and by the 51st of George
the Act of 1811, they made the slave trade felony, but the at-
tempt to make it piracy was ineffectual. He could not at all
agree that the internal slave trade of America ought to he
placed on a looting with the African slave trade, to abolish
which it ought to be, and he believed was, countenanced by
this country. He did not think they could consistently object
to receive sugar the produce of slave labour, but he entertained
no doubt whatever that they ought to object to receive produce
coming from slave trading countries, because such a step
would only tend to increase the horrors of the African slave
trade.

Lord MONTI'. GLE reminded his Noble and Learned
Friend that the Bill they were di•cussing not only prneibited
the intr. duction of sugar, the produce of slave-trading eoun-
t ries. but sugar the produce of slave-labour as well. —( Hear.)
Noble and Learned Lord had made a most powerful speech
against the save-trade, and expressed his acknowledgments to
the Government for bringing forward a measure which directly
discountenanced this traffic. Now, was this so? Certainly
not. The Bill had nothing to do with the slave trade. nor was
it reticulated to put an end to that trade. Then again the Noble
enit Learned Lord had told them, that they had no right to in-
terfere wt•h the internal and municipal legislations of foreign
countries; but let him tell the Noble and Learned Lord that
his principal objection to the measure was its medley
tendency, and its interference with the internal concerns of
an independent county. But it was utterly impossible that
the Government could carry out the principle of this measure
for Brazil or Cuba might change their system of slavery in name
but not in fact, and then they would have a right to import
their slave-grown sugar into this country at the same rates of
duty as those paid by the colony or by States where there
were none but free labourers. He admitted that the opening
speech of the Noble Lord who brought in this Bill was marked
with a spirit of moderation and temperance that did him
great credit, but still he could not conceal from
himself the fact that the Noble Lord had over
and over again indulged in a course of reasoning on this
subject that was based on erroneous premises. There could
not be a shadow of a doubt that the measure was one of great
commercial and financial importance. It affected an enormous
amount of revenue, and he se ry much feared the Government
would be grievously disappointed in its mulls. The remit-
'ion of the duty in some respects was too large, and under those
circumstances he thought it would have been much better to
equalise the sugar duties generally. The present measure, to
a certain extent, would restrict the trade in sugar; and,
therefore, instead of reducing its price, it would tend
to increase it, because it produced a scarcity of the
commodity. But how could Government support the measure
on the ground that it was to discontinue the slave trade? This
principle of protection was not 'our of recent establishment. It
existed anterior to the abolition of the slave trade, and they
ould find some difficulty in making foreigners believe they
continued it, because it would ultimately lead to a totalabandon-
ment of the traffic. He believed that foreigners would think
hit Parliament had not done its duty, unless it interfered upon
the question. He believed that what had hitherto been done
was but a faint promise of what was to take place in future. No
sacrifice would be too great to put an end to the slave trade.
Lord STANLEY begged to draw the attention of the House
to the admissions of the Noble Lord who bad just sat down.
he must, in reference to the statements from the Noble Lord.
draw the attention of their Lordships to the different state in
which the country stood under the late Government, and that
in which it s:ood now. Then there was a great deficiency,
while now there was a surplus. Now the Noble Lord admits
that it the Bill should effect a discouragement of the slave-
trade, the sacrifice in the price of sugar would be a price which
he was quite satisfied to pay. He admitted the principle of pro•
section, because they had substituted free-labour for slave-
labour in the West Indies. With regard to the deficiency of
tree-labour, he would say that it was quite impossible to insti-
tute any comparison between the amount of slave-labour and
frecelabour. In a country where the population was ex-
cessive, he was free to confess that free-labour might success-
fully compete with slave-labour. But in a colony like the
West India colonies this was impossible, for the effect of
slave-labour was to concentrate the labour into one
spot, which would otherwise be spread over a wider
surface, and it was this principle which would always make
free labour cheap, and slave labour dear. His Noble Friend
bad acknowledged that they could make no distinction between
tire East and West Indies. Now, the o: jest of the Bill was
to give protection to our own colonies, whether the East or
West Indies. There was no country, whether from policy,
humanity, or justice, more entitled to protection than that
immense district which comprised the East Indies. They had
destroyed the commerce and manufactures of the East Indies.
and introduced their own manufactures in place of them, and
bile they were thus encouraging free labour, and dis-
countenancing slave labour, they were doing their best to pro-
mote the peculiar produce of the East Indies. With respect
to sugar, he did not think it was possible, in this country, to
sacrifice the manufacturing interests for the sake of repressing
the slave trade. But were they call, d upon to make this sacri-
fice, were they to be told that they were guilty of hypocrisy,
because they did submit to a temporary sacrifice, for the object
of reducing the horrid evils of the slave trade? Practically.
the effect of this Bill was to discourage the importation of those
y exists, but to prohibit
cthoeunitiraireods
introduction of
asugmitigatedarfruin
those e slaver
countries in which theer
produce was obtained by slave labour with all its evils, and
for the sake of which the system of introducing slaves from
Africa was kept up. The auger of Cuba and Brazil
was produced by these very means. They were accused of
encouraging the introduction of refined sugar from Cuba and
Brasil ; but by this introduction they did not increase the con-
sumpiion of sugar by one single pound. But then it was said,
you do indirectly encourage the slave trade by taking free-labour
sugar into the market, because they have made an opening for
the slave-grown sugar. The supposition that giving thecustom
of consumption to free growers was an indirect encouragement
of slave-grown sugar was a perfect fallacy. If there was not
an encouragement to free-labour sugar over slave-grown sugar,
why was it that Noble Lords opposite complsined so much of
their ill-treatment of Cuba and Brazil? But the fact was,
they vie re throwing a real substantial discouragement to the
slave trade, and just in proportion as they gave an
encouragement to the growth of cotton and coffee,
they caused a subsidence in the culture of sugar.
The Noble Lord objected to the Bill, because they
were binding themselves by foreign legislation; but there
was a principle in this Bill, although the Bill was of a tempo-
rary nature, and that principle was protection for British sugar
against foreign sugar, and protection for free-labour sugar
against slave grown sugar. The Nubte Lord feared the intro-
duction of apprenticeship into Brazil, but if Brazil gave a bona
fide assurance that they would suppress slavery by the sup-
pression of domestic s.avery, why then it would be fur her Ma-
jesty's Government to take generously and candidly into con-
sideration the encouragement which they should give to the
sugar of Brazil. He must remark further on one or two
other points of .his Noble Friend. He said that they intro-
duced 17 or lb different classes of sugar, whi n, in fact, there
was only one in addition. His Noble Friend had stated that he
was favourable to an ad valorem duty, and that there was a

difficulty in distinguishing the qualities. Now, he would
venture to assert that there was not one hogshead
in ten thousand introduced into this country on which
the smallest difficulty would arise.—( Hear hear.) A
small quantity of sugar might be liable to fluctuations of
duty, but there could be no doubt whatever the great bulk of
the sugar to be introduced into this country would not in
the least be Haile to duubt or speculation. the objections
were raised not against the Bill, but against certain proposi-
tions which had lately been entertained by the Government.
Noble Lords, however, seemed to forget that an important
alteration had lately been introduced into the proposition, and
therefore their present objections were almost entirely un-
founded. It was admitted that they had properly selected
an article for reduction, and for encouraging the
industry of the country ; but it would appear the
Noble Lord who last spoke, although he agreed in their prin-
ciple, telt there were difficulties in the way of its realization
which certainly were not entertained by Custom-house officers.
The measure would greatly improve the condition of the
country, and he, therefore, called upon the House not to sacri-
fice the interests of humanity by stultifying the exertions
Parliament was making for totally and effectively abolishing
the slave trade.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The Lands' Clauses Consolidation Bill was read a second
time and ordered to be coinuaitted on Monday next.
The Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill was read a second
time and ordered to be committed on Monday.
The Railway Clauses (Scotland) Bill was also read a second
time and ordered to be committed on Monday, as was also
Cie Lands Clauses Censolidation Bill for Scotland.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

- CALF.DOMAN RAILWAY.
Mr. PDX :11A ULE presented petitions. numerously signed,
irom the city of Perth, the diitrict of Blairgowrie, Coupar-
Angus, Kirriemuir, and Nairn, in favour of the Caledonian
Railway Bill.
Mr. RUTHERFORD presented a petition from the mer-
chants of Leith to the same effect. _

Mr. P. M. STEWART presented a petition from mer-
chants, bankers, &c., of Greenock, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. LOCKHART presented petitions from West Calder
and Kirkn-lichael in favour of the measure.
MAYNOUTH.

Petitions against the grant to Maynooth were presented by
Sir E. Filmer, Air. Codrington, Mr. Fellowes, from Hunting-
don ; Mr. F. Maule, Mr. H. Stuart, from places in Ireland ;
Mr. W. Patten, from places in Lancashire; Alr. Busfeild,
Alr. Hawes, from Lambeth and other places; Mr. Montague
Gore, Mr. Thornely, from Wolverhampton; and Col. Acton,
from Wexford. _

Sir ANDREW ARMSTRONG presented a petiticn from
the inhabitants of Tullamore and its vicinity in fornur of tEe
Irish Great Western Railway to Galway vid Tullamore, and
also a petition signed by the High Sheriff and a majority of
the grand jury of tlle King's county to the same effect. The
Hon. Baronet declared that the prayer of the petition had his
concurrence.

Mr. Hamilton, Lord Lowther, Lord Bernard, Sir William
James, Lord Duncan, Mr. Plomptre, and another Hon.
Member presented petitions against any additional grant to
Mavnooth.

Mr. BLEWITT" presented a petition from Newport,
against the Bridgwater Navigation Railway.
A great number of petitions against the grant to Maynooth
were pre.sei ted by Lord CHARLES MANNERS. Col. SIbTHORP,
and other Members ; some of those presented by Col. Sibthorp
stating that the petitioners feared thit some of the members of
the Government intended to fnutal another establishment than
that the Church of England, which, for its tyranny and
cruelty, was not acceptable to the people of England.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS also presented several petitions on
the same subject, most of them not ajecting to the grant, but
any increase of it, and others praying for the entire withdrawal
of the grant.
Mr. SHERIDAN presented a petition against the Parochial
Settlement Bill.
Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Plumptre, Sir J. Hanmer, Colonel
Verner, and Mr. Mitchell, presented petitions against the May-
nooth Bill. . .

Mr. S. O'BRIEN presented a petition from some place in
Northamptonshire, praying that the second reading of the May-
nooth Bill might be postponed for a fortnight.
31r. R. PALM ER presented several petitions from places in
Berkshire, against the Maynooth College Bill.
Mr. SPOUNER presented twenty-two petitions, nine of
which were from the clergy, churchwardens, and inhabitants of
various congregations of Birmingham, and the others from
various Dissenting congregations, against the Maynooth grant.
The latter class of petitioners objected to any grant of
public money in support of any particular religion, but, above
all, to a grant in support of the Roman Catholic religion.
Mr. BR AMSTON presented a petition from Essex, against
the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. CHARLES HOWARD presented a petition from
Cumberland against the proposed Maynooth grant.
Petitions from Lancashire and Plymouth were also presented
against the Maynooth grant.
Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from the young men
of the City of London—(Laughter)—against the grant to May-
-I,ooth College.
Mr. GREENE presented a petition from the Wesleyan con-
gregation of Lancaster against the grant to Maynooth.
The SPEAKER said that, though it was five o'clock, he
thought he would be consulting the convenience of the House,
1)3 permitting the presentation of petitions to continue.
Mr. WA.r.D presented five petitions from Sheffield and
other places asminst the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. ST A N SFIELD presented petitions against the grant.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented two petitions from St. Mar-
tin's-in-the-Fields and from Devon against the grant.
Dr. BOWRING presented seventeen petitions from Wes-
leyan congregations in and near Bolton, against the grant; also
a petition from Bible Christians against the grant.
Mr. WA WN presented a petition to the same effect.
Mr. TURNER presented petitions from Truro to the same
effect.

Captain M. F. BERKELEY presented two petitions from
Bristol; and six l etitions from Somerset, to the same effect.
Mr. FORSTER presented petitions to the same effect.
GRINISTONE presented petitions to the same effect.
General LYGON presented a petition to the same effect.
The Earl of HILSROROUGH presented petitions to the
same effect.

Mr. ANTROBUS presented a petition from Surrey to the
same effect.

Mr. HURST presented four petitions against the grant.
Alderman HUMPHERY presented five petitions against
ihe grant.

,
Mr. 'WODEHOUSE presented three petitions to a similar
effect.

Lord HENIKER presented two petitions to the same effect.
Lord WORSLEY presented a pile of petitions against the
grant to Maynooth, from places in the north of England, and
various other places, the names of which occupied at least three
minutes in reading.
Mr. FORSTER presented petitions from Walsall and other
place; against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. MUNDY; presented a petition, signed by 129 clergy-
men of Derbyshire, against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. ROSS presented a petition from the Roman Catholics
of Belfast against the Bequests Bill of last year.
Mr. GEORGE BANKES presented petitions from the
Wesleyan congregations of Bristol arrd several places in Dor-
setshire, against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. Labouchere presented numerous petitions to the
same effect from the inhabitants of Taunton ; Mr. Newdigate,
from Warwickshire; Mr. Macaulay, from Edinburgh ; Sir G.
Staunton, from Portsmouth ; Mr. R. Trevor, from Bangor,
and several other places in Wales; Lord Shelbeurne, from
Caine ; Mr. Matheson, from Ashburton.

Mr. FERRAND'S PETITION.

Mr. FERR AND said he had to present a petition, signed by
nearly 2,000 members of the Dublin Protestant Association.
The petitioners stated that they regarded the Legislature as the
source from which laws should emanate; and the laws which
had hitherto emanated since the Reformation from
the Legislature of the United Kingdom had been
the means of elevating Britain to the highest point amongst
nations. The petitioners went on to state that if the Legisla-
ture should allow itself to sanction, by any of its Acts, heresy
or religious error, instead of a national blessing it would become
a national curse. They stated that they had heard with great
pain that the bead of the Government had intended to intro-
duce a principle which was in itself diabolical and anti-christian
—that he intended to largely increase the annual grant which
had been most improperly and inconsistently made to the Popish
College of Maynooth, and they looked on this proceeding as cal-
culated to subvert national liberty, and to involve the Parliament,
the Throne, and the Constitution. The Hon. Member was pro-
ceeding to read a part of the petition, in which a portion of the
Act of William and Mary, commonly called the Act of Settle-
ment, was introduced, when he was interrupted by
Mr. ROEBUCK, who rose to order, said he understood
it was the rule of the House that no word should be
spoken on the presentation of a petition, and that
Members presenting petitions should not be permitted
to read them, but should confine themselves to stat-
ing their substance and their prayer. Now he held in
his hand, in extenso, the petition which the Hon. Member
was about to present, and instead of confining himself to a
statement of the substance, the Hon. Member was, by the
merest sleight of hand, getting rid of the rule of the House,
and reading the petition.
The SPEAKER.—The 11,.n. and Learned Gentleman is
perfectly correct in his idea as to what is the rule of the
House ; and if the Hen. Member is reading the petition he
is out of order, for he should clearly understand that he
is merely at liberty to state the substance of it.
Mr. ROBB! CK said that the Hon. Member for Knares-
borough was reading the petition.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for Knaresbirough
must confine himself to state the substance of the petition He
might take notes of the substance of it and read those notes to
the House, but he must not read the petition itself.
Mr. FERR AND—I can assure the House that I have left
out every word of the petition except the substance of it, for
the purpose of being enabled to state it to the House.—( A
laugh.) The petition says that all persons reconciled to the
Church of Rome— _ _ _

Mr. ROEBUCK—I agaiP rise to order.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member is now reading an Act of Parliament quoted
in the petition.—( Cheers.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member is clearly out of order
in reading the petition.
Mr. FERRAND was only reading what was stated in the
substance of the petition.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member is at liberty to state
the substance cf the petition, and the substance of the mate-
rial allegations made in it, but he must state then as briefly as
possible, and must not read them at length.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FERRAND—The petition went on to state, by the
Act which he had quoted any person becoming reconciled to
the Church of Rome was declared incapable of succeeding to
the throne of these realms, and if the Sovereign was reconciled
to the Court of Rome the subjects were absolved from their
allegiance and the throne would go to the next Protestant heir
in succession. The petitioners stated that they had
read in the Dublin Gazette of December last
an order of the Sovereign, countersigned by the Minister of
State, making certain appointments of Commissioners of Cha-
ritable Bequests in Ireland, and among the list were found the
names of certain Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops, as
well as of certain Protestant Bishops and Archbishops. Now,
the petition stated that the petitioners considered this as are
cognition of, and a reconciliation with the Church of Rome,
and----

Mr. ROEBUCK—I again rise to order.—(Cheers and
laughter.) This is reading word for word the statements of
the petition which I hold in my hand. It is a breach of the
orders of the House—(Cheers)—and a most unworthy breach
of those orders.—(Loud cheers.) Sir, I move that the Hon.
Member be commanded to bring his petition up at once.
The SPEAKER—I have already stated the rule of the
House, and I hope the Hon. Member will confine himself
within the limits of that rule. if he does not do so, he will be
guilty of conduct that is most disorderly.--(Loud cheers.)
Mr. FERRAND—I do not wish to do anything that is dis-
disorderly or disrespectful to the House ; but I have
a duty to the petitioners to perform, and I will do
my best to perform it.--( Hear, hear.) I knew
not why I should be called to order for acting as I am doing.
The Hon. Member for Gateshead did the same thing last night,
and he was not called to order.
Mr. Roebuck and Sir Robert Peel rose at the same time,
and Mr. Roebuck immediately gave way to the Premier.
Sir R. PEEL said that under the circumstances, if it was
not inconvenient to the House, the Hon. Gentleman ought to
be allowed to state the objects of the petition.
Mr. ROEBUCK objected to that, saying that it was right to
enforce the orders of the House. _Fie objected himself to the
making of that order, as also did his Hon. Friend the Member
for Montrose. If the Hon. Gentleman wished to bring this
forw,rd, it ought not to be brought forward without the
possibility of a reply. There ought to have been a substantive
notice given, and the Honourable Gentleman should read the
petition for the purpose of submitting a motion thereon,
but he objected to the petition being read when no person
could get up in answer to it.
Mr. M. MILNES—WouId it not be better to have the pe
titian read at the table by the clerk ?
Mr. FERRAND said he would consider it his duty to call
upon the clerk to read the petition at the table of the House, if
he did not thit.k that he was taking up less of the time of the
House by reading the substance of it himself. It went on to
state that the orders of the Roman Catholic priests were
solely of foreign origin, and it submitted that
the grant to Maynooth was a flagrant attempt
to subvert the Bill of Rights, and directly to contra-
vene the oath of supremacy, which retrired that no foreign
Prelate should have any power, spiritual or ecclesiastical, in
this realm.
The SPEAKER said that nothing was more common than
giving notice to present a petition, but that notice did not re-
quire that the petition should be read. If the Hon. Gentleman
wished it to be read at length he should move it be read by the
Clerk. The Hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the
player of the petition.
Mr. FERRAND—The prayer was this, that the humble
petitioners prayed that the House should retract all grants for
the support of Popish establishments in this realm, and deprive
all foreigners in this realm of power ; and that they
should inquire into the conduct of Sir Robert
Peel, and, if they discovered it to be improper,
ithey should impeach, and if he had been Lund guilty that they
should inflict him with condign punishment.-w(Roars of laugh-

ter on both sides of the. House, in which Sir Mbert joined.)
The petitioners stated that all classes of her Majesty's subjects
were disgusted with the conduct pursued by the Right Hon.
Gentleman—( Loud laughter)—that he ousted other men
from their places to adopt their poliey—( Laughtcr)—
that if he was successful in his financial policy it was owing to
a series of measures calculated to draw down the wrath
of Heaven— (Continued laughter)—and they earnestly
prayed that Almighty God would in his mercy avert
the scourge which such conduct was calculated to draw down
upon the realm. —( Increased laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman
concluded, amidst repeated bursts of laughter, that the clerk at
the table read the petition.
The Clerk commenced to read the petition. but the Hen.
Gentleman, who had resnmed his seat, and obtained the
advice of several Hon. Gentlemen near him, again rose,
and said that he was requested by several Members not to press
his motion for having the petition read at the table, as they did
not think it would be becoming to the House; lie would there-
fore merely move that the petition be !aid on the table.
The petition was accordingly ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. WYNNE said he certainly felt that there were reasons
why oljections should not be urged against the peti-
tion lying upon the table, but as it might he
called into a precedent for calling a Member of Par-
liament to account for his Parliamentary conduct.
in that House, he certainly thought it would not be consis-
tent a ith the honour of the House, or the advantage of the
country, that the petition should be received. If a vote
were to be given, he should therefore rote for the negative.
for he did not think that charges against a Member of Par-
liament by name should be received under the guise of a peti-
tion.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and " store.")
Mr. WYNNE—I would certainly, therefore, negative the
motion that the petition lie on the table.
Sir R. PEEL said he did nut see any reasons why they
should refuse the petition. It was true that • the charges
referred to Parliamentary proceedings, but as it contained
charges against the Executive Government he thought that it
ought to be received. He, therefore, hoped that his Right
Hon Friend would net object to the petition lying on
the table.

Mr. ROEBUCK said he only rose for the purpose of re-
minding the House that there was a debate on the presenta-
tion of a petition.
The SPEAKER said that it was upon a point of order.—
( Hear, hear.) He understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to
have risen on a Point of order.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WYNNE said he conceived he was right in voting that
the petition should not be allowed to remain on the table.
Mr. ROEBUCK—It appears lam not in order, although
the Right Hon. Gentleman distinctly proposed a motion, and
the Right lion. Gentleman at the head of the Government
spoke to it. —( Cries of " Order, order," amidst which Mr.
Roebuck sat down. )
The SPEAKER—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman is
not in order. 1 will read the standing order of the House.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read the stand-
ing order, to the effect that no Hon. Member, upon the pre-
sentation of a petition, could speak upon it ; but he might
move that the petition be read by the clerk at the table,
and it would be read aceordingly.—( Hear, hear.) The rule
of the House is, that no debate can take place on the presenta-
tion of a petition, unless it has reference to a breach of privi-
lege of the House.—( Renewed cries of " Hear.")
Mr. HUME—The Right Hon. Gentleman said—
The SPEAKER—Order, order.
The Hon. Gentleman then sat down.
The SPEAKER then put the question that the petition do
lie upon the table, which was agreed to.
Mr. MACLEAN presented several petitions against the
grant to Maynooth.
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented numerous petitions from
several places in Yorkshire against the grant.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from Liverpool, signed
by 15,C00 persons, against the grant to Maynoo.h. The Noble
Lord said he did not concur in the prayer of the petition.
Alderman COPELAND presented a petition to a similar
effect.
Lord H. VANE presented petitions to a similar effect.
Lord CLIVE presented several petitions also against the
grant to Maynooth from Ludlow, and various places in Wales.
Sir W. CLAY presented similar petitions from places in
East Middlesex.
Mr. WAKLEY presented petitions from the inhabitants of
Finsbury, end from the congregation of Dissenters of Bedford-
row, against the grant to Maynooth.
Petitions were also presented by Lord Ingestre from several
places in Shropshire; Sir Arthur Brooke, Mr. Raikes
from Downshire ; and Lord Currie ; Mr. Gisborne, from places in Nottinghamshire ; Mr.
Dickenson, from Somersetshire;l4;lrA.
ißr.leTwaitnd, fromte,rferom Ban-
buryNewport;
Mr
; LordShrewsbury.D'lsraelci,asfrooemreao,
Dun-
cannon, from Derby, against the grant to Mavnooth.
Mr. SHELL presented a petition from the Wesleyans of
Barnstaple, who stated that they were against grants to any
University ; but as grants were made to the English Universi-
ties, they prayed that the proposed grant might be given to
Maynooth.
Mr. HINDLEY presented 350 petitions against the May-
nooth grant, from the following places : —the inhabitants of
Westbourne, Sussex ; Wathesfield, Suffolk ; Cannock, Staf-
fordshire ; Wickhambroek, Suffolk ; Independents, Zion
Chapel, Dovor; New Connexion Methodists, Ashton-under-
Chapel, Middlesex;
;SEalaelmingChapel, Burton-on-
Trent; Sandbach, Che-hire ; Southampton, Binkley, Lanca-
shire;el3Lroßmrleeny
fKeredn;t
LB
3umr teen -Dr oi e nCtehras
Providence Chapel, !Marsden, near Burnley ; Baptists,
Emsworth, Hants; Hinckley, Leicestershire; Briercliff, near
Burnley ; Wheatley-lane Chapel, near Burnley ; Ebenezer
Chapel, Burnle
lleggate, New Burnley ; Abingdon, Berks ;
Primitive Methodists, Burnley; Heyhead, Marsden, near
Burnley ; Teachers of Zion Sunday-school, Emsworth. Hants ;
the Inhabitants of Welwyn and its vicinity; Framlingbam,
Suffolk ; Halesvvorth, Suffolk ; Tottenham and Edmonton ; the
Independents of Craven Chapel, Golden-square, London ;
St. Albans, Herts ' • Beaconfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk ;
Andover, Hants • Langham, Essex ; Leek ; the Inde-
pendents of Craven Chapel, Golden-square, London ;
St. Albans, Herts; Beaconsfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk; An-
dover, Hants ; Langham, Essex ; Leek, Staffordshire ; Den-
ton, eincashire; Greengate, Salford; Great Harwod, Bucks;
Debenham, Suffolk; Headgate Chapel, Colchester; Heywood,
Lancashire ; Ettery, St. Mary's, Devon ; Union Chapel. Lu-
ton, Beds ; Staleybridge, Lancashire ; Tottenham and Edmon-
ton ; Salem Chapel, Barnsley ; Newport Chapel, Swindon,
Wilts; Albion-street Chapel, Ashton-under-Lyne; Baptists,
Ilford, Essex; Sible Hedingham ; Yarmouth, Isle of Wight;
Niton, Isle of Wight; Brentford, Middlesex ; Heywood, Lan-
cashire; Andover, Hants; Ashton under-Lyne ; Primitive
Methodists, Leek, Staffordshire; Luton, Beds; Wesleyan Me-
thodists, Southwell, Surrey ; liersham and Walton-on-Thames,
Surrey ; Middleham, York ; Hornsey-road, Middlesex Me-
thodist Association, Heywood, Lancashire; Teachers at Union
Chapel Sunday School, Luton, Beds ; Langham, Essex • In-
dependent Sunday School, Staleybridge, Lancashire ; the In-
habitants of Wycken ' • Belper, Lancashire; Chester-le-street,
Durham ; Throope Ling, Buckby, Northampton ; Ducie
Chapel, Manchestr r' • East Dereham, Norfolk ; Chishill, Es-
sex ; Soreby-street Chapel, Chesterfield; Huntingdon and
Godmanchester ; Kettering, Northampton,. Stafford ; North-
walahen, Norfolk ; Newport ; Essex ; Stubbing Hoyland,
York ; Clavering, Essex ; Tenterden, Kent ; Walpole, Suf-
folk ; West-street Chapel, Wareham, Dorset; Warwick,
Essex ; Weatherfield, Essex ; Philip-street Chapel, Kings-
land-road, Shoreditch; Worster, Norfolk; Towcester, Nor-
thampton; Sandwich, Kent ; Zion Chapel, Whitstable, Kent ;
Thrapstone, Northampton; Rounds, Northampton; Grantham,
Lincolnshire ; Eynsford, Kent ; Mere, Wilts ; Whitstable,
Kent; Brecon Ilannington, Essex; Hinckley, Leicestershire;
Highgate, Middlesex ; Marsh Chapel, Newcastle-under-Lyne ;
Hanwell Chapel, Middlesex ; Wihnore ' • St. Andrew's
Chapel, Tynemouth, Northumberland; Isuitlingham, Nor-
folk; Old Mee.ing House, St. Clement's, Norwich; Wood-
ford, Northampton ; Kingstead, Northampton ; Wesleyan
Methodists, Walsingham, Norfolk; Islip, Oxford ; Hedington,
Oxford ; Tatchley, Oxford ; Burton, Norfolk ; Dunstable,
Beds; Houghton Regis, Beds ; Harlington, Beds ; Deynall,
Bucks; Tetworth, Beds ; Takenham, .Norfolk ; New Con-
nexion Methodists, Armley, Walsingham, Norfolk ; Islip,
Oxford; Hedington. Oxford; Tatchley, Oxford; Kirtliagton,
Oxford; Burton, Norfolk; Dunstable, Beds; Houghton
Regis, Beds ; Harlington, Beds : Deynall, Bucks ; Tetworth,
Beds ; Fakenham, Norfolk; New Connexion Methodists,
Armley, Leeds ; Bethel Chapel, Hanslett, Leeds ; Countess
of Huntingdon Chapel, Dover; Baptists, Cowland Chapel,
Coventry ; Sharnbrnok, Beds ; Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk ;
Coventry ; Wirksworth. Derby ; Teachers in St. James's
Sunday School, °rye ich ; Biddenden ; Takenham, Nor-
folk ; Cow-lane Chapel Sunday School, Coventry ;
Baptist Sunday School, St. Ivey, Huntingdonshire;
inhabitants of Waltham Abbey, over Darwen, Lancashire ;
Opping, Essex; Farnham, Surrey; Atherston, Bolton, and
its vieinity; Aylesbury, Reading; Harting, Sussex; Drayton,
Norfolk ; Foulhourne, Cambridgeshire; Teigemouth, Devon ;
Broad Winsor, Dorset; Wymundham, Norfolk; Unston Abbot,
Devon ; Westerham, Kent ; Wotton-under-Edge, Worksop ;
Titchfield, Hants; Prescott, Lancashire; Printers and Book-
binders in Norwich; Stoke Row, Oxon; Wellington, Somer-
set; Titchfield, Hants; New Alresford, Rants; Melton
Mowbray, Leicester ; Coney, Norfolk ; Withedge Hill,
Oxon • Kidmore End, Oxon ; Redenhill with Harleston,
Norfolk ; Hempton Fakenhain, Norfolk ; Woolley, Berks ;
inhabitants of No. 2, Gloucester-terrace, New-road, Middle-
sex; Asten Tirrold, Berks; Independents—Abbey Chapel,
Romsey, Hants ; Bethesda
Chapel, St. Colurnb, Cornwall ;
Stoney Stratford, Bucks ; Great Yarmouth Old Meeting
Huntingdonshire ;
House ; St. Neots,
Killworth, Leicestershire ; Masbro Chapel, York ; Hayes
End, Middlesex ; Thorne, York ; Berkhatnpstead, Herts ;
St. James-street Chapel, Nottingham ; Hamstead Keigh-
ley, York ; Eadmon and Brookfield, Hants; Reigate ;
Lavenham, Suffolk ; Luttleworth, Leicestershire ; Ship-
ham, Norfolk ; Ryde, Isle of Wight ; Ware, Herts ;
Croft Chapel, Hastings ; Southwold, Suffolk ; Church Street
Chapel, Buckingham ; Biggleswade ; Upton-upon-Severn,
Worcester • Ebenezer Chapel, Shoreditch ; Zion Chapel,
Churtsy Isle, Ely ; Darlington; Providence Chapel, Rochdale ;
Protestant Dissenting Ministers of Exeter ; King Street Chapel,
Dudley ; Wendover, Bucks ; Colebrook Chapel, Rochdale ;
Hope Chapel,
Rochdale ; Llanfyllan, Montgomeryshire ;
Whittlesea, Cambridgeshire ; M ardeen ; Newton ; Dorset ;
Chepstow, Monmouth ; North Elmham' Norfolk ; Totten,
Hants; Puckeridge, Herts ; Bethesda Chapel, Shrewton,
Wilts ; Chippenhate, WiltsCh Shrwton, Wilts ;
Poole, Dorset ; Womiford, Essex ; Winchester ;e Zion Chapel,
Deptford ; Smart's Hill Chapel, Penshuret : Charnmouth,
Dorset ; Wokinghatn, Bolts ; Bicester, Oxen ; Castle Gate
Meeting House, Wilts; Hurley, Norfolk; Little Shetford,
Cambridgeshire ; Ebenezer Chapel, Edenbridge, Kent ; West
Merton, Essex ; Tabernacle Chapel,Holywell, Flint ; Lyming-
ton ; Church Street Chapel, Hackney; Burton-on-
Trent, Staffordshire ; Tunbridge, Kent ; John Street
Chapel, Royston ; Olney, Bucks ; Exeter (Females) ;
Acton, Middlesex ; Asherne, Warwickshire ; Brook-
street Chapel, Warwick ; Allerton, Salop; Mar-
Ifet Drayton, Salop ; Harlington and Hayes, Middlesex; Wit-
ney, Oxon; Salem Chapel, Brixton-hill, Surrey; Broughton,
Hants • inhabitants of March, Cambridge ; Asten Clinton,
and Weston Turvill, Berks ; Sicklade, Gloucester ; Longford,
Berks; Teddington, Beds; Wesleyan Methodist Association,
Upper Brook-street, Ay inch ; Upsombourne, Troy ford ;
Dissenters at Acton, Middlesex ; Baptists of Halifax ' Tutor
and Students at Homerton College ; Inhabitants of No. 2,
Gloucester-terrace, New-road, Middlesex ; Dissenters of
Asherne, Warwickshire; inhabitants of Ashton Timold, Berks ;
Independents of Brook-street Chapel ; Baptists, Matfield,
Kent ; Warwick ; Union-street Chapel, Rochdale ; Haywood,
Lancashire ; Bogslatt, Longsdale ; Barnford, Rochdale ;
Miln-row, Rochdale ; Somerplace, Lancashire Broad Lime,
Lancashire ; Temple, Rochdale ; Littleborough, Lancashire ;
Illingworth, and Rakewood, Lancashire ; Newton, Devon •
West Parade Chapel, Wakefield ; St. Sidwell, Exeter ; Saf.
fron Walden, Essex; Mint-lane Chapel, Exeter • Upper
Brook-street, Winchester; Upsurabourne, Troyford ; Sun-
day School Teachers, Independents, Launton, Ox-
fsed ; Church-street Chapel, Hackney, Middlesex ;
Abbey Chapel, Ramsay, Hants ; Harvey-lane Suntlay
School, Leicester ; Various Schools, Herefo-d, Bicester, Ox-
ford ; Tutor and Students at Homerton College ; Methodist
New Connexion, Ripon ; Parliament-street Chapel, Notting-
ham ; Primitive Methodists, Rochdale, Graveston, Whisburgh,
Tendenham, andWorkering, Norfolk, East Dereham ; Inhabit-
ants of Bedminton Church, and Congregation at Bethnal-
green • Protestant Association, Bethnal-green ; Wesleyan
Methodist Association, Oldham-road Chapel, Manchester;
Chatwood, Manchester; aloston, near Manchester • Blackley,
Molineux, Mills, Sun-street, Keighley ; Crumpsall, Toman-
street, Hayfield, Derbyshire ; New Mills, York-street, Cheet-
ham, Macclesfield, Cheshire ; Mount Pisgah Sloops, Camel-
ford, Cornwall, Ellesmere, Salop; Seven-street, Manchester;
Duddleston, Port Isaac ; Mount Pleasant, Burnley, Bolling-
ton Cheshire, Carlisle, Wrexham, Derbyshire, Readitch, Lis-
keard, Cornwall, Revrush, Ellesmere, Croplanes, Hebden,

PRIL 12, IA46.

York, Todm:,rdeat, Yorkshire, Coanholwie, Lisovati,isol Wil-
low, walk, St. Luke's, Middlesex ; Castle-street, Maryielaone,
Middlesex ; Frith, Kent ; Charlotte-street, Islington ; Gee-
street, Gosikell-street, MiddieFex ; Woolwich, Kent ; King's-
road, Chelsea; William-street, Portland-town ; Gosport,
Bromin, Cornwall, Stockport. Borough of Droit witch ; Park-
street, Worcester ; Glossop, Derby-shire, Mullion. Cornwall,
Ashton, Cornwall, Lustvi,hin, Bradford, (iunwallee, Eccles-
hill, Yorkshire; Brompton, Kent ; Gildingwells and Woodcells,
York ; Whitewell and Creswell, Derby ; Austen, West
Riding, Yorkshire ; Worksop, Nottinghamshire ; Tregather-
man, Cornwall, Helston, Rinsey, Curt', Cornwall,
Devonport ; Bermondsey, Surrey; Earl-street, London-road,
Surrey.
Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition from the Re-
monstrant Synod of Ulster, specially convened. The peti-
tioners stated that they had long enjoyed a generous pro-
vision for their Ministers, as well as a liberal grant towards
the education of their theological students. They were con-
vinced that the prop sed measure for the grant and endowment
of the College of Maynooth would confer a cleat and lastir,g
benefit on the population of Ireland.—(Loud cheer. )
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON presented a petition from the
Wesleya:, Methodists of Cambridge, against the grant to the
College of Mavnooth.
Mr. numE presented similar petitions from Scotland.
Lord ASHLEY pesented poitioos to the same effect, from
Dors,tshire.

Sir GEORGE CLERK presented simi ar petitions from
the borough of Stamford.

DIPEACIIAIENT OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.

Mr. FER RAND gave notice that he would. on Monday,
move that the petition which he had presented from the Pro-
testant Operative Conservative Association, against the con-
duct of Sir Robert Peel, should be printed with the votes.