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

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY.
Mr. FOX MAPLE presented petitions, numerously signed,
from the city of Perth, the diArict of Blairgowrie, Coupar-
Amlus, Kirrierouir, and Nairn, in favour of the Caledonian

ether States would be misled by the pretences which were held
out to them by the British Government.
Lord BROUGHAM felt compelled 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 which used slave
labour and free labour, bat 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
Pharisaical 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
more influential than their judgment. Complaint had been
made that America had not followed the example of England ;
but it should be recollected that the example was not of Mid-
dlesex and Yorkshire, but of Barbadoes and Jamaica, and it
was net because they did not follow our example, but because
they followed it a great deal too closely that they were to be
cried don n. The fault was not: hat slavery existed there, and
that they had not extinguished lavery so soon as we did, but
that they cried up slavery as a good ar.d 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 injust ice
and inhumanity in keeping up the sestem of holding in
bondaze so great a number of their fellow creatures,
and from their wish to introduce 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 the United States, but a portion
of its population that he blamed for this. By the encourage
cent 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 caused to be introduced, and if these 17 lbs. of sugar
per head was to be doubled or tripled, and that that increase
was to he met by better agriculture, or better treatment of the
slaves, then he could not help it, and he was bound to increase
the comforts of his own people. But was that the case with
Cuba? 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 fellow-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
elves 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
20,000/. 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 51et of George 111.,
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 be
placed on a footing with the African slave trade, to abolish
which it ought to be, and he believed was, countenanced by
this country. Ile 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

ter ow both sides of the House, in which Sir Robert 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 policy—(Laughter)—
that if he was successful in his financial policy it was owing to
a series of measure.; 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 Hen. 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 Hon.
Gentlemen, who had resumed 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; he would there-
fore merely move that the petition be laid on the table.
The petition was accordingly ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. WY NNE said he certainly felt that there were reasons
why objections should not be urged against the peti-
tion lying upon the table, but as it might be
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 with the honour of the House, or the advantage of the
c untry, that the petition should be received. If a vote
were to be given, he should therefore vote 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 " Move.")
Mr. WYNNE—I would certainly, therefore, negative the
motion that the petition lie on the table.
Sir R. PEEL said he did not 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 not 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 moving that
the petition should not be allowed to remain on the able.
Mr. ROEBUCK—It appears lam not in order, although
the Right Hon. Gentleman distinctly proposed a motion, and
the Right Hoer. 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
rot in order. I will read the standing order of the House.
Thu Right lion. 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 accordingly.—( Beer, 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 lion. Gentleman then sat down.
The SPEAKER then put the question that the petition do
lie treon the table, which was agreed to.
Mr. rIACLEAN presented several petitions against the
grant to Maynooth.
Mr. S. ii"ORTLEY 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. WAK LEY presented petitions from the inhabitants of
Finsbury, and from the congregation of Dissenters of Bedford-
row, against the grant to Maynooth.
Petitions were also presented by Lord Ingestre from several
planes in Shropshire ; Sir Arthur Brooke, Mr. Raikes
Currie ; Mr. Gisborne, from places in Nottinghamshire ; Mr.
Dickenson, from Somersetshire ; Mr. Blewitt, from Newport;
Mr. D'lsraeli, from Shrewsbury • Air. Tancred, from Ban-
bury ; Lord Castlereagh, from D'ownshire ; and Lord Dun-
cannon, from Derby, against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. SHEIL 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
WeAbourne, Sussex; Wathesfield, Suffolk; Cannock, Staf-
fordshire ; Wickhambroek, Suffolk ; Independents, Zion
Chapel, Dover; New Connexion Methodists, Ashton-under-
Lyne; Dissenters, Bromley, Kent; Ealing Chapel, Middlesex;
Burten-row Chapel, Brentford ; Salem Chapel, Barton-on-
Trent; Sandbach, Cheshire; Southampton, Binkley, Lanca-
shire ; Providence Chapel, Alarsden, near Burnley ; Baptiste,
Emsworth, Hants ; Hinckley, Leicestershire ; Briercliff, near
Burnley; Wheatley-lane Chapel, near Burnley; Ebenezer
Chapel, Burnley ; Haggate, 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 ; Framlingham,
Suffolk; Halesworth, 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 eraven Chapel, Golden-square, London ;
St. Albans, Herts; Beaconsfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk; An-
dover, Hants ; Langham, Essex ; Leek, Staffordshire ; Den-
ton, Lancashire; Greengate, Salford; Great Harwod, Bucks;
Debenham, Suffolk; Headgate Chapel, Colehester ; Heywood,
Lancashire ; Ettery, St. Mary's, Devon ; Union Chapel, Lu-
ton, Beds ; Staleybridge, Lancashire ; Tottenham and Edmon-
ton ; Salem Chapel, Barnsley ; Newport Chapel, Swindon,
\Vets ; Albion-street Chapel, Ashton-under-Lyne; Baptists,
Hord, Essex; Sible Hedinghare ; Yarinouth, 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 ; Hersham 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-
East Dereham, Norfolk ; Chishill, Es-
habitants of Wycken ; Helper, Lancashire; Chester-le-street,
Durham ; Throope Ling, Buckby, Northampton ; Ducie
sCehxa;pels,o Arelbanyc.shterseteete ;ch.pei, Chesterfield; Huntingdon and.
Godmanchester ; Kettering, Northampton ; Stafford ; North-
walshen, Norfolk ; Newport ; Essex ; Stubbing Hoyland,
York ; Clavering, Essex ; Tenterden, Kent ; Walpole, Suf-
folk ; \Vest-street Chapel, Wareham, Dorset; Warwick,
Essex ; Weathorfield, 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 Mannington, Essex ; Hinckley, Leicestershire;
Highgate, Middlesex ; Marsh Chapel, Newcastle-under-Lyne ;
Hanwell Chapel, Middlesex ; Wilmore ; St. Andrew's
Chapel, Tynemouth, Northumberland; Luxlineharn, Nor-
Oxford ; Burton, Norfolk ; Dunstable,
folk ; Old Meeting House, St. Clement's, Norwich Wood-
ford, Northampton ; Kingstead, Northampton ; Wesleyan
Methodists, Walsingham, Norfolk; Islip, Oxford ; Hedington,
Oilexdfosr;dl;ioTuagthchtoleny,Regis, Beds ; Harlington, Beds ; Deyeall,
a, Bucks ; Tetworth,
Bucks; Tetworth, Beds ; Takenham, Norfolk ; New Con-
nexion Methodists, Armlet', Walsingham,
Beds
Walsingham, Norfolk
Boughtonlslip,olk;
11)
0(O
exxgff ooi
,rr,dd
B;;
eHdBse ntioig
nat
Harlington,
n,gto Norfolk;i, Oxford;Be d
sTiu
a tDenhsel
Dunstable,
ey, Oxford; Kirtliegton,
anble
Beds ; Fakenham, Norfolk; New Connexion Methodists,
Armlev, Leeds; Bethel Chapel, Hunslett, Leeds ; Countess
of Eiuntingd‘.n Chapel, Dover; Baptists, Cowland Chapel,
Coventry ; Sharnbrook, Beds ; Bury St. Edmund's, Suffolk ;
Coventry ; Wirksworth, Derby ; Teachers in St. James's
Sunday School, lsorwich ; Biddenden ; Takenham, Nor-
folk ; Cew-lane Chapel Sunday School, Coventry ;
Baptist Sunday School, St. Ives, Huntingdonshire ;
inhabitants of Waltham Abbey, over Darwen, Lancashire ;
Opping, Essex; Farnham, Surrey ; Atherston, Roxton, and
its eieinity; Aylesbury, Reading; Harlin:, Sussex; Drayton,
Norfolk; Foulbourne, Cambridgeshire; Teignmouth, Devon ;
Broad Winsor, Dorset ; Wymundhem, Norfolk; Unston Abbot,
Devon ; Westerharn, 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, Hants ; MeltonMowbray, Leicester ; CeehfieY, Norfolk ; Withersedge Hill,
ll'nfraoorn, Redenhill with Harleston,
Norfolk; Woosiley, Reeks;
NOxorofriA; Kit
irem gore
pton End,Fa ke
inhabitants of No. 2, Gloucester-terrace, New-road, Middle-
sex; Asten Tirrold, Berks; Independents—Abbey Chapel,
Bomsey, Hants ; Bethesda Chapel, St. Colurnb, Cornwall ;
Stoney Stratford, Bucks ; Great Yarmouth Old Aleeting
House ; St. Neots, Huntingdonshire. ; Heytesbury, Wilts ;
Killworth, Leicestershire ; rslasbro' Chapel, York ; Hayes
End, Middlesex ; Thorne, York ; Berkhampstead, 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 ; Southvvold, Suffolk ; Church Street
Chapel, Buckingham ; Biggleswade ; Upton-upon-Severn,
Worcester ; Ebenezer Chapel, Shoreditch ; Zion Chapel,
Churt.sy Isle, Ely; Darlington; Providence Chapel, Rochdale ;
Protestant Dissenting Ministers of Exeter ; King Street Chapel,
Dudley ; Wendovor, Bucks ; Colebrook Chapel, Rochdale ;
Hope Chapel, Rochdale ; Llanfyllan, Montgomeryshire ;
Whittlesea, Cambridgeshire ; Mardeen ; Newton ; Dorset ;
Chepstow, Monmouth ; North Elmham, Norfolk,; Totten,
Heists; Puekeridge, Herts; Bethesda Chapel, Shrewton,
Wilts ; Chippenhant, Wilts ; Zion Chapel, Shrewton, Wilts ;
Poole, Dorset; Woodford, Essex; Winchester ; Zion Chapel,
Deptford ; Smart's Hill Chapel, Pcnshurst Charnmouth,
Dorset ; Wokingham, Berks ; Bicester, Oxon ; Castle Gate
Meeting House, Wilts; Hurley, Norfolk; Little Shetford.
Cambridgeshire ; Ebenezer Chapel, Edenbridge, Kent ; West
Mentors, Essex; Tabernacle Chapel,Holywell, Flint • Lyming-
ton ; Church Street Chapel, Hackney ; Burton-on-
Trent, Staffordshire; Tunbridge, Kent; John Street
Chapel, Royston ; Olney, Backs ; Exeter (Females) ;
Acton, Middlesex ; Asherne, Warwickshire ; Brook-
st reet Chapel, Warwick ; Allerton, Salop; Mar-
i-et 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, Winchester •, Upsombourne, Troyford ;
Dissenters at Acton, Middlesex ; Baptists of Halifax ; Tutor
and Students at Homerton College ; Inhabitants of No. 2,
Gloucester- t errace, New-road, AI iddlesex ; Dissenters of
Asherne, Warwickshire • inhabitants of Ashton Timold, Berks ;
Independents of Brook-street Chapel ; Baptists, Hatfield,
Kent ; Warwick ; Union-street Chapel, Rochdale ; Haywood,
Lancashire ; Bogslatt, Longsdale ; Barnford, Rochdale ;
Milo-row, Rochdale ; Somerplace, Lancashire ; Broad Lime,
Lancashire ; Temple, Rochdale ; Littleborough, Lancashire ;
Illingworth, and Rakewood, Lancashiro ' • Newton, Devon ;
West Parade Chapel, Wakefield; St. Sidwell, Exeter; Saf.
fron Walden, Essex ; Mint-lane Chapel, Exeter ' • Upper
Brook-street, Winchester ; Upsumbourne, Troyford ; Sun-
day School Teachers, Independents, Launton, Ox-
ford ; Church-street Chapel, Hackney, Middlesex ;
Abbey Chapel, Ramsay, Hants ; Harvey-lane Sunday,
School, Leicester ; Various Schools, Hereford, 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 Dereharn ; Inhabit-
ants of Bedminton Church, and Congregation at Bethnal-
green ; Protestant Association, Bethnal-green ; Wesleyan
Methodist Association, Oldham-road Chapel, Manchester ;
Chatwood, Manchester ; Melton, 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;
Daddleston, Port Isaac ; Mount Pleasant, Burnley, Bolling-
ton, Cheshire, Carlisle, Wrexham, Derbyshire, Readitch, Lis-
heard, Cornwall, Revrush, Ellesmere, Croplanes, kiebden,

Railway Bill.
:llr. 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 Kirkmichael in fiv,mr of the measure.
M AYNOOTH.
P. tltions against the gr.llit to Maynooth were presented by
Sir Eimer, Mr. Codrington, Mr. Fellowes, from Hunting-
don; Mr. F. Maule, Mr. H. Stnart, from places in Ireland;
Mr. W. Patten, from places in Lancashire; Mr. Busfeild,
Mr. Hawes, from Lambeth and other places; Mr. Montague
Gore, Mr. Thornely, from Wolverhampton ; znd Col. Acton,

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

concurrence.
Mr. Hamilton, Lcrd Lowther, Lord Bernard, Sir William
Jam-, Lord Duncan, Mr. Pirmptre, and another Hon.
Member presented petitions against any additional grant to

31a) nootti.
Mr. BLEWITT presented a petition from Newport,
against the Bridgwater navigation Railway.
A great number of petitions against the grant to llaynooth
were presented by Lord CHARLES MANNERS, COl. SIBTHORP,
and other Members ; some of those presented by Col. Sibthorp
statinr, that the petitioners feared that some of the members of
the Government intended to found another establishment than
that of 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 ol.jecting to the grant, but
any increase of it, and others praying for the entire withdrawal

the grant.
Mr. SHERIDAN presented a petition against the Parochial

Settlement Bill.
Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Plumptre, Sir J. Hanmer, Colone'
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.
\lr. R. PALMER presented several petitions from places in
Berkshire, against the Maynooth College Bill.
Mr. SPOONER 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. BRAM SION 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-
tooth 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,
by permitting the presentation of petitions to continue.
Mr. WARD presented five petitions from Sheffield and
other places against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. STAN 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. WAWN 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 petitions from Somerset, to the same effect.
Mr. FORSTER presented petitions to the same effect.
Mr. G RIM STONE presented petitions to the same effect.
General LYGON presented a petition to the same effect.
The Earl of HILSBOROUGH 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
the 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 oecupied at least three
minutes in reading.
Mr. FORSTER presented petitions from Walsall and other
places against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. MUNDYI 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 and 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 Shelbourne, from
Caine ; Mr. Matheson, from Ashburton.
Mr. FERRAND'S PETITION.
Mr. FERRAND 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 head 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 Nlaynooth, and they looked on this proceeding as cal-
culated to subvert national liberty, and to involve the l'arliament,
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 be 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 Hon. 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 nut of order, for he should clearly understand that he
is merely at liberty to state the substance of it.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Hon. Member for Knares-
borough was reading the petition.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for Knaresbarough
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. FERRAND—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 again 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 of 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
it, 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 a re-
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 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. He 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
forward, 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 net be better to have the re
tition read at the table by the clerk ?
Mr. FERRAND said he would coneider it his duty to call
upon the clerk to read the petition at the table of the House, if
he did not think that he has taking up less of the time of the
House by reading the substance of it himself. It went en 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 required 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
Itrfic;nreFEgsnßperrßasyeANdinDth—at
wished it to be read at length he should move it be read by the
Clerk. The Hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the
prayer of the petition.
thisTt hh
ee
realm prayerHowe
o shoulda s
ot
wh
retractei sr , . that
a n adl thel
t h grantsa humble
u m
theybf
ol epetir
t support of Popish establishments in this realm, and deprive
f
should inquire into the conductll of Sir Robert
Peel, and,
if they discovered it t b improper,
they should impeach, and if he had been foune '
d guilty
that they
should inflict hum with condign punishment,—'Roars of laugh-

trade.
Lord MONTEAGLE reminded his Noble and Learned
Friend that the Bill they were discussing not only prollibited
the introduction of sugar, the produce of slave-trading coun-
tries, but sugar the produce of slave-labour as well. —( Hear. )
Tne Noble and Learned Lord had made a most powerful speech
against the s'ave.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 calculated•to put an end to that trade. Then again the Noble
and Learned Lord had told them, that they had no right to in-
terfere with the internal and municipal legislations of foreign
countries; but Ist 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 very much feared the Government
would be grievously disappointed in its results. The remis-
sion 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 one of recent establishment. It
existed anterior to the abolition of the slave trade, and they
would find some difficulty in making foreigners believe they
continued it, because it would ultimately lead toe total abandon-
merit of the traffic. He believed that foreigners would think
that 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 had 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 stood now. Then there was a great deficiency,
while now there was a surplus. Now the Noble Lord admits
that if 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•
teetion, because they had substituted free-labour for slave-
labour in the West Indies. With regard to the deficiency of
free-labour, he would say that it was quite impossible to insti-
tute any comparison between the amount of slave-labour and
free. labour. 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
had acknowledged that they could make no distinction between
the East and West Indies. Now, the object 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
while 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 called 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
countries in which a mitigated slavery exists, but to prohibit
the introduction of sugar from those countries in which the
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 sugar of Cuba and Brazil
was produced by these very means. They were accused of
encouraging the introduction of refined sugar from Cuba and
Brazil ; but by this introduction they did not increase the con-
sumption of sugar by one single pound. But then it was said,
you do indirectly encourage the slave trade by taking free-labour
sugarinto the market, because they have made an opening for
the slave-grown sugar. The supposition that giving the custom
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 wire 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 Noble 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 slavery, why then it would be for 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 nr two
other points of his Noble Friend. He said that they intro-
duced 17 or 18 different classes of sugar, when, 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 liable to doubt 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 la'-t spoke, although he agreed in their prin-
ciple, felt 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 committed 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
the Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill for Scotland.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY F;VENING, APRIL 12, 1845.

York, Todmorden, Yorkshire, Cornholme, Lancashire ; Wil-
low- walk, St. Luke's, Middlesex ; Castle-street, 11lar3lehone,
Middlesex ; Erith, Kent ; Charlotte-street, Islington ; Gee-
street, Goswell-street, Middlesex ; Woolwich, Kent ; King's-
road, Chelsea; William-street, Portland-town ; Goliort,
Bromin, Cornwall, Stockport, Borough of Droitwitch ; Park-
street, Worcester ; Glossop, Derbyshire, Mullion, Cornwall,
Ashton, Cornwall, Lustvithin, Bradford, GAnwallee, Eccles-
hill, Yorkshire; Brompton.Kent ; Glldingwells and Woodcells,
York ; Whitewell and Creswell, Deiby ; Austen, West
Riding, Yorkshire ; Worksop, Nottinghamshire ; Tregather-
man, Cornwall, Helston, Rinscy, Ro,wick, Cury, Cornwall,
Devonport ; Berinond,ey, 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 proposed measure for the grant and endowment
of the College of Ala3nooth would confer a great and lastieg
benefit on the population of Ireland.—(Loud cheers. )
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON presented a petition from the
Wesileyato Methodists of Cambridge, against the grant to
.the
College of Maynooth.
Mr. HUME presented similar petitions from Scotland.
Lord ASHLEY presented petitions to the same effect, from
Dorsetshire.
Sir GEORGE CLERK presented simi'ar petitions from
the borough of Stamford.
IMPEACHMENT 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 Concervative Association, against the cou-
duct of Sir Robert Peel, should be printed with the votes.

defect. And this was another instance of the superiority of
the Prussian Catholic Colleges, Leeawe rum of the highest
classes of society received their education there. Let him ask
what Catholic gentleman in Ireland would !end his son to
Maynooth to receive his education? Such a thit•g was un-

presented to that House referred to it, and denied that it ex-
isted, cr that Parliament was bound by it. But what he had to
consider was, tire proposal of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the
head of the Government, which effected most important alter-
ations in the foundation of the College itself. He was not
merely going to change the grant from being an annual into a
permanent one, but he was going to place the building under
the immediate control of Government, thereby establishing a
connexion with it as close as it could well be. The increase of
money appeared to him must important, rot simply because it
was an increase of so many thousands, but because it altered the
character m the State in relation to the College. Originally it
certainly was not intended that the State should entirely maintain
this college ; and the Duke of Wellington declared that the
institution eves not to be entirely supported by the State. I°
fact the eight or nine thousand a year voted to Maynooth was
only understood as the part of a collection made for its support.
The State was only one of its contributors. But it was clear
they were now going to depart from that system. The whole
plan was about to be reconstructed. The professors who had
but scanty salaries, were now about to be liberally rewarded,
and the aliment, education, and care of the pupils these was to
be taken under the consideration of the State. The basis of
the College was about to be changed a most
material change, but that change he had made
up hie mind to support.—( Hear, hear.) He entirely re-
pudimed one argument that had been employed in support of
the increa.ied grant—that of restitution. Ile disclaimed it in
every point of view—in point of law and constitution, and on the
giouni of its being contrary to everythino he knew of hietorv.
He would not now go into the details on that argument, but if
that was to be done as an act of restitution, it was one of the
most shameful confessions that could be made by the Leg sla-
ture.—( Hear, hear.) The Government made a gift of a
shilling or a sixpence in the pound. If this were made a case
of restitution, would it not be most shabby, worse than shabby
—infamous and disgraceful to offer such terms ?—(Hear.)
He, therefore, had nothing to do with the argument of restitu-
tion. Then as to the funds which are to provide for the educa-
tion of the priests, and to the class of soeiety rim which these
were selected, he thought, with regard to the Roman Catholic
priests, they were selected from the only class they could e
taken from. Reference too hart been made to Germany, ai'bd
the reason asked why more aristocratic persons entered a,;
Rumen Catholic priests in Germany than there did in Ireland •
In answer to this he could state that in Germany there was n 1
other church ; but that was not the case in Ireland. In Ger-
many the Romish Church bore something of the same relation
there as the Established Church of England did- in England'
Therefore. he did not think that any great alteration was needed
on that head, but did think that, whatever might be given
to add to the professors' dignity and ease, would probably
tend to smooth down the course of educution. It was well
known that, front the extremely small salaries of the pro-
fessors at Maynooth, they were induced, as soon as possible,
to seek out district chueches, in order to better their posi-
tion, and by these means it was not likely for the college t°
retain the very best theological teachers. By increasing the
salaries this defect would be remedied. Another argument
hid been used as to the effect of this measure, which was ridi-
culous. It had been asserted that this grant was to be vote°
in order to the increasing and promulgating of Protestantism
in Ireland. Now this argument appeared to him as reasonable
as to say that by the invention of printing books had become
scarce, and that locomotion was a means to !retard commet-ee.
It was hard to say, that by having given them these can's,
means, you have weakened their cause. Indeed, he thought it
the meanest argument he had ever heard brought before as
public assembly; therefore he would throw that entirely out
his arguments. Then, in approaching this matter, he wool°
take it as it appeared to him at the present time, and under the
present circumstances. It he had had any agency at all in the
matter, it would have been probably used to have retarded the
scheme as at present proposed. Now, it was a general
ride which had been laid down, and which invole"
a very popular argument, that those who paid
pry
taxation of a country should share the benefits and
vileges which it had to offer, and the question which he
had to ask himself was, whether his mind and conscienrhe
recognised any firm, fixed, and permanent principle, ethi,!',.
would justify him in setting at nought these popular—and loci
that very reason, important—considerations? Nothing
more completely satisfied him of the difficulty of finding an':
quate arguments in opposition to this measure than the haul'',
of the arguments that hsd been brought forward and relied
on the part of its opponents.—( Hear, hear.) Almost el
man who had spoken against this Bill had founded his Mai,.
arguments on some small question of detail. The opponel
of the measure had not ventured to rise to the height and
breadth of the question.—( Cheers. ) His Hon. Friend t
Member for Newcastle (Mr. Colguleouri) though he had le
vainly reserved to himself the right of falling back upon
ground of religion —had not pressed forward that grounOcait
the most convincing and appropriate. The arguments I° f
he had thought best suited to address to the Parliament. 00
England were arguments in small points of detail. His objeetT,
was principally to the structure of the Bill. he questions 7,-t
had raised were mere questions for Committee, and he had n
laid down any broad ground for his objection to a eta
sure which had for its object such vast and irneorta'es
changes. His Hon. Friend had also stood upon the failur,,eo
that object, as far as it at present had been carried out. u
of his grounds had been that the endowment of Maynooth
an experiment of Mr. Pitt, and that that experiment had fancair
But that seemed to him the most superficial, partial, and on' sa
deduction.—(Cheers.) He begged to inquire whether it ucie
ever been Mr. Pitt's calculation to found the college and to 0
nothing more ? No; the view which Mr. Pitt had taken tc-r
to train the priesthood, and then to find provision for the',
eubsequent support.—(Cheers.) To certain, and only 14. hag
limited extent, they had trained the priesthood ; but they had
not made—they hail not endeavoured to make—any provoht
for their subsequent support. That might be right, or it migmr
be wrong; bur it weulti he ridiculous—no, he would grit
ridiculous, tu, :t was roost unfair—when only part of the e%l",eo'lo
ment had been tried, to arrive at the conclusion that thew', it
experiment had failed. If the experiment were to be trieetnall
ought to be tried completely. They ought no to try ai'var,
part, and then argue upon the failure ot the whole.--4 &lee
hear.). His Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle harl_oote
spoken much of the defective state of the College of 311)h bat
as to literature. His Hon. Friend was generally accurate,iat
he did not know wheiher he was or was not so on the Vre • e
fectiv
occasion ; but he had made a point founded upon the de e
literature of Maynooth College. But could any one loo,ba
at
the state of Ireland—could any one look at the divisions on
subject of religion which disturbed that country--eould aoa
one reflect on the history of Ireland for maay centuries, aloe
especially during the last century—and, giving tl'eir „et,
weight to these topics, could any one, for any single ocn'eth
suppose that if the literature of the College of DlaYch•el eg
were defective, that that was a ground for refus
the present measure ?—(Loud cheers.) That wasoo,
question of detail, and what an argument was it in eee,
toast with the matter of the petitions which had been Ptibe
seated, with the movement which had taken place °heel
subject, with the strong religious feelings of the opPOl
of the measures out of doors. His Hon. Friend shrunk tid of
the grounds, and from the arguments of those petitions, fairly
tes
that movement. He was afraid to meet fully and fairlY,4
main principle, and he confined himself to those secong'oes
considerations which did not necessarily interfere with the 'leis
cess of tire Bill, and which might be settled hereafter. of
Hon. Friend had also alluded to the working of the sYatelesa
education in Germany, and had referred to the case of At the
—the same, he believed, who had seceded.—(" No, ntetter
same," from some Hon. Member.) Well, they had ',sill
not take any collateral debate, and he would reserve the of
line of his observations. Considering the popular l'h`eret
argument which had been taken in favour of this area roof
and the movement in support of it, the burden of 'otta
rested with its opponents, and he asked what was the Pi', ill
in the law or Constitution of the country, and not oe Per
the law and Constitution, but in the convictions of the:,jest
pie, which was the living basis of the Constitution,
nald
ground of objection—strong, definite, and permanent c, to
be taken against the Bill ? What he was intereste'eet
inquire was, whether there was any Perms
means of resisting the principle upon which this measat'aece.
founded? He, of course, did not allude to physical resis oder
He had never entertained a doubt that, at all times and aoipst
all circumstances, this country would be able to bear up aOhbe
the efforts of physical resistance and opposition ; but thougoiee
entertained this opinion, yet he thought that the circuit" lore
of that resistance ought not to be excluded from considerat tact
He was not afraid to have it cast upon him that he paii`t 0.0
high a regard to the means of conciliating opposition. "no s
a paradox in human nature to deny that conciliation ,".01/
grateful or that it was not generally a politic course of eels joie
(Cheers. )—and he would willingly submit to reproach (air' sod
construction rather than refuse to grant what was geso
generous to a people who were their fellow'-Chriasmeg
and their fellowmen.—( Loud cheers.) But, in eqiiers
ing this question of principle to the best of his au""ie th`
though there was little of that principle relied uteri° ,e,elia
speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Neweastgooi
found, on one side and on the other, very extreme °Woe'
On one side it was contended that any religious en" thef
whatever was contrary to natural justice. On the tocontrPitb
side it was asserted that a State endowment was
religious duty. He could not hold one ot these opinion° jar
other. He could not hold that it was contrary to naturareser
tice that a government should supp rot one religion inePiee
cube to another, and he believed that few men would "leas'
if they considered the paradoxes involved in the proP°9-114
The Hon. Member had referred to the case of India. tgies'
did not, as a rule, interfere with the religion of the /'`aecehe'
Whether they did so sufficiently was a question worthY ht for
sideration, but it was one into which he would riiiiied°
enter. But in India there was a Mahomedan and a,eeer,h:
population which supplied the taxes to the British se' rorti
ment, and they did not hesitate to apply without lilacaffer4
and with no sparing hand, such portions as they cop pat
for the encouragement of the Christian religion. fie eisten
think this contiary to natural justice. He thought it conora rei;
with the highest justice, and with the most grave ..,eOP
rious considerations. But it might be sad that the.er,
of India were net Christians, anti that a broad distineuhciassed
to be drawn between Christians and all other sects ande 00 1,
of religious worshippers ; but to test this principle htbe co°
put to all who belonged to his religion—he would pot the ROC
of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward, at the tine' o'e
did Dot
formation. As they were all aware, the Reformation it es:,
spring from the ground. It descended from above. [phanded down by the bishops, the clergy, and the neeMar-e
tore they impregnated the people with doctrines that wee.__
new. The great mass of the people were impregnated 0, selec,
. to oi
above them. He did not enter into any other questioo eeree
.4
those troubled times gave rise. He said nothing as to totbiesS,
used for propagating the new opinions. He said n°,.
to the persecutions and cruelties which then had Iste.riioVr,
tig.d ; but he asked, was there •
any one who held that itiogetici
duty of Queen Elizabeth to have refrained from enh _ bell
,
ing to communicate to her people that whi .11 her
eoter
was the greatest blessing she could impart? Harty 7he ;Vol
tained such an cpinion he was not one of them, blehe° to
emphatically protested against the truth or reasona.l
any such doctrine. But he could no more agree wi:te rite
who contended that a State endowment was contrarseereol
gious duty. Those who supported that proposition S_diyet
$4
confuse the duties which a man performed in his
eihrforelol
capacity and the duties he was called upon to Ptigiaido,o
a member of society.—(Hear, hear.) In his Iron an
capacity such a man was his own ruler. Each corn' sti
not only allowed, but was by duty bound, to _ .biernt
opinion for himself on those serious and sacred iseupeeti.c;i
but in civil and political society each man WO a reliio,l
upon the opinions and feelings of his fellow's.
ed gin' 00
society existed by means of mutual concession eavne y ff'do,
surrender.— ( Loud Opposition cheers. ) If wesv r 1
insisted upon his own opinion—if every niann...if 'got
terminated to follow the dictates of his own feelings one
set
man would listen to himself alone—whoever that ma hick nisd
pursued this course, ",,liat man issued the sentence vici-cheet'iot
throw the whole of society into confusion.--(1-4Littednig
Ills Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle had au'".,ritlel•
he could not bind every body to the adoption of Insile
He trusted that he should not be tnisundersto .el• ople "ieeo
ways thought, anti he still thought, that that Pf reliAmet,
happy who enjoyed the inestimable advantaged e clad al
unity, and with whom that religious unity marke the h
of their legielation. He placed that advantage at noPa•oitia
rilf
all civil ahil social blessings, and he would not earn e epneer
in, 11'6
—he would not earn applause—by withhold a , re 00
he est' ,1
that fertile, indeed, of mi,ery and sorrow were tne,ouili .0'
dissensions which prevailed amongst them. But ed so te t
say that in this he found such a body of definite at.l. eolreiii•
tial truths as would form a satisfactory answer to t_i'anle irtibiee
Ireland. Ile did not find in this principle a clear__sotoe; pet.
gible ground upon which they could for ever
which every body could feel and understand,
..if ""„lelerheielet
aid,
agree with it. Put it might be fished,
a particular form of religion to be este')
under any other circumstances, you could "

heard
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. Member had better stick
to facts.
Mr. COLQUHOUN—WeII, let him remind the Right
Hon Baronet that the Professor of Mathematics in Maynooth
College, when he was examined before a Committee of that.
House, declared, in answer to a questien, that he did not
know that there was a sixtl, book of Euclid.—(Laughter.)
Honourable Members argued that by paying professors well in
Maynooth good professors would be had, and others had stated
that the reason they were called upon to grant this additional
sum of 25,0 0/. was for this purpose ; but he begged to tell
them that they would pay the reeney for no other certainty
than the certainty of not getting such persons.—(Laughter )
The only men cn whom they could calculate were
those who had promulgated the asceticism and se-
verity of the Roman Catholic priests, and who would
send forth men who would foster no other doctrines
in the country. On these grounds he begged to say he would
give the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet his most
strenuous opposition. Before he sat down he begged to re-
turn thanks to the Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) for
having had the courtesy to send him notice yesterday of his
intention not to bring on his motion to-day.
Mr. GROGAN said he intended to give the measure of
the Right Hon. Baronet his strongest opposition. A great
number of petitions had been presented from the city he repre-
sented, and that city, from its contiguity to Maynooth, might be
said to know something of the results of the system of educa-
tion pursued at Maynooth. He did not think the Right Hon.
Baronet had made out any case whatever calculated to con-
vince the House or the country that he was warranted in
bringing forward such a proposition, for he had not
shown that it was based eithtr on compact or ex-
pediency. In the year 1;95, when this grant cri-
gin aced, it was not intended to he continued,
because in the Act of Union there was a stipulation, providing
for the continuation for twenty years subsequently of grants
made to charitable institutions then in existenee, or that had
been in existence for six years previously, and therefore it was
clear that it was intended to exclude Maynoath. because May-
nooth had been in existence five years previously. Then there
was the evidence of Dr. Crolly, before a Committee of the
House, who stated that he believed that the increased grant of
12,0061. made in the year 1810, was not, in his opinion, a
grant for the establishing, but in order to meet expenses in-
curred by additional buildings. He did not mean to speak
disparagingly of the Roman Catholic priests ; on the con-
trary, he was willing to extend to them the highest
praise for the manner in which they had exerted themselves
for the preservation of life and property during the
agitation that convulsed Ireland two years ago.—( Hear. )
( The Hon. Gentleman then read extracts from a speech of Mr
O'Connell's, showing the difference between the education of
foreign priests and the priests of Ireland ; and that the
great Anti-Protestarit feeling in Ireland was fostered by the
education which was bestowed on the students at Maynooth.
He also referred to a statement in an article written by Mr.
Inglis, a foreigner, whe stated that the priests of Ireland were
agitating priests.) Anti now they were going to increase the
power and the circulation of those doctrines which led the
country so near its destruction sonic time ago, and were now
about to give facility to, and extend the prevalence of their
opinions. The Protestants of Ireland all disapproved of the
system of education which was pursued at Maynooth, and
the ascr tic seclusion which was imposed on the students. Any
body of men would, under the same system of training, turn out
into the world such men as the priests of Ireland.
A young man, early in life, put into the college with a
view to a provision for his after life, would, under the influence
of the doctrines and tenets inculcated at Maynooth, become
one of thnt class to which they objected. The power of the
Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland was absolute, and the
Protestants had strong doubts whether that power did not
extend to temporal as well as spiritual matters. It was to be
remembered that the Pope had no controul over them what-
ever ; they had a greater elegeee of liberty, and were less re-
stricted by the Pope than the priests in any other Catholic.
country in Europe, io that their power was almost absolute.
He objected to the version of the Bible with notes and com-
ments, as printed by the College printe:, and read in Maynooth
as a class book. He then instanced a note to the 13th chapter
of Matthew, to show the false intepretation which was given
in their Bible. Under these circumstances he did not think
it uncharitable, unjust, or ungenerous on the part of the Pro-
testants of Ireland, to object to the doctrines which were
taught in that place. Before they passed that Act they ought
to take very great care lest they were about to found a college
for the education of a set of men publishing the doc•
trines of those who were banished from nearly every
country in Europe. He meant the Jesuits, who, though re-
markable for their great knowledge and talents, were suppressed
by every country in Europe in consequence of their extreme
desire to obtain power. Dr. Kenny, who was the principal of
the Jesuits in Ireland, stated, on an examination as to the
opinions which pervaded Maynooth, that what they were
taught was exactly the same as in the Jesuit Colleges abroad,
where he was educated. He would not say that it was a Jee
suit college, but they had no reason to know that it was not ;
and they ought, at least, before passing the Act, to institute a
Committee to inquire into the system of education adopted
there, that they might be assured that. they were not giving mo-
ney to a body who were proscribed by every power in Europe.
The Bill purposed to endow, permanently and for ever, without
the controul of the Crown, the College for the education of
Roman Catholic priests. We profess to be Protestants and
Dissenters from the Romish Church, and yet we attempted to
make the priests of that Church better controversialists and
more able opponents of the religion which we believe to be
true. He asked could a Protestant Parliament consent to en-
dow a college for such purposes ?—( Hear, hear.) The 1 ader
of the Opposition—or rather of that portion of it which sits
upon the other side of the House—was a supporter of the Bill.
-But he did not disavow that. he had more at heart the concilia.
tion of the Romish Church— ( Hear)—tban the preservation
of the Protestant religion. The leader of the Catholic party
in Ireland had expressed himself in strong terms of approba-
tion of the measure, and had stated that he would so far abate
disaffection in Ireland as to give the Government the full value
of its money. Two years ago that country was on the verge of
rebellion, and if the concession now proposed were made, what
good ground had the House for supposing that a fresh threat of
a civil war would not lead to further concessions to the de-
mands of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Some time since,
in the north of Ireland, a large number of Roman Catholics
were converted to the Protestant faith, and they were refused
provisions at any price, and they were obliged to be supplied
by the Protestants of other pars of the country. The check
to conversion would be increased by the proposed grant. The
Roman Catholic clergy were trained in doctrines the most anti-
social and the most repugnant to the Protestant population of
the country. No petition had been presented in support of the
Bill which was indicative of a great deal, and he thought
many of the Roman Catholic aristocracy did not approve of this
measure. They might approve of the endowment of a Roman
Catholic College and feel proud of it, but it was clear they did
not feel anxious about it, fur they did not present
a single petition in favour of it. He :had trespassed too long
on the attention of the House, but he felt it to be his duty to
enter his protest against the Bill—he objected to it on
principle, because it would tend to endanger the existence of
the Protestant Church in Ireland—because no necessity
existed for it, because neither expediency nor even compact,
upon which so much hail been relied, required it, and be-
cause the Bible was withheld by those who were educated in
Maynooth from the Roman Catholic people. He had endea-
voured as far as he could to express his opinions without con-
demning the opinions of any sect, but lie felt it his duty thus
fairly to protest against the measure.
The question having been put by the SPEAKER,
Several Hoer. MEMBERS rose to address the House, but all
gave way to
Mr. GLADSTONE, who spoke as follows :—Sir, I am sure
the House will excuse me if I profess my anxiety to take the
earliest opportunity of delivering my sentiments in the debate.
I feel it my duty to apologise to the House for having suffered
one occasion in which this measure was discussed to pass by
without expressing an opinion upon it, or having given a vote.
The truth is that I did not think I could vote on the division
of last week, without stating to the House the reasons on which
that vote was founded, and I did not on the other hand feel
that I could put the House in possession of my views of the
entere case until the Bill wad printed, and until I was enabled to
take a view of all its provisions. It was on that account, and
'not from any desire to avoid the responsibility in-
cumbent on me, in common with every Member
of this House, and incumbent on me, for some special reasons,
frankly to disclose all the sentiments I entertain on this ques-
tion. I have 110 reason whatever to complain of the course
taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the
University of Oxford, who felt it his duty to call for an ex-
pression of this House. Representing, as he did, a very
powerful and wide-spread sentiment among the people of this
country, and entertaining sentiments the dictates of a con-
scientious conviction, I could not be surprised at the course
pursued by my Hon. Friend. I fully admit that the minority
of last week did represent the general and prevailing sense of
the people of England and Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) But,
making that admission, I must state, for my own part, that
after the most full and mature consideration of the question in
the position in which it stands, I am prepared, in opposition to
what I believe to be the prevailing opinion of the people of
England and Scotland—of my own ccnstituents, from whom I
deeply regret to differ, and to my own deeply-cherished predi-
lect.ons—l am, I say, prepared to give my deliberate and
anxious support to the measure before the House.—(This an-
nouncement was received with loud and prolonged cheering
from the Opposition.) I will advert to some reasons which
have been advanced in support of the measure, and which, I
confess, appear to me inadequate to its support. My Right
Hon, Friend, in the closing part of his address, observed
that the grant he proposed amounted to no more than a liberal
and honourable construction of that compact. My Right Hon.
Friend remarked, that that compact, the Act of Union, he did
not interpret in a literal sense, but in that spirit of equity
which ought to subsist between the English and Irish people.
I confess that doctrine greatly facilitates my approach to the
consideration of this question. I believe, with the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the Member for Dungarvon, that there is some-
thing like a compact in this case. Ido not mean with instru-
ments binding the parties to all eternity ; but I mean
a state of circumstances and relations between the
Parliament and the people of Ireland, which precludes
the question from being considered as a new one, for it has
been a matter of discussion in a very considerable degree in
previous debates upon the annual vote to Illaynooth. But, Sir,
I do not think that argument is altogether applicable to the
present question. i have to consider the measure on other
grounds—to consider it in the circumstances of a new measure.
With respect to the contract, I will quote a few words of Mr.
Percival, which have not been yet mentioned in these discus-
sions. Mr. Percival said, in 1812, that he supported the
grant as it stood, because it was one of those which
the Parliament of Ireland thought they should preserve
at the union ; because he found it in fact given over to Eng-
land as a part of the union. If the grant were fairly open
to opposition after the union, he should certainly be disposed
to resist it, becanse he thought it in principle wrong for a
State endeavouring to establish a particular system of reli-
gion, to provide for the maintenance, ecclesiastical endowment,
propagation, and encouragement of another religion. He
(Mr. Percival) found, that a Parliament composed of Iri,h-
teen, possessing the whole religious endowments of the
country, altering, the law for the purpose of enabling parties
to establish colleges, and making, in the first instance, con-
tributions in support of a college, which was continued
from year to year. After quoting some further
observations of Mr. Percival, the Right Honourable
Gentleman read the following extract from the same
speech. " Under these circumstances, I say it would be most
ungenerous in you (the English Parliament) to avail yourselves
of that numerical superiority and strength for the purpose of
withdrawing the grant that has been conferred by the Irish
Parliament,and which, I am confident, thelrishParliament never
would have withdrawn." But he found that in the declaration
of Mr. Perceval, whose whole conscientious convictions were
opposed to the grant,whose Government was founded upon prin-
ciples of resistance to every concession, great or small, to Ro-
man Catholics, but a man whose native honesty and
candour led him to recognise the obligations of good faith
and which led him to make the declaration to which he had
alluded. When he looked at the fixity of the grant for so
many years, he could not think that at this moment there
could be any doubt with respect to the recognition of the
grant by Parliament, but he felt that the changes which were
now proposed to be made were so material with respect to the
foundation of the College, as to make the question almost al-
together a new one. He would not at all have referred to the
question of contract, had not so many petitions which had been

MR. WARD'S MOTION.
Mr. WARD said he had to thank the Speaker for the kind
intimati ,n which he had given him in the course of the morn-
ing, as to the form in T, hich he might bring forward his motion
without inconvenience or irregularity. He should, therefore,
in accordance with that intimation, move, upon the question
that the House go into Committee upon the Bill, that it be an
instruction to the Committee, that any provision for the par-
poies of the Bill should be supplied out of the funds already
applicable to ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland.
THE LATE ACCIDENT AT BOX TUNNELL.
Lord DUNICA N wished to ask a question from the Hon.
Member for Reading (Mr. Russell) as to the late accident at
the Box Tunnel], on the Great Western Railway. It was
stated in the public press tl'at a quantity of earth and stone
had fallen in and obstructed the passage of the mail. He
wished to ask whether any measures had been taken to pre-
vent the recurrence of such an accident in future ?
Mr. RUSSELL said that the best answer to a question of so
much importance to the public and to the Company would be
to read the report of the Company's engineer. (The Hon.
Gentleman then read the report, but in so low and indistinct
a tone, that we could not catch the leading points.) The acci-
dent on the Box Tunnel was owing to the severe frost anal such
occurrences were more unfrequent in tunnels than in any
other places. Hr hoped the statement he had made would be
satisfactory. He could assure the Noble Lerd that every
care and attention was paid to the Tunnel, which was as safe as
the roof of that House.—( Great laughter. )
NEW ZEALAND.
Os the motion that the order of the clay for the second read-
ing of the Mas nooth College Grant be read,
Mr. C. BULLER asked if the Government were prepared
to lay en the table of the House the papers relating to New
Zealand of which he had given notice.
Mr. HOPE said the documents in question or extracts from
them, as the Hon. and Learned Member wished, would be
printed and laid cn tli e table in a few days.
THE GRANT TO MAYNOOTII.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill
being read,
Mr. COLQUHOUN said the Noble Lord (Lord John Rus-
sell) was one of those Members of the Opposition who pos-
sessed great influence in the House, particularly when he rose
to express his opin'ons upon Irish subjects. When the Noble
Lord held office and occupied a place on the Treasury benches,
he advocated many measures which were invariably neutra-
lized by the weight of opinion on the other side, but when
a question in reference to the Irish Church was introduced
by the Noble Lord, the Honourable Member for
Sheffield accused him of deserting his principles ; yet, strange
to say, that in all di,cussions upon such questions—no matter
what party were in office—the Opposition always appeared to
have the power of deciding. When the lion. Member for
Sheffield occupied a seat on that side of the House, he was
remarkably inert in expressing his opinions upon the question
of academical education. It seemed to be the law of their
political existence, since the passing of the Reform Act, that it
was not the Government with their large majority that carried
their measures, but those who were opposed to them. He
besought the Noble Lord opposite to consider well the responsi-
bility under which he was acting. He besought that Noble
Lord to reflect well upon the advice he was about to give
upon the subject of the Irish Church ; to reflect upon it as if he
were sitting in the Cabinet, with all the responsibility
not :of office, but of opposition. Agreeing generally in the
foreign policy of her Majesty's Government, he entirely agreed
with what the Noble Lord had said on the Oregon question,
but he disagreed with him entirely on this question of the Irish
Church. He also wished to make an earnest appeal to the
Hon. Member for Montrose and to the Hon. Member for
Sheffield. Those Hon. Members entertained opinions on the
Irish Church which wets perfectly different from those which
he entertained, but it was evident they could not agree with
the Noble Lord. He entreated the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose to return to the seat which he formerly occupied on his
(Mr. Colquhoun's) side of the! House; and he besought the
, Hon. Member for Sheffield to join him. Let them not be
alarmed by the name of Conservative—there was nothing to
occasion alarm in it.—( Cheers.) It was a name without a
notion.—(Opposition cheers.) Not only was it treading on
the heels of Radicalism—it was treading on the very toes of
Radicalism.—(Cheers.) Nay, in many instances, it was going
further than Radicalism—(Renewed Opposition cheering)—
and in all cases it was gaining on Radicalism at a very rapid
pace.—(Continued Opposition cheering.) He should certainly
resort to every means in his power to oppose the progress of
this Bill.—( Bear, hear.) He would appeal to the 1-louse
whether he had, ever since he had had the honour of a seat
in that House, been guilty of anything like a factious opposi-
tion, but when a measure of such importance as this was
pressed forward in such a hasty manner, without giving time
for its consideration, ke felt himself called upon as a member
of the minority, to exercise those rights with which a minority
was invested, and which never could be exercised with
greater temperance than they had been by him.—( Hear. )
The character of the measure brought forward on the subject
of Maynooth was of such a nature that he could not help
thinking a more inadequate and injurious measure could not be
brought forward. With regard to endowment, he thought
there was great good sense in what had fallen from the Noble
Lord the Member for Liverpool the other night,
that they ought to take-care not to stretch the principle of
the majority binding the minority too far; for, in that case,
they would not endow the Roman Catholic religion in Canada
and Malta, though it would not be possible for them to retain
those colonies if they carried out that principle.—(" Hear,
hear," from the Opposition.) Yes ; he fully admitted that ;
but there was another principle that they ought rot to carry
out—that doctrine where it militated against the broad and
fundamental principles of morality and the Christian religion,
otherwise they would have no right to interfere with the Suttees
of India, or the practices of the inhabitants of New Zealand.
It was once remarked of Napoleon that he was an honorary
member of all religions; that he was a Mahomedan in Egypt,
and a Jew and Roman Catholic whenever it suited his purpose;
but that was not a principle on which a Christian state
ought to act. He thus disposed of the question of conscience ;
with regard to the question of compact, he thought the
Right Hon. Gentlemen had entirely misapprehended it. It was
true that the Irish Parliament left to the Roman Catholics the
power of endowing a college of their own, and if they refused
them that liberty, he should think worse of the Irish Parlia-
ment than ever he did. But when it was proposed to make the
grant to Maynooth a permanent instead of an annual grant., the
Irish Parliament refused to do so by a vast majority. It could
not, therefore, be successfully maintained that there was any
compact. But to go from the high vantage ground which he
might take, and to look upon this question as a merely political
one, he would refer to the objects of Mr. Pitt, who founded
Maynooth. Lord Castlereagh, who carried r Union, and
who was well acquainted with the object of Mr. Pitt, said, in
1810, that it was not his wish that there should not be Roman
Catholics—that they might continue to be sincere ; but that
his wish was to make them liberal Roman Catholics, connecting
themselves with their own Government for the benefit and the
mutual advantage of all, to the exclusion of all foreign influence.
Well, what was the effect now that Maynooth had been in
existence fifty years? It was a remarkable fact that when
the repeal was agitated, a few years ago, almost all the ecclesi-
astics educated at Maynooth, with scarcely a single
exception, were violent agitators of that measure. The
Honourable Member for Waterford, in speaking of
the Roman Catholic Association, said that Maynooth
began to be felt, and from the exclusive nature of the education
in Maynooth it could scarcely be otherwise. If a college were
established on the banks of the Isis, in which an exclusive sys-
tem of education was pursued, from which the entrance of pub-
lic opinion was repelled, where there was no intercourse with
persons who were to occupy stations in the general relations of
society, where there were no young men educated for the law
or other learned professions, he was sure that the result of such
a system would be that it would be impossible to maintain the
connexion between Church and State for six years. Then
when they came out into the world, they were in a great degree
cut off from society by the system of celibacy ; they were men
who were filled with arrogant and intolerant views of their own
importance, and they thought that all others were bound to
obey their behests. That was the natural consequence that
might be expected from the education pursued at Maynooth.—
( Hear, hear.) Allusion had been made to the difference
in the character of the priests who were educated
abroad and those who were educated at Maynooth. He had
lately received a letter from a gentleman who held office under
the present Government in the constabulary force. He said
that he never heard the subject of the priesthood mentioned,
without its being universally considered of the priesthood edu-
cated abroad and those educated at Maynooth—that the former
were well disposed and peaceable, the latter turbulent, assum-
ing a political character hostile to English connexion. The
Hon. Gentleman then quoted a letter which appeared in the
Morning Chronicle, signed " Phililathes," in which the
writer said that the Roman Catholic priesthood had entered
into the repeal movement in the worst—that was to say, the
rebellions spirit. When the subject of education in Prussia
was mentioned, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Dungarvon and the Right Hon. Member for Waterford cheered;
but those Right Hon. Gentlemen ought to know that the system
of education pursued in Prussia was very different from that
which was pursued at Rome. His Hon. Friend the Member
for Pontefract, the same night, advocated the Roman Catholic
system of education ; but he had the highest authority—that of
the Prussian Minister now in this country, respecting the dif-
ference which existed in the Roman and Prussian systems. He
said the system which prevailed in Rome was this :—A person
was taken at seven years of age and placed in an ecclesiastical
seminary, where he he was educated apart from the society of
others of the ecclesiastical profession. The consequence was
that they came out into the world very illiterate and extremely
intolerant ; and however such a system might be suited to
Italy, he hoped it would never find favour in this country.
On the other hand, under the Germanic system, the State
took the boy at the age of seven years, when he was brought
up with others intended for wordly pursuits, by which his
manners were refined and his opinions moderated. He con•
tinned there till the age of twenty-one, when he was
placed in an ecclesiastical seminary, where he was
educated precisely as they were educated at Maynooth.
Prussia was a country composed of Catholics and Protestants,
but it was well known that the Germanic character pervaded
the whole, and what was the consequence ?• Why, this, that
when the Archbishop of Cologne attempted to enforce in
Prussia some of those intolerant measures which were ad-
mitted to exist in Ireland, he was met by the most strenuous
and determined opposition. In Ireland it was well known that
the Roman Catholic priests were the most assiduous fomentors
and promoters of the repeal agitation. Yet, strange to say,
the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment had proposed to the House a measure, by which
would be kept up the system of education that those priests re-
ceived. Now, he would adduce a stronger argument in favour
of his position than the evidence of a Roman Catholic, a Mr.
M'Kenna, who had declared that the system of education at
Maynooth' was a highly vicious system. The reason that
none but men of the lower classes of society entered that Col-
lege as candidates for any of the professorships was, because
of the smallness of the salaries; yet the Right Honourable
Baronet's proposition did not propose to remedy that