The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-25 00:00:00

MAYNOOTH.

The Earl of WICKLOW presented two petitions
from the county of Wicklow, one against the grant to
Maynooth, and the other is favour of the grant to the
Church Education Society.
The Duke of BUCCLELICH presented petitions from
several places against the grant to Maynooth.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
The Duke of RICIIMOND wished to know whether
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had come to any reso-
lution with respect to the sale of the property under

their care.
Lord WIIARNCLIFFE said that they had come to
some resolutions, which would be laid on the table.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
The Earl of CLANCARTY presented petitions from
Louth, and various other places, in favour of Church
Education in Ireland. The Noble Earl also presented
three petitions against the additional grant to
Maynooth. He wished to say a few words
in justification of the vote he intended to
give against that measure, should it ever come
before their Lordships' House. He had no wish
to stand in the way of the education of any class of
her Majesty's subjects, but he thought that no money
ought to be voted by the State to support any
system of education, unless the State had un-
limited control over it, and unless the Govern-
ment was responsible for whatever was taught
The experiment tried in establishing the College of May-
nooth had signally failed. During the fifty years that
the College had been in existence, no one individual
celebrated either in literature or science had been edu-
cated there. He believed that there was a general
opinion prevalent in Ireland as to the inefficiency of
Maynooth College,. When the question came before
the House, he should certainly vote against it unless a
searching inquiry were previously made into the disci-
pline pursued at Maynooth. The grant was decidedly
at variance with the oath of supremacy, and
nothing was more likely to increase the ecclesiastical
power of the See of Rome. It was said that the question
of principle was disposed of in 1795; but he must
remind the Noble Lords that those who used
this argument had repeatedly taken the oath of
supremacy. To that oath obligations attached, and in
his opinion Noble Lords were bound to observe them.
The Marquis of NORMANBY believed it was the
general desire of the House that the discussion on this
subject should be postponed until the Bill came formally
before the House ; and he merely rose for the pur-
pose of referring to the statement made by the
Noble Earl in the early part of his address.
The Noble Earl stated that the College of Maynooth
had been established for more than fifty years, but, since
that time it had produced no men of eminence or learn-
ing. Now, when he held office in Ireland, he made it
his duty to inquire into this subject, and, certainly, the
impression left upon his mind of the religious
learning and general instruction to be found and given
there was far different to that of the Noble Lord.
Every one knew that that institution was conducted on
such a footing as was not likely to produce very rich
fruits, but he could not suffer the Noble Marquis's
assertion that Maynooth had produced no person of
eminence for learning or virtue.
The Earl of CLANCARTY explained that the object
of his observations tended to inquiry as to what the
College had produced.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought it would be
better to adhere to the custom of the House of stating
the substance of any petition which was presented, and
not to speak upon the principle until the regular time
for the discussion came on.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, while allowing
the general convenience of not speaking " upon peti-
tions, yet conceived that if the privilege of speaking
on petitions were done away with, much valuable time
would be lost.

MAYNOOTH.
Lord BROUGHAM, in presenting a petition against
..he grant to Maynooth, took the opportunity of contra-
dicting as positively as wordscould do, the statement which
had been made in the other House of Parliament, that
an attack which had appeared in one of the French
papers was written by one of the Ministers of France.
That statement had given great pain to the individual
to whom it referred, and he was requested to give the
rumour the most unqualified contradiction.
The Earl of CLANCARTY complained that be had
asked a question to which he had received no answer.
The object of that question was to ascertain how her
Majesty's Ministers could reconcile this grant to May-
nooth with the terms of the oath of supremacy.
Lord MONTEAGLE said, that he conceived that not-
withstanding what had been said of the oath of supre•
macy and the Act of Settlement, he thought that
he would be a person of extraordinary ingenuity
who could discover, within the four corners of the oath of
supremacy, anything which at all forbid the grant to
Maynooth, though perhaps the Noble Earl's ingenuity
was equal to the task.
The Earl of CLANCARTY complained that
the Noble Lord had attacked him ungene-
rously, and stated that the object of the Bill
in 1795 was to provide education for the Roman Catho-
lics of Ireland, and he conceived that this additional grant
would only tend to increase the spirit of insubordination,
which had been encouraged, if it had not been altogther
elicited, by the proceedings at Maynooth.
Lord BEAUMONT said the Noble Earl had dis-
played the most deplorable ignorance of the Cativdic
religion if he conceived that one tecet of that religion
had been altered. The object of the grant in 1795 had been
to furnish education for the Roman Catholics of
Ireland. The people of Ireland were dependent
upon their priests for their education, and the object
of this grant was to improve the education of the riests,
; and consequently of the people. The very reasons p
which
justified the Bill of 1795 justified also the grant of this
year, But if the Noble Earl wished to make any state-
ment, a Noble Duke would present a petition to morrow,
and then, in accordance with the custom of the House,
he might enter into
Ra diAlLWscussion o
YSf the principle.
A.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from seve
ral persons in Manchester, Nottingham, and other
places, largely interested in railways, complaining that
heir property had been most materially injured by
the alterations made in the mode of management
by the directors, and he would take that opportunity of
stating that he entirely differed from the petitioners, for
he thought if they chose to risk their money in these
speculations, they should not complain if their trust was
abused.
Lord BROUGHAM also presented a petition from the
churchwardens of the parish of Hardwich in the county
of Berks, in favour of the grant to Maynooth.
CONSTABULARY FORCE OF IRELAND.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY said it would be
recollected that a short time ago he brought
under the notice of the House the circumstance
of an officer of the constabulary force having re-
sponded to a forbidden toast, at a dinner by the High
Sheriff of Armagh. He believed that his Noble Friend
the Secretary for the Colonies had some information to
communicate to the House.
Lord STANLEY said he had made inquiry into
the subject, and he found that after the late
assizes at Armagh, the high Sheriff sent an
invitation to dinner to the high constable of the
district, who was however unable to attend, and the
invitation was therefore extended to three of his
officers. Two of these officers attended the dinner in
plain clothes, and the other in his uniform, and at
this dinner the latter officer certainly did respond to
the toast of " the glorious and immortal memory of
William the Third." The Lord-Lieutenant of the
county therefore decided to remove this officer to an-
other part of the country. But at the same time they
were bound to admit, from communications which the
Government had had from Colonel M'Gregor and other
parties in Ireland, that the officer who had been guilty
of this breach of the regulations of the constabulary
force, had impartially discharged his duties, and always
kept himself aloof from politics.
The Marquis of NORMANBY expressed himself
satisfied with the explanation, and the subject dropped.
THE BISHOPRICS OF ST. ASAPII AND

BANGOR.
The Earl of POWIS brought in a Bill for repealing
the act uniting these sees, and giving her Majesty power
to appoint a Bishop of Manchester.
The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be
read a second time on Friday, the 2d of May.
Lord MONTEAGLE gate notice that at some future
stage of the Bill he should move, as a counter-motion,
that the revenues of the Welsh Bishoprics mentioned in
the First Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
should be applied to the benefit of the parochial clergy
instead of the Episcopal Fund.
THE MAYNOOTII GRANT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
from Dublin in favour of this grant.
Lord Campbell, Lord Denman, and Lord Hardwick',
presented petitions against the grant.
Lerd CAMPBELL presented a petition from the
tradesmen and shopkeepers of Pontypool, against the
Bill passed last session, for abolishing imprisonment for
debt under 201.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
the clergy of the Arcbdeaconry of Chichester, praying
the House to pass some measure for decreasing the de-
moralisation occasioned by beer houses.
RAILWAY TRAFFIC.
The Duke of RICHMOND also presented petitions
from several place, in the same part of the country,
praying for the stoppage of railwaytTaffic on Sundays ;
but he could not agree with the petitioners, for he could
not see how the mails were to be conveyed.
SCHOOLMASTERS IN SCOTLAND.
The Duke of RICHMOND also presented a petition
from Abernethy, in the county of Inverness, praying for
an increase of the stipend of schoolmasters in Scotland,
which he moved should be referred to the Select Com-
mittee.
LONDON ORPHAN ASYLUM.
Lord WLIARNCLIFFE brought in a Bill for extend.