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

IMPEPLIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 11.
The Low:, CHANCELLOR. took his seat on the Woolsack

at Five o'relock.
Pretitiems were :presented: against the union of the sees of
Bangor: and St. Asaph.
Thie Bishop of LICHFIELD presented several peti-
tion,, none of which were worthy of notice..
M AY N OOT 11.
A number of petitions were also presented against the
rant to Maynooth, by the Earl of Eglinton, the Bishop of
ondon, and the Duke of Hamilton. Those presented by the
L
Duke of Hamilton referred to the feelings of the people of
Scotland, who he stated were against the grant.
'the Bishop of Chester, the Bishop of Bangor, the Bishop
of Lichfield, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Denman, and
several other Noble 'Lords, presented petitions against any ad-
ditional grant to Vsaynooth.
The Earl of 'MIDDLETON presented a petition from the
'board of gtrardians of Bromley, in the county of Worcester,
praying °eat the owners of small tenements should be made
liable fr r poor-rates instead of the occupiers.
Tb'e Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition praying
Mei': Lordship' to take steps to ameliorate the condition of
Scotch schoolmasters.
Lard CAMPBELL gave notice that on Monday he intended
to present to their Lordships a petition of some importance
respecting the custody of Lunatics in Scotland.
THE GAME-LAWS.
The Earl of HADDINGTON presented petitions from the
tenant-farmers of Essex, complaining of the great extent to
which game was now preserved in this country.
CUSTODY OF SUSPECTED CRIMINALS—MR.
WAKLEY AND THE POLICE.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY sail he had intended to put
a question to a Noble Lord connected with the Govern-
ment concerning a somewhat unseemly conflict which
had lately taken place between two authorities as to the cus-
tody of persons suspected of having committed the crime of
-murder. Since he had intimated this intention the opinion
of the Home Secretary on the subject had been com-
municated to the public in a letter to the Co-
roner for Middlesex. A decision involving one particular
part of the question had also been gone into before a judge at
chambers, and he also further understood, that it was the in-
tention of the Coroner to make a further appeal to the Court
of Queen's Bench. Under these circumstancee, reserving
altogether any expression of opinion on his part, he thought
it was desirable that he should postpone for the pre-
sent any question relating to this subject.
lIINH RAILWAYS.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice of his in-
tention, on Monday, to put a question to the President of the
Railway Department of the Board of Trade, on the subject of
the Irish railways. It was to ascertain if the promoters of the
present Irish railway schemes had all complied with the provi-
sions of the Registration Act.
The Bastardy Bill then went through Committee.
THE SUGAR DUTIES BILL.
Lord MON TEAGLE presented a petition from the Chain.
ber of Commerce of Manchester against the Sugar Duties
Bill. The petition was one of considerable importance, and
as their Lordships were not in the habit of printing petition!,
be would take the liberty of suggesting that the Noble Lord
who had the care of the Sugar Duties Bill in that House,
should carefully peruse its contents.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE rote to move the third read-
lag of the Sugar Duties Bill. He said he would on that
occasion confine himself simply to a statement of the views
of her Majesty's Government in bringing forward the pre-
sent measure. It would be probably in the recollection of
the House, that in introducing the Bill of last year before
their Lordships' attention, he had referred to the necessity
of adopting some alterations with respect to the supply of
sugar for the consumption of the country. He had said that
although the produce of the East Indies and the Mauritius had
very considerately increased, it was not yet sufficient to meet
the deficiencies of the supply from their other colonies, and he
then stated the general result of the falling off that had taken
place in the whole supply available for the consumption of the
country in late years. During the year 1843 the supply was
204,000 tons, whilst the consumption had reached 302,4100
tons: the demand, therefore, was greater than the supply.
Although there was no probability of a falling off in the coming
year, it appeared to the Government to be desirable, in case
there should be a recurrence of so disastrous a contingency,
to introduce the present Bill for the purpose of meeting it, by
allowing the introduction of sugar at a lower rate of duty
from certain countries named in the Bill, being countries in
which sugar was raised entirely by free labour. The Noble
Lord then entered into a statement of the provisions
of the till, and proceeded to say that it would be right,
before asking their Lordships to give their assent to its
third reading, to advert to one or two objections which had
been urged against the measure during its progress through
Parliament. It had been stated that in order to justify the
sacrifice of so large an amount of duty, they were bound to
show that substantial good would accrue to the consumer. The
Noble Lord entered into a statement to show that the con •
sumer would benefit to a considerable extent by the reduc-
tion of the duty on sugar—that such benefit would be felt
more especially by the middle and lower classes ; and,
moreover, that the consumption of the article would be so
greatly increased by the diminution of the price, that the
sacrifice would, in a great measure, be retrieved. As to
the objections which had been made to the classification of
sugars, he could only say, that such a practice existed in
France, in the United States of America, and in Sweden,
and that in Java there were no less than eighteen different
• classifications. The system of classification worked well in
each of these countries, and he could not see any reason
why it should not answer the expectations of the British Go.
vernment. As to the objection that foreign slave-grown
sugar would be smuggled into this country, it appeared to
him that the certificates of origin would afford sufficient pro-
• tection against such a practice ; besides which, it ap-
peared, from returns for the last ten years, that the
price of sugar at New Orleans and New York had been
such that it would not be the interest of the Americans to
send their sugars to this market. It was clear that the
sugar of Louisiana could not be imported at a price sufficiently
low to come into competition with the sugars of this country.
Upon the general question of the admission of the sugar of all
countries at the same rate of duty, he contended that such a
measure would be most unjust to the British colonies, which
the Government was bound to protect, and that, therefore, it
was not merely a question of sound commercial and financial
policy, neither had it been so treated. After all that had been
done many years ago for the abolition of the slave trade, and
subsequently for the abolition of slavery, at the most costly
sacrifice—after the innumerable treaties into which this country
had entered—after the enormous force employed in all parts of
the world—he asked how it was possible to adopt a
course of legislation which must have the effect of intro-
ducing the staple prodnee of slave-labour into this country ?
So long as it was the declared opinion of Parliament—the echo
of the declared opinion of the nation, that it ought to be the
policy of Great Britain to discountenance slavery, it seemed
to him that Government was not allowed a choice, even if it
were disposed to make one. In such a case, what appeal could
ever again be made to foreign countries, or what pretence could
there be to enforce the regulations under existing treaties?
Other States would have a right to say that the practice of
Great Britain gave the lie to her professions, and she would be
told, not only that she had deserted her principles, but that she
had adopted a shuffling evasion of the consequences of the policy
she had pursued. He, therefore, requested their Lordships to
give a third reading to the Bill upon the table.
The Earl of CLRENDON wished to make a few remarks
upon what he conceived would be the practical operation of
thrßill, as well as upon the principle it involved. The more
t was examined the less calculated it would be found to
effect the objects in view; and it would introduce new
intricacies into our fiscal system, instead of that sim-
plicity by which it was important that it should be
characterised. Not a cargo of sugar would arrive, in
which either the merchant would not unintentionally defraud
the revenue officers, or the revenue officers the merchant.
However well satisfied the West India interest might be
with the present protection, they would not be satisfied with
this Bill, and mainly because they saw that the inevitable
consequence must be a further change. Confusion must
inevitably arise out of the enforcement of the distinctions de-
pending upon colour, grain, and saccharine matter, and no
uniformity could be expected in the practice of the outports.
The attempted classification must be a failure, and ere long an
sad vatorem duty, as in the case of tea, must be adopted. If
classification had been possible, it might have been carried into
effect while the East India Company had the monopoly of the
tea trade ; but even then it was soon discovered to be oat of
the question, and the general duty of 2s. Id. per lb. was esta-
blished. The experiment now once mare to be made bad been
tried over and over again, and it had always been followed by
an increase of crime, and of loss to the revenue. Another
change in the law must, ere long, be made. The market would
be thrown into confusion, and great individual hardships
would be inflicted. By the treaties of reciprocity, the
sugars introduced from other countries where it was cultivated
by free lalrettr, was to be imported into this country were to
bear the same duty as those from China, Java, and Manilla
Be the 19th Clause of this Act, it was decreed that the duty on
reined sugar from foreign possessions, which had hitherto been
Ss. 8(1. a tow, should be reduced to Is. Id. ; and that on sugar of
the same quality from British Colonial possessions, which had
heretofore been 255. 9d., was reduced to 14s ; that on Musco-
vado, which had been 355. 9d. was reduced to 235. 4d. Since
the introduction of the difference made between refined sugar
and Muscovado, a third class had been introduced;
termed white clayed sugar. The duty laid on
this was 265., while that imported from the British
Colonies, which had been 16s. 4d. was reduced to 141.
It appeared that the ,vhole of the produce of the British pos-
sessions and Mauritius would vary from 250,000 to 250,000
tons ; that from Manilla and Java, and China, was estimated
at 20,000 tons, the stock in hand at about 45,000 tons,
*making the total available for consumption an aggregate of
315,295 tons. The reduction of duty was shown by the cir-
cumstance that for 1845-6 the whole amount estimated was
3,916,0001., that for 1844 was 5,216,0001., showing a decrease
of 1,300,000/. It was known that a decrease of duty led to a
decrease of price, and an increase of consumption. The quantity
usually consumed was at the rate of 171bs. per individual per
annum, making a proportionate consumption of one-third of a
pound per week, and causing a saving to a labouring man of
rper week per family. This, though small, was equal to one-
lb of the whole expense. The Noble Lord then went into
a series of returns for the years 1830 to 1844, to prove that
the price affected the
clnoUsumption in an invariable proportion.
alleged as likely to atta;nsdifi
ocnatisohneandtlie
distinguishingfficulty that had been
country, it was said were not felt at GrataSweden,in
n qualities
or in,u this
te
United States, where this modeof classification was adopted,
or in Java, here the classification extended to 18 qualities.
It was said that it was impossibetomake a distinction in this
country between slave and free-grown sugar,
te but, at all events,
if they did make the distinction, it wou
ro totally inoperative,
because the Americans would manage to 'd,pi;lerstil..ouisiana. But
nh e
Europe.Am eri
be denied the practicability of this, and,
Ameri-
cans founds a better market for their produFne than in
Only twelve years ago, the term property
man was a
con-
venient term, and he believed that other countries would
. be guided by our schemes of morality. Brazil and other n
not
triers might say—" we have read Blue-books, and while you
n.
talk of kindliness and char;ty, we ere aware of the excess ot
labour to which your artizans are exposed ; we know the im-
morality to which your people are subjected in consequence of
men and women working together in mines, and we will not
receive your manufactures unless you repeal the laws by which
these enormities are authorised." They would to a certainty
directly or indirectly carry this into effect. The whole of the
attempt to repress the slave trade was perfectly useless, for it
was well known that the attempt to obliterate it from human
commerce was perfectly futile. If they said to the people of
Cuba that they would take none of their sugar
while they were quite ready to receive their
copper ore—( Hear )—t he extraction of which was
ten times more deadly and onerous to the slave than the pro-
slu tion of sugar. The very same thing held with regard to
the sugar of America. They objected to receive the sugar of
slave labour, and yet they were quite ready to receive the
tobacco and the cotton of the United States, which wasp ro-
. duced by the cultivation of a set of slaves, who from their
early lives, and their after experience, had a far more acute
sense of the evils which they had to endure, than the slaves
of Africa or of any other slave country. They refused also
the sugar of Louisiana when they were ready to encourage
the sugar of other places precisely in the same condition as
Louisiana. It was indeed very evident, that the only object in
this Bill was the protection of our West India Colonies, and
-he did-hope. that before the time arrived for the conclusion of
• the income-tax, that they would propose some other
substitute for that most - odious impost, and that
they would not any longer base the country to suppose that

other 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
Pharasaical 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 down. The fault was not that slavery existed there, and
that they had not extinguished slavery so soon as we did, but
that they cried up 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 system of holding in
bondage 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 be blamed for this. By the encourage
nient 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 be 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 makings 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
slaves employed in the culture of coffee, and other tropical pro-
duce, but really to those there was comparatively little objec-
tion. The culture of rice was unwholesome wherever carried
on, but that of sugar was decidedly the worst.—( Hear.)
In 1807 we abolished the slave trade, and cut off
20,0001. a year ; but that was only the letter of the law, for a
man would run the risk of losing four or five cargoes for the
sake of saving one. But by his Bill the act of carrying on the
slave trade was made criminal ; and by the 51st of George 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 lie believed was, countenanced by
this country. He did not think they could consistently object
to receive sugar the produce of slave labour, but he entertained
no doubt whatever that they ought to object to receive produce
coming from slave-trading countries, because such a step
would only tend to increase the horrors of the African slave
trade.
Lord MONTEAGLE reminded his Noble and Learned
Friend that the Bill they were discussing not only prneibited
the introduction of sugar, the produce of slave-trading coun-
tries, but sugar the produce of slave-labour as well. —( Hear. )
The 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 let him tell the Noble and Learned Lord that
his principal objection to the measure was its medley
tendency, and its interference with the internal concerns of
an independent county. But it was utterly impossible that
the Government could carry out the principle of this measure
for Brazil or Cuba might change their system of slavery in name
but not in fact, and then they would have a right to import
their slave-grown sugar into this country at the same rates of
duty as those paid by the colony or by States where there
were none but free labourers. He admitted that the opening
speech of the Noble Lord who brought in this Bill was marked
with a spirit of moderation and temperance that did him
great credit, but still he could not corn eal 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 to a total abandoe-
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 s-nod 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
freeelabour. 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, be 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
sugar into 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 inch:cot 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 complained 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 fur her Ma-
jesty's Government to take generously and candidly into con-
sideration the encouragement which they should give to the
sugar of Brazil. He must remark further on one or two
other points of his Noble Friend. He said that they intro-
duced 17 or 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 arie.—( 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 last 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.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, April 11.

The House sat at Four o'clock.
There was a very thronged attendance of Members, and the
seats were literally obscured with bundles of petitions, almost
every other Member who entered the House bringing with him
a lsrge parcel. .
RAILWAYS.—BRISTOL AND GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition, praying that the
Bristol and Gloucester Railway Bill might be amended.
SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition against the South
Wales Railway. _

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY.
Mr. FOX MA ULE presented petitions, numerously signed,
from the city of Perth, the district of Blairgowrie, Coupar-
Angus, Kirriemuir, and Nairn, in favour of the Caledonian
Railway Bill.
Mr. RUTHERFORD presented a petition from the mer-
chants of Leith to the same effect.
Mr. P. M. STEWART presented a petition from mer-
chants, bankers, &c., of Greenock, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. LOCKHART presented petitions from West Calder
and Kirkmichael in favour of the measure.
MAYNOOTH.
Petitions against the grant to Maynooth were presented by
Sir E. Filmer, Mr. Codrington, Mr. Fellowes, from Hunting-
don ; Mr. F. Mamie, Mr. H. Stuart, 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 ; and Col. Acton,
from Wexford.
Sir ANDREW ARMSTRONG presented a petition from
the inhabitantssof Tullamore and its vicinity in favour of the
Irish Great Western Railway to Galway vid Tullamore, and
also a petition signed by the High Sheriff and a majority of
the grand jury of the Kings county to the same effect. The
Hon. Baronet declared that the prayer of the petition had his
concurrence.
Mr. Hamilton, Lord Lowther, Lord Bernard, Sir William
James, Lord Duncan, Mr. Plnmptre, and another Hon.
Member presented petitions against any additional grant to
Maynooth.
Mr. BLEWITT presented a petition from Newport,
against the Bridgwater Navigation Railway.
A great number of petitions against the grant to Maynooth
were presented by Lord CHARLES 111A1414ERS, Col. SIBTHORP,
and other Members ; some of those presented by Col. Sibthorp
stating 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 objecting to the grant, but
any increase of it, and others praying for the entire withdrawal
of the grant.
Mr. SHERIDAN presented a petition against the Parochial
Settlement Bill.
Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Plumptre Sir J. Hanmer, Colonel
Verner, and Mr. Mitchell, presented petitions against the May-
nooth Bill.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN presented a petition from some place in
Northamptonshire, praying that the second reading of the May-
neoth Bill might be postponed for a fortnight.
Mr. 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. BRAMSTON 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 Mavnooth grant.
Mr. PAT TISON pre-ented a petition from the young men
of the City of London—(Laughter)—against the grant to May-
r ooth College.
Mr. GREENE presented a petition from the Wesleyan con-
gregation of Lancaster against the grant to Maynooth.
The SPEAKER said that, though it was five o'clock, he
thought he would be consulting the convenience of the House,
by permitting the presentatim of petitions to continue.
Mr. WARD presented five petitions from Sheffield and
other places against the grznt to Maynooth.
Mr. ST AN 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 ccngregations in and near Belton, 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 RINI 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
'he grant.
Mr. WODEHOUSE presented three petitions to a similar
effect.

Lord 11ENIKER presented two petitions to the same effec
Lord WORSLEY presented a pile of petitions against the
grant to Maynooth, from places in the north of England, and
various other places, the names of which occupied at least three
minutes in reading.
Mr. FORSTF.R presented petitions from Walsall and other
places against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. MUNDY presented a petition, signed by 129 clergy-
men of Derbyshire, against the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. ROSS presented a petition from the Boman Catholics
of Belfast against the Bequests Biil 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 Taur.ton ; 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,i)00 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 ;Maynooth, and they looked on this proceeding as cal-
culated to subvert national liberty, and to involve the Parliament,
the Throne, and the Constitution. The Hon. Member was pro-
ceeding to read a part of the petition, in which a portion of the
Act of William and Mary, commonly called the Act of Settle-
ment, was introduced, when he was interrupted by
Mr. ROEBUCK, who rose to order, said he understood
it was the rule of the House that no word should be
spoken on the presentation of a petition, and that
Members presenting petitions should not be permitted
to read them, but should confine themselves to stat-
ing their substance and their prayer. Now he held in
his hand, in extenso, the petition which the Hon. Member
was about to present, and instead of confining himself to a
statement of the substance, the Hon. Member was, by the
merest sleight of hand, getting rid of the rule of the House,
and reading the petition.
The SPEAKER.—The Hen, and Learned Gentleman is
perfectly correct in his idea as to what is the rule of the
House ; and if the Hen. Member is reading the petition he
is out of order, for he should clearly understand that he
is merely at liberty to state the substance of it.
Mr. ROEBT CK said that the Hon. Member for Knares-
borough was reading the petition.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for Knaresbsrough
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
in succession. The petitioners stated that they had
read in the Dublin Gazette of December - last
an order of the Sovereign, countersigned by the Minister of
State, making certain appointments of Commissioners of Cha-
ritable Bequests in Ireland, and among the list were found the
names of certain Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops, as
well as of certain Protestant Bishops and Archbishops. Now,
the petition stated that the petitioners considered this as 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 he commanded to bring his petition up at once.
The SPEAKER—I have already stated the rule of the
House, and I hope the Hon. Member will confine himself
within the limits of that rule. If he does not do so, he will be
guilty of conduct that is most disorderly.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. FERRAND—I do not wish to do anything that is dis-
disorderly or disrespectful to the House ; but I have
a duty to the petitioners to perform, and I will do
my best to perform it.—( Hear, hear.) I know
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
forwsrd, 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 consider 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 was taking up less of the time of the
House by reading the substance of it himself. It went on to
state that the orders of the Roman Catholic priests were
solely of foreign origin, and it submitted that
the grant to Maynooth was a flagrant attempt
to subvert the Bill of Rights, and directly to contra-
vene the oath of supremacy, which 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 pstition should be read. If the Hon. Gentleman
wished it to be read at length he should move it be read by the
Clerk. The Hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the
prayer of the petition.
Me. FERRAND—The prayer was this, that the humble
petitioners prayed that the House should retract all grants for
the f
sueprepiogrnteorfsPor thisestablishmentshrelm of power a intte
this realm,
; andrealm, and deprive
ive
all
peoeull.d
and,ini
quir into
if they
h discovered
conduct
v.eredit tea
be improper,
Robert
improper,
thin- should impeach,
condign
co,
withand if he had been f sand guilty that they
sliopld inpunishinent.—(Roos of laugh-

ter on 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 measures calculated to draw down the wrath
of IlJelven— ( 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.—( Increasedlaughter.) The Hon. Gentleman
concluded, amidst repeated bursts of laughter, that the clerk at
the table read the petition.
The Clerk commenced to read the petition, but the Hen.
Gentleman, who had 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. WYNNE 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
country, 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 " :‘love.e)
Mr. WYNNE—I would certainly, therefore, negative the
motion that the petition lie on the table.
Sir R. PEEL scid he did nut see any reasons why they
should refuse the petttion. 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 deba'e 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 Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government
spoke to it.—(Cries of " Order, order," amidst which Mr.
Roebuck sat down.)
The SPEAKER—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman is
not in order. 1 will read the standing order of the House.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read the stand-
ing order, to the effect that no Hon. Member, upon the pre-
sentation of a petition, could speak upon it ; but he might
move that the petition be read by the clerk at the table,
and it would be read accordingly.—( Hear, hear.) The rule
of the House is, that no debate can take place on the presenta-
tion of a petition, unless it has reference to a breach of privi-
lege of the House.—( Renewed cries of " Hear.")
Mr. HUH E—The Right Hon. Gentleman said—
The SPEAKER—Order, order.
The Hon. Gentleman then sat down.
The SPEAKER then put the question that the petition do
lie upon the table, which was agreed to.
Mr. MACLEAN presented several petitions against the
grant to Maynooth.
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented numerous petitions from
several places in Yorkshire against the grant.
Lord SAN DON presented a petition from Liverpool. signed
by 15,r00 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 aeainst 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
places in Shropshire; Sir Arthur Brooke, Mr. Raikes
Currie ; Mr. Gisborne, from places in Nottinghamshire ; Mr.
Dickenson, from Somersetshire ; Mr. Blcwitt, from Newport;
Mr. D'lsraeli, from Shrewsbury ; Mr. Tancred, from Ban-
bury ; Lord Castlereassh, from Downshire ; 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
Westbourne, Sussex , Wathesfield, Suffolk ; Cannock, Staf-
fordshire ; Wickhambroek, Suffolk ; Independents, Zion
Chapel, Dovor; New Connexion Methodists, Ashton-under-
Lyne; Dissenters, Bromley, Kent; Ealing Chapel, Middlesex;
Burten-row Chapel, Brentford ; Salem Chapel, Burton-on-
Trent; Sandbach, Cheshire; Southampton, Binkley, Lanca-
shire; Providence Chapel, Marsden, near Burnley ; Baptists,
Emswor;h, Hants; Hinckley, Leicestershire; Briercliff, near
Burnley ; Wheatley-lane Chapel, near Burnley ; Ebenezer
Chapel, Burnley ; Haggate, New Burnley ; Abingdon, Berks ;
Primitive Methodists, Burnley ; Heybead, 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 • Langhem, Essex ; Leek ; the Inde-
pendents of draven Chapel, Golden-square, London ;
St. Albans, Herts; Beaconsfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk; An-
dover, Hants ; Langham, Essex ; Leek, Staffordshire ; Den-
ton, Lancashire; Greengate, Salferd ; Great Harwod. Bucks ;
l)ebenham, Suffolk; Headgate Chapel, Colchester; Heywood,
Lancashire ; Ettery, St. Mary's, Devon ; Union Chapel. Lu-
ton, Beds ; Staleybridge, Lancashire ; Tottenham and Edmon-
ton ; Salem Chapel, Barnsley.; Newport Chapel, Swindon,
Wilts; Albion-street ChaVel, Ashton-under-Lyne; Baptists
Ilford, Essex; Sible Hedingliam ; Yarmouth, Isle of Wight
Niton, Isle of Wight; Brentford, Middlesex ; Heywood, Lan.
cashire ; Andover, Hants; Ashton under-Lyne ; Primitive
Methodists, Leek. taffordshire ; Luton, Beds ; Wesleyan Me-
thodists, Southw ell, Surrey ; Hersham and Walton-on-Thames,
Surrey ; Middicham, York ; Hornsey-road. Middlesex' Me-
thodist Association, 1-Teywood, Lancashire; Teachers at Union
Chapel Sunday School, Luton, Beds; Langham, Essex • In-
dependent Sunday School, Staleybridge, Lancashire • the In-
habitants of Wycken ; Helper, Lancashire; Chester-le-street,
Durham ; Throope Ling, Buckby, Northampton ; Ducie
Chapel, Manchester ; East Dereham, Norfolk ; Chishill, Es-
sex; Soreby-street Chapel, Chesterfield; Huntingdon and
Godmanchester ; Kettering, Northampton ; Stafford ; North-
walshen, Norfolk; Newport; Essex; Stubbing Hoyland,
York; Clavering, Essex; Tenterden, Kent; Walpole, Suf-
folk; West-street Chapel, Wareham, Dorset; Warwick,
Essex ; Weatherfield, Essex ; Philip -street Chapel, Kings-
lind-road, Shoreditch ; Worster, Norfolk ; Towcester, Nor-
ihampton; Sandwich, Kent ; Zion Chapel, Whitstable, Kent ;
Thrapstone, Northampton; Rounds, Northampton, Grantham,
eo; Eynsford, Kent ; Mere, Wilts ; Whitstable,
:n Illanniegton, Essex ; Hinckley, Leicestershire;
cMiddlesex ; Marsh Chapel, Newcastle-under-Lyne ;
Kent;LHHiaingieshw Highgate,
Middlesex ; Wilmore ; St. Andrew's
Chapel, Tynemouth, Northumberland; Luxlingham, Nor-
folk; Old Meeting House, St. Clement's, Norwich; Wood-
ford, Northampton ; Kingstead, Northampton ; Wesleyan
s Norfolk ; Dunstable,
Bexdfrd ; T
;1
iMethodists,ouag‘th%erbtaolliy, Regis, Oxford
ingham,Nne ;ds B
;u Harlington, Norfolk; Islip, Oxford ; Hedington,
O ton
Beds ; Deynall,
Bucks; Tetworth, Beds ; Takenham, Norfolk ; New Con-
nexion Methodists, Armley, Walsingham, Norfolk ; Islip,
epHweenslett, Leeds
Oxford; Hedington Oxford; Tatchley, Oxford; Kirtliegton,
Oxford ; Burton, Norfolk ; Dunstable, Beds ; Houghton
R
foeor Beds;m4vvtiee
uytt
nrr
yytFiLe :n;dekgseNsedd:Tch,
in: Harlington,
a rk
nnsßi,
Bethel
hot,rahotpehkel:i, Norfolk;cpcohße
eadoerpsvdbee:lrN:B; ; Tce totel:rttehs
s,
Dessau, Bucks
;Methodists,
o
ullrayptsitst.s,E,Cimotwinladn,sd, Chapel,
CSuffolk ;
17; Teachers in St. James's
Sunday School, ,%orwich ; Biddenden ; Takenham, Nor-
folk ; Cow-lane Chapel Sunday School, Coventry ;
Baptist Sunday School, St. Ives, Huntingdonshire;
inhabitants of Waltham Abbey, over Darwen, Lancashire ;
Upping, Essex; Farnham, Surrey; Athcrston, Roxton, and
its eieunity; Aylesbury, Reading; Hariiro,,,
Sussex ; Drayton,
Norfolk For,
Der Cambridgeshire; 'f einmouth, Devon
Stoke Row, Oxon; Wellington, Somer-
set. Winsor, Dorset ; Wyrnundham, Norfolk; Unston Abbot,
Devon; Westerham, Kent; Wotton-tmder •Edge, Worksop;
Titchfield, Hants; Prescott, Lancashire; Printers and Book-
binders in Norwich;
set ; Titchfield, Hants; New Alresford, Hants ; Melton
Mowbray, Leicester ; Coney, Norfolk ; Withersedge Hill,
Oxon • Kidmore End, Oxon ; Redenhill with Harleston,
Norfolk ; Hempton Fakenham, Norfolk Woodley, Berks ;
inhabitants of No. 2, Gloucester-terrace, New-road, Middle-
rex ; Asten Tirrold, Berks; Independents—Abbey Chapel,
Romsey, Hants ; Bethesda Chapel, St. Coluvnb, Cornwall ;
Stoney Stratford, Bucks ; Great Yarmouth Old Meeting
House ; St. Neon:, Huntingdonshire ; Heytesbury, Wilts ;
Killworth, Leicestershire ; Masbro' Chapel,Hayes
End, Middlesex ; Thome, 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 ; Southwold, Suffolk ; Church Street
Chapel, Buckingham ; Biggleswade ; Upton-upon-Severn,
Worcester ; Ebenezer Chapel, Shoreditch ; Zion Chapel,
Churtsy Isle, Ely; Darlington; Providence Chapel, Rochdale;
Protestant Dissenting Ministers of Exeter ; King Street Chapel,
Dudley ; Wendover, Bucks ; Colebrook Chapel, Rochdale ;
Hope Chapel, Rochdale ; Llanfyllan, Montgomeryshire ;
Whittlesea, Cambridgeshire ; Mardeen ; Newton ; Dorset
Chepstow, Monmouth ; North Elmharn, Norfolk ; Totten,
Hatsts; Puckeridge, Herts; Bethesda Chapel, Shrewton
Wilts; Chippenham, Wilts; Zion Chapel, Shrewton, gilts;
Poole, Dorset; Woodford, Essex;
Winchester ; Zion Chapel
Deptford ; Smart's Hill Chapel, Penshurst : Charnmouth,
Dorset ; Wokinghani, Berks • Bicester, Oxon ; Castle Gate
Meeting House, Wilts; Hurley, Norfolk; Little Shetford.
Cambridgeshire ; Ebenezer Chapel, Edenbridge, Kent ; West
Merton, Essex; Tabernacle Chapel,Holyvrell, Flint ; Lyining-
ton ; Church Street Chapel, Hackney; Burton-on-
Trent, Staffordshire; Tunbridge, Kent; John Street
Chapel, Royston ; Olney, Bucks ; Exeter ( Females) ;
Acton, Middlesex ; Asherne, Warwickshire ; Brook-
street Chapel, Warwick ; Allerton, Salop; Mar-
lret 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 Meihodist 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-terrace, New-road, Middlesex ; Dissenters of
Asherne, Warwickshire; inhabitants of Ashton Timold, Berks ;
Independents of Brook-street Chapel ; Baptists, Mat field,
Kent ; Warwick ; Union-street Chapel, Rochdale ; Haywood,
Lancashire ; Bogslatt, Longsdale ; Barnford, Rochdale ;
Miln-row, Rochdale ; Somerplace, Lancashire ; Broad Lime,
Lancashire ; Temple, Rochdale ; Littleborough, Lancashire ;
Illingworth, and Rakewood, Lancashire • Newton, Devon ;
West Parade Chapel, Wakefield; St. Sidwell, Exeter ; Saf.
fron Walden, Essex ; Mint-lane Chapel, Exeter ; Upper
Brook-street, Winchester; 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 Dereham ; Inhabit-
ants of Bedminton Church, and Congregation at Bethnal-
green ; Protestant Association, Bethnal-green ; Wesleyan
Methodist Association, Oldham-road Chapel, Manchester ;
Chatwood, Manchester ; Moston, near Manchester • Blackley,
Molineux, Mills, Sun-street, Keighley ; Crumpsall, Toman-
street, Hayfield, Derbyshire ; New Mills, York-street, Cheet-
ham, Macclesfield, Cheshire - Moutit Pisgah Sloops, Camel-
ford, Cornwall, Ellesmere, Salop; Seven-street, Manchester ;
Duddleston, Port Isaac; Dlount Pleasant, Burnley, Bolling-
ton, Cheshire, Carlisle, Wrexham, Derbyshire, Readitch, Liss-
keatd, Cornwall, itembh; Ellesmere, Croplane3, liy den,

York, Todmorden, Yorkshire, Coatholme, Lancashire ; Wil-
low• walk, St. Luke's, Middlesex; Castle-street, Marylebone,
Middlesex ; Erith, Kent ; Charlotte-street, Islington ; Gee-
street, Goswell-street, Middlesex ; Woolwich, Kcnt ; King's-
road, Chelsea; William-street, Portland-town ; Gosport,
Bromin, Cornwall, Stockport, Borough of Droitwiteh ; Park-
street, Worcester ; Glossop, Derbyshire, Mullion, Cornwall,
Ashton, Cornwall, Lustvilhin, Bradford, Gonwallee, Eccles-
hill, Yorkshire; Brompton,Kent ; Gildingwells and Woodcells,
York ; Whitewell and Creswell, Derby ; Austen, West
Riding, Yorkshire ; Worksop, Nottinghamshire ; Tregather-
roan, Cornwall, Helston, Kinsey, Rorvrick, Cury, Cornwall,
Devonport ; Bermondsey, Surrey; Earl-street, London-road,

Surrey.
Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition from the Re-
monstrant Synod of Ulster, specially. convened. The peti-
tioners stated that they had long enjoyed a generous pro-
vision for their Ministers, as well as a liberal grant towards
the education of their theological students. They were con-
vinced that the proposed measure for the grant and endowment
of the College of Masnooth would confer a great and lasting
benefit on the population of Ireland.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON presented a petition from the
Wesleyan Methodists of Cu-abridge, against the grant to the
College of Marnooth.
Mr. HUNIE presented similar petitions from Scotland.
Lord ASHLEY presented petitions to the same effect, from
Dorsetshire.
Sir GEORGE CLERK presented simi'ar petitions from
the berough of Stamford.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR ROBERT PEEL. •
Mr. FERRAND gave notice that he would, on Monday,
move that the petition which he had presented from the Pro-
testant Operative Conservative Association, avtinst the cou-
duct of Sir Robert Peel, should be printed with the votes.

MR. WARD'S MOTION.
Mr. WARD said he had to thank the Speaker for the kind
intimation which he had given him in the course of the morn.
ing, as to the form in which 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 pen--
poes of the Bill should be supplied out of the funds already
applicable to ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland.
THE LATE ACCIDENT AT BOX TUNNELL.
Lord DUNCA N wished to ask a qtiestion from the Hon.
Member for Reading ( Mr. Russell) as to the late accident at
the Box Tunnell, on the Great Western Railway. It was
stated in the public press t• at a quantity of earth and stone
had fallen in and obstructed the passage of the mail. lie
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 im; ortance to the public and to the Cempany would he
to read the report of the Company's engineer. ( The lion.
Gentleman then reel the report. but in so tow 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 and such
occurrences were more unfraquent in tunnels than in any
other places. He hoped the statement he had made would be
satisfactory. He could assure the Noble Lord that every
care and attention was paid to the Tunnel, which was as safe as
the roof of that House.—( Great lauehter. )
NEW ZEALAND
On the motion that the order of the day for the second read-
ing of the Mar nnoth 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 the table in a few days.
THE GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.
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 opinions 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 refer( nee 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 discussions upon such questions—no matter
what party were in office—the Opriositien always appeared to
have the power of deciding. When the Hon. 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 i 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 were 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 Op; osition cheering)
and in all eases 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 11111.—( Hear, hear.) He would appeal to the Rouse
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, he felt himself called neon as a member
of the minority, to exercise those rights with which a minority
was inves ed, and which never could he exercised with
grea;er temperance than they had been by him.—( Hear. )
fhe character of the measure b ought forward on the subject
of Maynooth was of such a nature that he could not help
thinking a more inadequate an i 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 haste rat 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 INlahomedan in Egypt,
and a Jew and Roman Catholic whenever it suited his purpose;
but that was not a pi inciple 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, therefere, be successfully maintained that there was any
compact. But to go from the high vintage groend 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 t t 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-
attics 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 rature 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 politiyal 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 ;
hut 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
:or Pontefract, the same night, advocated the Roman Catholic
-ystem 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 word!), pursuits, by which his
manners were refined and his opinions moderated. He con-
tinued 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
anti 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

defect. And this was another instance of the super'ority of
the Prussian Catholic Colleges, lieeau,e men of the highest
clas.es of society received their education there. Let him aik
what Catholic gentleman in Inland would -end his son to
Maynooth to receive his education? Such a thil g was un-

hea-rd of.
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
Horse, declared, in answer to a question, that he did not
know that there was a sixth book of Euelid.—( Laughter.)
Honourable Members argued that by paying professors well in
Maynooth good professors would be had, and others bad stated
that the reason they were called upon to grant this additional
sum of 25,0 01. was for this purpose; but he begged to tell
them that they would pay the money for no other certainty
than the certainty of not getting such persons.—(Laughter. )
The only men on 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 ease 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 either on compact or ex-
pediency. In the year 1795, when this grant oil-
gloated, it was not intended to he continued,
because in the Act of Union there was a stipulation, providing

for the continuation far twenty years subsequently of grants
made to charitable institutions then in existence, or that hart
been in existence for six years previously, and therefore it was
clear that it was intended to exclude Maynooth. because May-
nooth lAd been in existence five years previously. Then there
was the evidence of Dr. Golly, before a Committee of the
House, who stated that he believed that the increased grant of
1'1,006/. made in the year 1810, was not, in his oeinioti. a
grant fur 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 willieg 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
aultation that convulsed Ireland two years ago. —( Hear. )
(The Hon. Gentleman then read extrncts from a speech of Mr
('Connell's, showing the difference between the education of
foreign priests and the priests of Ireland ; and that the
great Anti-Protestant 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, who stated that the priests of Ireland were
agitating priests.) And now they were going to increase tIY
power and the circulation of those doctrines which led the
country so near its destruction some 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 sacs tic seclusion which was impo-ed 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 degree of liberty, and were less re-
stricted by the Pope than the priests in any other Catholic
country in Europe, so that their power was almost absolute.
He objected to the version of the Bible with notes and com-
ments as printed by the College printer, and read in Maynouth
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 Je-
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 put posed to endow, permanently and for ever, without
the controul of the Crown, the College fur 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 daavow that he had mere at heart the concilia.
tion of the Remish Church ( Ilear)—than the preservation
of the Protestant religion. The leader of the Catholic party
in Ireland had expressed himself in strong teems of approba-
tion of the measure. and had sated 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 eoncessi,n now proposed were made, what
good ground had the House for supposin 2 that a fresh threat of
a civil war would not lead to further conccsi•ins 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 he supplied
by the Protestants ot other par sof the country. The cheek
to conversion would be increased by the proposed grant. Ths
Roman Catholic clergy were trait-R(1 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, for 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 had 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 he felt it his duty thus
fairly to protest against the measure.
The question having been put by the SPEAKER,
Several Hoss. /11E34)3E11.s 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 vole.
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 pessession of my views of the
entire case until the Bill was 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 TIO reason whatever to complain of the course
taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the
University of Oxtord, who felt it his duty to call for an ex-
pression of this House. Representing, as he did, a very
power u 1 and aside-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 ot
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 he the prevailing opinion of the people of
England and Scotland—of my own constituents, from whom I
deeply regret to differ, and to my own deeply-cherished predi-
lections—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 libera
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.
Oentleman, 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 Maynooth. 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 as ill quote a few words cf 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, be should certainly be disposed
to resist it, because he thought it in principle witting 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 Iriih-
men, 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
18. arliament,and which, I am confident, thelrishParliamentnever
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-
eiples 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 altitost 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

presented to that House referred to it, and denied that it eee
islet', or that Parliament was bound by it. But what he had to
consider teas, the proposal of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the
head of the Government, which effected most important alter'
ations in the foundati, n of the College itself. He was not
merely going to change the grant from being an annual into*
permanent one, but he was going to place the building nutlet
the immediate control of Government, thereby establishing
connexion with it as close as it could well be. The increal,e
money appeared to him most important, not simply because tt
was an increase of so many thousands, but because it altered t)1!,
character ot the State in relation to the College. Originall”
certainly was not intended that the State should entirely
this college; and the Duke of Wellington declared that the
institution was not to be entirely supported by the State.
the
fact the eight or nine thousand a year voted to Maynootb
ws
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 will
plan was about to be reconstructed. The professors who ha
but scanty salaries, mere now about to be liberally rewarded,
inaintagi
and the aliment, education, and care of the pupils there was t°
be taken under the consideration of the State. The basis 01
the College was about to be changed a
material change, but that change he had Ma"'
up his mind to support.—( Hear, hear.) He entirelY ref
pudia'ed one argument that had been employed in support
the increased grant—that of restitution. He.disclatmed it i
every point of view—in point of law and constitution, and on the
ground of its being contrary to everything he knew of historye
He would not now go into the details on that argument, bet 'el
that was to be done as an act of restitution, it was one ee th
most shameful confessions that could be made by the Leg
iir
ture.—(Hear, hear.) The Government made a -gift 01;
shilling or a sixpence in the pound. If this were mad she _
of restitution, would it not be most shabby, worse than ei
—int-a-nous and disgraceful to offer such terms ?—( [Rears.%
He, therefore, had nothing to do with the argument of res"`""
tion. Then as to the funds which are to provide for the educf.
firm of the pri, ste, and to the class of society from which the; ,
were selected, he thought, with regard to the Roman Ceiba'
lal"be
priests, they were selected from the only class they cou
taken from. Reference too had been made to Germany, ~
the reason asked why more aristocratic persons entereo ;le
Russian Catholic priests in Germany than there did in Irelae°o;
In answer to this he could state that in Germany there was is
other church ; bit that was not the case in Ireland. in
many the Rumish Church bore something of the same relate° J.
there as the Established Church of England did in Englanesi
nee-jure. he did not think that any great alteration was neeern
on that head, bat did think that, whatever might be ,
to add to the professors' dignity and ease, would probti
tend to smooth down the course of educution. was "ice,
known that, from the extremely small salaries of the Pr,
lessors at Maynooth, they were induced, as soon as possih't,
to seek out dist' let churches, in order to better their pot,
tion, and by these means it was not. likely for the rollege.bo
retain the very best theological teachers. By increasing rot
salaries this defect would be remedied. Another arguic.(o.
id been used as to the effect of this measure, which was v'nf
culous. It had been asserted that this grant was to be
in order to the increasing and promulgating of ProtestantS
in Ireland. Now this argument appeared to him as reasonsis
as ,o say that by the invention of printing books had bee° e,
scarce, and that locomotion was a means to 'retard conetnere,;•
It ens hard to say, that by having given them these eal:i!
means, you have weakened their cause. Indeed, he though •
the meanest argument he had ever heard brought befall/
public assembly ; therefore he would throw that entirely 0011 d
his arguments. Then, in approaching this matter, he Iveibe
take it as it appeared to him at the present time, and under the
present circumstances. It he had had any agency at all hi ,e•
matter, it would have been probably used to have retarded;el
scheme as at present proposed. Now, it was a irto)ieed
rule which had been laid down, and which in:the
a very popular argument, that those who Pi", di'
taxation of a country should share the benefits abrell
vileges which it had to offer, and the question Wh'Ciegis
had to ask himself was, whether his mind and cot"c'ci,
recognised any firm, fixed, and permanent principle, ed foe
°
would justify him in setting at nought these popular bad
that very reason, important—considerations? Nothing or
more completely satisfied him of the difficulty' of finding no
quate arguments in opposition to this measure than the !%::g 00
of the arguments that had been brought forward and- eel
_eed
on the part of its opponents.—( Hear, hear.) Almost -In-,
man who had spoken against this Bill had founded ht5,..4401
arguments on some small question of detail. The OPP'""t
of the measure had not ventured to rise to the heir,' the
breadth of the question.—(Cheers.) His Hon. Frieo,lol'
Member for Newcastle (Mr. Colquhouti) though he he nth°
tainly reserved to himself the right of falling back Aloof
ground of religion—had not pressed forward that go whick
the most convincing and appropriate. The arguments ens 0'
he had thought best suited to address to the Parlianeccoese
England were arguments in small points of detail. fli9 nb) .
,
was principally to the structure of the Bill. 'the questi.see
had raised were mere questions for Committee, and he ns'
laid down any broad ground for his objection to seeesel
sure which had for its object such vast and Met
changes. His Hon. Friend had also stood upon the fa''
that object, as far as it at present had been carried onts'thets
of his grounds had been that the endowment of May
an experiment of Mr. Pitt, and that that experiment We' ofel
But that seemed to him the most superficial, partial, "3 V'
Bed
ion.—(Cheers. ) He begged to inquire whetbevatte
ever been Mr. I'itt's calculation' to found the college
nothing more? No; the view which Mr. Pitt had tes17:001:
to train the priesthood, and then to find provision Clf, too ,
subsequent suppor.—(Cheers. ) To a certain, and -,elijselb,o
limited extent, they had trained the priesthood ; htb'eseeiree
not made —they had net endeavoured to make—any vie etig:f
for their suusequent support. That might be rights 01 'net •!,
be wrong; but it would be ridiculous—no, he would sfest.
ridiculous, liu. it was most unfair—when only part a th::
went had been tried, to arrive at the conclusion that t"t-edee
experiment had failed. If the experiment were to be a or,.
ought to be tried completely. They ought no to try.....ioC
purr, arid then argue upon the failure ot the wholes Let se;
hear.) His Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle‘rosts;
spoken much of the defective state of the College Curate'J Po I
as to literature. tits lion. Friend was generally
tee 0
he did not know Woe her he was or was not so on ta:krfeetto
occasion ; but he had made a point founded upon the. eaol;ee
literature of May-nowt' College. But could any en e "00)
the state of Ireland—could any one look at the divisget*
subject of religion &still-bed that country-eeceic%
one reflect on the history of Ireland for meal' svmsetir
especially during the last century—and, giving eurocolo
weight to these topics, could any one, for any single„sesee!to
etypose that if the literature of the College of "'efuel
we e defective, that that was a ground That
he present measure ?—(Loud cheers.) t, cr
question of detail, and what an argument was 1 en F;
tr.s wish the matter of the petitions which had fec`oe 0
seated, with the movement which had taken Placoepole
subject. with the strong religious feelings of the PO sl
of the measures out of doors. His Hon. Friend sheug". feibs
the grounds, and from the arguments of those pefltilsiell„4l
that movement. He was afraid to meet fully an"
_OO7
main principle, and he confined himself to those.o/60
considerations which did not necessarily interfere velee erst
cess of the Bill, and which might be settled herenestswess
Hon. Friend had also alluded to the working of the of A pew
education in Germany, and had referred to the els, eetee
—the same, he believed, who had seceded.—( °AO!
same," from Engle Hon. Member.) Well, they tee it
not take any collateral debate, and he would reserve es ore
line of his observations. Considering the pop ull ses°
argument which had been taken in favour of this of yoi
and the movement in support of it, the burdettoreit
rested with its opponents, and he asked what was
o 6 001 k
A not A A
in the law or Constitution of the country, and f tb" V
the law and Constitution, but in the convictions °.OO, Iftel
ground
which was the living basis of the Constitnt'reef to
ground of objection—strong, definite, and perrnaCcefest)
be taken against the Bill? What he was iningalv,so
inquire was, whether there was any eie/
means of resisting the principle upon which this its
re, di,
founded? He, of course, did not allude to physical and
He had never entertained a doubt that, at all times
%AO
all circumstances, this country would be able to becri.beelli
the efforts of physical resistance and opposition beitreatOes!,
entertained this opinion, yet he thought that the sieel
of that resistance ought not to be excluded front c°4 401
He was not afraid to have it east upon him theti;„ ore
high a regard to the means of conciliating oppo'%dor
a paradox in human nature to deny that cone"' of ssseifi
grateful or that it was not generally a politic con deb epees' -
(Cheers. )—and he would willingly submit to rep
OP/
constructian rather than refuse to grant what ssfr,eponif
generous to a people who were their fell° ;A he .04
and their fellow-men.—(Loud cheers.) Bute e; sriettis
ing this question of principle to the best of u;„00„,
though there was little of that principle relied ,:neOri;iet
speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Ilee or
found, on one side and on the other, very extveeteetle ,
On one side it was contended that any ei religiou% Sd,
whatever was contrary to natural justice. '
side it was asserted that a State endowment Was,ineesofii
religious duty. He could not hold one of these Woo
other. He could not hold that it was contrary t°oo Se 0.; '
tice that a government should support one religt tll6
cure to another, and he believed that few men `fieeettrer
if they considered the paradoxes involved in tne di*. 0;4;
The Hon. Member had referred to the case of the
did not, as a rule, interfere with the religion 0 resy e
Whether they did so sufficiently was a question vveoui -11;0:0,'
sideration, but it was one into which he vr °ye e
enter. But in India there was a Mahomedan.a.o dop
population which supplied the taxes to the Bvettle eir•Fet
ment, and they did not hesitate to apply witt°3eoeit'odrl
and with no sparing hand, such portions as theY fie 4
for the encouragement of the Christian religion:, its e",
think this coot, ary to natural justice. He thoughteeee ;
with the highest justice, .and with the most r e,sci?
rious considerations. But it might be said tio!etineter
of India were not Chrietians, and that a broad 11',5004 00°,i/
to be drawn between Christians and all other see' io blies
of religious worshippers ; but to test this prioelLst tar)
put to all who belonged to his religion—he voattLea er of tifi,
of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward, at the t;stioll
formation. As they were all aware, the Referebeee;srsy
spring from the ground. It descended from' eeao ors j
handed down by the bishops, the clergy, and tnent We, 19 .1
fore they impregnated the people with doctrines TO 409
new. The great mass of the people were impreg"lneste!eerS
above them. lie did not enter into any other clues, to tleirfle
those troubled times gave rise. He said nothing id n, of
used. for propagating the new opinions• licesesg be,,teoe
to the persecutions and cruelties which then tt,
tha-
tised ; but he ask-d, was there any one who hes_oo el! er
duty of Queen Elizabeth to have refrained% in be
ing to communicate to her people that wh4ney eelefol
st as the greatest blessing she could impart ? arifl4
tained such an opinion he was not one of therrnel?te
emphatically protested against the truth or r
Tare' alo
any such doctrine. But he could no more aleoinesett9l
who contended that a State endowment Was Csitfeo e
gious duty. Those who supported that prop% hie
confuse the duties which a man perform_ eel ' to Pretli Id
capacity and the duties he was called 'tire" hie 'OOO
a member of society.—(Hear, bear.) I°9o fereier
capacity such a man was his own rule,% to ootrJA
not only allowed, but was by duty hciu,e sad 40'071
opinion for himself on those serious and Sacred
Esiei,
but in civil and po:itical society each
•Incenlioes.
upon opinions and feelings of bis aeol 1/%4
society hexisted by means of mutual conces el of/
surrender.—( Loud Opposition cheers.) reso,ellllo,
insisted upon his own opinion—if ever/01010 Of)
terminated to follow the dictates of his °" that 1° 041
man would listen to himself alone—whoever .0011 et),
pursued this course, `ehat man issued the sett' ,Legoinsol;
throw the whole of society into confusion.-seTetii ed 0110;
His Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle_wof bisifeeSueol
he could not bind every body to the adopticenteed. ee.
He trusted that he should not be misundeve,ens se
ways thought, and lie still thought, thatdv 11'
antage "44
happy who enjoyed the inestimable 3
_ova ).f"'e
unity, and with whom that religious u:tiyhafoolgdipg.h_toperet tie
e.. 1
of their legislation. He placed that adv nee ealis
all civil and social blessings, and he
—he would not earn applause—by wit- _ere coy jo
that fertile, indeed, of misery arid sorrow %at II:, oir':l
dissensions which prevailed amongst tbent.defiyaite ab:reStroell;
say that in this he found such a body of wee t° t stl'te
tial truth as would form a satisfactory ans dear
.00,1
Ireland. He did not find in this princiPl° real e 1 rk
agree with it. But it might De tabhlP
whilcehger
every
yd
body
yn
owuhldi
eetlheyancdouludndfoerr.s;vue
jrsa:laf -0;
a particular form of religion 10 be e:onlet I
under any other circumstances, Yrol