The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-15 00:00:00

MEDICAL REFORM.

Mr. MACAIJLAY asked when it was intended
to brill; forward the second reading of the Bill on
Medical Reform?
Sir JAMES GHAEIAM said he hoped he would be
permitted to forward he ill a stag© that evening and

let the discussion be taken upon another occasion, as
there was no objection to the principle of the Bill.
Colonel T. WOOD hoped that the Bill would not he
read a second time without discussion, as there were a
great number of professional persons who were deeply
interested in the Bill.
Mr. HUME also hoped that the Bill would not be read
a second time without discussion, as there was no other
means by which the public and the profession could be
made so well acquainted with the Bill.
Mr. HAWES was understood to say that no prejudice
would arise by allowing the Bill to be read a second
time that night, and discussing it at a future stage.
Mr. F. FRENCH said that as there did not appear
to be any objection to the principle of the Bill, he did not
see why they should not consent to the second reading.
Mr. SHAW hoped the Bill would not be read a
second time.
The second reading was therefore postponed.
GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.
Mr. MASTERMAN presented petitions against the
Maynooth grant.
Mr. SPOONER presented thirty-eight petitions from
Wesleyan congregations against the grant.
Mr. LAMBTON presented a petition against the Bill.
Mr. CH RIS'I'IE presented a petition to the same eff' et.
Mr. CHU 1 E presented a petition to the same effeet.
Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition to the same eff,et.
Mr. COLE presented petitions to the same effect.
Petitions against the Bill were presented by Cu!. T.
Wood ; Mr. Blight (53) from various parts of the
country ; Sir James Duke, from Boston ; Mr. T. Egerten,
from Warwickshire ; Admiral Dundas. Mr. Kemide,
from various parts of Surrey ; Mr. M6Kenzie, from
Peebles ; Mr. Cobden, Mr. Mangles, from Guildf.rl ;
Mr. S. Wortley, from Yorkshire ; Mr. Labouchere, from
Taunton ; Colonel Wood, Sir John Eastilopr, from
Leicester ; Mr. W. 0. Stanley. from .Anglesey ; Mr.
Lockhart, from Edinburgh; Mr. Ricardo (10) ; Lord A.
Lennox, from Chichester ; and Mr. Crawford (30),
from different places in England, Scotland, and 'Jersey.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN presented petitions from congrega-
tions of Dissenters in various parts of Northumberland,
against the grant to Maynooth.
Dr. BOYD presented a petition from Coleraine also
against the ralit.
Sir W. CLAY presented a similar petition from Dis-
senters in the Tower Hamlets.

yV
Mr. lIAWES presented a similar petition from
Clapham.
Sir C. BURRELL presented numerous petitions to
the same effect from places in Sussex.
Mr. HINDLEY presented one hundred and thirteen
petitions, signed by all classes of Dissenters in all parts
of the kingdom, against any endowment to the Ront2n
Catholic College of Maynooth.
Mr. PATTISON presented petitions to the same eft; et,
from several congregations of ProVstant Dissenters in
London ; and a similar petition from the managers of
the Sunday school on Fish-street-hill.
Mr. G. BANKS presented sixteen petitions to the
same effect, from places in the county of Durham.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from a con-
gregation in Hertford against the grant, and also a peti-
tion in favour of the grant from another body of Dis-
senters.

Mr. lIHME presented petitions from Montrose and
other places against the grant.
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from Halifax,
Bristol, and several places in the counties of Gloucester
and York, against the grant to Maynooth, and also a pe-
tition from the Presbyterian congregation of Carlow, in
Ireland, against any connexion between the College of
Maynooth and the State.
Mr. GROGAN presented petitions from the parish of
St. Nicholas Within, Dublin, and from the Protestant
Operative Association against the proposed grant to
Maynooth.
Mr. FELLOWES presented petitions from four
parishes in Huntingdonshire to the same effect.
Captain FITZMAURICE presented four petitions
from the Wesleyan congregations in Buckinghamshire
against the grant to Maynooth.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from the Presby-
terian congregation of Newington, iu favour of the grant
to Maynooth.
Mr. PUSEY presented four petitions from Berkshire,
and Mr. Gitnsox presented four petitions from Man-
chester; against the proposed grant to Maynooth.
MAYN OOTH —ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. HAWES rose to move that the adjourned debate
on the increased grant to Maynooth be resumed. He
said that the increasing number of petitions presented
against this Bill, and the deep interest taken in the
question out of doors, would warrant him in
coming to the conclusion that this Bill was
a measure which was looked upon by the
public at large as one of great vital importance, and
yet if it should be only looked at attentively, and re-
garded as a mere measure of educational improvement,
he did think it would be found nut to furnish grounds
sufficient to warrant the strong opposition that had
been offered to it on the one hand, or the manner
in which the proposition had been introduced
or received on the other. Now, let him ask, what,
in reality, was this Bill ? It was simply
one providing for the better education of the Roman
Catholics of Ireland, and the better Government of
the College of Maynooth. Now he did not think
that because the Bill had been so introduced, it should
necessarily be looked upon as a measure exclusively
confining itself to ecclesiastical education.—(Hear,
hear.) His own opinion was, that it extended to
lay as well as clerical education, for :0
far as the Bill itself was concerned, it ap-
peared to him to he one fur the purpose of extend-
ing Irish education.—(llear, hear.) And, surely if
Those who belonged to the Roman Catholic Church in
Ireland had not been permitted to share in all those
advantages of et!ticatioa so liberally extended to
the people of England, the latter could scarcely find a
just ground for objection on that score alone. That the
state of the College and system of education of May•
nooth were such as were not creditable to the Irish
Roman Catholic body was scarcely to be wondered at
when it was remembered that that state and system were
ascribable to the fact that the Roman Catholics of Ire-
land had not hail the means of devoting to their colleges
that attent on which their grievous position demanded.
—(Hear.) It was true that in this country there were
several colleges not supported by public grants, but yet
were in a conition very different from that of Maynooth ;
but that fact was owing to circumstances into'which he
need not here farther enter.—:(Hear, hear.) Now, he
conceived that the measure now before the House should
be considered as one intended fer promoting and ex-
tending education generally in Ireland, and not for the
promotion of ecclesiastical education exclusively. It
might be, indeed, that this measure was the means of
introducing the discussion of great and exciting topics on
this subject ; but in this point of view he begged to say
that he by no means joined in the "Ne-Popery" cry
that had been raised by those who appeared willing to
oppose every measure for the advancement of education
that did not concur with their views.—(Cheers.)
He said then with regard to this Bill, considered by
itself, that he had all along voted for this grant, and
spoken in favour of' it before the House, and he
fully and entirely concurred in the Bill pro-
posed by her Majesty's Government. But still
he could not help thinking that the subject had been en-
tirely altered by the speech of the Hen. Member for
Newark (Mr. Gladstone). That speech had change,i
entirely the aspect of this question and called upon him
for some remarks, remarks wholly unnecessary h
not this speech been made. The Hon. Gentleman
had belonged to a Government, and he yet belonged to
a party, which all along had opposed any modification
of the revenues of the Irish Church. Was he to under-
stand now that that Right Hon. Gentleman, so lately e
member of a Cabinet opposed to all modification, and
now belonging to a party advocating the same views—
was he (Mr. Hawes) to understand, from his statement,
that this Bill settled the religious question as re-
garded the endowment of the Roman Catholic Col-
lege of Maynooth. If the religious question were
settled, then the political question might be con
sidered settled also. Now he (Mr. Hawes) could
not consent to any endowment of the Roman Catholic
Church out of British funds, until, at least, the whole
question of the Irish Church was brought fairly be-
fore the House. He was of opinion that some
means might be adopted to render the efficiency of
that Church more in accordance with the spirit and
object for which it was supported. It could not
be pretended that, as at present constituted, the Church'
instructed the people ; and the usual argument that the
alliance of the Church was valuable, as a medium
of communication between the State and its sub-
jects was, in this case, completely disposed of. He
thought, therefore, that if any grant were determined
on, it should be taken out of the Irish Church property.
He considered the question as having been materially
altered. Taking into consideration the written speech
made last year by the Right lion. Baronet, he could not
help feeling that this was only the precursor of a much
more important and extensive measure.—(hear, hear.)
And, under these circumstances, he thought it right
to state that he could not consent to the ultimate mea-
sures, unless they were to look at the property
of the Established Church as the source (with due re-
spect, of course, to existieg interests) whence provision
should be made fur the Catholic Church. He would
frankly state the course which he meant to take with
reference to this Bid. Ile would not vote against the
second reading. lie would vote for going into Com-
mittee. There he would support the motion of his lion.
Friend the Member for Sheffield and should take the li
berty of making two propositions, of which he wouldgive
notice. He thought the grant ought to be annual and
subject to the control! of Parliament, and ought'not to
be accompanied by any provision for the mockery of
visitation which at present existed.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the mode of visitation proposed
in the Bill was different frem that which at present
es isted.
Mr. HAWES proceeded to say the t he objected to
the provision for Maynooth in its present condition.
For forty-five years it had been subject to annual
discussion, and ho thought the public mind had
been rather benefited than injured by these dis-
cussions. Suppose, for a moment, that the
proposition of the Hon. Member fur Sheffield should
be negatived, and that he should fail in making it an
annual vote, he would consider himself at liberty to
take any course he might think proper.
If he gave his vote on this measure as it stood, he feared
he should be sanctioning the future policy which the
present Government might think fit to adopt with re-
gard to the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland. It
vrould in fact, be considered neither more nor less
than a vote of confidence in her Majesty's Govern-
ment, with respect to their future government of
ts
oh a
cdoonwfiedde foirnt hthtehma
.t h o
did
ifde s se
notd hoep
oppose
Ireland ; and that policy was so darkly and suspiciously
policy
s eodf
uthoet
the Government, because it was calculated to encourage
the Roman Catholic religion, because he, with a large
number of Protestant Dissenters, whom he knew, were
disposed to concur in the resolution which had been
come to by the Scotch Protestant Dissenters in •
Edin-
burgh on this point. He would vote for the second