The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-02-26 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE

The usual weekly meeting of the Dock Committee was
held yesterday. The 'following members were present :
Messrs. Benn, Barclay, T. Holt, Holmes, Quayle, Booth,
Mellor, Bulley, G. Holt, Tobin, Martin, Ripley, Smith,
Middleton, and Aikin. Mr. Benn presided.
On the recommendation of the Sub-committee of Works,
a shed was ordered to be erected on the south side of Cla-
rence Graving Dock, for the accommodation of the fire en-
gine, at an estimated cost of £25 or £3O.
The tender of Messrs. Logan and Co. for the supply of
300 fathoms of chain was accepted.
On the recommendation of the Sub-committee for the
Marine Surveyor's Department, the tender of Mr. John
Brown, to erect the intended sea-mark at Grange for £250,
was accepted. The Sub-committee further recommended
that the telegraph station on Hilbre Island be re-built, un-
der the superintendence of the surveyor.—Ordered.
Several repairs were ordered to be made to the upper and
lower lighthouses at Hoylake, under the direction of Mr.
Williams, of Hoylake; the land belonging to the trust to be
at the same time enclosed with wooden palisadoes. The roof
of Bidston lighthouse was also ordered to be re-slated.

The captain of the Point of Ayr life-boat was ordered to
be paid £3, and the crew £2 each, for saving the crew of the
Ann, of Whitehaven, wrecked in December last.
The Sub-committee, to whom the matter was referred last
week, reported that the master of Prince's Dock had failed
in his duty in not allowing three of the gatemen to go before
the stipendiary magistrate, as requested; and recommended
that he be admonished to be more attentive in future. After
a few words from Mr. TOBIN, the master was called in, and
the CHAIRMAN, addressing him, said the committee were of
opinion he had not acted correctly with regard to the answer
he had sent, when desired by the magistrate to send three
gatemen to give evidence In a case before the court. The
committee thought that, as a matter of course, he ought not
only to have been more civil, but to have sent the men. It

was necessary for the committee to support the police, and
for their servants to do so likewise. if the policeman saw
the crew of the Mary Hartley were not doing their duty, his
instructions were to report it to his inspector, who thereupon
took the necessary steps. He (the chairman) trusted that
on all future occasions he (the dock-master) would be ready
to support the police, and to give them all the assistance in
his power, instead of standing aloof, as he had, and meeting
them with a hostile feeling.—The master then bowed and
retired.
The Sub-committee reported, that on examination there
was no foundation whatever for the charges made against the
master of George's Dock by Messrs. M'Arthur and Co.
The receiver of dock dues at Runcorn reported that the
receipts for the past month amounted to £6B 13s. 6d.
The Cl'Ainawnisz stated, that Mr. Chapman being out of
town, the motion of which he had given notice would be post-
poned till Thursday next.
Mr. AIKIN gave notice, that when Mr. Chapman moved
that resolution, he should add, by way of rider, something
to this effect—" And that a moderate rate of charge be made
upon all vessels using the docks, coming coastwise."
The committee then separated.

The Queen of England possesses the special privilege that
she can, by her writ of protection, privilege a defendant from
all personal and many real suits for one year at a time, and
no longer, and in respect of his being engaged in her service
out of the realm. The last that appears on the books is one
granted by William the Third, in 1692, to Lord Cutts, to
protect him from being outlawed by his tailor.
In consequence of the Princess Augusta having died in-
testate, the whole of her effects, which have been ad-
ministered to in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury by
their Royal Highnesses the Dukes of Sussex and Cam-
bridge, and sworn to be under £30,000., will be divided
amongst the heirs at law, viz., the King of Hanover, the
Dukes of Sussex and Cambridge, the Duchess of Gloucester,
and the Princess Sophia, her late Royal Highness's brothers
and sisters.consists principally of the furni-
ture,books, Thep property
late,ndpaintings at Frogmore, and the
Princess's jewels, which are of considerable value.

CORRESPONDENCE.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE

A LETTER FROM TILE REV. HUGH M`NEILE,
TO I. C. COLQUHOUN, ESQ, M.P.

MY DEAR MR. COLQUHOUN,
I feel assured that you will not deem any apology neces-
sary for this public address upon a subject with which your
name now stands hopefully associated in the minds of all
who set a true scriptural value upon the blessings of civil
and religious liberty, and the preservation of our Protestant
institutions, under the shielding protection of which those

blessings are maintained.
In the debate which arose in the House of Commons on
Mr. Plumptre's motion against a continuance of the grant
to Maynooth College, on the 23d of June last year, the cause
of truth appears to have sustained some temporary damage
by a doctrine laid down by the noble viscount her Majesty's
Chief Secretary for Ireland, followed as it was by an impo-
sing, and at the time unanswered, statement from the right
hon. and learned member for Tipperary.
Lord Morpeth said (I quote from the Morning Chronicle
of June 24, 1840)
" There might be a general objection to the grant of pub-
lic money for the instruction and education of the Roman
Catholic clergy,"—

an important admission, opening a discussion of the general
merits of the question ; but his lordship continued—
" but taking the propriety of such a grant as admitted, then,
with respect to the system carried on in the college, and the
mode in which the grant. was administered, he contended
that they were more subjects for the consideration of the

man Catholic clergy, and the Roman Catholic authorities,

than of the honouriible member for Kent. (Cheers.) So
also with respect to the objection which was made to the
books which were read, or the studies which were pursued
there. (Cheers.) For himself he confessed that he was not
compelled to enter into any argument as to the character of
the books, or the extent of the studies pursued there, for he
had felt that into these matters it was no part of his duty to
inquire. (Opposition cheers.) "

This extraordinary declaration from a minister of the crown
was, it is true, rebuked afterwards with a becoming mixture
of dignity and severity by Sir Robert Peel, but still it had its
temporary effect upon the house, in limiting attention to the
mere matter of the grant of money ; and formed, therefore,
a most judicious prelude to the statement of Mr. Sheil, that
the grant in question was a matter of contract entered into
before the union, and ratified by an act of parliament. The
right hon. gentleman said,

`The case of Afavnooth rests on a clear contract entered

into before the union, and ratified by act of parliament. I
have been a good deal surprised that this act has never been
quoted, at least has never been relied On as strongly as it
ought to have been in this house. * * * Mr. Pitt felt
that the ministers of Catholic Ireland ought not to be the
conductors of French principles, or instruments of French
machination, and, acccordingly, the College of Maynooth
was founded and endowed under the 35th of George 111.
That act recites the expediency of endowing a Catholic semi-
nary, and a grant of £B,OOO (after various provisions for the
establishment and regulation of Maynooth) is made by that
act of parliament. (Loud cheers.) The college having been
thus endowed, another act]was passed in 1800, confirming the
former act, and making further regulations. Thus Maynooth,
before the union, became one of the national institutions of
Ireland."

This seemed to cut short all further discussion. And cer•
tainly if the statement of the right hon. gentleman be correct,
that the annual grant to Maynooth is a matter of contract,
guaranteed by the act of union, (as his speech intimated most
successfully without actually saying so,) and if the doctrine
of the noble secretary be politically orthodox, that the state
has no further duty to perform in the matter, but simply to
make the grant, and leave the recipients of the public money
to use it as they please ; if these things be so, it must be con-
fessed that the ground for discussion is much narrowed, if
not wholly cut off. So several members previously prepared
to support Mr. Plumptre's motion seemed to think, for they
left the house before the division.

But are these things so? This question must be brought
to the test, in the debate which we all hope will arise upon
your motion next week ; and my reasons for thus addressing
you in the mean time are these. A general though vague
impression exists in the country (arising out of the debate
referred to) that the annual grant to Maynooth forms a part
of a guarantee solemnly made to Ireland in the Act of Union.
Upon many sincere supporters of that union, who deprecate
all agitation of its repeal, in whole or in part, this impression
is operating as a hindrance in the way of signing petitions to
parliament against the continuance of the grant. And lam
anxious to avail myself of your name for the wide and prompt
dissemination of the fact that no such guarantee exists.

1. In the Act of Union there is NO MENTION made of
Maynooth—NONE WHATEVER, OF ANY SORT !
This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of dry re-
ference to the statute. I have just now read the act with this
object in view ; and I pledge myself to thousands of our
poorer Protestant brethren who cannot command time for
such references themselves, but who I am thankful to say
will not hesitate to repose confidence in this assertion of
mine—that the Act of Union makes no mention whatever of
Maynooth College.
The impression, therefore, so far as this point is concerned,
so skilfully produced by Mr. Sheil's speech, is a false im-
pression; and
_the apprehension arising therefrom in the
matter of petitioning, is a needless apprehension. Neither is
this all.

2. In the acts of the Irish parliament, previous to the
union, by which Mr. Sheil said the College of Maynooth
was founded and endowed, there is no mention whatever of
any annual grant to Maynooth !
Mr. Sheil specified two acts—one passed in 1795 (the 35th
of George III.) and the other in 1800. The act of 1795 is
entitled, (I quote from a valuable compilation just published
by James Lord, Esq.) " An act for the better education of
persons professing the Popish or Roman Catholic religion."
Preamble.—" Whereas, by the laws now in force in this
kingdom, it is not lauful to endow any college or seminary
for the education exclusively of persons professing the Roman
Catholic religion, and it is now become expedient that a
seminary should be established for that purpose ; be it there-
fore enacted, by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and tem-
poral, and commons in this present parliament assembled,
and by the authority of the same, that the Right Hon. John
Viscount Fitzgibbon, Lord Chancellor of Ireland ;
(Here follow twenty different names and then the statute
proceeds)
and the persons to be hereafter elected as bi this act is di-
rected, shall be trustees for the purpose of establishing, en-
dowing, and maintaining one acadamy for the education only
of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion ; and that
the said trustees shall have full power and authority to re-

ceive subscriptions and donation's to enable them to establish
and endow an academy for the education of persons profess-
ing the Roman Catholic religion, and to purchase and acquire
lands, not exceeding the annual value of one thousand
pounds, and to erect and maintain all such buildings as may
be by the said trustees deemed necessary for the lodging and
accommodation of the president, masters, professors, fellows
and students, which shall from time to time be admitted into
or reside in such academy."

Here it is made lawful, which it was not before, to endow
such a college, and the trustees named are invested with full
power to raise subscriptions for the purpose ; but there is
not a word here about a national annual grant. The 2d, 3d,
4th, sth, Gth, ith, Bth, and 9th sections refer entirely to the
details of internal management, and the 10th and 11th sec-
tions are as follow :
" 10. And whereas, by an act of parliament passed this
session of parliament, intituled, An act for securing the
payment of the annuities and the interest upon the principal
sums therein provided for, towards the discharge of such
principal sums, in such manner as therein is directed, and
for enabling the officers of his Majesty's treasury to receive
certain sums for a limited time, in manner therein mentioned,
and for granting to his Majesty a certain sum of money out
of the consolidated fund, and for applying a certain sum of
money, therein mentioned, for the service of the year one
thousand seven hundred and ninety-five,' a sum, not exceed-
..

ing two millions four hundred and forty-nine thousand six

htindred pounds, sixteen shillings, and ninepence farthing is
granted to his Majesty for the service of the present yenr ;
be it enacted, that any sum or sums of money, not exceeding
eight thousand pounds, part of the said sum of two millions
four hundred and forty-nine thousand six hundred pounds,
sixteen shillings and ninepence farthing, shall and may be
issued and paid by the commissioners of his Majesty's trea-
sury, or any three or more of them, towards establishing the
said academy."

" 11. And be it enacted, that all sum and sums of money

from time to time issued and paid out of his Majesty's trea-
sury, on account of the said sum of eight thousand pounds,
shall be paid to the trustees by this act constituted, or to any
seven or more of them, and shall be accounted for before the
commissioners of imprest accounts."
Here out of the revenue granted for the service of that
particular year, 1795, a sum not exceeding £BOOO. is voted
towards the establishing of the College ; but neither here is
there the most remote allusion to an annual grant : much
less to any " clear contract," such as is alleged.
The second Act specified by Mr. Sheil, passed in 1800, re-
cites the preambles of the Act just quoted, appoints visitors,
changes the trustees, and makes other regulations in detail,
but does not contain one syllable on the subject of an annual
grant !
As a matter of fact, the sum originally voted in the year
1795 towards the establishing of the College, was voted again,
year after year ; but if there be an Act of Parliament in exist-
ence pledging the nation to continue that vote, any more
than any other item in the estimates ; it remains to be spe-
cified. The references given by the right hon. gentleman do
not sustain his assertions. He may possibly be able to
amend his references ; but till he does so, we must be ex-
cused for denying the existence of any contract in this
matter.

The Bth article of the Act of Union contains a clause,
which perhaps may be claimed, as ratifying indirectly all that
had previously been done for Maynooth ; but it is only by
dislocating it from its context that it can be made to wear
even the semblance of support for such a claim. The article
is this—

" That all laws in force at the time of the union, and all
the courts of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the
respective kingdoms, shall remain as now by law established
within the same ; subject only to such alterations and regu-
lations from time to time as circumstances may appear to the
Parliament of the United Kingdom to require."

If there had been " a law in force at the time of the union"
endowing Maynooth with an annual grant : or if Maynooth
with a grant annually voted and inclusive of that grant, had
been one of " the courts of civil or ecclesiastical jurisdiction
in the kingdom " then the former clause of this article might
be pleaded as, by a general reference, involving a contract :
but even then, the latter clause expressly subjects the enact-
ment to the subsequent will of the imperial parliament.
This is made more remarkable still by contrast with the
sth article of the union, which contains really a " clear con

tract " without any proviso for subsequent alterations. It

is this—

" That the Churches of England and Ireland, as now by
law established, be united into one Protestant Episcopal
Church. to be called The United Church of England and
Ireland,' and that the doctrine, worship, discialine, and go-
vernment of the said united church shall be, and shall remain
in fullforcelor ever, as the same are now by law established'
for the Church of England : and that the continuance and
preservation of the said united church, as the Established
Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken
to be an essential and • fundamental part of the union : and
that, in like manner, the doctrine, worship, discipline, and
government of the Church of Scotland, shall remain and be
preserved, as the same are now established by law, and by
the acts of the union of the two kingdoms of England and
Scotland."

How far the government of the united church has continued
in full force its those dioceses which have been deprived of
their bishops and handed over to the episcopal superintend-
ence of prelates who had already too much to attend to, is a
question well deserving the consideration of gentlemen who
manifest so much sensitiveness on the subject of good faith in
contracts.

The whole subject is fairly open to inquiry and discussion ;
and it is to be hoped that the advice given last year by the
Right Hon. Bart. the member for Tamworth will be cor-
dially taken and acted on. He said, "he thought it was the
interest of those engaged in the education of Maynooth, to
challenge inquiry. He would advise them by all means, for
their own character, to conciliate the good will of Protestants.
So far from being subjected to any injurious imputation for
submitting to inquiry, he thought that those concerned in
Maynooth ought to be the very first to challenge it."
It may surely be added in all fairness, that after the heavy
accusations, supported by documentary evidence derived
from her own class books, which have been advanced against
Maynooth, if those concerned in the system pursued there
continue to resist inquiry, their resistance ought to confirm
parliament in the determination to have the inquiry instituted
—an inquiry, too, so conducted that it shall not be evasive or
superficial, remembering always that as competent a know-
ledge of any system is required in those who examine, as in
those who reply.

I am, my dear sir,
Very faithfully yours,
HUGH M'NEILE

Liverpool, 25th February, 1841