The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-04-22 00:00:00

impressive ef-

:rued a

is Coll,

es of B

on of the
e standil x

on was,

I refuse it to a

e Roman Catholic clerg
and Mr, Sheil had bot
, in introducing this bil

that I

lie cler.

; and, f

made u

rd as a

tor fh

him to pause

to encou

pposition ten

Ii 'Sir R. F

But, then, he ought to reco'

is of the church to d

now act

from its friend• their

xistent and co-ord

must b

against eacl
ioubted. I

SE OF COMMONS

THE GRANT TO MAYNOOTH

3 to dissolve the
vportunity of t

g the Catholic Rd
Id then prc

g that I

M4ynooth wool,

not be an-

, convi

satisfac

s of the Roman i:at

supremacy

perable (

,0 1 Lord S

t Parliament,

ould not

it had been co

) throw then

bters, where

) their predecessors in off

sures which they de

es into the

ep to ad

Earl Powis, the Duke of

Mr. Bellew

After Lord C. Hamilton, Mr. Neville,
Sir F. French and Mr. Cobden bad spoken in support of
the bill, and Mr. S. Crawford, Mr. Muntz and Capt.
Taylor against it.

Mr. FERRAND rose to support the principles professed
r Mini ters lir many years when they were undermining
e power of their predecessors in office, to judge the Con-
- ' •

vative party out of their own mouths, and to ask au
le of Great Britain and of Ireland to call upon their
d to give

I sincerely represented in that house. tic read the de-
xations made by several of the present Ministers at the
e general election, in which they boasted that they had

104 • YU& m, 1../Lll.4lbil Ul 000.1 its open enemies, and
its still more dangerous and insidious foes ; and contended
that there was n w one universal cry throughout the laud,

.oso quoted several extracts from the
_....north manifesto to show that Sir R. Peel had pledged
... a himself to principles diametrically opposite to those of the
powers to party which he had deprived of power. By th, se pledges
and that he he had entered upon office with a majority of 91—had
sto defend filched power from Lord John Russell—and had filled the
" -... country with hope that be woubi

, to use bib own words

asked whether this bill was concocted in or the
,f the British constitution? He next referred
ch made by Sir R. Peel, in 1829, upon intro-
-. '• Bill, for the purpose of show-
ised that he would give no sane-
ut that which

_ _ u,Yca waau ouVn LIU ia.VUr
,W tuiy rehe,
e content to the people of Ireland, was incorporated with the state. Had Sir R. Peel adhered
- - refused it. But he had never to that pledge? He also read an extract to prove that Sir
lad at the same time provided that the title of

)e assumed by t

is church; and showeci that
s own provision by the 17th and 18th

clause of the Bequests Act, which he contended w is a vio-
lation of the Act of Settlement, and a contravention (Attie
He insisted that the great Tory party
:cession of its leaders to
ually deceived and be-
e applied to them the character which

lied, from sheer

...daily differed, and whose course of ac-
eved to be most prejudicial." He asked
was their former majority now, and re-
... tney would find when they went to a divi-
that the larger uortion of their former supporters
.•

Ibe arrayed against them. He called on Sir Robert
as a man of honour to go over at once to Lord John
not to drag his party any longer through the
lostacy. He complained of the ma
nies Graham

which Sir
j Majesty into this dist
8 which Lord F. Egerton gave some years ago to Sir J. C
y Hobbouse for a similar unconstitutional proceeding. He
concluded by declaring his belief, as a sincere Protestant,
f that if her Majesty should be induced by the present go-
vernment to put her signature to this bill for the endow..

ntroduced the name of her
id read to him the lecture

ent of the Rowan Citbolic College of Maynooth, she
Duld sign away her right and title to the British throne.
Mr. Sheil and Lord J. Russell spoke in favour of the
II; and Mr. Law and Mr. T. Dunconibe against it.
Sir R. INGus contended that there was scarcely a sin-

gle allegation in the petitions against this bill which was
not to be found in the articles and homilies of the Church
of England. He therefore thought that the censure which
Lord John Russell had cast upon them was scarcely jus-
tifiable. He called the attention of the house to this sin-

considered this measure, not as valuable in itself, but as
valuable in being the precursor of other similar measures.