The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-07-22 00:00:00

DISCI7ARGED

1 Attending as Out Patients
Irrer,ular
Died ..

le Hospital

House Visiters, H. J. Sanderson and R. P. Carter, Esqrs.
Treasurer, R. AN% Bateson, Esq.
Chaplain, Rev, E. Maginnii.—llouse Surgeon, Mr. Parker

VHARN
ie Govc

r~`~~1~;0.~~~~

SIIONDAY

itioned that it was not the inten-

'flt to bring forward any specific mea-
blic distress, which he believed would
by the revival of trade and commerce

s already passea.
LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the second reading
iptcy Bill, the Lunacy Bill, and the County
Ile thought it for the convenience of the house
3 all be discussed together. The noble and
.ribed the evils which he proposed to remedy,
neans by which he sought to establish a het-
nsive system in their room. By the Bank-
'proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the
s of bankrupts to within 100 miles

Jon corn

office I

ondon, instead o!' 40 miles, its present limit. By the
Bill he proposed to establish two commissioners to
; of lunacy, and in order to diminish the extravagant
at present attending the proceedings in the master's
proposed to introduce the principle of receiving viva
deuce. By the County Courts Bill he did not mean
ise resident judges, whe:night be warped by their in-
; and friendships, but rather to propose that the
these courts should go their circuits like the judges

Lord (

',THAIS, at great length, argued that the bills
'ud did not go far enough. He was anxious
arrest on execution abolished, as being in-
.:st degree to the debtor, and wholly use-
.or. With respect to the Lunacy Bill, he
that two commissioners would be insufficient
.poses in view. His principal objection to the
,cy Bill was, that if it did not embody the princi-
.; contended for it would be almost impossible after-
as to get those principles carried out.
Lord BROUGHAM thought the bills very great improve-
,ents as far as they went, but he was convinced they did not
iy any means go far enough. He was greatly pleased at
much that had fallen from Lord Lyndhurst, and more parti-
cularly what he bad said relative to the abolition of impri-
sonment for debt, which he professed, if a bill on the subject
should be brought i❑ by Lord Cottenham, he would devote
—tention to, and give to it a full, fair, and, as he (Lord
understood him, a favourable consideration.
le regretted, however, that the County Courts Bill was not,
Q opinion, as efficient as one he had suggested to their

s of opin

lordships some nine or ten years ago.
Lord WYNFORD thought the country was deeply indebted
to the Lord Chancellor for these bills, which were very great
improvements in the present state of the law.

.r.
Lord CAMPBELL said that there were many most valuable
improvements in these bills ; yet, as a whole, he could not
approve of them. The Bankruptcy Bill he objected to, be-
cause, if agreed to, it would most certainly stand in the way
of further improvement. He could not see why an insol-
ent should be imprisoned, or why he should have his sub-
ible to his debts, while the bankrupt, who

,equent properl

was indebted to'a much larger extent, not only escaped im-
prisonment, but went forth a new man, without any liabili-
over him. This was unjust, and the distinction
Iger be maintained.

LORD 'CHANCELLOR replied, after which the three
;re severally read a second time.

Some bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and their
lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

Mr. ROEBUCK, in reply to a question from an hon. mem-
ber, said that the report of the committee on election com-
promises would be ready towards the latter end of the week.
Mr. Ilnwas asked for a declaration of the intentions of
the government respecting the motion relative to church
extension for the 28th instant.
Sir R. PEEL said he could not resist a motion for the con-
sideration of such a subject, reserving to himself the right
of judging of the address which might be moved in the com-
mittee. He must say that government was deeply impressed
with the necessity of some such proceeding in many popu-
lous districts. During the approaching recess he would take
the subject into consideration, and, without pledging himself
to any particular course, would intimate in the next session
of parliament the result of that consideration.
Sir R. Nat.'s said that he would not press his motion,
but would leave the matter until next session in the hands
of the government.

- .
Lord ELIOT, in reply to a question from an hon. member,
aid that the report of the census commissioners for Ireland
could be ready in ten days or a fortnight.
On the motion for the house to resolve itself into a com-

mittee of supply

Mr. ShEll

in pursuance of the notice he had given,
moved for the correspondence which had taken place rela-
tive to the restoration of Mr. St. George to the magistracy,
from which be had been dismissed by the late government.
The right hon. gentleman took the opportunity thus afforded
him of canvassing the whole of the conduct of the present
Irish government, contending that the pledge given through
Sir R. Peel and Lord Eliot, that party considerations should
be disregarded in the administration of the affairs of Ireland,
had been broken, not only by the conduct of the Irish exe-
cutive itself, but by the very nature of its appointments.
The pledge had been broken also by the conduct of its sup-
s, as evinced at the last Dublin election, and still more

le conduct of the legal agents of the Irish government
in packing juries, by challenging most respectable Catholics,
in order to secure Protestant jurors and favourable verdicts,
as was more particularly illustrated in the case of the prose-
cution of the proprietor of the Belfast Vindicator.
Lord ELIOT said he was pleased that an opportunity bad
at last been afforded him of vindicating the conduct of the
Irish government. He was prepared to show that both to

the letter and the spirit the Irish government had acted up
to the pledge he had given. The noble lord then contended
that the Irish government was justified in the course it pur-
sued respecting the Dublin election, and defended the con-
duct of the Crown Solicitor in Ireland, in reference to the
trials to which Mr. Sheil had drawn the attention of the
house. He explained the circumstances under which the

restoration of Mr. St. George to the magistracy took place
(which we have more than once reported as explained in the
House of Lords), and concluded by declaring that it was in-
expedient to produce the correspondence moved for.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said, that giving all credit to the
statement of Lord Eliot, he must say that it was most unfor-
tunate that there should have been such a preponderance of
Protestants on the trials referred to. That it was a mon-
strous thing that articles published in a London paper dare
not be printed iu Dublin, lest the paper should be prosecuted.
Mr. D. JACKSON denied that in the trials refered to any
jurors had been set aside because they were Roman Catho-
lics. He defended the legal appointments made by the Irish
government ; and contended that the article in the Belfast
Vindicator was calculated to disturb the peace of the coun-
try, and ought therefore to have been prosecuted.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL contended that the Irish govern-
ment were trying, by their prosecutions for libel, to stifle
the liberty of the Dress in Ireland.

Lord J-ocELyN.said, he had canvassed the city of Dublin,
at the last election, for Mr. Gregory, and he had done so
without asking the sanction of, and he believed without the
wish of, the Lord Lieutenant ; but in the course of that can-
vass lie neither held out a promise of reward, nor did he in-
timate that any man would lose • his appointment, or would
suffer 'in his business it' he refused to support his hon. rela-
tive. The late government, under similar circumstances,
had punned a coarse precisely the reverse.
Mr. C. ButLart said the noble lord, even though canvass-
ing in his private capacity, was still bringing to bear the in-
fluence of the grand master of the orange lodges of Ireland,
an aid`that should not have been called in by a government
which professed to be impartial. He most say, with respect
to the defence of Lord Eliot, that it appeared to him that he
had pursued a course subversive of all impartiality and of all
justice in the administration of the law. He condemned the
charge of the judge, on the trial of the libel, as being that of
a partisan, and said that the government itself was not honest
in the prosecution, or it would have so brought it as to pre-
vent any proof of the truth of the publication. It appeared
that in Ireland even trials for murder were not fairly con-
ducted. He believed, however, that the Irish government
had done itself no good by this prosecution for libel.
Sir J. GRAHAM relied upon the singleness of heart and
honesty of purpose of his noble friend Lord Eliot, as to the
impartiality with which the affairs of Ireland would be con-
ducted. As to the appointments made by the present go-
vernment, he must say that he never understood that poli-
tical partianship was to disqualify a person from a seat on
the judicial bench. The late government, in their Irish ap-
pointments, had made this the groundwork of their promo-
tions to the bench. The great question before the house,
however, was the administration of justice, and on this
head it would be admitted that trial by jury in Ireland was
attended with serious difficulties, and it was therefore of
great importance that the character of the government for
impartiality should be maintained. For the sake of justice,
if the right of challenge was exercised to such an extent as
was possessed by the accused, it was absolutely necessary
that the Crown should exercise a corresponding right.
Everything depended on the mode in which the right was
exercised, and in the cases referred to it had been exercised
in conformity with rules laid down before the present govern-
ment acceded to office. With respect to the prosecutions for

the ca:

of the Newry Examiner there was no
trial, for the accused party pleaded guilty ; and as to the
other prosecution, he said, that any gentleman who read it
must be of opinion that it was not fair discussion. Its
in its falshood, which, from the form of trial,
was not at issue, but might be inferred from one party
Pleading guilty, and from the conviction of the other. For
the sake of the maintenance of law and order in Ireland it
was necessary that these prosecutions should be instituted.
Lord PAIMI:RSTON said, that the present government lay
under a difficulty in ruling Ireland, which was, he believed,
Insuperable, for, however anxious to do right, and to act
justly, they found it impossible to do so, because they were
a minority ' • in a great nation to govern the ma-

crime was

ndeavouring

"ritY. It was natural that government should, in making
appointments,al them
fro look amongst their own supporters to make
aes_election ; but still, he must say, that the ap-
pointments
most unforturnaMr. Lefroy and Mr. Sergeant Jackson were
juries referred t
He did not think the mode in which the
tority aeewm,;%had been got together had been satisfac-
be taken se,,p7c4t, and contended that some method should
people of Ireland that the summoning of juries to satisfy the
of the lawat justice might be expected in the admi-
nistrationMr• GREGORY said .t.._
favour of his return could if the influence of the castle in
against his return would not been established, the petition
benevott have been so readily abandoned
as it had been. He
wall here never was an election for
Dublin in which there
sre success.
less of intimidation and less of
undue influence exercised to e
Sir ROMMT PEEL said that
very little to do with his motionaefsPeech of Mr. Shiel had
restoration of Mr. St. George.
R. Peel) had the
He Papers respecting the
Mr. St. George, and
honour of a personal acquaintance with Mr.
a more estimable man he did not know, his letter to
though
present go-
Lord Normanby was not to be justified.
Marquis
Government, and
vernment was applied to for his restorationT
of Clanricarde, an opponent of the presenatecGei
Under
right hoer
hporne..
- --,. explanations eventually
he could not think that the
k to have his motion confirip
The right lion- baronet thei;epron"
to justify the appoimoients in Ireland, beginning with
Lord-Lieutenant, Lord Elliot, and the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland, and enumerating others, and put them forward as a
proof of the spirit with which lie proposed to govern that
country. With respect to one of these appointmcharacteents was hat
of Mr. Lefroy, he must say that his legal rso
high, that 15 years ago he was offered a seat on the bench by
the Marquis of Wellesley, which offer was the third he had
refused. It savoured, therefore, of great intolerance to say
that he was unfitted for the bench because he had opposed
Catholic emancipation in 1829. His being • found fault with
on this account by Lord Palmerston was most singular, con-
sidering that he was a party to offering a Chief Justiceship
to Mr. O'Connell, wan wa,
Mr, Lefroy. Tho right ho '-.—tr. as much a partisan as

cwould s

i vision

)n. baroo:?t tine
ant Jackson, a

__ judgeship.
ons from Cu!. VERIsTEK, the housE
's :notion was defeated by a majoritY

appointment to the vacant

spoke in the
defended his

After some obse.r

of 146 to 75

After some discussion on the propciety of adjourning. toe
house went into committee of supply, and a vote was agreed
to for the militia estimates, after which the house resumed•
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
'•

HOUSE 01? LORDS.—TUESDAY.
'ENHAM gave notice that he should, early in the
ssion of parliament, move for leave to bring in a bill
_3 abolish imprisonment for debt, and to provide fur a cessio
bonorum, without having recourse to personal arrest.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the committee on the Irish
Drainage Bill, which was opposed by the Earl of Glengall,

)rd .OTT

who morod 641 tko blll should Aa rorofrtil to A OftoOt
Mattel, rrl#l moothiroosts WM Aiool-14A4 It Matti

Luna ati 3iruia ot.
After some discussion the house divided, and the amen(
ment was negatived by a majority of 30 to 6.

The bill then went through committee, and the report was
ordered to be brought up on Friday.
Several bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and the
house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--TuESDAY

Sir J. GRAHAM, on the reading of the order of the day for
the further consideration in committee of the Poor Law
Amendment Bill, said that the government would be satis-
fied with a short bill, embodying the first five clauses of the
bill before the house and a few others. The rest of the bill
he would postpone until next session, and in the interim it
would be considered by the government, with a view to such
alterations and improvements as might be deemed necessary.
He hoped the bill, thus curtailed, would pass without oppo•
sition.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved that power should be given to
the commissioners to order relief to the poor of Ireland, on
the principle of the out-door labour test. The motion was
negatived on a division, by a majority of 112 to 11.
Mr. FIELDEN then moved that before the poor law should
be proceeded with, an inquiry should be instituted with a
view to ascertain whether or not the change in the poor law
had been productive of a rise in wages, contentment of the
labouring classes, and diminution of crime ; all which had
been predicted as its results.
The motion was seconded by General JOHNSON.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH and Mr. AGLIONBY begged of Mr.
Fielden not to press his motion to a division, and
Mr. ESTCOTT and Mr. R. Yonxix added their entreaties
to the same effect.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he believed the new Poor Law Bill
had proved beneficial to the poorer classes of the people, es-
pecially in the rural districts, and he, therefore, could per-
ceive no necessity for the proposed inquiry.

Captain PEcHELL supported the motion, which was nega-
tived, on a division, by a majority of 125 to 8.
The house then went into committee, and, on the second
clause being proposed, a discussion arose as to the powers to
be given to the assistant poor law commissioners.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved a proviso with a view to meet the
wishes of those who opposed the clause, but even as thus
amended it was opposed by Captain Pechell, who divided
the house, when the clause was carried by a majority of 59
to 9.
Clause 23, providing that guardians might set the paupers
to work, subject to the power of the poor law commissioners,
was opposed by Mr. S. Crawford, but on a division was car-
ried by a majority of 84 to 8.
Mr. DARBY moved the insertion of a clause to prevent
any parish governed by a local act from being interferedwith
by the poor law, unless with the consent of two-thirds of the
guardians of such parish.
Sir J. GRAHAM opposed the clause, which was negatived,
on a division, by a majority of 91 to 42.
The whole of the clauses proposed by Sir J. GRAfIAm, in
accordance with the intimation which he had given in the
early part of the evening, having been agreed to, the house
resumed, and the report was ordered to be received this day.
The remainder of the night was occupied in committee on
the South Australian Bill.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-WEDNESDAY

Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice that he would move a series of
resolutions on Thursday, with reference to the report of the
election compromises committee. He would state the nature
of those resolutions after the report was in the hands of the
hon. members of the house.

Sir J. GRAHAM' in reply to Mr. Barclay, said he would
postpone, until next session, his announced bill for giving
charters to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved the second reading of the bonded
corn bill, a measure which he said originated with Mr. Hutt,
through whose exertions the subject had been considered,
and recommended by a select committee of the house. The
object of the bill was to permit the grinding of foreign corn
in bond, which he believed would be most beneficial conces-
sion to the commerce of the country without affecting
injuriously the interests of the agriculturists, every precaution
being taken by the Custom-house against fraud. He had no
hesitation in declaring his belief that the fears with which a
measure of this kind had been hitherto regarded were per-
fectly groundless.

Cciliinel RUSHBROOKE opposed the measure, and moved
that the bill be read a second time that day three months.

Mr. TROTTER and Mr. G. PALMER also opposed the bill.
Mr. I-I UTT said that this measure was one of great im-
portance to the shipping and mercantile interests, because
they would thereby be enabled to provision their ships with
flour and biscuit at foreign prices, an incalculable advantage
to our commerce.

Lord PALMERSTON expressed his regret that the measure
did not take a wider range. _

Mr. DARBY deprecated going into the general question of
the corn laws on this bill, upon which

Mr. ROEBUCK said, he should go into the general ques-
tion ; and he accordingly condemned the conduct of the
landlords who displayed their monopolising spirit in op-
posing this bill in the present state of the country, lest it
should lower by a ft action the price of corn to the people.
He designated the opposition to so small a measure as petty
and mean.

Sir T. ACLAND strongly and warmly denied that the land-
lords were actuated by a desire to uphold their rents at the
expense of the people.
Mr. HUME said that Mr. Roebuck had put the question
on its right footing, and said he believed the measure en-
titled to support.

Colonel SII3THORP intimated that Mr. Hume and Mr.
Roebuck were against the agriculturists because they possessed
no land—the grapes were sour and they acted accordingly.
On a division the second reading of the bill was carried by
a majority of 116 to 29.
On the bringing up of the report of the Poor Law Bill,
Mr. Escorr moved the following clause :—" That it shall
be lawful for all boards of guardians of the poor in England
and Wales to grant such relief as in their judgment shall be
necessary to poor persons at their own houses, any order,
rule, or regulation of the poor law commissioners notwith-
standing." Much as he had tried to make himself acquainted
with the principle of the poor law, he confessed that he was
still ignorant of it. If the principle were to deny relief, ex-
cept within the walls of the workhouse, he must say he was
strenuously opposed to any such principle, and believed it
could not be maintained for any length of time. From his
own experience in an agricultural district he could say that
the workhouse test was productive of the worst effects. The
bard-working industrious man would not go into the work-
house until broken down by poverty and disease, while the
idle and profligate resorted to it without hesitation. He
called upon the house to agree to his motion before the ap-
proaching winter should lay its iron grasp on the poor.
Sir J. GRAHAM contended that it was quite a mistake to
imagine that out-door relief was prohibited ; for in all cases
of sickness or distress, a discretionary power was vested in
the guardians to relieve them at their own homes. The
right hon. baronet then read a variety of returns to show
the extent to which out-door relief was administered since
the year 1838, and concluded by opposing the motion of
Mr. Escott, as calculated to revive all the evils which existed
under the old law, without producing any counter-acting
benefit. .

Mr. FIELDEN contended that the Poor Law Bill ought to
be erased from the Statute-book, as being founded
.in
injustice.
Mr. WARD said that the house would commit a most
serious mistake if it adopted the clause:
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the principle of extending
out-door relief.

After some observations from Mr. HARDY, Mr. AGLION-
BY, and Sir E. KNATCIIBULL,
Mr. KEMBLE said it was his wish to see the severity of
the poor law, as far as possible, ameliorated, but he still
thought Mr. Escott was not exercising a sound discretion
in pressing his motion to a division, and would therefore
decline to vote with him.

Mr. S. CRAWYOR DWas decidedly of a different opinion,
and he hoped he would press it to a division.
After some observations from Mr. HUME and General
JOHNSON the house divided, Mr. Kemble walking out of
the house in order not to vote, amidst general cheering.
The motion of Mr. Escott was then negatived by a ma-
jority of 90 to 55.
The report was then agreed to ; the bill was ordered to be
engrossed and read a third time on Friday.
On the motion for the house resolving itself into a com-
mittee of supply,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, at the request of Lord Sandon, post-
poned the motion of which he had given notice, relative to
the trial of John Mason, a chartist lecturer, and seven work-
ing men, at the late quarter sessions for the county of Staf-
ford. The ground for making the request was, that the lion.
gentleman had given only 24 hours' notice of his motion,
which was not sufficient to allow of any communication with
the magistrates by whom they were tried. The motion is to
be renewed on the next night of supply.
The house then went into committee of supply.
On the vote for Maynooth being- moved.
Mr. PLUMPTRE objected to it, on the ground that it was
inconsistent in a Protestant country to support an institution
which taught doctrines different from those inculcated by
the established church.
After a few words from Lord CLEMENTS,

Mr. BATESON said he trusted the house would permit him
an opportunity to state concisely the reasons which must
prevail with him and induce him on this occasion to vote
against the grant. Impressed as he was with the force of
those reasons, it was impossible he could consent to give a
silent vote upon the question before the committee. He
confessed he looked at the grant with lively apprehension,
and regretted that it should have appeared necessary to her
Majesty's present advisers to propose a grant which, although
it might be deemed to be a legacy entailed upon the Imperial
Parliament by the Irish Parliament, must be considered by
all who were acquainted with the constitution of this Pro-
testant realm as a violation of the principles in which that
constitution had been founded. The political end for which
the college was founded had not been attained. Instead of ,
producing a priesthood learned, tolerant, exemplary in their
conduct, and well affected to the Government, like the Ro-
man Catholic clergy who were educated in the continental
colleges. it had produced a priesthood not distinguished for
their great talents and, attainments, but who employed their
influence as ministers of religion in exciting discontent
amongst the people, encouraging them to disobey the law,
and in creating dissensions betwixt the tenantry and the
landlords of Ireland—(ironical cries of " Hear, hear," from
the opposition). He assured the house that in objecting to
this grant he was actuated by no unfriendly spirit towards
the Roman Catholics. (Oh, oh.) He knew there were per.
sons amongst them most exemplary in their character and
conduct—(hear, hear)—and it was for the sake of Catholics
as well as Protestants that he opposed the grant. He called
upon the house, by refusing its support to this college, which
inculcated in the minds of its students the most bitter sec-
tarian spirit, to protect the Catholics of Ireland from the
evils of political religion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. IlAwns deprecated the spirit w.iich pervaded the ob-
servations of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down.
Every church ought to stand on its own foundation—(hear.)
He deprecated the sectarian spirit which had been manifested
in this debate, and could not perceive what good could be
obtained by indulging in coarse abuse of the priesthood of
Ireland. He could have wished that the discussion had been
conducted more in a Christian spirit. It would be better to
retfuse the grant altogether than to grant it in such a spirit.
Iw.wlaes absurd to argue this question on conscientious grounds,
in Ireland as elsewhere. h i gran grants
Fwoerr were
hism aodwent to
part,sectarian
b e co
uclhdu
conceiverches in Cnaon. a dc
course
auarns de
the priesthood ofa
of proceeding
Mr. B.
be so calculated to foster a feeling in favor of re-
peala refusal to contribute to the education of
Haseven-eighths of its population.
obtained. If the done
g might be .sd.Na could not admit as a principle that
wron
supported were in order that a good result might be
a member of the reformed goortrinciple on which this institution was
support an institution grant was not half enough. As
Sir G. SMYTH said that eudvehurch, he could not conscien-
tiouslyohu which tended to its subversion.
at felt
tooth, and being the author
the word " beastiality" to
tilveing been accused of applying
Mem of education adopted
f of a work on the subject,
he felt called upon to make observations. He dared
not pollute the ears of the houseeZ
the filthiness instilled into the minds of through a detail of
ieinna"igirht.not, perhaps,
islaynooth. His opinions were founuded'hoonsee tihnedetoueetavhitededseunbcae-t
given before a committee appointed to
the president of the college.
Pregnant with
jbeecattbl;l:erse to increase the grant, for by doing so he might
hope perhaps to establish. a. better system of education. He
could not, although unwilling to interfere with the religion.-
d others, consent to support an institution so
danger to the established church. And was not, he Would
ask, the establishment in danger when the right hon. and
learned member for Cork, at a meeting of the Catholic In.
stitute the other day, said that he wished to see the day when

high row

mea Wtutntinlior ALlttil4 ond
would 14Vo tl4ut Pie-44441v f 1.1.4

Trth4t#4 Ott pro LHI I

woristit:o of Cat

emancipation, which he had strenuously opposed as the first
blow dealt at the Protestant religion, had ever been allowed
to become the law of the land.
Colonel VERNER asserted that there never was in any
country—certainly not in England—an institution supported
out of the public funds against which such strong charges
had been brought, and which charges had been so weakly
replied to, as the college of Maynooth. Those charges were
founded upon certain doctrines which were taught in books
that were acknowledged to be class-books in Maynooth.
He would say that the institution which allowed such charges
to go forth, and which took no steps either to explain'or
contradict them, acted a most dishonourable part. With
respect to this grant, he should read an extract from a work,
entitled " The State in Relation to the Church." by W. E.
Gladstone, Esq., Student of Christ Church, and M.P. for
Newark. The right hon. gentleman said, "In amount the
grant is niggardly ; in principle, it is wholly vicious ; and
it will be a thorn in the side of these countries so long as it
is continued. (" Go on," from Mr. Sheil). If, indeed, our
faith be pledged to the college, let us acquit ourselves of the
obligation." He, (Col. Verner,) however, denied that the
faith of parliament was pledged to this grant. When the
College of Maynooth was first established, the idea was
that permission should be given to erect the college, and
that those persons for whose benefit it was intended
should support it. In 1808, when Sir Arthur Wellesley
was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he expressed himself
to this effect, in the House of Commons, when the grant
for Maynooth was under consideration :—" The fact was,
that when the Maynooth institution was first established, it
was not intended that it should be maintained by the public
purse." He afterwards said, in reply to Mr. Ponsonby—
" Whatever might have been the understanding between the
Roma❑ Catholics and the government of which the right
hon. gentleman was a member, parliament did not stand
committed by any pledge." (Hear, hear.) It appeared,
from a return of the amount of subscriptions raised by the
Roman Catholics fur the support of Maynooth, up to the
year 1822, that the sum did not exceed 1,,436; and he
thought when the Roman Catholics themselves did not con-
tribute, they came forward with a bad grace to call on the
public for assistance. In a letter addressed to the Earl of
Shrewsbury by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, he spoke of the
Roman Catholic priests of Ireland in these terms :—Alluding
to the dioceses of Westmeath and Armagh, he said there
was not a single clergyman in those extensive dioceses who
had not sent in his contribution to the Repeal Association.
He believed that four-fifths of the priesthood were in favour
of repeal.

Lord JOCELYN supported the vote, conceiving there was
an implied pledge to the people of Ireland that it should be
continued.

Lord ELIOT regretted that this subject should have been
revived, and said he had heard no sufficient reason alleged to
warrant its withdrawal. He should regret that the amend-
ment should be carried, for such an event would indeed be a
strong argument for a repeal of the union, and would indeed
show a disposition on the part of England to repeal the
union. _ . .

Mr. 0 CONNEL then indulged in some of the grossest
language against the opponents of the grant, when
Mr. BATESON said the right hon. member for Cork had
used the word " miscreant" with reference to an hon. relative
lately a member of that house. Be should not take the
trouble to contradict the imputation against his relative, as
he believed his conduct and character were sufficiently well
understood by the house. The right hon. member had also
alluded to the manner in which he (Mr. Bateson) had been
brought up. He would tell him how he had not been brought
up. He had not been brought up to become a cowardly
blusterer. He had not been brought up to be a mendicant
hypocrite—he had not been brought up to be one whose only
arguments were appeals to the worst passions of a mob, and
he had not been brought up to be one whose abuse was the
strongest praise—(cbeees).
Mr. CAMPBELL opposed the vote as contrary to principle.
The House divided, and the vote was carried by a majority
of 95 to 48.

Some other votes were agreed to ; after which the house
resumed and the chrirman reported progress.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.