amendments, subsequently moved by Mr. Hindley and other members,
were rejected by large majorities. The whole question was reopened
on the motion for the third reading, and a discussion commenced which
continued for three nights; but the third reading was carried by
a majority of three hundred and seventeen against one hundred and
eighty-four. The last attempt to defeat the measure was a motion by Mr.
T. Duncombe, on the question, "That the bill do now pass," proposing a
clause to limit its operation to three years. This was objected to by
Sir Robert Peel, and the proposal was negatived by a large majority,
after which the bill was passed.

The second reading was moved by the Duke of Wellington in the house of
lords, on the second of June. Lord Roden had given notice of intention
to move, as an amendment, for a select committee to inquire into the
character of the education given at Maynooth; and he now rose for the
purpose of thus endeavouring to get rid of the bill. Instead of the
measure being looked upon in Ireland, he said, as a boon, it was looked
upon as one extorted by fear. He quoted a letter from Dr. Higgins, one
of the Roman Catholic bishops, to show that no conciliatory effects
could result from the measure. Nor was it his opinion that it would
improve the education given at Maynooth: rather, it would afford
facilities for recruiting the priesthood from the lower classes of the
people. He maintained that the system of instruction given there had
anti-social and disloyal tendencies, which he illustrated by a reference
to the text-books, and details in the history and conduct of the
institution. The Bishop of London supported the amendment: he could
not consent to any measure which would make the college of Maynooth an
integral part of the constitution. The Earl of St. Germains and Lord
Beaumont vindicated the measure; and the Duke of Manchester and the
Bishop of Cashel opposed it. The debate having been adjourned, was
resumed by the Earls of Hardwick and Carnarvon, who supported the bill.
The Earl of Winchilsea followed, and condemned the bill in vehement
terms; and the Marquis of Normanby defended it as a proper concession to
a nation of which seven-eighths were Roman Catholics. The Archbishop of
Dublin supported the measure. The Bishop of Exeter argued against the
measure that the college was not originally meant to be endowed by the
state; and denied that the improved visitation which the bill professed
to