distance, and proposed a vote of thanks to the President. The National Anthem was then sung by the choir of Christ Church— who had given musical selections during the evening with much tasteand the proceedings terminated.Derby Mercury, 11th April, 1855. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.-The following Resolutions were adopted at an Aggregate Meeting of Protestants, including Deputations from the various Constituencies, held at Freemasons' Hall, on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the 17th, 18th, and 19th of April: - "1. That the endowment of the College of Maynooth, for the training of Romish priests, is contrary alike to the dictates of Holy Scripture and to sound public policy; and that the Papal system,-by its recent aggressions in England, Holland, Piedmont, Germany, and America, its persecutions in Tuscany, its repressive efforts in Spain, and the late addition to its unscriptural dogmas,-manifests itself to be still dangerous to our institutions, and entirely incompatible with freedom of conscience, liberty of disseminating religious truth, and the public worship of God. "2. That this Meeting rejoices to learn that a Motion for the Disendowment of Maynooth will be immediately made in Parliament, and that it is likely to be supported with equal energy by members of different political parties; and, assured as we are of the earnest desire largely pervading the constituencies of the empire for the attainment of that object, it is our duty to make this fact known to our Parliamentary representatives, in the hope that they will give it due weight in voting upon so grave a matter. "3. That, in the opinion of this Meeting, Protestants should be recommended not to vote for the return to Parliament of any candidate who is not prepared to support a Bill for the Disendowment of Maynooth. "4. That this Meeting views with satisfaction the united action of the members of the Protestant Societies in Conference; and that the Committee named by the Conference of the 1st March, and subsequently enlarged, be now appointed, with liberty to add to their numbers, and with full unrestricted power to concentrate their efforts on the Disendowment of Maynooth; and, with that view, to circulate information, and without regard to party politics, to promote Committees within every constituency, to urge the foregoing views upon the present representatives and all elec tors. "5. That Petitions to Parliament be promoted, and Deputations formed, to wait upon Members, and endeavour to induce them to support the movement in Parliament. "6. That the Committee shall communicate with the various Protestant Societies throughout the empire, with a view to encourage and assist their mutual co-operation in the movement for the Disendowment of Maynooth College. "7. That a Petition from this Conference of Protestants be sent to the House of Commons, for the immediate repeal of the Act, 1845, endowing Maynooth College, and that the preparation of such Petition be referred to the Committee." PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION. THE ANNUAL MEETING will be held (D.V.) on WEDNESDAY, May 9, 1855, in the Large Room, EXETER HALL. Robert Baxter, Esq., of Doncaster, will take the Chair at Twelve o'clock. James Bateman, Esq., Rev. Robert Bickersteth, Rev. Canon Miller, Rev. J. B. Owen, Rev. C. Prest, Rev. G. Albert Rogers, and Rev. R. Maguire, have kindly promised to address the Meeting. The ANNUAL SERMON will (D.v.) be preached in the parish church of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, on Tuesday evening, May 8, by the Rev. J. C. Miller, Rector of St. Martin's, Birmingham, Hon. Canon of Worcester. Divine Service will commence at Seven o'clock. Macintosh, Printer, Great New-street, London. THE PROTESTANT MAGAZINE. JUNE, 1855. THE MAYNOOTH COLLEGE QUESTION. THE Houses of Parliament have again and again borne testimony to the importance of this question. Whether it be regarded as a constitutional, as a political, a social, or a religious question, still it is clear, in some one way or another, it has got hold of the attention of the country, and keeps its hold upon the attention of the country; not only this, but does so with a firmer grasp. Why is this? Why? but because the chief population of this country is a thinking population, and the more the matter is brought to their notice, the more their attention is thoughtfully and prayerfully fixed upon it, the more do they see the impropriety, the impolicy, the sinfulness of the grant, and the propriety, the policy, the duty, the necessity of getting rid of it. But here, as in other cases, it is found easier to commit an error than to rectify it, to point out a remedy than to apply it. The grant has existed a long time. But this affords no valid claim to its being continued in perpetuity, or even to its continuance beyond a very limited period. Indeed, we believe that very erroneous impressions have gone abroad upon this subject, and that the opinions of many are consequently unsound. These remarks apply 1. To matters of fact relative to the origin, the support, the continuance, and teaching at that College. 2. As regards the principles on which has rested the agitation for the removal of the grant. I. As regards the facts, the grant to Maynooth is not of the antiquity ascribed to it by some. It is of little more than half a century's growth. It commenced in 1795. It was augmented in 1845. And we had hoped it would have ceased by 1855. It certainly would, or by nearly that time, if only Protestants in and out of Parliament had been firmly united amongst themselves. The support of the College was not intended to be a burden upon the national exchequer of Ireland or England. Prior to 1795, it was unlawful to have in Ireland a College for the VOL. XVII.-June, 1855. M New Series, No. 54. education of Roman Catholic priests. The Act passed that year was what is termed by lawyers an enabling Act. It rendered lawful what prior enactments had rendered unlawful, and it empowered Trustees to receive money for the purpose of building and supporting the Institution. A grant was given by the same Act to help in the expense of the building, but there was no provision made for the national support and endowment of the College. Annual grants, however, were made by the Irish Parliament, and were continued by the Imperial Parliament long after the period required by the Act of Union. Sir Robert Peel's Act of 1845 was the Act which saddled the nation with Maynooth College as it now exists, and we trust no effort will be wanting on the part of those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and in truth to get rid of this stigma upon our Protestantism; this great blot upon our national escutcheon. II. As regards the principles on which any movement for the withdrawal of the grant should be conducted, there will of course be a difference even amongst those who cordially concur in this, that the grant ought to be withdrawn. But we venture to indulge the hope, that those who hold most strongly-and would adhere most tenaciously to the voluntary principle-will on this occasion be found acting ex animo with those who are resolved, by the Divine blessing, to see the grant withdrawn. Indeed, we have been informed on good authority that as regards some this will be the case, and that they are determined not to repeat the practical error into which some have fallen heretofore, of virtually supporting Maynooth College wherein Popery is taught, because they cannot succeed in the destruction of all establishments, and the removal of all endowments. On this point some remarks will be found in the Annual Report of the Protestant Association given at a subsequent page. Mr. Spooner on the 1st of May moved in the House of Commons the following Resolution :-" That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the Acts for the endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights or interests." The papers thus describe the scene which then took place at the presentation of Petitions. "The Speaker having called on Mr. Spooner, a large body of Members at once rushed from their places in different parts of the House with Petitions in their hands, which they flung upon the table in heaps, regardless of the Right Hon. Gentleman's repeated and vehement calls to order, jeopardising the existence of the clerks, and threatening to overwhelm those unfortunate gentlemen and Her Majesty's Ministers with them under the terrible avalanche. For some minutes the scene, as it appeared from the gallery, was one of the utmost confusion, and such as is seldom witnessed in the House of Commons. Members bearing Petitions in their arms coming in collision with each other in all directions, choked up the gangways, and crowded in upon those who reached the table first, effectually barring their retreat, and making confusion worse confounded. The Speaker having requested Members to take their places, explained that the Hon. Member for North Warwick was presenting Petitions, and that when he had done, other Hon. Members would have an opportunity of doing the same in their turn. This assurance had the effect of arresting the tumult and restoring a proper measure of decorum. Members returned to their seats, and the presentation of Petitions was proceeded with in the usual manner. The little episode here described was the result of Members labouring under the misapprehension that when the Speaker called upon Mr. Spooner, it was for the purpose of at once proceeding with his Motion, whereby they would have been precluded from presenting the mass of Petitions entrusted to their care. "Three hundred and sixty-three Petitions against the Endowment of Maynooth College were presented from various parts of the United Kingdom, amongst them being several by Mr. Spooner, from congregations at Birmingham, Aston, and other places in Warwickshire, and thirteen from congregations at Wolverhampton. Mr. Brotherton presented a Petition from Manchester and Salford, signed by 27,757 persons, and Mr. Langton presented two from Bristol, signed by 12,000 persons." The debate, which was not over till midnight, is too long for insertion here. The Resolution was seconded by Mr. A. Dunlop, a Scotch Member, a Liberal and a Voluntary, to show a nearer approximation to unity of action amongst Protestants on this question than has before existed. The debate stands adjourned to Wednesday, June the 6th, and we hope that in the meantime the grave matters involved will form the frequent subject of prayer on the part of those who believe Popery to be an unscriptural and idolatrous system, and the nation to be involved in sin by supporting Popery. ANNUAL MEETING OF THE PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION. THIS Society held its Twentieth Annual Meeting in the large room of Exeter Hall, on Wednesday morning, May 9, at twelve o'clock. ROBERT BAXTER, Esq., presided, and upon the platform were observed the Rev. Canon Bickersteth, the Rev. Canon Miller, Rev. Dr. Sirr, Rev. Dr. Hastings Robinson, Rev. W. W. Robinson, Rev. A. S. Thelwall, Rev. C. Prest, Rev. G. Albert Rogers, Rev. J. E. Keene, Rev. Edward Dalton, Rev. G. A. Armstrong, Rev. W. Wilkinson, Rev. E. Garbett, Rev. J. Carver, Rev. P. Spencer, Rev. - Dixon, W. Stuart, Esq., M.P.; J. Bateman, Esq.; W. H. Peters, Esq.; G. J. P. Smith, Esq.; H. Harwood Harwood, Esq.; Captain Farrar, J. H. Story, Esq.; General MacInnes, J. Lord, Esq., Lieut.Colonel Penley. The Rev. A. S. THELWALL having offered up a prayer for the Divine blessing, The CHAIRMAN said,-Ladies and Gentlemen, it will not be necessary for me in addressing you on the occasion of this the nineteenth anniversary of this Society to enter largely into its principles. You know well that it upholds Protestant and scriptural truth as the basis of all civil government, and asserts that only by engrafting those principles in the constitution of the land can we hope for God's blessing upon it. (Hear, hear.) Protestantism is not a political creed, but a declaration of religious truth when contrasted with error; and Protestant government is not a government of party, but a government based upon scriptural principles; in which the truth of God is avowed, but yet perfect liberty is given to all in their faith, in their profession, and in their worship. (Hear, hear.) One other article attending Protestantism, when held in sincerity, is this: that while full liberty of professing whatsoever religion they please-of assembling for religious worship in what form they please is accorded to all the subjects of the realm, it is the principle of Protestantism that they only ought to be entrusted with the government of the country who avow the truth of God and uphold it in all their proceedings. (Applause.) It is one thing to say there shall be liberty of action and profession of faith; it is another to say, that when we are committing the sacred charge of governing a great kingdom to a body of men, we will not regard in those whom we choose for the great office of governing whether they hold the truth of God or not. (Applause.) And Protestant principle is good for nothing if it does not announce this, that there ought to be no committal of the power of governing into hands that do not confess in sincerity and truth the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as revealed by himself in the Word as the Governor of all the earth. (Applause.) We say, also, as regards the particular form of error against which Protestantism must firmly protest, that is, the Papal error-that it ought not to be admitted in any way, or in any form, into the government of the country, because its principles and practice are not consistent with good government, with social order, or social advancement. (Applause.) And if you ask me why it is that Romanism cannot consist with constitutional freedom? the answer is plain that it does not educate or train its members for freedom. (Hear, hear.) It gives them no liberty or freedom of conscience, but the conscience must be put into the hands of the priest or the Pope, to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is, therefore, no liberty of conscience, there is no independence of thought permitted to the members of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic must bow to the dictates of his priest or the decrees of the Pope, and whatever may be his own opinion or private judgment in the matter, there is no independence of thought. (Hear, hear.) And I say if you train up a man under the impression that he has no |