RETURN MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 27 May 1862)

§ MR. WHALLEY
, in moving for Returns connected with the course of education at Maynooth, said, he had obtained the consent of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to his Motion, as well as that of hon. Gentlemen who usually took a prominent part on the question on the opposite side of the House. He therefore believed that the Returns would have been granted, as a matter of course; but as he found that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick was about to oppose the Motion, he was compelled to make a short statement. The details which he now sought to obtain were called for under the terms of the Motion of last year; but, at the suggestion of the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, an alteration having been made to meet the wishes of the authorities of the college, they took advantage of that circumstance and kept back the most material portion of the information, alleging that there was no record kept of the subsequent destination of the students on leaving the college. But in the Report of the Commissioners of 1853 it was recommended that a record of that very nature should be kept, and it was stated that there would be no difficulty in obtaining the information. The object of his Motion, therefore, was to supply the omission. He denied that he had ever used violent language against the Roman Catholic population. All he had maintained was, that the priests who left Maynooth, and were scattered over the world, preached doctrines antagonistic to the intentions with which Maynooth was endowed. The return would enable him to prove the particular teaching at Maynooth and other Roman Catholic seminaries.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he only desired to call attention to the last line of the Return asked for—"The names and number who have left College during that period who have not completed their course of education, with the date and cause of leaving." He would put it to the House whether it would not be a most improper thing to ask for such a Return. Persons who had left College, and were now leading useful and creditable lives, would not desire to be stigmatized by the entry of "stupidity," or other more discreditable epithet against their names.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, that some strong course ought to be taken to put a stop to the proceedings of the hon. Member for Peterborough, which were becoming intolerable. It was no recommendation of his Motion that it had the consent of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Would the hon. Member like to have such a Return as that moved for respecting the school which he had attended? Perhaps it might show that he was in subordinate, or offensive to his schoolfellows. Hon. Members who had been guilty of boyish tricks would not like to have them put on Parliamentary record. The hon. Member for Peterborough, who denied that he used abusive language in speaking of Roman Catholics, was reported to have said, at one of the meetings he had addressed when "starring" in the country, that "If a Roman Catholic lived next door to him, he might consider him to be a very good fellow, but he would not trust him." Was not that offensive language for one gentleman to use towards another? The hon. Member would not venture to address it to him outside of that House. He hoped the hon. Member would keep the anti-Popery subject from getting into more serious hands, in which it might be made more mischievous.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he felt bound to say that he had not been consulted on the subject. The right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) would bear him out that he had urged in the 68 lobby that it would be better to leave out the clause why students had left the college and the classes they had attended. It would be very unfair that a student after a lapse of ten or fifteen years should be affiché in the manner proposed by this Return. If the hon. Member would withdraw these words, he should riot object to the Return.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, the statement of the right hon. Baronet would imply that he (Mr. Whalley) had had no communication with him. Would the right hon. Baronet say that?

§ MR. KENDALL
observed, that it must require some little courage in the hon. Member for Peterborough to boar up against the attacks made, ns he (Mr. Kendall) thought, rather unfairly upon him. The hon. Member said, "I am accused of being unjust to Maynooth. Give me the Return of the persons educated there, and I will prove to you that they have not acted justly towards the persons who have been called upon to pay for their education—that they have not discharged their duty to their Queen and country." The hon. Member for Peterborough had from time to time attacked the priests educated at Maynooth, and had pointed out many evils resulting from their teaching. He now sought substantial proofs in the Return he moved for. That was the fair and honest way of putting the question, and he did not think the hon. Member should be run down for seeking the information.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the question was whether the hon. Member would agree to omit the words.

§ MR. O'BRIEN
observed, that if this Return had been asked as from Oxford, Cambridge, or any other place of education in Ireland, it would have been scouted by every Member in the House. Let the hon. Member attack the Roman Catholic priestood in his annual Motions, but do not let him indulge in this eccentric abuse of them.

§ MR. WHALLEY
said, he was willing to withdraw the words to which exception, had been taken, and should not have inserted them if hon. Members had communicated their objections to him privately. He must, however, state that he had not only obtained the consent of the right hon. Chief Secretary, but that, so far from wishing to offend Roman Catholics, he had consulted several hon. Gentlemen of that religion before moving for the Return. 69 He felt it very hard that he should he constantly accused of making sweeping attacks upon the Roman Catholics, when in 1847 he had saved the lives of many members of that body in Ireland, and that at the risk of his own.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, that in justice to the hon. Member he must say that he had done him the honour of consulting him previous to making the Motion, and that he (Mr. Hennessy) had—on his own account only—said that he saw no objection to the fullest inquiry being made into the working of the College of Maynooth.