The Earl of Rodensaid, he had a great number of petitions on that absorbing subject which now occupied the Protestant mind of this country. They, however, differed in their effect, some of them being directly opposed to the Bill now in progress in the other House, and these he should not present to their Lordships at that time, but should reserve until the period when the Bill should be before their Lordships' House. He had other petitions of a general nature, praying their Lordships not to agree to any endowment of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, and also petitions praying their Lordships to appoint a Committee of their Lordships' House (prior to their agreeing to the second reading of the Bill) to inquire what were the tenets, dogmas, and class books taught at that college. With respect to the petitions connected with this last subject, he confessed that he could conceive nothing more fit, more natural, or more right, than that their Lordships, before consenting to such a measure as was now in progress in the other House, and against which so large a portion of the Protestant population had entered their dissent, should appoint a Committee up stairs to inquire into the tenets which were taught at Maynooth College, and which it was now proposed should be taught to a greater extent by the means of additional funds given for that purpose. It was desirable that a Committee of Inquiry should be appointed, because then an opportunity would be afforded of proving, if possible, that what was taught at Maynooth College was not what it ought to be, but had interfered in many respects with the well-being of the country at large. On the other hand, if this were not the case, a Committee of Inquiry would afford an opportunity of disproving the allegation to that effect, and this would tend very much to allay that very great excitement which now prevailed in the Protestant mind 1049 throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland. Should it, however, appear that the tenets and class books taught at Maynooth College were highly detrimental to the best interests of the country, then he thought that Her Majesty's Ministers in that House would not venture to carry this Bill into a law. He did not wish now to say anything that would excite discussion, nor would he say whether what was taught at Maynooth was right or wrong; but the best means of arriving at the truth was by appointing a Committee of Inquiry before the second reading of the Bill in their Lordships' House, and with that view it was his intention (if he should have the opportunity) to propose, before such second reading, that a Committee be appointed up stairs for inquiring into the subject. The noble Lord then presented petitions to the effect stated.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had to present a petition to the same effect as the bulk of those presented by his noble Friend, from the members of the Independent chapel in Wellington-street, Portobello. Though he greatly respected these petitioners, as well as others whose petitions he had presented on the same subject, he was under the necessity of saying that he differed from them; and he could not help wishing that his noble Friend who had just sat down, had pursued the same course. But every one was convinced of the entire honesty and conscientious conviction of his noble Friend in respect to any matter on which he delivered his opinion, and more especially on a matter which had so long occupied his attention. But, as to his noble Friend moving for more information on this subject, perhaps it would be more convenient to those whom he represented, and whose vehemence shone forth in their petitions — it might be more beneficial to their cause, that if statements were to be made with respect to Maynooth College, they should be made in the freedom of debate, than upon oath before a Committee. It would be better that such assertions should be made with that manly freedom with which persons were in the habit of asserting things in debate, and which was very different from statements made upon oath and liable to cross-examination. Not that he meant to say that he should not give credit to any statement made by his noble Friend; he should believe him just as much in one capacity as in the other; but should prefer 1050 if those persons whom he so justly represented in that place, would give their body of facts in any way rather than in sworn evidence before a Committee, where they must submit to be cross-examined. But it would not do for them to prove, even if they could, that those bad books and doctrines were taught in Maynooth College; it would not do to say—"Don't add so many thousands to the old grant." Why, did not his noble Friend come forward every year, and with the same objection, for fifty years back? If it was bad to give 30,000l. to this College, was it not bad to give 9,000l.? The amount did not alter the state of the case as to principle. The opponents to the increased grant reminded him of the frail lady who admitted that she had had a child, but said it was only a very small one. They objected to the present proposition, yet they never said a word against the grant before. He was astonished to see the great flame which had been raised against this increase; whereas the old grant had been received with total silence from year to year. But he was more astonished to hear people say that this grant was an endowment of Maynooth. It was not an endowment. It was the grossest perversion of intellect, and the greatest abuse of language, to represent it as an endowment. But, let that be the case or not, they would only just be endowing what they had been endowing as hard as they could for the last fifty years; yet all at once the four corners of the world were to be set in a flame by the report of the endowment of a Popish College. He felt humbled, degraded, and mortified, in the greatest degree, to see so many of his fellow countrymen led away by such furious nonsense. With all possible respect—not with all respect, but with all possible respect for the petitioners, he did not agree with them in thinking that by agreeing to the increased grant to Maynooth they would be putting souls in jeopardy, or that statesmen would be guilty of every sort of departure from principle. Why was that said? Oh! because it was an endowment of Maynooth College, and the next thing would be an endowment of the Catholic clergy. Why, that did not follow. Parliament might stop where they were. But suppose they did go further, they would only do what had been done before. Twenty years ago he supported Lord Francis Egerton in the House of Commons in a resolution to this 1051 effect:—"Resolved, that it is expedient,"—not that it is irreligious, not that it puts immortal souls in danger, not that it is endowing heresy, and error, and idolatry; no such thing; but "that it is expedient to grant a sum sufficient to provide for the maintenance of the secular Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, exercising their religious functions"—those functions now called superstitious and idolatrous—"in Ireland." That was carried by 200 odd votes against 160 odd, giving a majority of forty-three. At that time he heard nothing like what was advanced at the present time. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present First Lord of the Treasury took this ground:—"They said they had not the least objection to the principle," but, said Sir R. Peel, "I should vote for it if the Catholic question were carried. That Resolution involved the endowment of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergy in Ireland to the extent of 240,000l. It was carried by a great majority, and would have been finally, had the other question been carried. It was called the clerical wing, and the other the freeholders' wing; and the two were to go on pari passu. But, the one being rejected, the other was not carried; otherwise there would have been an endowment of the clergy as a condition and stipulation for the security of the Protestant Church in Ireland. For one who had wished well to the progress of human knowledge, he must say that he had hoped never to hear such sentiments as he now heard upon this subject, and he repeated that he could not support the prayer of the petitioners.
The Earl of Mountcashellsaid, he was of opinion that it was contrary to the usage of their Lordships' House to have any question discussed in detail on the occasion of presenting a petition. He could answer every word of the noble and learned Lord. He could prove the fallacy of what the noble and learned Lord had stated, but the proper time was not yet come; when it did come, however, he would be ready to take up the subject. He had no doubt that when the question should come before their Lordships in the regular way, many things would be brought forward that must mate some of their Lordships pause before they came to a decision. It would be very much better for noble Lords to listen, first of all, calmly and fairly to all the arguments which could be advanced on both sides, and 1052 then decide, and not come forward on the presentation of petitions and make assertions, and say,—"I have made up my mind to give my vole in a particular way before I examine into the merits of the question, or hear them discussed." He thought such a course unconstitutional and improper. He, therefore, found fault with the noble and learned Lord for setting a bad example in that House. He trusted their Lordships would not follow that example.
Lord Broughamconfessed that he stood corrected by the noble Earl, and he felt deeply grateful to him for not inflicting upon him the punishment he had threatened — for not doing what he said he would—answer him. No doubt the noble Earl would answer him; but he hoped the noble Earl would give him a further respite. In fact, he did not wish ever to suffer under that infliction, after the specimen the noble Earl had given that evening. But he must say that when he found how his noble Friend who preceded him had entered largely into the question while presenting petitions, he certainly thought that what was good for one would be good for another.
§ The Earl of Claresaid, that, in consequence of the lamented death of his noble Friend the Marquess of Downshire, he was called upon to present certain petitions to their Lordships. In doing so he would take the opportunity of saying how deeply he regretted the cause by which this duty had devolved upon him—the death of a nobleman who, from his admirable conduct in his sphere of action—from the way in which he discharged his duties as a landed proprietor—from his liberal encouragement of every institution in both countries for the improvement of society, and from the part also which he took in the debates in that House—he must say that he considered the death of that nobleman was both a great public and private loss; but he believed that his memory would be warmly cherished with undiminished affection by every person in every class of society who had known him.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he had made some inquiry with regard to the refusal of the coroner of Thetford to make a return of the number of inquests held on infants, and found that there was no record at the Home Office of any reply to the coroner's letter, as to the payment for his trouble in making out the return; but 1053 if the noble Earl would now move for a special return from that coroner of his inquests on infants under one year old, for the ten years ending June 30th, 1842, he (Lord Wharncliffe) would take care that the gentleman should be told that he must make the return, without trying 10 make any stipulation whatever with respect to payment.