MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

HC Deb 29 April 1808 vol 11 cc89-98

The house having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply,

Mr. Foster

rose to move the Resolution for a grant to Maynooth College. The grant in former years had been 8,000l. Last year it had been increased to 13,000l. for the purpose of enabling that institution to erect buildings capable of containing fifty additional students. It was his intention to move in addition to the 8,000l. of former years, by which 200 students had been maintained, an additional sum for the maintenance of the 50 new students; he therefore moved, That a sum not exceeding 9,250l. Irish currency, be granted to his majesty to defray the expences of the Roman Catholic Seminary in Ireland for the current year.

Sir John Newport moved to leave out the sum 9,250l. for the purpose of substituting 13,000l. In the original establishment of the college at Maynooth, 200 students were then educated. This was when Europe was in a state of tranquillity. Previous to the French Revolution, 178 students were educated on the continent for the Catholic priesthood of Ireland, (of whom 426 received gratuitous support), Maynooth College not being able to provide a sufficient number for the discharge of the ecclesiastical functions. Conceiving it to be of the utmost consequence that the Catholic priesthood should be educated in their native country and under the eye of government, the last administration had thought it right to listen to an application to augment the number of students at Maynooth to 400. The contingencies of war had driven many Catholic priests from the continent to Ireland, by whom the vacancies in the priesthood had for a time been filled up; but of these, many had died, and others had become superannuated. It was manifest, therefore, that if the education of 426 students was necessary in 1793, a less number would not do at the present moment, considering the rapid advance in the population of Ireland since that period. On these considerations the last administration founded their plan, and he was at a loss to conceive why it was intended to depart from that plan, except because it was the plan of the last administration. Did the house wish the Catholic priesthood of Ireland to be composed of uneducated men? This must be the case, unless the right hon. gent. followed up his present motion by bringing in a bill to prevent the Catholic Bishops from ordaining any men who had not been educated at Maynooth. It was of most serious importance to the Irish community that the priests should be well educated men, and that they should receive that education at home, especially under the present circumstances, when all Europe was under the domination of Bonaparte. It was a well known fact that the Irish Catholic students at Lisbon, had some time ago received an invitation to the Catholic Institution at Paris. On this invitation being signified to the dignified Catholic ecclesiastics of Ireland, they expressed their determination to exclude from the priesthood any student, who should transfer himself from Lisbon to Paris. Was this a proper return for such conduct? Nothing could be more infatuated, than at a moment when the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland was stated to be so considerable, to take a step so decidedly hostile to that body. By such a step, the Catholics would not be made Protestants, nor would they be made better subjects; on the contrary, they would become worse, for by excluding from education a great portion of the priesthood, many of the parishes would be placed under the direction of uneducated men, who entertaining a lively resentment for the neglect which they had suffered, would instil into their parishioners an ab- horrence of those to whom that neglect was to be attributed. The right honourable baronet read several papers in support of his sentiments, and particularly a letter from Dr. Dunn, dated the 4th of Nov. 1807, relative to the offer made by France, to the Catholic students at Lisbon, and the conduct of the dignified ecclesiastics of Ireland, on that occasion; and deprecated the consequences which must ensue from the system that seemed to be adopted on this subject, by his majesty's present administration.

Sir A. Wellesley

declared, that the ground on which he was induced to concur in the motion of his right hon. friend was, his conviction that the number of priests who would be educated at the College of Maynooth, would, according to his right hon. friend's proposition, added to those educated in other parts of Ireland (of whom the right hon. baronet had taken no notice), be folly adequate to the purposes for which they were required. As far as he understood, the number of Catholic priests necessary in Ireland was 2000. One hundred and eleven students were educated in different parts of that island, which he enumerated; these, added to the 250 which it was proposed to educate at Maynooth, made 361. The term of education was seven years, but frequently it did not extend beyond live. Supposing, therefore, that on the average 50 students would annually become fit for ordination, he conceived that this number would be sufficient to keep up the necessary establishment. The fact was, that when the Maynooth Institution was first established, it was not intended that it should be maintained by the public purse. The memorial presented previously to the foundation of that establishment, prayed for a charter, in order that their funds might be better secured. With respect to the 478 Catholic students, who, according to the right hon. baronet, were educated on the continent before the French Revolution, the fact was, that most of them received priests orders before, they went abroad. It would be found, upon enquiry, that about 300 of them supported themselves when abroad by the exercise of their functions as priests.

Mr. Ponsonby

ironically observed, that he had great satisfaction in noticing the strong disposition to economy manifested by the right hon. gentlemen opposite. To this motive alone could the curtailment now proposed be attributed. It was not possible to suppose that it was dictated by a desire to counteract the intentions of the last administration, or by the avowal of narrow and bigotted sentiments to insult the Irish nation. That economy was the sole motive by which the present administration was actuated in this measure was evident by the Bill on the table, for Regulating the Police of Dublin: in the provisions of which so much attention had been paid to economy, that the annual expence to be incurred by it amounted only to a few hundreds less than 20,000l. though it was now proposed to cut oil the sum of 3,750l. from the education of four millions of people. Instead of 2000 Catholic Priests necessary for Ireland as stated by the right hon. bart. he had always understood that 3000 were required. But taking the number at 2000, it was impossible that a provision for the education of 250 students could be sufficient to supply the deficiencies which sickness, age, and infirmities must occasion. If, however, there was any error in the computation, on which side was it preferable that that error should be? Was it preferable that there should be too many or too few? He would put this to the good sense of the house. The Catholics as a favour asked this monstrous sum of 3,750l. to put the foundation at Maynooth on a footing calculated to furnish a sufficient number of well educated men for the Church in Ireland. Was it wise to refuse them such a favour? To how many worse purposes would the house vote away many such sums in the course of the present session! It was impossible to believe that his majesty's ministers could refuse this request, for any other purpose than to enjoy the pleasure of a refusal. If the house wished wholly to discountenance the Catholic religion in Ireland, let them not vote a shilling for this purpose; but if they consented to grant any thing, let them grant enough, and let them grant it in a manner which would not be insulting to those by whom it was to be received. Why should the Catholics ask for more than they wanted? If they educated a greater number of priests than were requisite, what was to become of them? They must starve. It was their interest to have too few rather than too many. Considering the influence which the clergy in every country and of every persuasion, had over the people, it was wise in statesmen to keep the clergy at least in good humour with them. On this subject he was convinced, that the Irish Protestants and Catholics were of the same sentiments; and that if we were to pull opinions in Ireland, there would be at least a hundred to one in favour of his hon. friend's amendment.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

disclaimed having ever stated a principle of economy, as the ground of the part he had felt it his duty to take on the subject of this grant. On the contrary, he was of opinion, that a saving of three, five, or ten thousand pounds, should not be any consideration to impede a measure of great and important public advantage. As to what the right hon. gent. had said with respect to the Bill now before the house, for the improvement of the Police of Dublin, he did not understand him to object to the grant for that purpose, and certainly the arguments he used in favour of an extended grant in the case under consideration, would apply with full effect in favour of that measure. The right hon. gent. argued, that the conduct of those who supported the original vote, arose from the pleasure they felt in refusing a boon to so large a proportion of the people of Ireland. But he was convinced that the generous mind of that right hon. gent. was incapable of supposing that any man could entertain such a sentiment. For himself, he felt no such sentiment, and when, from the perhaps mistaken view he had of the subject, (for he did not think himself infallible,) he was bound to refuse a grant that would be agreeable to a large portion of his majesty's subjects, it was always to him a painful duty. As to the assertion that the vote which he was to give was dictated by bigotry or intolerance, he could not admit that it could be ascribed to either. It was no part of religious toleration to make a provision for the education of the clergy of the tolerated sect. If it were so, they ought to go much farther, for the ministers of the Methodists, Anabaptists, and Quakers, would on that ground have as good a claim to education as the Catholic clergy; for in this respect, numbers made no difference. The present question was, therefore, unconnected with intolerance. It was the duty of the state to provide for the education of the ministers of the religion of its own establishment, but the same obligation did not apply to other sects. All that toleration required with respect to them, was, that no difficulty should be created to any measures they might take for their own education. On every question for an increase of grant, it was fit to consider what was the amount of what was enjoyed before. It was particularly desirable, after the establishment of the connection of this country with the Irish Catholics since the union, that the grant of the Irish parliament should not be diminished. The fact was, that by the vote then under consideration that grant was to be extended to a provision for one-fourth more than were educated heretofore. It appeared, besides, that 111 others were educated for the Catholic priesthood in different parts of Ireland. If he had his choice, he should prefer an education for them in open seminaries, in different parts of the country, where their intercourse with their friends would not be precluded, to the institution of one great monastic establishment, in which they would be debarred of all access to their friends. This institution had been supported from its foundation by public grants, which left the funds originally intended for it applicable to other institutions in different parts of the country. There was no impediment to Roman Catholics if they chose to employ their own funds for this purpose. But if, in consequence of an increased grant, a number of hungry pensioners, as the right hon. gent. had designated them, should be thrown upon the Catholic body, would not the next step be an application for a provision for them? It had been said, but not made out in argument, that seven years were necessary for the education of the Catholic clergy; but, on the contrary, it appeared from the papers, that most of the clergy had left the college in 4 years or less. On the whole, he thought that the supply of 361 would be sufficient to meet the demand of the Catholic clergy, and therefore should vote for the proposition of his right hon. friend.

Mr. Ponsonby

insisted, that there had been an understanding between government and the Catholics, that a sum should be granted to this institution, sufficient to defray the expences of educating 400 students, and therefore he maintained that the present was a curtailed grant.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

replied that whatever might have been the understanding between the Catholics and the government of which the right hon. gent. was a member, parliament did not stand committed by any such pledge.

Mr. W. Elliot

begged leave to explain how the fact really stood. The grant to the college of Maynooth, previous to the union, was only 8,000l. On the recom- mendation of the trustees for that institution, the late administration proposed to augment the grant to 13,000l. and the last parliament had actually voted this sum. Before this vote, however, could be carried into effect, that parliament was dissolved, and when the new parliament met, his majesty's present ministers wished to resort to the former sum; but finding that the trustees had acted upon the faith of receiving the larger sum, they had, in one instance, carried into execution the intention of their predecessors. Now, however, they seemed to have overcome, in part, their objection to granting more than 8000l. though they could not be prevailed upon to grant 13,000l. so that it was pretty evident, a compromise had taken place between conflicting opinions. It was probable, that the question had been discussed in the cabinet; that there was a difference of opinion respecting it, the terrors of popery falling more lightly upon the heads of some members in it, than of others; and that they had resorted to an expedient, not uncommon in private life, called splitting the difference. As to the statement of the right hon. gent. that it was unprecedented to provide for the education of the ministers of a religion not that of the state, he observed, that the state of the Irish Catholics was an extraordinary anomaly. They might wish the case to be otherwise, but they were to take the country as it was and to give it as much moral and political improvement as it was capable of. Gentlemen might talk of restraint; but that had been the principle of the penal code, and had failed. They might degrade the Catholics; they might make them bad Catholics, bad Christians, or bad subjects, but they could not by such means make them Protestants. There was no effectual mode of improving the condition of Ireland, but by instructing and enlightening the clergy and the people of the Catholic persuasion. As to the superior clergy of the Catholics, no persons could possess more real piety, exemplary morality, and sound political principles; and as to the parochial clergy, he believed that most of them performed their functions with fidelity and credit. If there were any exceptions they arose from the want of proper education. He thought that every means ought to be employed to give the Catholic clergy an education with native habits and feelings, and deprecated the impolicy of retracting any part of the former grant.

Mr. Grattan

contended, that a provision for the education of 250 students would be insufficient to supply the vacancies that would occur in the Catholic clergy by deaths or casualties. To make up for this deficiency, the country would be left to two chances, private or foreign charity. One right hon. gent. had said that 111 were educated for the priesthood in private seminaries. But the education in these being only preparatory for the college, that was no education for the priesthood. By reducing the grant, the house would secure the ignorance and inveterate prejudices of a great portion of the Catholics. Proselytism was not to be expected under such circumstances. Religious conformity was impracticable, and political conformity, which was in their power, they would destroy by the course proposed. In endeavouring to enforce religious conformity, they would make the mass of that people inveterate Catholics and political enemies. Give them uneducated and ignorant priests, and you weaken the Protestant religion and the Protestant government. If provision be not made at home for the education of their clergy, they must seek it abroad. At present that could not happen; but we ought to look forward to a time of peace. Then they Mould go and bring back with them foreign connexions and foreign obligations. Why did we fear the Catholic religion? was it not from the foreign connexion which it involved? And whilst the spirit of Bonaparte pervaded the whole of the continent, was that a time I for keeping up the connexion? The students that went abroad for education under such circumstances, would acquire the same Deistical principles and political antipathies that would spread every where around them. They would therefore return religious Deists and political Catholics, to the great danger of overthrowing the government. It was true, that neither the ministers of the Methodists nor of the Quakers were educated at the public expence; but they were few in comparison, and the Catholics formed the great body of the people of Ireland. If the priests had any influence over the Catholics, they should be educated with sentiments of domestic attachment, not with those of our political enemies. He doubted whether the priests had as much absolute influence over the people of Ireland as was supposed, and the cause was, that they were not well educated. If they wished the Catholics of Ireland to be well conducted, they should make their priests objects, not of contempt, but of veneration. The Protestant religion was not to be extended by demoralising the Catholic clergy. They might civilise the people of Ireland, but could not make them Protestants. The saving proposed was very contemptible. The Catholics would gain by the larger grant, the Protestants would not lose, and the public could sustain no injury by it. On the whole, therefore, he should give his support to the amendment of his right hon. friend.

Mr. Croker

gave his rote for the smaller sum, not from any indisposition to the great body of the Irish Catholics, but because 250 students, for whose education that sum was adequate to provide, were amply sufficient to supply the vacancies in 2000 parishes. He stated that 369 persons had been educated at the College of Maynooth, and that one fifth of these had not taken religious orders, but had adopted other professions. He likewise objected generally to the principles of the Maynooth Institution, because, from the circumstance of the education being entirely gratuitous, the students were persons from the lowest ranks of life; and if this were not the case, the higher classes of those who belonged to the Roman Catholic persuasion would bring up their sons as clergymen; of which, at present, there were few or no instances.

Mr. M. Fitzgerald

thought it extremely impolitic to hazard the irritation of the Catholics of Ireland for the sake of the paltry sum of 3,750l. He lamented the ignorance which the chancellor of the exchequer betrayed of the character of the Irish people, of the actual situation of that country, and of the nature of the establishment to which the question now before the committee referred. The establishment had originated in the liberal and enlightened views of Mr. Burke, and had been dictated less by generosity than sound policy, because it might be considered as some remuneration for the illiberality which had marked the conduct of the British government towards the people of Ireland, for so long a period, during which they had been kept in a state of ignorance and barbarism. He reminded the right hon. gent. that the religion of Ireland once was the Roman Catholic religion, that it was by the confiscation of the property of the Catholics that those who now supported the right hon. gent. were enriched, and that it was from the same source that the University of Dublin, and the other Protestant seminaries, had been endowed. The system of the right hon. gent. had been tried and acted upon without success for a century; but, instead of its having obtained converts to the Protestant faith, it had only served to render the Catholics more firm and bigoted in their persuasion. If the Union had not taken place, he contended, that the establishment at Maynooth would have been enlarged by the Irish legislature, not only because the population of the country was increasing every year, but because the duties of a Roman Catholic priest were so laborious in their nature, that the number now employed were by no means adequate to a faithful discharge of the functions of the office. Mr. Fitzgerald considered it very unaccountable, that this should be the only grant to which a principle of economy was to be applied, when it was recollected the abundant liberality with which large sums had been granted in the course of this session for objects of far inferior importance. He alluded to two instances of such liberality in support of this allegation: 21,000l. had been granted in the course of the last five years, for compleating the buildings of the House of Industry, which had been nominally compleated before the Union; and 18,000l. had been voted to the Dublin Society, for encouraging agricultural improvement; an object which he allowed to be important, but which certainly was not so important as cultivating the public mind. The establishment of Maynooth, he contended, was conducted with the most rigid economy, and the only effect of the paltry saving that ministers now had in view, would be, to prolong the reign of ignorance, and to render the Irish priests the instruments of the peoples' fanaticism.

Mr. Parnell

vindicated the Roman Catholic clergy, and read extracts from documents in the year 1793, when Defenderism broke out in Ireland, and in 1798, the period of the late Rebellion, to prove their loyalty and peaceful demeanour.—The question being now loudly called for, the committee divided,

For the larger grant of 13,000l.	58
For the lesser of 9,250l.	93
Majority	-35

List of the Minority.
Abercromby, J.	Baring, A.
Anstruther; sir J.	Bewick, C.
Bagenal, W.	Biddulph, R. M.

Bowyer, sir T.	Latouche, J.
Brand, T.	Lutouche, R.
Calcraft, J.	Laurence, F.
Calvert, N.	Longman, G.
Cavendish, lord G.	Martin, H.
Cocks, E. C.	Montgomery, J.
Colborne, N. W. R.	Moore, P.
Combe, H. C.	Morpeth, viscount
Cowper, E. S.	Newport, sir J.
Creevey, T.	North, D.
Dundas, C. L.	Ossulston, lord
Ebringfon, viscount	Parnell, H.
Elliot, W.	Petty, lord H.
Fitzgerald, M.	Piggott, sir A.
Fitzgerald, J.	Ponsonby, G.
Fitzgerald, lord H.	Porchester, Lord.
Fitzpatrick, R.	Prittie, Hon. F. A.
French, A.	Pym, F.
Cower, carl	Quin, W. H.
Grattan, H.	Russell, lord W.
Halsey, J.	Smith, W.
Hamilton, Lord A.	Smith, J.
Herbert, A.	Somerville, sir M.
Hippisley, sir J. C.	Tierney, G.
Howard, W.	Wardell, G. L.
Hughes, W. L.	Whitbread, S.
Laing, M.	Windham, W.
Lambe, W.