§ Sir H. Parnell
rose to move for certain papers, relative to the courses of education pursued at the College of Maynooth. He felt it his duty to move for these papers, in consequence of some observations upon this college, contained in a note in a printed speech of an hon. member (Mr. J. L. Foster) and also in order to have an opportunity of refuting, in the most public manner, many charges, which had of late been brought against the Catholics, and those who advocate their cause in parliament, in other printed speeches of members of both Houses, and in many other publications. It was the more necessary to take this step before the session closed, because the perseverance and activity with which it was attempted to revive exploded calumnies against the Catholics and their religion, if suffered to remain unnoticed, would, no doubt, contribute very much to establish much erroneous opinion respecting them, and so far to defeat the object which every true friend of this country ought to have the most at heart, namely, the complete union of all religious sects in one common cause, for the support 1307 and preservation of the laws and constitution.—The charge brought against the college of Maynooth by the hon. member (Mr. Foster) was, that doctrines peculiar to Papal Rome, inconsistent with the legitimate and necessary authority of government, were still taught at this college—that the transalpine doctrine had but two spots in Europe on which it could rest its foot—one of these spots the Vatican—the other, Maynooth. It was unnecessary to remind the House, that this doctrine was no other than that by which the pope was, in ancient times, supposed to claim a temporal authority in all Catholic countries. But, with every respect for the hon. member, who had published to the world that this doctrine was still taught at Maynooth, he must say, that a statement more entirely destitute of foundation never was made. There was no Catholic in Ireland who did not willingly abjure this doctrine, of the temporal authority of the pope, upon every occasion on which the law required him to do so, in order to qualify himself for the exercise of any civil privilege. How, then, was it to be supposed, that those Catholics, who were the teachers at this college would surreptitiously teach a doctrine which they publicly declared not to be a true doctrine of the Catholic church? It was sufficient merely to mention the names of some of the persons who had been presidents of this college, to refute any such notion. The rev. Dr. Everard, and the rev. Dr. Murray, the Catholic prelates who had attended the discussion of the Catholic Question this session, had both been presidents of it, and no one the least acquainted with them could say, that they were advocates of the transalpine doctrine. It was made a matter of complaint, that there exists no means of ascertaining what the course of studies is at the college of Maynooth, but without reason, for the papers which were presented to this House m 1813, the report of an hon. baronet, on the foreign Catholic regulations of last session, contain a copy of a letter from the president of the college of Maynooth to the Irish government, giving a full account of all the books and lectures which were then made use of in that college, so that there exists no ground of complaint whatever in respect to any suppression of the truth, in regard to the principles and doctrines in which the students at this college received their education. In another part of the same publication it is endea- 1308 voured to be shown, that Catholicism in Ireland possesses a character peculiar to itself, or a nature extremely hostile to the state. It is said, that the part of Europe in which the pope possesses the most political authority is Ireland. This is a statement so likely to promote erroneous opinions, that some examination of it is absolutely necessary, to ascertain the degree of credit which belongs to it. The reasoning with which it is sustained is, that the pope possesses an unlimited power over the Irish bishops—the Irish bishops the same kind of power over the Catholic clergy—and the Catholic clergy an unbounded authority over their flocks. But it is wholly omitted to be shown in what manner the pope has so great a power over the Irish bishops, it does not appear, that they maintain any regular correspondence with the see of Rome—that they ever receive any order from the pope— that they acknowledge his infallibility, or his possessing any temporal power—or that they either have obeyed him, or are likely to obey him if he endeavoured to make them do any thing which was inconsistent with their duty as good clergymen or good subjects. In point of fact, so far from their statement being correct, if there exists one Catholic church in Europe more independent than another, it is the Catholic church of Ireland; and the truth is, that no communication scarcely ever takes place between the bishops and the pope, except for the purpose of obtaining canonical institution for a newly elected bishop. This arises from the circumstance, that the discipline of the Irish church renders every bishop wholly independent of the pope in the tenure of his office, and gives him every necessary power for the administration of the duties of it. It would be sufficient merely to refer to the statement of the resistance which the bishops made to the celebrated rescript of M. Quarantotti to show, that there was no foundation for the assertion, that the political power of the pope was greater in Ireland than in any other country. In respect to the authority which the clergy possess over the people, it was a very great mistake to suppose that this was owing wholly to the character of the Catholic religion, and not to a proper religious feeling on the part of the people and a correct discharge of duty on the part of the clergy. The Irish people were much too intelligent, and much too high-minded, to yield a servile obedience to a 1309 mere name, and to a false and fictitious authority. They obeyed their clergy because their clergy in the first instance succeeded in instilling among them a proper notion of religion, and of their duty as good christians, and the clergy held their authority only by showing by their conduct and their precepts, that the principles of the religion which they taught, were deserving of being respected and obeyed. This obedience on the part of the people to their clergy, instead of being complained of, as it was so frequently, as a source of danger to the state, ought to be approved of as the best possible symptom of the good conduct of the people, and as the basis of every good quality which can belong to a christian or a good subject. So far was this authority of the clergy from being in any manner injurious to the state, it was the only support the state received in Ireland, in promoting good order and obedience to the laws among the lower orders of the Catholics; and, therefore, instead of being held up as an object of terror and regret, it should be encouraged and protected. In corroboration of this opinion, it is very well known, that all those persons who take a lead in the disturbances which prevail in Ireland, commence their career by resisting the authority of their clergy, and that if their progress in life is inquired into, it will uniformly be found that their first sins have been against their religion and their clergy. It is further asserted, in various publications, that the Catholic clergy of Ireland inculcate habits and opinions inconsistent with the legitimate and necessary authority of government; but in this instance, as in others, these publications omit to support their statement by any reference to facts. If it was examined into what the conduct of the Irish Catholic clergy had been, during a very long period of years, it would be found, that a different opinion ought to be formed concerning them. The rebellions of 1715, 1745, and 1798, were occasions on which their principles were fully put to the test —yet on each of these occasions they exercised their whole influence in support of the law and the established Protestant government. It was impossible for any one the least acquainted with Ireland, to deny that their efforts are incessant in all quarters and at all times in teaching obedience to the laws; and that their conduct in the faithful and laborious discharge of their duties, was not only most praise-worthy, 1310 but formed an example which others would do well to imitate, who are not the least forward in misrepresenting and calumniating them.—A further charge had been brought against the Irish clergy for having declared that they could not consent to the Catholic bill of 1813 without incurring the guilt of schism; but this was evidently made under a misapprehension of the state of the case, for this guilt of schism did not consist in approving of any thing contained in the bill; but in giving any approbation to a change in the church discipline without the concurrence of the pope. Many other charges had been brought in various other ways against the Irish Catholic clergy, and amongst these, there was one for opposing the education of the lower order and the circulating of the Bible among them. In order to meet this, the hon. member read extracts from a publication of the Hibernian school society.— The reports of the commissioners of education had been referred to in order to show that the education, which was afforded by Catholic schools to Catholics, was a "supply of moral poison," inconsequence of the want of a supply of proper religious works. To answer this, he would read an extract from a statement of the annual sale of one Catholic bookseller in Dublin, of cheap religious tracts, 20,000, intituled The Path to Paradise, price 8d. —6,000 of the same by Dr. Challoner, price 1s. 8d.—2,000 The Garden of the Soul, price ls.8d.—500,000 of Dr. Butler's Catechism, four sizes, from 1d. to 4d. This work was drawn up for the express purpose of teaching to Catholics their civil and social, as well as religious duties— 2,000 Gahan's History of the Old and New Testament, 2s. 2d.—1,500 Reeve's ditto, 6s. 6d.—3,000 Catholic Church Hymns, 3d.—2,000 Douay New Testament—4,000 Dr. Gahan's Catholic Piety, 1s. 8d.— 10,000 small Religious Tracts, from 6d. to 8d. each, besides many others. So great was the demand for the New Testament in Dublin, that there were no less than four different editions of it printed by the four principal Catholic booksellers. So much had been repeatedly said on the subject of the Catholic religion prohibiting the reading of the Bible, that it had become a matter deserving of some inquiry, what the true state of the case was; and how it stood, the following account of the several Catholic editions of it would satisfactorily explain. No less than six different editions of the bible had been printed 1311 by the Catholics in England and Ireland, in the last fifty years, of which a continual succession of new editions had been sent from the press. Of the New Testament, besides those printed in Dublin, seven other editions of it have been printed in England and Scotland—one of the last is a stereotype cheap edition, in the notes of which the greatest care has been taken to omit every expression that could, in any degree keep alive the spirit of controversy between the Catholic and Protestant religion. In France, there are no less than eleven different translations of the Bible into French. There also are translations of the Bible into Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese languages, and into the language of every Catholic country in Europe. So that upon the whole it is quite evident, that nothing can be more unfounded than the common opinion, that Catholics are not permitted to read the Bible. That some circumstances of authority have occurred to assist in giving rise to that erroneous opinion, cannot be denied; but these may be shown to have a different meaning to that which is commonly affixed to them. Among them is the Pope's bull, concerning Bible Societies in Poland. But it is evident on reading this bull, that the object was, in all probability, not to prevent the circulation of the Bible among the Catholics of Poland, but to stop an effort which was making by persons acting under the name of the Bible Society, to convert the Catholic Poles to the Protestant religion. That this was the case would be very easily intelligible to those who were acquainted with the proceedings of some Bible societies in Ireland, of which the leading persons were particularly eminent for their exertions to make converts from the Catholic religion. In one publication it is stated, that a regular establishment of Jesuits has lately been formed in the county Kildare. The short answer to be given to this statement is, that it was a complete misrepresentation of the real state of the case:—a school had been opened in the county Kildare, by a person who had been educated and bred up in a seminary of Jesuits in Sicily, but, his school did not belong to the order of Jesuits, nor did he teach any thing that was not taught in all other schools.—There was another circumstance relating to Catholic doctrines which it was right to notice, it was to be found in a letter from the bishop of Ossory to the Editor of "The Courier" newspaper, written for the 1312 purpose of explaining a passage of a speech which had been incorrectly, reported in that paper. The right rev. prelate says, that what he had really stated was "that a few days prior to the inauguration of the king of the Netherlands, a sort of Pastoral Letter, signed by the archbishops of Malines, and by all his suffragan bishops, except two, was thrust under the doors of the shopkeepers of Brussels, telling the Catholics, that no good Catholic could take the oath of allegiance to a Protestant sovereign." Now, it appears by the Brussels Gazette, that the king of the Netherlands was on the very best terms with his Catholic bishops, for that, on the 9ih of May, having gone to Tournay, he slept at the bishops palace, and, upon his departure, made a speech, in answer to an address which had been presented to him, in which he said, "I am perfectly well satisfied with the conduct of jour clergy; there remains still some slight difference to be settled between my government and the see of Rome; but I have good reason to think, that the negociations now on foot, will bring them to a satisfactory termination." And by a subsequent Gazette it appears, that a concordat has been signed, and that all disputes have been amicably settled between these two powers. The only inference to be drawn from this statement is, either that some ill disposed persons had fabricated this pastoral letter, or that the bishop of Ossory had been imposed upon, by the person who gave him his information; for, surely, it is impossible that the king should have expressed himself in the manner he did to the bishop of Tournay, if such a pastoral letter had ever been circulated by the archbishop of Malines.—He hoped he had succeeded in convincing the House, that the transalpine doctrine was not taught at the college of Maynooth — that the political power of the pope was not greater in Ireland than in any other country in Europe —that the influence which was possessed by the Catholic clergy was not exercised to any bad purpose—that the priests were not hostile to the circulation of the Bible, and the extending of education among the lower orders— that, in short, there was nothing in the Catholic religion which rendered a person who professed it less fit to be a good subject, or less qualified than his Protestant fellow countrymen to deserve and enjoy all the civil privileges of the constitution.—He theft moved, 1313 "That there should be laid before the House, copies or extracts of any communication received from the college of Maynooth, respecting the courses of education pursued in that college since the last return made on the 23rd of April, 1813."
§ Sir J. C. Hippisley
seconded the motion; and, observing, that the subject was one of the greatest importance to the interests of the empire at large, he lamented the absence of the noble secretary of state, of the right hon. the secretary of Ireland, of the hon. member for Yarmouth, and above all, the incalculable loss of one removed from them by the high dispensations of Providence (Mr. Ponsonby), whose eulogy he would not attempt to pronounce, but whose fate he might be permitted to deplore. The question was not, whether they should grant 9,000l. a year to the college of Maynooth, or whether they should increase it by 3 or 4,000l more, and thereby raise it to what it had enjoyed under the administration of the noble duke then at the head of the Irish government. The subject to be discussed was of far more consequence, for it referred to the religious and moral education of the people, and involved their own Happiness and the safety of the empire. Sir J. H. then answered the call upon him to ascertain what was to be understood by Transalpine doctrines, stated to be maintained at Maynooth. The infallibility of the Pope constituted the first principle, and from thence flowed her superiority over general councils, and the assumption of a supremacy in temporals as well as spirituals; but it was not to be understood as the generally maintained doctrine, even at the Vatican; a more liberal and rational code prevailed there. Individual and powerful pontiffs, such as Gregory the 7th, and many of his predecessors, had asserted these arrogant principles, but their adherents were now but few; nevertheless, they were to be guarded against, and there was scarcely a state in Europe of whatever religious communion, but had so guarded itself against their contagion. He had given notice of a motion for the production of the concordat between the court of Portugal and the see of Rome, and he should now shortly state his motion, as it was not unconnected with the object of the present question. In one of many publications, adverting to the late report of the select committee on Catholic regulation, a charge had been made of withhold- 1314 ing this document, which, in fact, was only an agreement between Portugal and Rome, to divide the patronage of the benefices falling vacant in the papal months-of patronage. It appeared, by the printed letter of sir Charles Stuart, that it had been sent by him to the foreign office; but, as it was not deemed of sufficient importance to be printed, an implied charge was raised on the omission.—The hon. baronet then proceeded to the work of Mr. Gandolphy, a work which had been stated as approved by the official authorities of Rome, and licensed as such. Well might it attract the observation and denunciation of those hon. members who noticed it. Nothing could be more insulting to the establishment, and the government of the country. The hon. baronet then read a passage, in which Protestants were charged with intentionally debauching the morals of their own children, if they suspected them inclined to lend an ear to Catholic teachers. Fortunately, however, for the Catholics and for the public, though Mr. Gandolphy's works had furtively obtained the official imprimatur of Rome, he now stood censured by the same authority, and was ordered to suppress his books, and make a formal and public recantation of his errors to his immediate superior, the apostolic vicar of his district. Such was the fate of Mr. Gandolphy's works—at one moment declared fit to be enclosed in cedar and gold—at the next doomed to censure and abrogation.—But to return to the immediate subject of the motion. He begged to call the attention of the House to the documents which had been moved for some years since. Nothing could be more opposed to Transalpine opinions. The course of education was precisely conformable to the principles of the Gallican church, and the courses of the Sorbonne, where Dr. De la Hogue had been himself a professor. Under such a visitorial power as maintained at Maynooth, it was scarcely possible, that the exploded Transalpine doctrines could be suffered to be taught. The lord chancellor, the chief justices, lord Fingal, and other highly accredited and loyal persons constituted the visitors; and he had had the satisfaction of receiving within a few days from lord Fingal, the full confirmation of the rectitude of their courses, as conformable to the tracts which had been laid before the House. From professor De la Hogue, he had also received a letter complaining of the impu- 1315 ration in the printed speech of the hon. member for Yarmouth, and after particularising the courses, he exclaims, "Is this to teach Transalpine doctrines?" He referred also in the same letter to the fact of the hon. baronet's having, in a former debate, led Mr. Perceval to a confession that he had not made a due distinction between the construction of decrees of doctrine and discipline, as the former were held to be immutable, and discipline might change and be adapted to times and circumstances. He then stated, as an instance, the discipline of the council of Trent respecting marriages, which had been adopted by the church of England; it nevertheless was not received or acted upon in six of the principal dioceses of Ireland, including Dublin, nor could, therefore, all decrees of general councils be held to be generally obligatory. The hon. baronet then adverted to the report of the aggregate meeting of Dublin, on the 4th instant, in which they persisted in their former resolution, adverse to the interference of the Crown, and supporting domestic nomination. A vote of thanks to Mr. Hayes also was referred to the consideration of the board—to Mr. Hayes the delegate of the aggregate meeting to the see of Rome—to a person distinguished by the insolence of his attacks upon the constitution of his country, upon its government, and even upon the principal functionary of the Roman government, the cardinal secretary of state—to a person who, on being admitted to the pope to receive his benediction, was dismissed with the pontifical reproval of "Depart, rash man!" It was worth noticing that this father, delegate Hayes, loudly demanded associates in his embassy, or the whole would be lost. Dr. Dromgoole, well known by his speeches and writings, and a Mr. M'Gawley, a brother of a count of that name, attached to the ex-empress of France, was another associate. Sir J. C. H. here read from a Dublin paper, an extract of a letter from Dr. Dromgoole, suggesting how necessary it was for Rome to be on its guard against the government of England—in a word, of most mischievous import, and which merited the reprobation of every loyal subject. Of such materials were the accredited delegates of the aggregate meetings of Ireland composed! Of the same complexion was a work which had been presented to the ministers of Rome, and stated to "be got nearly by heart by one of them"—the 1316 Statement of Penal Laws. It was sufficient to refer to the speech of the attorney-general, and the denunciation of the judge who tried an information against this book, to appreciate the value of the present, as coming from a British subject to a Roman minister.—Sir J. C. H. followed with a quotation from Mr. Clinch's-Inquiry. The works of this gentleman had been presented to the ministers of the Pope: it was fair to Mr. Clinch, however, to state, that he w-as at issue with his patrons when he asserted, that "the protestantism of the Crown would, even in the case of the concession to the Catholic claims, remain as a land-mark to show that the concession has been a gift."—It had been argued that we had sedulously maintained securities for the Protestant church. If by Protestant church was meant the church of England, he would ask, where was the security in any test now required, to exclude Protestant dissenters of every denomination from sitting in parliament—or even the Mussulman, if a natural born subject? Sir J. C. H. regretted that, in all the discussions of this important subject, none had ever yet taken place that could be deemed satisfactory, either to the Protestant or the Catholic. No inquiry into the real tenets of Catholics of the present day had ever been instituted—a few set speeches annually closed the debate—no inquiry—no evidence whatever. Was it possible that such a course could be satisfactory? He then referred to a pamphlet circulated by Dr. Milner, naming himself the agent of the I Irish bishops—an agency, however, which was strenuously denied by the bishops themselves, when recently on a mission to London. But Dr. Milner had great facilities of dispensing with the inaccuracies, to say the least, of his own statements. In this solemn address to the members of the; House,—Dr. Milner was pleased coarsely to accuse sir J. H. with the wilful statement of an untruth. Sir J. H. read the original words of archbishop Egar's letter, which Dr. Milner attempted to fasten as a fabrication. He adverted also to this prelate's vacillations—at one moment the strenuous advocate of the Veto—at the next as strenuous an impugner of it. This gentleman was pleased also to represent sir J. H. as the candidate for office—at one moment for an embassy to Rome— at another for the Ministre de Culte. It is possible, observed the hon. baronet, that I may early revisit that clime to winch 1317 this prelate alludes—unquestionably, however, unaccredited and unpaid. He should not be withheld from attempting to render such services to his country, as at a former period he had not unsuccessfully attempted, and to represent the real state of this important question to those whom it imports so much to be apprized of it, might, at such a crisis, be not unreasonably be considered as an act of some public benefit. He should at least not be deterred from the denunciations of such commentators. His walk over this thorny ground had been undeviating; nor should he now diverge from the course which, in his humble opinion, was traced on the soundest constitutional ground of justice and expediency.
§ Sir G. Hill
rose, not to oppose the motion, but to complain of the unfair and disingenuous manner in which the hon. mover had undertaken to reply to the speech of his hon friend, the member for Yarmouth, during his absence. His hon. friend had attended sedulously to his business in parliament for a considerable period after the speech had been printed and published, and ii would have been more candid had the hon. baronet replied to it while his hon. friend was present.
§ Mr. Butterworth
apologized for offering a few observations, more especially as it could not be the desire of members, in the present state of the House, nor of himself, to prolong any debate upon the Catholic question; but there were some points in the speech of the hon. baronet, who had made the present motion, which he apprehended were so incorrect, that they might make a wrong impression if left without observation. Mr. B. did not rise to defend the printed speech of the hon. member for Yarmouth, who was most able to defend himself, but every one who knew that gentleman, must be persuaded, that his love of truth would never allow him to state in a speech, and much less in print, any facts, or to make any assertions, which he did not believe to be true; and that hon. gentleman's judgment and accuracy, were such as to render him very unlikely to make any incorrect statements. But Mr. B. rose, chiefly to notice some misrepresentations made by the hon. baronet, respecting the Hibernian schools, and the British and Foreign Bible societies. With regard to the former, the hon. baronet had described them as greatly countenanced by the Roman Catholic priests, of whom he had spoken in such 1318 high terms, as would insinuate that all their bigotry and intolerance were gone, and that they manifested nothing but candour and christian cordiality towards their protestant brethren. The hon. baronet had read some extracts of a work lately published by a member of the Hibernian society, to show the friendly disposition of some of the priests towards their schools; but he would beg leave also to read some extracts from the same work, which plainly showed, that although there might be a few candid priests who did not oppose these schools, yet there were many of a very opposite description; and having himself been a member of the committee of the Hibernian society, he could of his own knowledge state, that although these schools were instituted for the most benevolent purposes, not with a view of making proselytes, but simply to teach poor children the art of reading, and to give a little instruction to the most wretched part of the Irish population, yet they had in many instances met with the most determined hostility from the Roman Catholic priests. It was evidently the desire of the author of the work in question, to throw a veil over these hostile demonstrations, but they nevertheless made their appearance, and he begged to borrow the hon. baronet's book, to read a passage or two to the House.—Mr. B. here read two passages to the House. The book was an account of the chartered schools in Ireland, and of the schools established by the Hibernian society. The first is at p. 160, where it is stated, that "the Roman Catholic parents, have, in a multitude of instances, withdrawn their children from schools kept by Catholic masters, because of the superior education to be obtained in the society's schools; and this not unfrequently at the risk of the priests displeasure—of being refused confession, yea, of excommunication!" Now, this is no great specimen of the candour of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland, when the refusal of confession, and the risk of excommunication, is incurred by parents, for sending their poor children to a charity school simply to learn to read. The next passage is at p. 216, where, speaking of the schools of the Hibernian society; it is stated, that "many have been the attempts, on the part of the Catholic clergy, to break up and disperse the schools; and I am sorry to say, that in not a few cases they have been successful. These hostilities have elevated many gra- 1319 tifying instances of true Irish independence of character. How often have the; poor parents pleaded with the priest for permission to send their children to the society's schools, and in the face of the most arbitrary refusal, they have ventured to ask for a reason; but no reason, except his will, would be given. Often after a severe struggle between subjection to priestly domination, and an affectionate concern for their children's education, the latter has prevailed, and, braving all consequences, they have continued to send their children to the schools. Whilst I record these instances of hostility I am happy in being able to mention some very pleasing instances of the reverse of all this."—Now, said Mr. 15., I submit to the House, whether the work which the hon. baronet has quoted, notwithstanding all its forbearance and desire to conciliate the Roman Catholics, bears him out in the high character for candour, which he has given of their priesthood in Ireland?—The hon. baronet has stated that the pope's late bull, which had been issued in Poland against the Bible, and Bible societies, was framed in consequence of attempts made in Poland, by the Bible society, to proselyte the Roman Catholics to the Protestant faith. Now, it unfortunately happened for the hon. baronet's argument, that the Polish Bible society was not in operation till after the pope's bull had been issued. There had been a disposition manifested by some of the nobility and gentry of Poland, to establish a Bible society, and a plan was drawn up, but it was suspended by the opposition made to it by the Roman Catholic primate of Poland, the archbishop of Gnezn, who, fearing that his opposition would be insufficient, wrote to Rome for instructions how to prevent or oppose the Bible society. The Pope's bull of June, 1816, was issued in consequence of this application, and it would have been effectual in preventing the formation of a Bible society in Poland, had not the emperor Alexander happened to be at Warsaw in October, when the friends of the Bible submitted the plan of the society, together with the Pope's bull, to his imperial majesty, who declared his intention of becoming a patron of the society; and it was publicly formed at Warsaw in consequence of the emperor's sanction, and in opposition to the pope's bull. The hon. baronet has stated, that the Polish Bible society, and the Irish Bible societies, were 1320 occupied in proselyting to the Protestant faith. Now, it is well known, that the Bible societies are not occupied in making any proselytes whatever. They merely circulate the word of God, leaving that word to speak for itself, and to find its own level in the mind of man. Their sole object is, not to proselyte, but to make both Protestants and Roman Catholics better christians. Mr. B. stated, that it was not any wish to create unfriendly feelings towards the Roman Catholics, that had induced him to make these observations, as he entertained a great regard for some individuals of that body, both of the clergy and laity; but as he knew that a strong spirit of intolerance towards Protestants existed in Ireland, and as he could state many facts to establish this assertion, he had felt it his duty to correct some mistatements in the hon. baronet's speech, which might otherwise have made an undue impression.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
presumed, that the object of the motion had been effected by the opportunity it presented the two hon. baronets of making their statements. He defended the conduct of the member for Yarmouth, who had, he firmly believed, been influenced by the most conscientious motives.
§ Sir H. Parnell
said, that the topics on which he had animadverted were not contained in the speech which the hon. member had made in the Catholic debate, but in the notes which he had published with that speech. His object in referring to that speech at all was to show the grounds on which he called for information respecting the course of studies pursued at Maynooth. He begged to notice the unfair way in which an hon. member had selected passages from the book he had just quoted, tending to show that the Catholic clergy were hostile to the schools of the Hibernian society. For if the hon. member had read a whole page, instead of half a one, he would have found, that though they were at first, in some instances, hostile to them, they had ultimately become the warmest supporters of them.
§ The motion was agreed to.