GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.

HC Deb 04 June 1835 vol 28 cc529-33

Mr. Stewart Mackenzie

said, I rise, Sir, to present a Petition signed by the Moderator, and agreed to by the Rev. Ministers of the Synod of the county of Ross. The petition is short but relates to two most important subjects—the grants of money to the college of Maynooth and to the Irish national education plan. With the leave of the House I will read the paragraphs, and though unwilling to originate a debate at this moment on those subjects, I hope that the circumstance of my presenting a petition, with parts of which I do not agree in opinion, will be a sufficient apology with the House for my trespassing for a short time on its indulgence. It states, "That your petitioners are deeply impressed with the importance of Scriptural education as the true and only foundation of national morality, and as the only education that can make wise unto salvation." I am, Sir, not only not disposed to doubt or contest the truth of this just paragraph of the petition, but I should hail with satisfaction the prospect of the arrival of that moment when, throughout our land, among the rich as well as among the poor, the national morality shall be universally founded on and confirmed by an education primarily scriptural, though it would be deemed sanguine in me were I to declare the period not distant. I may be permitted to express my entire concurrence in these sentiments of the petitioners. I wish I could say, that my views were in accordance with those set forth in the only other paragraph, which states, "that they deprecate the annual Parliamentary grants of national money towards supporting the Popish College of Maynooth, and the new system of anti-scriptural education in Ireland, as national sins." The first part of this paragraph distinctly, and in most unmeasured terms, briefly, but comprehensively, denounces the grant to Maynooth College as a national sin. Now, Sir, though aware how influential, how justly influential, the reverend Members of the Synod must be with their parishioners in guiding and directing their opinions, I cannot, in candour, conceal from the House my difference of opinion from that of the petitioners, in whatever degree the avowal may elsewhere operate to my disadvantage. Besides the uncontroverted fact of the grant to Maynooth having been made for several years before the union with Ireland (for nearly forty years altogether) considering that the amount of that annual grant has never amounted to 9,500l. except in one year, when an increase for additional buildings was included, and that it did not then exceed 13,000l.—when I recollect that this is the only provision made by the nation for the education of the priests of that religion which is professed in Ireland by above six millions of our fellow subjects, I feel called upon in candour to avow, on presenting this petition, that I consider it to be the duty of the Legislature not to withdraw the grant destined for fitly educating the Irish Catholic priests. While I advance this opposite opinion to that of the petitioners, I do so with great diffidence, but with perfect sincerity. In proof of the above fact, I beg to read an extract from the 8th report of the Commissioners of Irish Education Inquiry, of June, 1827:— The College (Maynooth) has been principally supported by Parliamentary grants, though several donations and bequests have also been received for its use. The Parliamentary grants have varied in amount from time to time. For the first twenty-one years they averaged about 8,000l. per annum, Irish currency. In the year 1808, the grant was augmented to 12,610l., which included a sum of 5,000l. expressly granted for buildings. In the subsequent year, the grant was 8,972l., which was continued until the year 1813, when it was raised to 9,673l. Irish, which sum has been granted annually ever since. If, Sir, I differ, with all humility, from the opinion expressed by the petitioners upon the Maynooth grant, so unequivocally, and from their piety, respectability, and high character, as Ministers of the Church of Scotland, I doubt not, so sincerely and conscientiously expressed, I am bound to declare (though with regret,) that I equally dissent from their condemnation of the Parliamentary grant to the Irish Education Board, as a national sin. I cannot but lament that by so highly respectable a body of Christian Ministers, this denunciation of the plan has been so proclaimed. It has met with approval from gentlemen of all parties, on both sides of the House, and I, for one, am, I confess, desirous that the plan—I say it emphatically—should have a fair trial. If I could believe it to be a national sin to endeavour to instruct the ignorant poor in Ireland, of whatever religious opinions or denominations they may be, I would not sanction the grant—but if I can't command the best system of education imaginable, am I to withhold it altogether? In justice to the Board of Commissioners of Irish Education, I beg to call the attention of the House to two extracts from their last year's report. The first is from the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, for the year ending March, 1834, and is as follows:— It having been imputed to us that we intended to substitute these extracts from the Scriptures for the Sacred Volume itself, we deemed it necessary to guard against such misrepresentation by annexing to the first number of them the following preface. These selections are offered, not as a substitute for the Sacred Volume itself, but as an introduction to it, in the hope of their leading to a more general and more profitable perusal of the Word of God. The passages introduced have been chosen, not as being of more importance than the rest of the Scriptures, but merely as appearing to be more level to the understandings of children and youth at school, and also best fitted to be read under the direction of teachers not necessarily qualified, and certainly not recognized, as teachers of religion; no passage has either been introduced or omitted under the influence of any particular view of Christianity, doctrinal or practical. After a full statement of their rules, the Commissioners conclude their Report thus, which is the second Extract:— We have thus shown, to all who choose to read our rules with the view of understanding (not perverting them), that, while we desire to bring Christian children of all denominations together, so that they receive instruction in common in those points of education which do not clash with any particular religious opinions, we take care that sufficient time be set apart for separate religious instruction, and that the Ministers of God's word, of all Christian creeds, and those appointed by them, shall have the fullest opportunity of reading and expounding it, and of seeing that the children of their respective denominations do read and understand it, not only weekly, but daily, if they think proper. The success which has attended our labours, which appears by the progress we have made, abundantly proves that the system of education committed to our charge has been gratefully received and approved by the public in general. We trust it will continue to spread and prosper. It shall be, as it ever has been, our constant object so to administer it as to make it acceptable and beneficial to the whole of his Majesty's subjects; to train up and unite, through it, the youth of the country together, whatever their religious differences may be, in feelings and habits of attachment and friendship towards each other; and thus to render it the means of promoting charity and good-will among all classes of the people. One word more, Sir, on the prayer of the petition, "which prays your hon. House to discontinue the forementioned grants, and to discourage the rising spirit of Popery which threatens to destroy all the best institutions of the realm in Church and State." I, for one, Sir, deny that, more than proportionally with the increased population of the United Kingdom, Popery is on the increase. But even were it so, would it be in accordance with a Christian spirit, with the profession of religious toleration, which we avow, to take away the means of their education from the priests of a religion whose duty is to instruct so many millions of our fellow-subjects (though differing in doctrine from the petitioners)—or could we justify to ourselves the withdrawal of those funds destined by the State for purposes of general education in Ireland, whatever may be the creed of the instructed, without a fuller and longer trial of the plan? I trust, Sir, that I have not abused the indulgence of the House, so kindly extended to me, while I have briefly stated, with all deference, my difference of opinion from the reverend Synod; and I have now only to express a hope that advantage will not be taken (though I acknowledge the occasion is an inviting one) by hon. Members on either side, to enter into a desultory discussion of those important matters, which must both, in a short time, form legitimate subjects of debate in the House. Nothing would have induced me now to depart from the salutary rule of not debating a subject on presentation of a petition, but the very great and sincere respect which I feel is due to the collected opinion of so pious and reverend a body as the Synod, to whose petition I have ventured to call the attention of the House. I beg leave to bring up the petition.

Petition laid on the Table.