HC Deb 20 July 1842 vol 65 cc379-95

House in Committee of Supply.

On the motion that the sum of 8,928l. be granted to defray the charge of the Roman Catholic College.

Mr. Plumptre

opposed the grant, as one that was offensive to a large portion of the people of this country. He did not oppose it on religious grounds merely, but because the doctrines taught at the college had a tendency to the subversion of the allegiance due to the Crown.

Lord Clements

remonstrated against the Course taken by the opponents of the grant to this Catholic seminary, which he considered essential to the religions instruction and spiritual welfare of the Catholic Stipulation Of Ireland. Why did not hon. members who were so attached to the Protestant doctrine arid faith, instead of taking ill-founded exceptions to the conduct of the Catholic pastors, exert themselves in the more praiseworthy and Christian duty of providing for the spiritual wants of the Irish Protestants? the riches of the established Church and its clergy was as notorious as the poverty of the Catholic Church and its exemplary priesthood. Why then was this petty grant in aid of a fund raised by Catholics for the education of their own clergy, and others who professed the Same faith, Carped at? Was this the proof of superior liberality in the professors of the reformed religion; or were these illiberal objections to the exemplary exercise of pastoral Care in the Catholic clergy intended as a set off against the notorious neglect of those flocks by the clergy bf the Established Church in many districts of Ireland. It was a circumstance which came under his own observation in parishes adjacent to that in Which he resided, that the parishioners of parishes from which the clergy derived a large income in tithe were totally deprived of spiritual instruction in their own parishes, and forced to resort to a distant church to attend Divine service. It would be far more prudent and more consonant with the Spirit of true Christianity, if the zealous advocates of the Protestant religion and its clergy were, instead of taking all possible opportunities of vilifying the Catholic clergy and Catholic laity, to endeavour to forget all party and religious distinction, and set themselves earnestly to devise an efficient remedy for the spiritual destitution of their Protestant brethren in those parishes of Ireland which were frequently some of the better class of livings in that country. The vote should have his most zealous support.

Mr. Bateson

rose with much reluctance to detain the House at that late hour of the night, but feeling it his duty not to give a silent vote On the Maynooth grant, he begged the indulgence of the House while he made a few observations, and stated the reasons which prevented him from giving it his support. He knew that some hon. Members would consider that his opposition to it arose from narrow and prejudiced views. But he was sure that, if they were aware of the effects produced on Ireland by the present Maynooth system of education, they would pause before giving it their sanction. He could say that it was not from bigotry or intolerance that he Opposed it: for he looked upon liberty of conscience as one of the greatest of blessings, and religious persecution as the most intolerable of all tyrannies. He hated the spirit which breathes in the inquisition— he abhorred those feelings which rejoice at the imposition of penal laws. He said he would now only look at this question in a political point of view, and he would ask, if it was right, expedient, or politic for the State to Support an institution, if that institution, by the doctrines it teaches, by the principles it inculcates, by the conduct of its Members and pupils, tended in any way to lessen the loyalty or the obedience of the subjects of that State? Ought we to continue to endow an institution, established solely for the purpose at giving a sounder instruction, a more loyal and more British education than at the time of its foundation it was supposed could be obtained in other seminaries, if, having utterly failed for those purposes, it, on the contrary, fostered principles hostile to Our institutions, alien to the constitution. of the realm? It had often been stated that we were bound in justice to continue this grant, that it was a legacy bequeathed to us by the Irish Parliament, which we, its heirs arid executors, ought to pay. But he distinctly denied such was the case. J In the three acts of Parliament relating to Maynooth, no mention is made of a national endowment. Even were it so, why are We bound to make this an exception? Why not treat it as they did the other Parliamentary enactments? Though Parliament, for instance, made null and void what the Act of Union declared to be " one of its essential and fundamental" articles—viz., the preservation of the Irish Church Establishment. Though apparently no respecter of persons or of property, yet Parliament must, however, now halt in its career, and not dare irreverently to touch the liberal, enlightened, and unexclusive College of Maynooth. Rut what were the facts of the case? In 1795, Parliament considered it expedient to allow a college to be established for the education of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, lest by a foreign education, when treason and infidelity ran riot over the Continent, the Roman Catholic youth should imbibe republican principles, and return discontented with the established order of things. But though Pitt proposed and the Irish Parliament sanctioned, a grant—and though the United Parliament afterwards thought fit to continue one—yet it was proposed, sanctioned, and continued, solely for a particular political purpose. He asked, had that desired object been gained?—had the Maynooth system been of benefit, either to the Roman Catholic clergy or to the empire at large?—or had it not rather defeated what ought to be the very end and object of education? Were the Irish Roman Catholic priests of 1842 better subjects, more enlightened, more loyal, more charitable in their opinions, than the foreign educated priests of the last century? The evidence before Parliamentary committees, nearly every writer on Ireland—Mr. Inglis, even Dr. Doyle himself—proved the contrary. Mr. Inglis, a staunch Liberal, one whose statements ought to have some weight with hon. Gentlemen opposite, thus writes, I entertain no doubt that the disorders which originate in hatred of Protestantism, have been increased by the Maynooth education of the Catholic priesthood. It is the Maynooth priest, who is the agitating priest; and if the foreign-educated parish priest chance to be a more liberal minded man, less a zealot, and less a hater of Protestantism than is consistent with the present spirit of Catholicism in Ireland, straightway an assistant, red-hot from Maynooth, is appointed to the parish. And again, I look upon it as most important to the civilization and to the peace of Ireland that a better order of Catholic priesthood should be raised. Taken as they at present are from the very inferior classes, they go to Maynooth, are are reared in monkish ignorance and bigotry, and they go to these cures with a narrow education grafted on the original prejudices and habits of thinking, which belong to the class among which their early years were passed. Had the mind, continued the hon. Member, been enlarged and elevated by the instruction given at this seminary —had intolerance ceased—had superstition and spiritual thraldom been banished where Maynooth had had sway, where its influence had been felt—had it taught obedience to the laws, " To render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due? " He was afraid such had not been the case. He must ask, who were they who excited the peasantry in the south against their landlords—who instilled into the minds of their flocks feelings, if not of hatred, at least of jealousy and suspicion, against the Sassenagh and the clergy of the Established Church?—Who drove voters to the hustings, and coerced them by the threat of excommunication—by the fear of being cursed from the altar, as outcasts from their neighbours and their God? He much regretted he was obliged to say they were a large body of the Maynooth priests. He appealed for confirmation to Parliamentary reports. Every page of the evidence taken by the committee on bribery and intimidation in 1838, showed that such was the case. He could prove from evidence he had then with him, the truth of every statement he made, but at that late hour would not trouble the House. Though he spoke of this tyranny and interference, he did so in a very friendly spirit toward his Roman Catholic fellow countrymen. [Ironical cheers from the. Opposition.] Yes, there were thousands and tens of thousands of Roman Catholics who felt as he did, but who, though they groaned under this system of terror, were forced to bow down in seeming humility. There were priests too who would break the bonds, but dare not; who when unwilling to agitate, are immediately saddled with a Maynooth curate who has none of those squeamish scruples. He trusted that the House would not sanction the present system which is fatal to the peace and tranquillity of Ireland—which perpetuates the great curse of that country, religious dissension—which will not allow Irishmen to do justice to their own naturally kind and social disposition—which changes their natural loyalty into abject submission to a demagogue, and their naturally strong religious feelings into superstition and gross bigotry—which instead of affording a loyal British education, for which sole purpose it was established, on the contrary, engenders a bitter sectarian spirit, and hostility, not only to the Established Church, but to the institutions of the State. He hoped hon. Gentlemen, representatives of English constituencies, who, perhaps, judged of the political and religious state of Ireland from that of England—who formed their opinion of the Maynooth priesthood in Ireland, perhaps from some of the liberal-minded, enlightened, most estimable, and deservedly respected clergy, whom they may have met with on the Continent—to pause and examine more carefully the effects of this Maynooth system of education—and then to say, where are the advantages and the blessings which have resulted to that country from it? On that answer he would be content to leave this subject to be decided; but he begged hon. Members, who had not examined this question, not to be deceived by cant phrases about liberality and the advantages of education—by declamations about the interests of seven millions of Roman Catholics. For their sake, as well as for that of Protestants, he now opposed this grant. He asked them to refuse it, or else to change the system. He spoke not as a political partisan—not even as a Protestant—but as an Irishman he would plead for the peace and happiness of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen—" protect them from political religion—save them from designing friends, who would plunge them into agitation and opposition to the laws." In conclusion he entreated hon. Members, who intended voting for this Maynooth grant, for the purpose of affording educational light, to take care they were not creating darkness—who would by it aid truth, to take care they were not disseminating error; who would by it encourage education, to take care they were not poisoning the sources of knowledge—who would by it promote peace, liberality, and mutual good will, to take care they were not ra- ther sowing the seeds of disunion and un-charitableness, the bitter fruits of which we have lately been too largely reaping.

Mr. Howes

considered that the objections raised to this vote involved an attack on the very first principles of religious liberty. The hon. Member for Kent had rested his objections on conscientious grounds, and said that nothing could justify the Government calling upon Protestants to pay for the education of Catholics. If this was a sound objection, why did they call upon the Scotch Presbyterian and the Dissenter to contribute to the maintenance the Established Church? The hon. Gentleman, to be consistent, should become a voluntary, and should not interfere with the consciences of others. The objection of the hon. Member was fatal to their calling upon the country to contribute to the State religion, as well as every other religion. The hon. Member who spoke last did not take the high ground of principle that had been adopted by the hon. Member for Kent, but merely dealt with the vote as a question of expediency, and had chosen to call the Roman Catholic priests educated at Maynooth preachers of disloyalty and sedition. The hon. Gentleman said that he had proofs of this: if this was the case, it was a pity that he did not produce some of them, for the satisfaction of the House. He could not conceive any thing more objectionable than raising such an opposition to a vote to provide for the instruction of the priests of seven-eighths of the people of Ireland. They, night after night, voted sums of money for the religious education of the people of all creeds in the colonies, without the slightest objection; and he was astonished at the spirit of opposition manifested to this paltry vote for the education of Irish priests. He did not pretend to say whether this or that religion was right or wrong, for he left such a matter to the determination of the hon. Member for Kent, in his infallible spirit. He must add that he wished that the hon. Member who spoke last, who so strongly declared that he was a Protestant, had called himself a Christian, for his speech certainly showed that he wanted something of the spirit of Christian charity. He was satisfied that her Majesty's Government would not be influenced by the spirit which was manifested in the speeches of the two hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had always given a consistant support to this vote, and he hoped that the milder spirit that had marked the right hon. Gentleman's course would actuate the House.

Mr. Cochrane

thought that this was entirely a question of expediency, and it was for Parliament to say whether the grant to Maynooth had succeeded or not, and therefore it was for the Parliament to determine whether or not it should be continued. If the principle of the grant was good, they did not give half enough; and instead of voting only 9,000l. a-year they ought to give 90,000l. a-year; by this means they might create a body of clergymen who would be a blessing to I the country instead of a curse. He, however, was opposed to any grant, for as a Protestant he could not conscientiously support a college for the education of priests of a creed opposed to his own.

Sir G. Smyth,

having been subjected to some obloquy in his own neighbourhood for having used the expression "beastly' doctrine," with respect to Roman Catholictenets, and having been also twitted because of publishing a small pamphlet on the subject, trusted that he might be permitted to say a few words. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that no improvement had taken place since 1795 in the conduct of the clergymen: educated at Maynooth, or in the horror or filthiness of the doctrines taught there. Dr. Crotty, in his evidence given before a committee of that House, admitted that Babin and De la Hogue were class books of the College, and any person who had read those books would admit that nothing could be more disgusting. He, perhaps, would have no objection to increase the grant, as it might be that an increase would improve the system of education at Maynooth; for his own part, he would be the; last to interfere with the religion of others, but he felt it to be his duty to defend his: own, and he was satisfied that religion was in danger when the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin used the following words at a meeting of the Catholic Institute: I wish," said the right hon. Gentleman, "to see the day when high mass will be celebrated in Westminster Abbey; and, from the present appearance of things, that event must take place before long. Surely, after such a speech as that, the Protestant religion was in danger. It was said that emancipation would render Ireland quiet, but in his opinion, it was the heaviest blow which had been made against the Protestant religion.

Mr. M. Milnes

could not think that the country or the Church was in such a crisis as to make this vote at all of a dangerous tendency. The extravagant hopes of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin ought not to frighten the House from agreeing to the vote, if they were persuaded that it was expedient on general grounds. So far from believing the present spirit of theology in England was taking the direction of Rome, he believed that it had raised up a barrier against her encroachments stronger than any which had hitherto existed. With respect to the quotations which had been brought to show the objectionable nature of the doctrines taught at Maynooth, objections might be brought in the same way against classical education from the tendency of passages in Catullus and other writers. He felt that this was a subject which the House was not competent to discuss. As to the political question whether the English Government was, or was not, bound to interfere in the education of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, he believed that to neglect that duty, and leave them without any provision for education, would be most cowardly conduct. The greatest, perhaps, of the duties and responsibilities entailed on England by the union was the education of the people. The system introduced by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, had at. least worked well in this way, that it had provided a very good education for the mass of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, although it might have failed to do so as regarded the Protestants. The miserable pittance they were now about to dole out was far from being all they ought to grant. It was far from being adequate to the fulfilment of the duty of the Legislature; but he believed that under present circumstances the most ardent and zealous friends of the Roman Catholic body in Ireland would not think it safe to demand any increase of the grant. If the objection was that the priests were made too Irish at Maynooth, let the present Government endow a college for them at Rome. He would remind the House of Sir W. Raleigh's axiom, There is nothing so terrible in a state as a powerful and authorized ignorance.

Colonel Verner

asserted that there never was in any country—certainly not in England—an institution supported out of the public funds against which such strong charges had been brought, and which charges had been so weakly replied to, as the College of Maynooth. Those charges were founded upon certain doctrines which were taught in books that were acknowledged to be class-books in Maynooth. He would say that the Institution which allowed such charges to go forth, and which took no steps either to explain or contradict them, acted a most dishonourable part. With respect to this grant, he would read an extract from a work, entitled The State in Relation to the Church, by W. E. Gladstone, Esq., Student of Christ Church, and M. P. for Newark. The right hon. Gentleman said— In amount the grant is niggardly; in principle, it is wholly vicious; and it will be a thorn in the side of these countries so long as it is continued. If, indeed, our faith be pledged to the college, let us acquit ourselves of the obligation. He, however, denied that the faith of Parliament was pledged to this grant. When the College of Maynooth was first established, the idea was that permission should be given to erect the college, and that those persons for whose benefit it was intended should support it. In 1808, when Sir Arthur Wellesley was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he expressed himself to this effect in the House of Commons, when the grant for Maynooth was under consideration:— The fact was, that when the Maynooth institution was first established, it was not intended that it should be maintained by the public purse. He afterwards said in reply to Mr. Ponsonby— Whatever might have been the understanding between the Roman Catholics and the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, Parliament did not stand committed by any pledge. It appeared from a return of the amount of subscriptions raised by the Roman Catholics for the support of Maynooth, up to the year 1822, that the sum did not exceed 4,436l.; and he thought when the Roman Catholics themselves did not contribute, they came forward with a bad grace to call on the public for assistance. In a letter addressed to the Earl of Shrewsbury by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, he spoke of the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland in these terms:—Alluding to the dioceses of Westmeath and Armagh, the right hon. Gentleman said, There was not a single clergyman in those extensive dioceses who had not sent in his contribution to the Repeal Association. He believed that four-fifths of the priesthood were in favour of repeal.

Lord Jocelyn

said, he was about to give a vote which would be considered perhaps strange, or even inconsistent; but which would be the result of careful consideration and sincere conviction. He should vote for the grant because it had been for forty years continued, because, although there might be no specific pledge for its continuance, the long prescriptive right gave the Irish people something like a claim; and because the sudden discontinuance might lead to great embarrassment and some hardship to those now studying in the college. At the same time, he hoped the Government would take steps to inquire into the charges made against the college. He would take this opportunity of expressing his gratification at the entire disclaimer, on the part of his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, of any intention to cast discredit on the Protestant clergy of Ireland, whom, the more the noble Lord knew of them, the noble Lord would respect and esteem.

Lord Eliot

confessed that he deeply deplored the revival of a discussion which partook more of the nature of a theological disputation than of a political debate. For forty consecutive sessions had this grant been sanctioned, and nothing in the speeches of to-night had in the least shaken his persuasion of its propriety, while the very men whose authority the gallant Gentleman (Colonel Verner) had cited as opposed to it were in fact the authorities of men who had themselves proposed the grant. The Duke of Wellington, for instance, had proposed it, and by Mr. Perceval it had really been increased, that statesman declaring, that though the principal was bad, yet the faith of Parliament was pledged. In 1795 foreign states had offered facilities for the education of our Catholic priesthood. But it was then deemed very imprudent to leave our Popish priests to receive what would have been a thoroughly revolutionary education, and the arrangement then made had up to the present time been sanctioned and supported by Parliament. It might be defended either on the ground of propriety or of pledge. It would neither be advantageous nor creditable to leave a large portion of our people wholly without religious instruction. Yet this would virtually be the effect of withdrawing the grant and affording no substitute. The charges made against the institution ought to be substantiated ere they were circulated. In 1825 a commission, after a close examination, reported that there was nothing disloyal or immoral in the instruction administered at Maynooth. Those prurient passages would never have been known had not some persons pointed them out for purposes of their own. He begged to say, however, without raising any invidious comparison, that no people possessed greater moral purity than the people of Ireland, where the priests were in the habit of instituting those inquiries which had been referred to. He should therefore much regret, both on Parliamentary and political grounds, the success of the amendment. He could conceive nothing more impolitic; and if hon. Gentlemen, who wished to maintain the connexion between this country and Ireland should oppose the grant, it would appear to him most extraordinary.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he had heard some part of the noble Lord's speech with great pleasure, but there was one expression which he would presently allude to, which had given him pain. The debate he was not sorry for; and if he were at liberty after the speeches that had been made to vote against this grant, he should do so on principle, because he thought no one set of Christians should be called on to pay for the religious establishments of another; and that he would apply to Protestants as well as Catholics. The hon. Member for Colchester was fortunate in his researches— How happy I, who was so studious, To catch thy lore at Cappoducius! He would advise him to take a journey to Oxford. He could produce the last number of the British Critic, and there he could find doctrines that would console the hon. Member for Pontefract, who thought he was getting so close to them (the Catholics) that he would be sure to keep away from them. He did not know what had become of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University; he should not say he had "skulked" away that was an unparliamentary word, and not true in this instance: but he should be glad to know whether he relished those doctrines. He was sorry the gallant Colonel was not in the House; one, at least, of the three colonels had gone away, though he had not fled. He certainly should have thought the gallant Colonel had come reeking from the battle of the Diamond. The gallant Colonel talked against the Catholic clergy; he would ask him what protection they got from the magistrates in the county of Armagh? Was not the town of Maghera sacked? Were not the furniture and property of the inhabitants consumed? Did not the people fly for their lives? And did not that take place in the presence of the gallant Colonel? And was there any human being convicted for it? When the gallant Colonel, then, stood in such a position before the House, the least to be expected from him was, to have treated lightly the Catholic clergy. They had many provocations; they had much to bear. Was it nothing, too, for the Irish gentlemen now to bring up their sons in bitter animosity and rancour against them? [" No, no."] He said, "Yes," using at the same time some flimsy hypocrisy to cover their malignity, but only to make it doubly dangerous. ["No, no."] Why, were not the foulest accusations made against the Catholic clergy? Was there a crime with which they were not charged? But then part was by insinuation only,—less courageous than by open accusation, "But," said the hon. Member for Londonderry, " I know it to be truth; I can prove them." There was not one of those calumnies but was as false as it was foul, as untrue as it was malignant. He who made such charges against the Catholic clergy was a miscreant, unworthy of civilization. He would tell the hon. Member to pack up his charges. He had begun life badly, he began by bringing charges against an esteemed clergy, a clergy beloved by their flocks, a clergy who, when pestilence was abroad, when famine threatened, when death was coming on, when every one else fled, stood by and gave consolation to the people. The typhus fever never appeared in Ireland but hundreds of the Catholic clergy died from their attention to the sufferers; and yet the hon. Member could make such charges against them. Shame upon those who educated him; and yet they were told that these doctrines were creditable! Was not the evidence of every committee which had sat on subjects connected with Ireland for the last thirty years to this effect, that there was no population on the face of the earth who observed all the moral and charitable duties better than the people of Ireland? They were a moral and a religious people. The hon. Member said he never stated the reverse. No. He had only stated that they were educated in obscenity; but it was only in his own filthy and beastly imagination. [" Order."] He begged pardon; it was in the hon. Member's reading, not his imagination; it was in his own study and literature only that he could have made such a discovery. He observed that some of the Gentlemen on the Treasury bench cheered the young Gentleman when he sat down. The people of Ireland would hear of this with surprise and no small disgust. The noble Lord (Lord Eliot) must perceive what kind of party in Ireland this was of which he was the head, but which he regretted that the noble Lord did not lead. He should be sorry to say one ungracious word of the noble Lord, for he was sure the noble Lord did not deserve it; but he wished the noble Lord were able to manage that party which was now seeking to control and govern him. It was an unhappy party. Why did they not attend to their own religion? Why did not they say their own prayers? The gallant Colonel stated that those charges had been made against the doctrines taught at Maynooth, and that they had never been answered. Why, they were the doctrines that were taught throughout the Catholic world. Every controversialist had made the same charges, and whether they were refuted or not, the Catholics had not diminished in the combat. The gallant Colonel said they were immoral. On this point he was ready to meet the gallant Colonel on any fine morning, and probably the hon. Member for Kent would be able to get the use of Exeter-hall for the dispute; but the College of Maynooth and its professors looked with a sovereign disregard, which did not rise to the dignity of contempt, at these charges made against the faith of an overwhelming majority of the Christians throughout the world, against the faith which had remained unchanged in Ireland, against the faith of the ancestors of every one now present. He had rather this sum of 9,000l. was flung to the dogs than that it should be made the subject of this discussion; but when the Catholics were challenged, it was not for them to shrink from the combat. He had heard no accusations, except such as were vague and general, and involved in indefinite terms. They could only be met with an indignant and contemptuous denial. Why, instead of general charges being made, were not attacks made on individuals, and then they could be refuted? He felt it his incumbent duty to fling back these calumnies against the Catholics with scorn and contempt. They might be assailed, but the time would never come when they would be conquered.

Colonel Verner

understood that during his absence from the House the hon. Member for Dublin had referred to circumstances which had occurred at Maghera, and insinuated that he had taken a part.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he would repeat his statement. What he said was, that the village of Maghera was sacked in the gallant Colonel's presence; but he did not say that the gallant Colonel had taken a part in the proceedings. Not a single individual, however, had ever been punished for the outrage to the present day.

Colonel Verner

said, that if no party was punished, that was no fault of his. He had risked his life on the occasion, and seeing a man about to burst open a door with a stone, he had placed his back to the door, though by doing so he ran the danger of being seriously wounded. For this he had been persecuted by the late Government for seven years, at the end of which he was deprived of his commission, which he had held for thirty-two years. He defied any man to say that there had been anything improper or discreditable, or any impartiality in his conduct as a magistrate and a justice of the peace.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that not one word of his charge had been disproved. He had not stated one syllable more than the gallant Colonel himself. But who were the parties that sacked the place? The Orange yeomenry of the north of Ireland, and the gallant Colonel held a high office, among them for many years, though at that time he had ceased to possess it.

Mr. Bateson

It is most painful to roe to be thus obliged,—to be thus compelled, I say, to rise, and notice the coarse invective to which the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, has just given utterance. He has thought right to make a most uncalled for attack on a near relative of mine, lately a Member of this House, and he mentioned the word "miscreant." He has used most coarse terms with respect to the manner in which he brought me up. I will not take the trouble to contradict these imputations, for the House knows their value. And to the House I will leave the character of my relative. Neither will I tell the right hon. Member how I have been brought up; but I will tell him what my relative did not bring me up to be. He did not bring me up to become a cowardly blusterer, or a mendicant hypocrite; he did not bring me up to be one whose only arguments are appeals to the worst passions of the mob, or one whose abuse is the strongest praise.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he perfectly forgave the young Gentleman. ["Order."] In what respect was he out of order? Unless the young Gentleman's memory was bad, he would recollect that he had had ten times as much abuse poured on him, and he was never prouder than when he received it from the young Gentleman, who had given an admirable specimen of what might be expected from him. He had served his country; he had done his duty at a time when a calumnious spirit, and a spirit of unchristian malignity protruded themselves; and he threw back with sovereign disregard the imputations of those who calumniated his creed, and perhaps hated his country.

Mr. Campbell

entreated hon. Members not to be led away by the unfortunate turn which the debate had taken. Credit had been refused to the hon. Member near him for making an honest and honourable speech; it was to be hoped that the noble Lord would take that as a specimen of the sort of maintenance which he might expect from the party who supported him on the present occasion.

The House divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 48: Majority 47.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bowring, Dr
Aglionby, H. A. Brotherton, J.
Ainsworth, P. Bruce, Lord E.
Aldam, W. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Baillie, Col. Clements, Visct.
Baring, hon. W. B. Clive, E. B.
Bentinck, Lord G. Cockburn, rt. hn. SirG.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Colborn. hn. W. N. R.
Boldero, H. G. Corry, right hon. H.
Courtenay, Lord Milnes, R. M.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Muntz, G. F.
Crawford, W. S. Newport, Visct.
Damer, hon. Col. Nicholl, right hon. J.
Denison, E. B. Norreys, Lord
Douglas, Sir C. E. O'Brien, J.
Eliot, Lord O'Connell, D.
Escott, B. O'Connell, M. J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Paget, Lord A.
Flower, Sir J. Palmerston, Visct.
French, F. Pechell, Capt.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Peel, right hon. Sir R,
Gill, T. Peel, J.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W, E. Philips, M.
Gordon, hon. Capt Plumridge, Capt.
Gore, M. Pulsford, R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Rous, hon. Capt.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Sheil, right hon. R. L.
Hamilton, W. J. Smith, rt. hon, R. V.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Somerset, Lord G.
Hawes, B. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Henley, J. W, Stanley, Lord
Herbert, hon. S. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hervey, Lord A. Stewart, J.
Hill, Lord M. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Howard, P. H. Tancred, H. W.
Jermyn, Earl Thornley, T
Jocelyn, Visct. Tufnell, H.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E. Vane, Lord H.
Knight, H. G. Wawn, J. T.
Lambton, H. Wilde, Sir T.
Langston, J. H. Wodehouse, E.
Lascelles, hon. W S, Wood, B.
Leicester, Earl of Wood, G. W.
Lemon, Sir C. Wyse, T.
Lincoln, Earl of Yorke, H. R,
Lindsay, H. H. Young, J. M'
M'Geachy, F. A. TELLERS.
Mangles, R. D. Fremantle, Sir T.
Manners, Lord C. S. Clerk, Sir G.
List of the NOES
Allix, J. P. Kemble, H.
Antrobus, E. Lefroy, A.
Archdall, Capt. Lockhart, W
Blackburne, J. I. Lowther, J. H.
Bradshaw, J. Mackenzie, T.
Buck, L. W. Mackenzie, W. F.
Buller Sir J. Y. Mainwaring, T.
Burroughes, H. N. Masterman, J.
Campbell, A. Morgan, O.
Chetwode, Sir J. Mundy, E. M.
Clayton, R. R. Newry, Visct.
Codrington, C. W, Packe, C. W.
Colvile, C. R Polhill, F.
Duffield, T. Rushbrooke, Col.
Fitzroy, Capt Russell, J. D. W.
Ffolliott, J. Sibthorp, Col.
Forbes, W Smith, A.
Fuller, A E. Smyth, Sir H.
Gladstone, T Stuart, H.
Goring, C. Tollemache, J.
Grogan, E. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Hamilton, Lord C. Verner, Col.
Hardy, J. TELLERS.
Hodgson, F. Plumptree, J. P.
Hughes, W. B. Bateson, Sir R.

The House resumed. The chairman reported progress.

Committee to sit again.