HC Deb 28 April 1845 vol 79 cc1373-432

The Resolution of the Committee on the Grant from the Consolidated Fund for Maynooth was re- ported. On the Question that it be read a second time,

Mr. Law

rose to offer to the attention of the House the Motion of which he had given notice—to move as an Amendment—"That the Report be taken into further consideration on this day six months." His object was, if possible, to negative the proposition of the Government, that the charges, expenses, and burdens of the measure, affecting the question of Maynooth College, should be derived from the Consolidated Fund—and that the permanent State Endowment of that institution should be drawn from the taxes of this country. Repudiating both these propositions, he threw himself upon the indulgence of the House to be permitted to state such reasons as be was enabled to address to them, why the consideration of this Resolution ought to be indefinitely postponed. It was desirable that the attention of the House should be recalled to the principles involved in the leading provisions of this Bill. Those principles were twofold: first, it was assumed to be desirable to make a permanent provision for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and that the source from which that should be derived should be according to the measure of 1795—that is, from the subscriptions and donations of those who wished to continue it; and, secondly, it was suggested that the taxes of this country should be devoted to defraying the permanent charge of this establishment. That was the great feature of this measure—the permanent establishment of a College for the education of the Catholic priesthood at the expense of the State. The concluding prayer of all the petitions which lay on the Table was against this alliance of the State with the Roman Catholic religion, and the permanent endowment of Maynooth out of the taxes of Great Britain. He could not help remarking that both on the first and second reading of the Bill a large proportion—he might say a majority—of the right hon. Baronet's (Sir R. Peel's) own party had deserted him, and he was only enabled to proceed by acquiring the support and resting on the aid of those who were generally opposed to him. The right hon. Baronet had not accompanied the introduction of this measure with any explanation of his ulterior views and intentions with regard to academical education. On that subject they were left totally in the dark. They knew not how many colleges were to be established, what was the nature of the acadedemical education to be given, or what was the sum proposed to be drawn from the pockets of the people to erect and maintain any further establishment. The silence which the right hon. Baronet had observed on introducing the measure, he had maintained up to that moment: what possible reason could he assign for postponing information as to his future plans? Considering the measure as one merely of finance, they were utterly at a loss to discover to what extent it was intended to proceed. They knew not whether the academical institutions were to include religious education in separate colleges; whether or not they were to be simple lay foundations; or whether they were to have the usual adjuncts of fellowships and scholarships. They were utterly ignorant, in short, as to that comprehensive scheme of which so much had been thought and so little said. The labours of the recess, the conferences of the Cabinet, the retirement of two of its Members—connected as they appeared to be with great promise of measures of conciliation and policy about to be propounded—remained to this hour a mystery to be solved—a State secret not yet imparted to the House. When history faithfully represented the transactions of that House, it would be seen that, in producing a measure, the right hon. Baronet had not communicated to his political friends and supporters; the right hon. Baronet had looked for support to his opponents; and that not he—but they—had achieved the triumph—if triumph it could be called, on the two former occasions, when the right hon. Baronet followed but did not lead, the noble Lord opposite into one of the division lobbies of that House. He contended that those who supported the first and second readings of the Bill were in no degree pledged to this Resolution, which did not propose an annual but a permanent and irrevocable grant. He did not hesitate to declare that if this measure passed into a law, it would be impossible on any principle of public faith to retrace their steps, or review their decision. Thenceforth it would be regarded as a debt due from time to time to the Roman Catholic trustees of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. The object of the original establishment of that institution could not too often be referred to. It was rather to enable its trustees to receive donations and subscriptions for its endowment, than for any other purpose. He was influenced by no unkindly feeling towards his Roman Catholic fellow subjects, when he proposed that the State should withdraw from the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church—not from regard to the pecuniary charge, but from regard to the principle which it involved: on that ground alone he should resist to the utmost of his power the application of one shilling of the public money to the permanent establishment of the College. He entertained the most sincere and perfect respect, for his Roman Catholic fellow subjects, and admired those self-imposed obligations of honour which so long excluded them from the enjoyment of equal rights and privileges, and the highest civil employments in the State; but he drew a broad distinction between the grant of equal civil rights to those who had been so long unhappily excluded from them, and a departure from that principle of a Protestant Constitution which was founded at the Reformation, established at the Revolution, and finally sanctioned by the most solemn engagements of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland. If the right hon. Baronet had communicated to the House his scheme of academical education, they might have been enabled to judge how far such a scheme would serve every purpose contemplated by this measure, without any violation of principle—the necessary consequence involved in a grant of the public money to an exclusively Roman Catholic institution. He did not think the right hon. Baronet had dealt kindly with his usual supporters, with respect to this measure—which unsettled everything and settled nothing—which involved a principle mischievous to the last degree, while it conferred a benefit exceedingly small. If the College had been left long ago to the voluntary contributions of the Roman Catholics, who were conspicuous for ardent and liberal charity, it would now have been a flourishing establishment, commanding the respect alike of Roman Catholics and Protestants. Then, let them (the Roman Catholics) take it, he would say, into their own hands, and exhibit to the country the sincerity of their zeal, and the depth and breadth of their charity. In recommending the withdrawal of this grant, he was far from being indisposed to vote ample compensation to individual interests that might be compromised: indeed for every shilling he took away, he would dedicate fourfold to the purposes of general education. Whilst he conscientiously and strongly opposed the present unhappy scheme, it was his desire to support every liberal proposition that did not trench on religious principle, and threaten the sta- bility of the Protestant Establishment. The right hon. Baronet urged the adoption of this Bill as a measure of conciliation; but it would indisputably lead to fresh importunities and renewed attacks on the Irish Protestant Church Establishment; while the right hon. Baronet would, from the avowals he had made in introducing this measure, find himself less able to resist them. This endowment of the College of Maynooth deprived the supporters of it of any just principle of argument on which they could resist the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church. It was the last battle-field of the British Protestant Constitution; and he was satisfied, that though the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield failed the other night, on the first convenient opportunity it would be adopted by the Government. In a political sense, even the lofty mind of the right hon. Baronet might be said to be degraded by the course he had adopted: to have denied the principles of his early life, and to have led into a difficult position those who had rallied round him for ten years—under every vicissitude of political fortune and posture of affairs—was a course calculated to degrade even the right hon. Baronet from his exalted position. In a political sense, the right hon. Baronet had held out a most painful example, that public men were not to be trusted when expediency came in opposition to what they had heretofore maintained to be right. The proper course for the Government, when they found that this institution was not flourishing after so long a trial, would have been this—to compensate fully all existing interests: they would have encountered no difficulties in that course—and then to have said to the authorities of the College—"This institution is an anomaly; it has not flourished; every other Roman Catholic establishment is flourishing; and every other such establishment is supported by voluntary contributions. The time is come when you must cease to derive funds from the State to which in a religious sense you are hostile, to which on religious grounds you are opposed as a rival establishment. We will propose lay foundations of colleges—with scholarships and fellowships properly endowed — and we will educate Christians of every denomination in those colleges, where they shall be freely allowed to obtain the prizes and reap the rewards of merit, literature, and science." He asked whether such a proposition, coming from the right hon. Gen- tleman, would not have been calculated to allay the tempest which had been raised, and have saved all parties the painful and perilous discussion of a second Catholic question? He would leave to the Roman Catholics, by voluntary contributions, to endow and support colleges for themselves exclusively; but he believed there had been no suggestion that the people of England deprecated even the largest concession of general education. There was not a petition on the Table, he believed, that did that—general education he valued because it promoted inquiry, and inquiry led to truth—and the real character of the Christian Gospel. But above all, let the Irish language be taught to every one who entered into an academical institution; that the Scriptures being faithfully translated in the native tongue—and an Irish version impressed with the authority of an Irish University—might be accessible to every tenant of every cabin throughout the realm of Ireland. He entreated the House to reject so much of the measure as endowed Maynooth out of the Consolidated Fund. The proposition was in effect to grant a perpetual annuity out of the taxes of this country to the College—an irrevocable grant, secured on the perpetual income of this country — secured by the State, the faith of Parliament pledged to its continuance. He said irrevocable, because without a breach of public faith it would be impossible to review for the purpose of revoking the grant once made. Of so permanent a character was the grant, that he believed the interest of the College would be that of property—saleable, or on which money could be raised, unless there was some provision inserted in the Bill to prevent it. He concluded by moving, that the Resolution be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Vernon Smith

had looked to find the hon. and learned Gentleman give an answer to the question of where the money to support the College was to come from, if his proposition was adopted; but the only source in which the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to trust was the voluntary contributions of the Roman Catholics, who had declined for fifty years to support the College in that way, though the hon. and learned Gentleman now said they would be glad to do so. With respect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said of the interest of the College in the permanent grant the House was about to make, that it would be saleable, he had heard the statement with surprise, and he did not wonder that the hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer had whispered "Oh no," when the hon. and learned Gentleman said so. With respect to the proposition of the Government, he differed somewhat from those around him. He thought the course which Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House should have pursued was to delay engaging in the earnest advocacy of this question till they saw how it would affect more permanently useful measures of which they themselves were the consistent advocates. In the ecclesiastical state of Ireland there were two enormous evils, the Protestant Church as it at present existed, and the Roman Catholic religion as it at present existed; and it was difficult to say which evil was the greater—the overpay of the Established Church, or the underpay of the Roman Catholic priests. To one of these great evils he thought they ought to have applied a remedy, and he thought the Liberal party ought to have determined what course to pursue on one of them before they gave their adhesion to the right hon. Baronet. Although he saw great advantage in the proposition of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and great advantage in the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church, he saw no "great" advantage in the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. The Established Church ought to be reduced, so as no longer to be offensive to the nation. That would be a political advantage, but he believed they would obtain a religious advantage by curtailing the Established Church. That Church stood as an example to Europe of the evils which arose from an Established Church which did not represent the opinions of the majority of the people. Whenever any one was under the necessity of defending the Church of England among foreigners, he was continually answered by the instance of that part of it which was established in Ireland, and asked if he could defend that? He believed that there was not a statesman on the Continent who could believe that the right hon. Baronet would keep up the Established Church in Ireland. As a legislator, he did not understand the opposition to this measure upon religious grounds; for it appeared to him that those who opposed it seemed to think, that although they committed this sin in the Colonies, they could not do the same thing in Ireland. It was like that very virtuous lady who, being charged with having committed some infidelity, said, "No, it's very false; at least on this side of the Cape." These disputants appeared to have a Cape conscience, and an Irish conscience. As to the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church, he thought it would be a great advantage, and he was prepared to risk everything to obtain it; for the voluntary principle could not, in his opinion, be safely applied to that Church. It might be a matter of dispute in the Protestant Church; but in the Catholic religion, considering that the priest had the power of absolution and of the confessional, it was putting into his hands an engine of the most formidable and dangerous kind. His reason for endowing the Catholic Church in Ireland was to give them an interest in the welfare of the Empire. At the same time, he should wish them to receive such voluntary contributions from their own flocks, that if anything improper were required of them they might say, "We will not do it, but will throw ourselves upon our congregations." That step too was as easily taken as the present. At the same time that he admitted that the grace of this grant consisted very much in the unshackled manner in which it was made, it was, he believed, the first ever given to education without inquiring what the education was; and he remembered what discussions had taken place in that House, not as to who was to be educated, but how. That principle, however, was now thrown aside, and he approved of the wise policy of the Government in adopting that course. He begged not to be supposed to use such rubbish of argument as had been raised by some supporters of the Bill to throw in the eyes of their constituents. He denied that this grant was for educational purposes—it was not merely an increased grant to Maynooth, but a great principle was involved in it, although, perhaps, not a new one. If there were not, why was it ushered in with such form? But he should like to ask whether there was anything in the grant to conciliate the Roman Catholics. For it was idle to rely upon the expressions of their leaders, however able. By one post they heard that even the presence of Majesty could not protect her Ministers if they were in Dublin. By the next they were told that the walls of Conciliation Hall were resounding with huzzas for Sir James Graham. He did not, therefore, rest his vote upon what passed in Ireland. But, what did they propose by this grant? At a certain time they would send away the students from Maynooth with better habits, perhaps, but with a certain share of discontent, at the work at which they were to be employed; and that would rankle into an ambitious desire to raise themselves by what the Irish seemed now to think were the only means—the Repeal of the Union. It astonished him to hear that the proposition was received in Ireland with such raptures. If anything were granted it should have been upon a larger scale, and supplied from the exuberance of the Protestant Church. But, if it were true that they could by 20,000l. a year conciliate the Irish people, then, having delayed it so long, they ought to be the mockery of the whole world. But, it might be asked, why, if he objected so much to it, he should vote in favour of it. His reason was, that though he considered this was a small measure, and one for which it was reprehensible to have excited so much animosity, but which he hoped would lead to other more important measures, or it would be of little value, yet it had achieved these two great ends; as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark said, it had put an end to the religious question on this matter. And here let him say that he could not agree with those who twitted and taunted the right hon. Gentleman with inconsistency; he might very well say he could not be a party to bringing forward the measure, but when it was brought forward give it his support. And he (Mr. Smith) thought that, if the right hon. Baronet himself had taken a similar course in 1829, his character would have been less sullied with inconsistencies than it was at present. [Sir R. Peel: But would you have carried Catholic Emancipation at that period?] The right hon. Gentleman might satisfy his own conscience, but he spoke with reference to his public character. That question he had no right to ask himself, and decide himself. But the other question this measure put an end to was the question of the acceptance of payment by the Roman Catholics. They had by this vote determined that they could not consider it a religious question, and that they were prepared, if expedient, to vote money to the Roman Catholics; and the Roman Catholics by this grant had acknowledged that they could not object to receive further payment. In giving his support to this measure, he must be allowed to express a hope that the right hon. Baronet would not stop here, but that he would pursue a similar line of policy with respect to Ireland. If the right hon. Baronet, not having to fear any difficulties of opposition from hon. Gentlemen around him (Mr. V. Smith) pursued such a policy, he would adopt a course which must ultimately give satisfaction to Ireland, and thereby promote the advantage of the United Kingdom.

Lord Norreys

I cannot shut my eyes to the fact, that there is a very strong feeling out of doors against this measure; nor am I surprised that such should be the case. The Oxford Tractarians have of late created a very great sensation throughout the country, and rendered the minds of the Protestant population of the country peculiarly sensitive as to Roman Catholic doctrines. But I do not think the present question has been properly understood; and certain it is, that great exaggerations and gross misrepresentations have prevailed. The people of this country have in many instances been led to believe that this is a new and a novel grant, proposed now, for the first time, to Parliament; whereas it has existed for fifty years. They have in other instances been led to imagine, that the extension of the grant involves the extension of the Roman Catholic faith; whereas any one who knows anything of Ireland must know that, whether you leave the grant as it is, whether you extend it or withdraw it altogether, the Roman Catholic religion has been, and will continue to be, the religion of the majority of the people. The people have been told, that to vote in favour of the grant is to act contrary to religion. Now, I should be content to rest the defence of my vote on religious grounds alone. The question appears to me to be, not between the Protestant and Roman Catholic faith—not whether you will propagate the Protestant or Roman Catholic faith—but whether the Roman Catholic religion, being the religion of the great majority of the people, you will have that religion taught by an ignorant or well-educated priesthood; and though I differ from the tenets of the Church of Rome, I prefer the Roman Catholic religion to no religion at all. The people of this country have been told that the Income Tax has been kept on for the purpose of paying the Popish priests, as if this small addition to the grant could have affected the continuation of the Income Tax in any the slightest degree—a sum which, though small in amount, I trust will be large in its consequences and effects, as evincing a friendly feeling and conciliatory spirit towards the Irish people on the part of the British Government and British Parliament. The Dissenters have been told that it is unfair upon them; and that if a grant is given to the Roman Catholics, they are entitled to one also. If the proposal was to educate the Roman Catholic priesthood of this country, undoubtedly, the Dissenters would have a fair claim for a grant too; but is there any parallel to be drawn between this country and Ireland? Why, you give a grant to the Dissenters there—you have a Protestant Establishment there—the great majority of the people are Roman Catholics—you have given them a grant up to this time; and it is now proposed to increase the grant, though not even to the same amount as that given to the Dissenters, who are a minority, in order that those who are to read the Word of God, and propagate that Word to the people, shall have a better and more enlightened education, and in affording them a better opportunity of discerning and teaching the lights of the Gospel. It has been said, that it is inconsistent in the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to bring forward a measure of this kind. It is now nearly fifteen years since I have sat behind that right hon. Baronet; and I have never heard him during that period, either by vote or by voice, express any opinion which was to preclude him from proposing a measure of this sort. True it is, he did object to the proposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to take the money from the funds of the Established Church; but to that objection he still adheres. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) said, the other night, that the right hon. Baronet had scattered his great party to the winds by proposing this measure. The right hon. Baronet may have made the move, if he will; but I must say that he has been ably, zealously, and effectually seconded by the speeches which have been made by those who sit around the hon. Member for the University of Oxford; and whether this great party is to be dissolved, must depend, I think, in a great degree, upon the course which is taken by those hon. Members. Not one of them has ventured in this House to repeat those exaggerated statements and inflammatory appeals which have been made out of doors—no one has ventured to use in this House that uncharitable language which has been held out of it. Now, if they allow those exaggerated statements to go uncontrolled, unchecked, and uncontradicted throughout the country—if they pander to the prejudices of the people—if they have not the manliness and the moral courage to stand up to the people, and to tell them that, though they object, and conscientiously object, to the measure, there is less in it than they have been led to imagine—if they take the same vindictive and acrimonious course which was taken by some of the party after the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill—then, no doubt, we shall see similar results; and as in 1830, those who took that course assisted, and were mainly instrumental, in carrying that Reform Bill to which they were directly and diametrically opposed, so they may now, before long, by turning out the Government, be the means of carrying the Appropriation Clause, and, finally, of the overthrow of that Protestant Church in Ireland which they are anxious to maintain. I have never been a party in former years, when on the benches opposite, to any opposition to this grant. I have always looked upon such a course as a breach of faith, and gross act of injustice, towards the Irish Roman Catholics; and I view the extension of the grant as a wise, a just, a necessary, and conciliatory proposal; and, believing that its rejection would be attended by most unfortunate results, I have given, and shall continue to give, notwithstanding the obloquy which it may incur, my cordial, unhesitating, unequivocal support to the measure.

Lord Dalmeny

As I have not yet taken any part in the debate, nor in any way expressed any public opinion on this measure, as I supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and now intend to vote for the measure of the rght hon. Gentleman, I wish to say a few wrds to explain this apparent inconsistency. I highly approve of the spirit and tendency of this Bill. I consider that it is enlightened in principle, and that it will be beneficial in practice. I consider that its rejection would be fatal to the peace of Ire- land, and to the prosperity of the Empire. Accordingly, no consideration would induct me to compromise the safety or endanger the success of this measure. The question of the fund from which this grant should be derived, although of great, is yet of secondary importance. I myself entertain a very strong opinion that the grant should be drawn from the funds of the Protestant Church. Accordingly, I voted for the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield. But the House of Commons have pronounced an opinion against that proposition. Accordingly, I am compelled either to assist in overthrowing the measure, or to afford it my support, though I may disapprove of all its details. Under such circumstances I do not hesitate in giving my vote in its favour. I believe, that with all its faults, it is one of the wisest, and most politic measures that has been passed with reference to Ireland since the removal of the Catholic disabilities. It has been asked, where is the use of concession, when the boon is unthankfully received? Why make efforts to propitiate, when every attempt only multiplies demands? I reply, that concession must advance, so long as one grievance continues unredressed. But, admitting, for the sake of argument, the fact—which I deny—that Ireland will despise the boon which has been tendered, I ask, are we then, to measure out our justice only in proportion to the gratitude of those whom it benefits? Are we to withhold rights, because the return made by those to whom we grant them may disappoint our expectations? Are we to perpetuate oppression, because the affection of those we liberate may fall short of our standard? Is, then, England to be ungenerous, on the calculation that Ireland will be ungrateful? But it is an error to assume the ingratitude of Ireland. She will accept this overture of peace in the spirit in which it is proffered. Not that I believe that this measure will alone ensure the tranquillity of Ireland. No; the wrongs of centuries are not obliterated in a moment. But she will hail this measure as I hail it, as a great advance in the career of conciliation. I should, however, be doing my own opinions injustice, were I not at the same time to declare, that I consider this, or indeed any measure of concession, imperfect, which does not provide for the suppression, or at any rate, the great reduction of the Protestant Church of Ireland. It ought to be swept away, or at least remodelled from its foundation. So long as this monstrous anomaly survives in the undiminished proportions of its colossal injustice, so long must any measure of concession fail to produce a satisfactory result. It may be received with a transient emotion of gratitude, but in the presence of that monument of persecution and oppression, the ancient feelings of irritation must infallibly revive. Have we any right to expect that the Irish Catholics should remain content under such a system? I should myself despise them if they yielded acquiescence to it. They would be unworthy of being our equals if they tamely submitted to oppression. They would be unworthy of being our fellow-citizens if they bowed the neck beneath injustice. I rejoice to find in my brethren of Ireland the spirit of freemen, not the passiveness of slaves. How can I condemn them without offering an insult to the example of my heroic forefathers in Scotland, who resisted to the death the imposition of a strange faith? How can I condemn them, without outrage to the memory of the Protestant patriots of England, who rather than bow to the yoke of a creed they rejected, sacrificed loyalty to liberty, the throne to the altar? What would be the emotions of Englishmen, if they saw West-minster Abbey or St. Paul's consecrated to the devotions of a handful of Roman Catholics, whilst the Protestant multitude of this populous metropolis were forced to hide the worship of their God in the obscure tabernacles of Finsbury or Smithfield? What would be the feelings of Englishmen if, in every parochial church, in every parochial locality, they saw high mass celebrated to a scattered band of heretical worshippers, whilst the Protestant majority wete compelled to resort to consecrated hovels by the wayside, or, prostrate under the vault of Heaven, were striving to catch the tones of their solemn and majestic Liturgy amid the roar of the tempest and the howl of the elements? Yet, what I have stated as an hypothesis for England, in Ireland is a matter of fact. What seems, when applied to England, an hyperbolical fiction, is history when applied to Ireland. Would those petitioners—those who hurl abuse against Catholicism, and denounce every religion but their own—those petitioners who seem to imagine that their piety waxes in proportion to their theological rancour—would they tamely submit to such a grievance?—would they preach patience to their followers?—would they meekly kiss the rod of persecution?—or, would they not rather stir heaven and earth in resistance to such oppression? Why, then, is there to be not only a different law, but a different spirit in Ireland? Why are what are exalted as virtues in one country, to be branded as vices in the other? Why is patriotism in England to be sedition in Ireland? Why is attachment to the faith of our fathers to be reverenced in England—to be persecuted in Ireland? Why is what is lauded in England as impatience of oppression, to be stigmatized in Ireland as a love of tumult and disorder? It is a melancholy truth, that in English history, every event which has contributed to promote the liberties, exalt the glory, or enhance the prosperity of England, has only served to rivet the chains and deepen the misery of Ireland. Why is it that we thus have doomed her to mourn over our triumphs and rejoice over our defeats? Why has every blessing to England been perverted into a curse to Ireland? The Reformation, which expanded the freedom of England, only aggravated the slavery of Ireland. The reign of Elizabeth, to which Englishmen look back with admiration and pride, presents to Irishmen the record of proscription and woe. When England, under Cromwell, was dictating the law to Europe, Ireland, amid the ashes of her cities, was weeping his tyranny in tears of blood. He exalted the name of Englishman to the dignity of that of Roman; he debased the name of Irishman into a synonym with that of slave. The Revolution, which in England hurled a despot from the throne, and built up the structure of her freedom on an imperishable basis, to Ireland was the dawn of a new era of persecution and oppression. Now what, on the other hand, is the solitary epoch in the English annals which Irish patriots point out as glorious and advantageous to their country? That disastrous crisis, when the Empire was dismembered; when England's fate trembled in the balance; when hostile fleets bearded her in the Channel; when hostile hosts menaced invasion; when her own armies were scattered abroad or immured in hostile prisons; when dire necessity wrung from her in the hour of peril the justice she had scornfully refused in the hour of triumph. Is that, I will not say a ge- nerous, I will not say a humane, I will not say a Christian, but is it a wise policy, which can thus turn our successes into a calamity to Ireland, and force her to regard our humiliation as a gain? Is that a prudent policy which has converted the rule over eight millions of loyal and generous hearts, abounding in valour and in virtue, into a source of weakness rather than of strength? Is that a sagacious policy which has produced such results as to lead to a proverbial expression that it were better for the interests of England that Ireland were swallowed up by the waves, than that this nation of brave and intelligent men should exist in the neighbourhood, who only demand justice to make them faithful subjects and allies? I shall indulge in no observations partaking of a spirit of partisanship—I shall cast a veil over the past, and look forward to the future. If the Ministers have been inconsistent, if they have departed from their former principles, at least their apostacy is of a noble character—it is from folly to wisdom, from bigotry to toleration. Let them be consistent in following out the new policy they have adopted. If they have been inconsistent in wrong, let them be consistent in right. What Ireland requires is a Minister who should have genius to conceive, and boldness to propose some grand scheme for her pacification—who, unscared by the clamour of partisans or the rage of fanatics, should unfold his plan at once in one comprehensive whole, and who should announce his resolution to stand or fall by its success. It is true that he might fail in the outset of his career. His first attempt might succumb beneath bigotry and prejudice. He might be the victim, before he became the leader of public opinion. But his martyrdom would ensure the triumph of his cause. He would become the rallying point of the wise, the polar star of the just, and public opinion, gradually reclaimed from its errors, would at length enlist itself under him who had denounced them and proclaimed the policy to retrieve them. But in vain I look round for such a Minister. In the absence of such a statesman, we must content ourselves with reformation in detail; we must dole out justice by instalments, and apply the lancet to abuses which stand in need of the axe. Hence, I shall give my vote in favour of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. My constituents are as hos- tile as I am friendly to this measure. But shall I weigh their good will against the welfare of Ireland? Shall I balance their pleasure against the safety of the Empire? Shall I dwell on my own interests when the interests of the commonwealth are at stake? No, Sir; were my vote to-night not only to forfeit their favour, but to doom me to a sentence of perpetual exclusion from public life, I would say, Perish all aspirations after public utility—perish all hopes of public distinction—perish all visions of ambition or renown—still let this measure prevail.

Sir Charles Douglas

congratulated the noble Lord (Dalmeny) on the general tone of his speech, as being in accordance with the example which had prevailed through these debates, and which he would endeavour to follow. He wished, however, that the noble Lord had not, even in a hypothetical manner, indirectly shown any party feeling. The Bill under discussion had been described as having no principle, and being a mere pitiful expedient. He thought that its principle was the same on which the Legislature had acted for fifty years, and that the expediency of the measure was an honest endeavour to render that principle more efficacious. It was said that the gentlemen in office had climbed into power on the back of this very subject, and that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had turned round on those principles against those who formerly gave him their support. On this question, he (Sir C. Douglas) had given a consistent vote during eight Sessions. On both sides of the House, he had voted on this question with those now at the head of affairs; and he denied the charge of inconsistency. The present Government succeeded to office in consequence of their predecessors having lost the confidence of the country, on every question of foreign and domestic policy. The late Government obtained office in 1835, by asserting a principle; and to keep office, in 1838 they abandoned that same principle. He would contradict the assertion, that on the question before the House the Government had deceived any one. He did not feel that he was acting contrary to the principle involved in every vote he had given for any grant to Maynooth. One of the leaders of the opposition to this Bill, whose opinion was always conscientious, the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre) said on the question of a grant to Maynooth, in September, 1841, "he felt it his duty to differ from the right hon. Baronet, but he was delighted to see him occupying the place he did, and to know that he was free as the wind to act as an independent Minister, and determined to do his duty to his country." Sir Robert Peel, on that occasion, stated that He rose to prevent any mistake as to his motives for proposing and supporting the grant. He did not do so because one half of the money had been voted before he came into office, for he had voted for the grant to Maynooth for thirty years, in office and out of office, without feeling any violation of religious scruples. Thus there was the recorded authority of the hon. Member for Kent, that, on this question, the right hon. Baronet was free as the wind in 1841; and the right hon. Gentleman's own words in that year, stating that for thirty years he had acted on the very principle to which this Bill would give a chance of success, which at least, together, were sufficient to refute the charges of inconsistency against the supporters of the Bill, and also to deny that Government had turned round on this question, or deceived any one. It had been objected to this Bill, that it made an annual vote into a permanent endowment. He (Sir C. Douglas) thought the term endowment was improperly applied If the property of the Church were confiscated, and Parliament gave the Church Establishment an annual charge on the Consolidated Fund instead, would the churchmen still consider he had the benefit and stability of an endowed church? Would it not be contended that, as in the cases of the incomes of the Royal Family, which were not annual votes, but annual charges on the Consolidated Fund, that Parliament could as easily control an annual charge, as make an annual grant? He thought the term endowment was misapplied, and that the only change proposed to be made was, in truth, to abolish the temptation which an annual vote gave to annual party religious contentions. Over every charge on the Consolidated Fund, Parliament had power, and to that power he would trust, whenever any such charge as this might be abused. He thought the alteration proposed on this point, a recommendation of the Bill. Of the principle of this Bill, as contained in its spirit, he fully approved; he meant the conciliation and kind feeling it held out. The way in which it was offered seemed to say, we are about to act on the rule of "Do unto others as you would they should do unto you;" and the spirit which had prevailed in the debate seemed to be the same, even from the opponents of this measure; for the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire (Ashley), had stated "that there was no concession short of a concession like this he would not make for the benefit of Ireland." He (Sir C. Douglas) rejoiced to hear such language from such authority; for though the noble Lord would vote against this Bill, such expressions from him were calculated to do good in Ireland, and would be hailed with joy; although he opposed this Bill on religious scruples, he had added, "and if he thought that this concession would really content the people of Ireland, he would hesitate before he gave a negative to this measure." Surely, then, no one who agreed with the noble Lord would find fault with those who supported this Bill, thinking that its spirit would tend to that contentment which he avowed would lead him to hesitate when about to act on religious scruples. That the Union would be maintained, no one could doubt. He (Sir C. Douglas) defended the Church Establishment as the church of the majority of the United Kingdom. No one could maintain the principle that a minority could or ought to govern; and he implored Irish Protestants to accept the benefit of the assumption—that their church is that of the majority; and he believed that by acting in the spirit of this Bill the Union would be cemented—that assumption would be the nearer the fact, and therefore you could the more effectually maintain the Established Church. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford), whose opinions were always honestly expressed and sincerely entertained, had stated as his reasons for opposing this Bill— That it was a most Conservative one; without paying the Roman Catholic Church, he knew that it was impossible to maintain the Established Church in Ireland for any lengthened period; and being most anxious to see its removal, which the present measure would postpone, he would give it his strenuous opposition. He (Sir C. Douglas), thought that the present measure would tend to strengthen the Union and the Established Church, and therefore it would have his support. Why was it that Ireland, with its soil, climate, situation, agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, was the most poor and dissatisfied of nations? Why was it that instead of the progress made against the errors of the Roman Church wherever it was fairly met elsewhere, in Ireland, after 300 years, the errors of that church prevailed with such a vast majority? He thought the answer was well expressed by the noble Lord (Ashley), who in these debates had said, "that the whole history of Ireland demanded not only the sympathy but the repentance of the British nation; that he could not read those terrible records without feelings of shame and sorrow." The reasons for proposing this Bill, and supporting it, had been better given by others; and in many of them he (Sir C. Douglas) concurred. He would only now add that he had presented a petition signed by thirteen of his constituents, praying the House to "refuse any measure which may be contrary to the obvious principles of the Protestant faith, and thereby calculated to endanger the stability of the Throne and the peace of these realms." If such could be the effect of this Bill, no one would more strenuously oppose it; but he looked on this Bill only as an honest attempt to conciliate and content Ireland, without at all affecting the Church of England. He felt the greatest pain in being compelled to differ on this important Bill with some of his best and most valued friends; his constituents generally had trusted to his unbiassed judgment, and he therefore the more felt his responsibility. His consolation was that, with those friends, and a majority of his constituents, his end was the same; his anxiety was to give a right vote; he knew it would be an honest one, and being satisfied that the increase of the grant, and the alteration of its provision, could not injuriously affect the Church of England and Ireland; that it would tend to give peace to that country; and looking also to the consequences of rejecting this Bill, he felt bound to give it his decided support.

Mr. Hawes

had intended to propose that this grant should be annual as well as that of the 9,000l.; but he had observed in that House, and more particularly out of it, such a spirit of recrimination that he was persuaded if a discussion was annually raised, it could only tend to alienation, animosity, and discord. As to the principle of this measure, he could only repeat that if the Catholics of Ireland were told they could be governed by England only on the principle of Protestant ascendancy, the strongest arguments were furnished to the advocates of Repeal to come to that House and demand a separate Legislature. After the admission of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, that Protestant ascendancy could no longer be upheld in Ireland, he felt he should be wanting in his duty if he did not support a measure which indicated a new line of policy towards that country, on which we had so long committed such grievous injustice. He had another reason for supporting this measure—it would pave the way for the reform of the Protestant Church, and thus tend to cement that union which was every day drawn closer by the material interests of the two countries, than even by the principles of Government under which they subsisted. This measure was worthy of support in this sense too, that it was a more definite declaration of the justness of the appropriation principle than any proposal that a Government of this country had made for years. As a mere money grant the sum asked was a trifle. He admitted it saddled this country with the payment of a permanent sum; but it should be remembered that Ireland remitted annually to this country a large sum wholly independent of her establishments. He denied this was an endowment of the Catholic Church; it was a mere education vote for the College of Maynooth. There was nothing to prevent lay students from availing themselves of the education given at Maynooth. Up to 1817 lay students had been received there, and the discontinuance of that system of mixed education was caused by the Government, and not by the clergy. He had heard this grant strongly opposed by the adherents of the voluntary principle. But a grant wholly unfettered by any condition was no more than a private endowment, and such endowments were not, he believed, repudiated by any class of Dissenters. He would not repeat the assertion that the Church now endowed had wholly failed. According to the account of Sir W. Petty, the Catholics 200 years ago were only in the proportion of three to one; by the last census they were seven and a half to one. He thought it right to get up and say why he abstained from pressing the proposal for an annual vote, which he had on a former occasion intimated he should make.

Mr. Hindley

respected the sincerity more than the arguments of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hawes). He was sure the opinions advanced by his hon. Friend would give great pain to his constituents, who entertained very different views. The objection of his hon. Friend to an annual vote of this grant, amounted to nothing but the old argument against annual Parliaments. His objection to popular discussion, considering his liberal views, was most extraordinary. Now he so far differed from his hon. Friend, that he acknowledged that if this vote was made an annual one, many of the objections which Dissenters had to it would be removed. But now the vote was fixed at 26,000l. a year. It was a proposal, in fact, to hand at once 100,000,000l. out of the Consolidated Fund for the College of Maynooth. He was aware that they who opposed that grant were charged with bigotry. "Why object," it was asked, "to give this sum to your Catholic fellow subjects—why object to conciliate Ireland?" To this he should answer, that if such a grant was proposed for his own church, which, instead of being the most was the least numerous, he should give it just as strenuous an opposition as he did to this grant for Maynooth. And as to Ireland, he was sure that no man was more anxious to give her every measure of justice which she had a right to demand. And he could say honestly, that he would rather give his vote for a Repeal of the Union, than in favour of this proposition, which he thought involved much more serious consequences to the welfare and benefit of the country. He thought it rather hard that the Dissenters should be charged with bigotry and intolerance. They had ever been the friends of civil and religious liberty. If this measure was rejected, said the right hon. Member for Dungarvon, Ashton-under-Lyne would be illuminated. Little did the right hon. Gentleman understand the principles and feelings of his constituents. They would illuminate not for a night, but for a month, to secure justice to Ireland. They were always desirous that she should be placed exactly on the same footing as this country. As for any bigotry towards the Catholics, he could only say that he had himself voted for the annual grant to this very College. Suppose two men were to quarrel in the street, and one was very roughly handled by the other, would it be fair for the aggressor to say to a passer by, "This poor man has suffered very much, give him a shilling." The obvious answer was, "Why don't you, who inflicted the injury, pay the penalty?" On what principle could the Dissenters of England—who supported their own ministers, chapels, and colleges—be called on to pay a permanent grant to the College of Maynooth, with the view of conciliating the Irish people, and making some amends (if it could be said to do so) for the past injustice of those who ruled that country? He had no doubt that if the right hon. Baronet now said—"I must retrace my steps—I see that this proposal is contrary to the feelings of the people of England—these poor Catholics must get some assistance, and in order to meet public opinion, I propose to give them 26,000l. by annual vote;"—he believed, however strong the feelings of the Dissenters as to the permanent grant, he could induce them to assent to this modification. But that this assistance should be given through this Bill they most decidedly objected; for after the speeches of the noble Member for Liverpool, of the noble Member for the city of London, of the right hon. Gentleman who had left the Cabinet, and of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, they were filled with alarm, and could not see where such proposals were to end. Was this an isolated measure? He should like to hear some Members of the Government get up and say what was the whole policy to be pursued with regard to Ireland. If it was an isolated measure, it raised hopes it was never intended to satisfy. If it was one of a series of measures, then the fears of the people of England were not half so great as they ought to be. Let the Government tell the House what it meant. Were they going to send the Queen to Ireland with gilt gingerbread? The Irish were children if they would be satisfied with any such thing. He would bid higher for their favour; and those who acted with him would prove that they were better friends of the Irish than those who made such high professions. He remembered when the hon. and gallant Colonel the Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) had on one occasion proposed that the annual grant to Maynooth should be discontinued, the hon. and gallant Colonel the Member for Armagh (Colonel Verner) who sat by his side, had concurred with him, and the hon. and gallant Colonel the Member for the county of Sligo (Colonel Perceval) also supported him, and formed a trio; on that occasion Mr. O'Connell said he should certainly divide with the hon. and gallant Colonel if he put the House to a division; "for," said he, "the Roman Catholic religion is not to be supported by such a paltry grant as this. The support of religion ought to be voluntary; it ought to be able to support itself." It was on that occasion that Mr. O'Connell gave vent to one of the brightest flashes of wit that his genius had ever given birth to in that House. "Oh," said he, "these gallant Colonels, they are the Church Militant— 'Three colonels in three distant counties born, 'Lincoln, Armagh, and Sligo do adorn; 'The first in face surpassed, the next in jollity, 'The third was famed for his sobriety. 'The force of nature could no further go 'To beard the first, she shaved the other two.' Oh let them not spend their time in squabbles with respect to differences in religion! He respected the Catholics, as he desired himself to get to heaven, which he believed they all sought. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark had not thought it worth his while to detain the Mouse two minutes by any allusion to the voluntary principle, because he did not think it practicable. He thought it was far more practicable to establish the voluntary principle in Ireland, than to govern Ireland with a dominant Church of a minority. What did the voluntary principle do? In the first place, what did it do to the Dissenters' chapels? They had some 10,000 or 11,000 churches, and there were 8,000 or 9,000 Dissenters' chapels. The voluntary principle had thus almost equalled in number the places of worship which the compulsory system had built in the course of centuries. The voluntary principle had subscribed 925,000l. a year some seven years ago towards the maintenance of its ministers at these places of worship; and he did not doubt but that that sum now amounted to nearly 1,000,000l. The expenses annually, in repairing and cleaning chapels, was estimated at not less than 1,000,000l. It was also estimated that not leas than 168,240l. was annually spent in charitable societies; whilst the Independents supported a theological academy, at which 220 students were educated, at an expense of 7,000l. or 8,000l. a-year. There were similar academies amongst the Baptists and Wesleyans; so that altogether not less than 30,000l. a-year were spent in supporting these academies. The sums annually raised by the Dissenters for the support and spread of the Gospel at home and abroad amounted to not less than 837,000l.; at the present time he did not doubt but that sum amounted to 700,000l. or 800,000l. Lastly, he would refer the House to the sums raised by Churchmen for the support of their own worship on the voluntary system; for he rejoiced to say that the voluntary system had made way in the Church, and was now very vigorous in it. In Manchester ten new churches had been built, and in his own neighbourhood two or three, on this principle. The amount raised altogether by the voluntary principle was between 3,000,000l. and 4,000,000l. of money—not raised by the rich, but by the middle and lower classes. He therefore did think it rather too hard that they should now be called upon to support an additional endowment for an additional Establishment (for to that this grant must lead, if their arguments went for anything), and especially when it was for the teaching of principles which they did not avow. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool said, that this proposal was a little restitution. The noble Lord the Member for London had said, that the argument went to endow the Roman Catholic clergy, and he was willing to vote for that proposition whenever it was made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark had said, that the proposed grant was a restitution of 6d. in the pound, and it ought to be 20s., and as honest men they ought to pay it; and then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh said, "Don't you see what fine buildings you have stolen from them in Oxford and Cambridge, and cannot you give them a decent building at Maynooth?" What did they mean by restitution? Why did they not propose it? He might not think an endowment wise, but he might not on principle object to a restitution. He contemplated the proposed alteration with great alarm, and thought it a step in the wrong direction. If the right hon. Baronet had thought it his duty to give additional comfort to the students at Maynooth he (Mr. Hindley) should not have felt himself called upon to give his strenuous opposition to such a measure, because he should not have thought that it involved in it all that fatality which was involved in the proposal now before the House.

Mr. John Round

said, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the present condition of the College of Maynooth, and he thought it highly desirable that something should be done for the elevation of the character of that institution. He regarded the present measure as one purely of civil polity, and as such he should give it his cordial support. He was convinced that if this measure did not pass, an irresistible impulse would be given to Repeal; whereas the concession of the measure would induce a grateful return from the Irish people. He was not weak or foolish enough to expect a grateful return from the arch-agitator, but he had a faithful reliance on the representations made of the Roman Catholic body by the right hon. Member for Dungarvon, the hon. Member for Roscommon, and a noble Lord, the representative of a noble race, who spoke the sentiments of the Roman Catholic aristocracy. He (Mr. Round) believed the measure would have a beneficial result, and therefore he should give it, not a weak, or hesitating, but an honest and sincere, a hearty and cordial, support.

Mr. Brotherton

would wish to do justice to Ireland, without doing injustice to the Dissenters of England. The Irish Roman Catholics stood in a different relation to the Established Church than the Dissenters. He did not think the Dissenters had a fair claim to any church property. But with regard to the Roman Catholics of Ireland it must be recollected that they constituted seven-eighths of the population, and that they had been despoiled of their ecclesiastical revenues, and were compelled to support a Church from which they could derive no benefit. Although he approved of the object of the Bill, he wished that the end should be accomplished by proper means. He had voted for the Appropriation Clause, and for every measure calculated to ameliorate the state of the Irish people. They had an Established Church in Ireland, which did not answer the end for which it was established; and Government had the means in their own power for doing all that was required for the Roman Catholics of Ireland without doing injury to any body. He should not have hesitated to support an increased grant; but the noble Lord the Member for London had said, that this was not merely a grant, but that it involved a great principle—that it was the precursor of a great many other measures. He, therefore, began to consider where this principle might lead him. Was he to vote an unlimited sum out of the pockets of the Dissenters for the endowment of another Church in Ireland? They had been told that night that the Dissenters subscribed between 2,000,000l. and 3,000,000l. annually in support of their establishments; they were half the population ("No"'): he believed that in Lancashire they were, and, besides, they had a strong feeling on this question. He would be no party to a bigoted and intolerant "No-Popery" cry. He did not look upon the various denominations of Christians as antagonists, but as one great Christian family, each class having its mission, and all operating together for the general welfare and happiness of society. The hon. Member concluded by staling that he could not bring his mind to vote for taking the amount for Maynooth out of the Consolidated Fund, more especially as the Bill before the House appeared to him to be the precursor of measures of which no one could see the end.

Mr. Borthwick

had not intended to address the House on this subject, but that the hon. Member had changed his Motion from a Motion as to the place from which the money was to come, into a Motion which brought again before the House the whole principle of the Bill. The present discussion might, in fact, be said to be a discussion upon the entire principle of the Bill. He had not been so fortunate as to obtain an opportunity of addressing the House, otherwise he would have stated his reasons which induced him to support the Bill. In supporting this measure he was aware that he was about to vote against that large, sincere, and patriotic excitement which had loaded the Table of that House with so many petitions from all parts of the country, and against those for whom he entertained the greatest deference and the most profound respect, and to whom he could, under any future circumstances, only refer with the deepest personal gratitude. He could have no object of a personal character in supporting the present measure of Her Majesty Government. He did not regard this measure on account of assistance which it contributed towards the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland. He valued it rather on account of the disposition it evinced. He believed that a new era was commencing, in which the union and prosperity, the peace and happiness of Ireland would be promoted. He believed that the present measure was calculated to lead to the best results between the two countries. The House had been asked by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, the right hon. Member for Devon port, and others, to consider how far the consistency of public men bore upon public measures — whether the Mouse ought not, in consistency, to refuse to support a measure of this kind, whether good or bad, because it had been brought forward by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government? The hon. Member for Shrewsbury, in expressing his opposition to this measure, talked of sublime mediocrity, and of an organized hypocrisy. But if the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, when he spoke of the advantage of a constitutional Opposition, would consider what might be the character of that Opposition, he might find that it was composed of a hypocrisy not always organized — of a mediocrity that was not always sublime. The movement which had been commenced by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had been followed up by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury had a perfect right to make the remarks which he did, and to state the reasons why he thought it inconsistent to vote for the measure of Her Majesty's Government. But he thought that the case was somewhat different with respect to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh. That right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the late Whig Government—a Government who, when in Opposition, by manœuvres as artfully framed as the rules of Parliament would admit, did in 1835 upset the Government of the right hon. Baronet. That Government, in Opposition, had brought forward the Appropriation Clause, but, when in office, they abandoned that principle, and allowed it to slumber in the breast of the hon. Member for Sheffield, who was its consistent supporter. From 1830 to 1840, the late Government had abandoned that question; and when the right hon. Gentle, man called upon the House to look to the consistency of honourable men, he ought rather have first looked to the consistency of the course that had been pursued by that Government of which he was a Member. These accusations of the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of the lines of Pope, who, speaking of the prudery of a lady not very remarkable for her virtue, said— Just as some blockhead rubs his thoughtless skull, And thanks his stars he was not born a fool. Now for a proof of the inconsistency of the late Government, we need not go further than to refer to their conduct with respect to the Appropriation Clause. However, he would vote for the present Bill, even though the Government might have been inconsistent in bringing it before the House. He had heard it said that they should look to measures, not men; and he had heard others say that they should look to men and not to measures. Now, he thought that the parties who uttered those expressions were partly both right, and partly both wrong. Now, he would wish to know what there was in the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, either in or out of office, which made him open to the charge of inconsistency with reference to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, he believed, had been for upwards of thirty years in Parliament, and he believed that never in any one instance had he opposed the grant to Maynooth. The grant had been proposed by Mr. Pitt in 1795, and certainly there was nothing inconsistent in the Tory party continuing and enlarging a grant which had been proposed by Mr. Pitt, and sanctioned by George III. It had been urged that to change this grant from an annual into a permanent endowment, would be to convert it into a perpetuity; but he was at a loss to know what there was in the law or practice of that House to prevent any hon. Member from moving a repeal of this Act of Parliament if it should be found that in any way those funds had been misapplied. The House had been reminded by an hon. Member who had spoken that evening, that those who wished for this measure would not vote in accordance with the opinions or the feelings of the constituent body of England. On this subject he might refer to the celebrated speech of Mr. Burke to his constituents at Bristol, in 1774, in which that distinguished man said,— Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a Representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions to theirs; and above all, ever and in all cases to prefer their interests to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the laws and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your Representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. He thought that on the present occasion he was best serving his constituents by exercising that free judgment with which he was sure that at no distant time they would fully concur. He was sure that whatever the consequences might be to him, he would feel more satisfaction at having honestly performed his duty than if, by pursuing a different course, he had betrayed what he conceived to be the interests both of his constituents and his country. When he looked to the petitions with which the Table was loaded, he could not help looking at that agitation by which the mighty mind of this country had been excited on this question; when he saw the agitation that had taken place in Liverpool and other parts of this country, he would venture to say that those petitions which had resulted from this agitation did not represent the honest mind of the people of this country. Those whom he addressed wished to support the Established and Reformed Church of that country. And he would call attention to some proceedings, which had appeared in an Irish newspaper, and which took place at a meeting of "The Priests' Protection Society," presided over by a nobleman whose name was synonymous with everything that was patriotic and good—the Earl of Roden. The proceedings of this meeting commenced with a prayer, in which the meeting besought the Divine protection for the society, and prayed that the priests who were now the blind leaders of the blind, might be enlightened, and that the Holy Spirit might so take possession of their hearts and enlighten their minds as to induce them to come out of the spiritual Babylon, where they were in danger of perishing. Now he thought that the use of such language as that was inconsistent with the charity which distinguished the Church of England. That Church extended its toleration to Jews, Turks, Heretics, and Infidels; and he thought that it was inconsistent with the Christian charity which distinguished that Church to use language of this description. Now, as an illustration of the means of agitation that were resorted to, to stir up the public mind on this question, he might mention that he had heard it stated that a gentleman, turning out of a church in Cheltenham, encountered an elderly lady—and she asked him whether it was really true that Maynooth was going to be built in Cheltenham. This lady was evidently afraid that the Pope was about to take up his residence in Cheltenham, and she did not know what might be the result. He thought that every Member of that House who took upon himself the responsibility of passing this Bill, ought to be able to give a reason for undertaking that responsibility. He was prepared to give reasons drawn from the depths of our constitutional history. When they looked to the fabric of this mighty Empire, which was spread over all parts of the globe—when they recollected the fact that England, to a certain extent, was responsible for the march of enlightenment and civilization, and for spreading the blessings of Christianity amongst mankind, he asked whether this was a measure to which they could refuse their assent. In India, they were supporting religions that were repugnant to Christianity. In India, in Malta, in Canada, in Trinidad, they had endowed the Roman Catholic religion; and why, then, should they deny to the Roman Catholics of Ireland the charitable countenance of that faith which they supported in other parts of the world? It had been asked, whether, with respect to this measure, he would be willing to trust to Mr. O'Connell and the Roman Catholic priests? He admitted that he would not; but he would trust to that by which he was never deceived—he would trust to human nature. Let them treat Ireland with kindness, and such a course of policy must produce satisfactory results. It had been said that the Church of Ireland was a missionary church; but let them recollect that that Church for three centuries had proclaimed the truth without making any additional conversions; and why was this but because the system with which she had been connected had shrouded her and prevented her from standing before the people of Ireland in her naked simplicity and beauty. The English Reformation had not been promoted by Henry VIII.; it had not descended from the higher to the lower classes, but had ascended upwards from the people to the aristocracy — from the people who had listened to the preachings of Wickliffe and his followers. Let that Church get fair play in Ireland, and it would advance. Mr. Burke, whose opinions he had already referred to, had stated that the agitation amongst the people of Ireland was not about Popes, but about potatoes; and that it was not the spirit of zeal which raised rebellion in Ireland but the spirit of whisky. The truth was that, after all, it was chiefly physical relief that the people of Ireland needed. But one great accessory to the promotion of this great object, would be the exhibition of a soothing and conciliatory spirit. He would never support any measure affecting the rights and revenues of the Established Church of Ireland; but the proposal of Government involved no such step. The hon. Gentleman concluded by reiterating his approval of the Government Motion.

Mr. Fox Maule

said, that after the patient hearing which had been granted to him on a former occasion, he regretted now to trouble the House. He thought it, however, right to notice some allusions which had been made to him, and his conduct out of the House, with respect to this measure. The hon. Member for Sheffield had gone somewhat out of his way to attack him for having attended a public meeting; and had endeavoured to make him responsible for language there held. Now, he did not conceive that a person present, or even presiding, at a public meeting, was to be held responsible for all that fell from speakers there, in the heat of argument and debate. Moreover, he thought that some allowance should be made for language used at these meetings; because it was the only opportunity and occasion for giving vent to those feelings; and moreover it was somewhat excusable, inasmuch as the fear of an answer was not always before their eyes. Again, with respect to the resolutions adopted at those meetings, he was no more responsible for them than he was for a Resolution, or a Notice of Motion in the shape of a Resolution, of that House, first given, then postponed, then altered; and at last brought forward, when its proposer acknowledged he would not have pressed it if it endangered the measure now before the House, and when its supporters avowed they would not vote for it if it caused any danger to that Bill. He looked upon the use of this language as a safety-valve for strong public opinion. It was in such places as these meetings that public opinion got vent; and, however strong the language might be, the public had a right to express their opinions, and it was better for the House to hear them. In voting for the Motion of the hon. and learned Recorder, he (Mr. Fox Maule) did so with the simple view of putting a stop to the measure itself. The right hon. Baronet had said, that with respect to the principle, hon. Members were pledged by their conduct with respect to the Charitable Bequests Act of last year; but it was hard that those who consented to a Bill with a clause enabling parties to endow certain establishments on the voluntary principle, should be pledged to the general endowment by the State of such institutions, or to the endowment of a Roman Catholic seminary exclusively for the education of the priesthood; and ultimately, as he believed it would turn out, to the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church. Notwithstanding the silent vote he might have given on that Bill, and notwithstanding he might have voted on former occasions in favour of the grant to Maynooth, he held himself at liberty to judge of this as a new and permanent measure, and leading, as he believed, not only to the endowment of Maynooth, but to the future endowment of the Catholic clergy. His noble Friend on this side of the House looked forward to that measure with sanguine expectation; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not say that it was impossible to happen: no one, indeed, denied that the present measure might lead to that event, and so he had a right to judge of it. Now, the grant was to be taken from the Consolidated Fund, a considerable part of which arose from taxes paid by the people of this country. Some Gentlemen said that the sum was so paltry it was not worth contending about. It was true the people did not care about the money; they had proved their generosity in granting an enormous amount of Income Tax, and they were not likely to quarrel about a sum of 26,000l. It was the principle they quarrelled with; for they thought it hard that the grant should be taken not only at their expense, but in violation of their conscientious feeling. It had been said that a "No-Popery" cry had been raised against the measure. He did not exactly know the meaning of that word. Did it mean the "No-Popery" cry previous to 1829? That cry was then raised against the possession by Roman Catholics of civil privileges. If it were proposed to give a Roman Catholic a vote for a Member of Parliament, or a seat in Parliament, then the cry was raised that the Protestant Constitution of the country was invaded. That he called a "No-Popery" cry. But here it was proposed to give to the Roman Catholics more than the mere concession of civil privileges. It was proposed to endow a Roman Catholic seminary, principally for priests, without any supervision from the State; and leading (in the opinion of some) ultimately to the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church itself. Surely men had a right to express their opinion on this subject, without being charged with raising the cry of "No Popery." But if that cry was complained of now, why had it not been complained of before? Was it not raised against Lord Melbourne's Government in 1837, 1838, and 1839, in all its original power? If the Government talked of dealing with municipal corporations in Ireland, they were met with that cry; and by whom? By the party of which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were the members and leaders; they neither disclaimed it then, nor endeavoured to put it down. On the contrary, they made all the use of it they could. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had stated, that he had always disclaimed proceedings founded on the cry of "No Popery." He must say, that while he sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and the cry of "No Popery" was raised against the Government to which he belonged, he never heard any disclaimer of it by the right hon. Gentleman; and when he found that it was stated the other day by a most respectable individual that the right hon. Baronet, when opposing the measure of Lord Melbourne's Go- vernment, did, while addressing a highly important body of men from Scotland, give countenance to that "No-Popery" cry, he (Mr. Fox Maule) thought they had a right, on this occasion, to receive from the right hon. Gentleman a public explanation of the course which he followed in regard to that cry when he was in Opposition. He perceived that at a meeting held the other day at Glasgow, a most extraordinary statement was made by the Rev. Dr. Buchanan. He (Mr. Fox Maule) had read that statement with considerable surprise. He could not believe it; and yet, knowing the gentleman who made it, he could not conceive it possible that there had been any wilful misrepresentation on his part on the subject. He (Mr. Fox Maule) therefore wrote to Dr. Buchanan for an explanation. The passage in Dr. Buchanan's speech at Glasgow the other day, which contained the quotation from the address of Sir Robert Peel, to which he (Mr. Fox Maule) was alluding, was in these words:—


"We were much struck, and deeply interested by a declaration Sir Robert Peel made while referring to the importance of bringing out the Bench of Bishops. Independent of rousing the English Members and England generally to the importance of our individual question, he thought it was of the highest moment that the English and Scotch Establishments should unite in these days on the common ground of the Protestant faith, in resisting the encroachments of Popery. 'It is impossible, I think,' he said, with great earnestness of tone and manner, 'to look at the progress Popery is now making, and the efforts it is putting forth, without anxiety and alarm. The re-establishment of the order of the Jesuits in most of the countries of Europe—the movements in Prussia and Belgium—the increase of Popish chapels and seminaries in our own country, show us too clearly what we have to dread. And I am persuaded,' he continued, 'that we shall ere long, see a struggle arise, in which again we shall have to determine the question whether Popery or Protestantism is to have the ascendancy.'"

This address of the right hon. Gentleman was made in 1838. After having listened to that quotation, the House ought to hear the grounds upon which Dr. Buchanan defends his use of it. He would, therefore, read Dr. Buchanan's statement, which was a confirmation of the truth of the words he used at the meeting, and also a justification for using them. Dr. Buchanan, in answer to his letter, stated:—

"Glasgow, April 18, 1845.

"My dear Sir,—I have received your letter of the 15th instant in reference to a speech of mine delivered at the late meeting of the Free Church Synod of Glasgow and Ayr. You express astonishment at a certain quotation from a note book of mine, which the newspaper report of my speech contained, and wish me to give you some information regarding it. I can have no possible objection to answer your inquiries upon the subject; but as you indicate an intention to make some use of my statement, you must allow me to mention the circumstances in which the passage from my note book came under the public eye. The Synod was discussing a motion to petition Parliament against the Maynooth Endowment Bill. In speaking on that question, I had occasion to allude to the ridicule which many in the present day attempt to cast on the notion that Popery is ever again to rise into power, or to prove a source of danger to this country or to the world. On such a point I thought it important to be able to adduce the testimony of one whom no one could accuse of religious fanaticism, or imagine to be under the influence of exaggerated apprehensions on the subject of Popery. Such a witness, I thought, every one must allow Sir R. Peel to be; and having in my possession the memorandum of a remarkable statement of his regarding the threatening aspects of the Church of Rome, I read it to the Synod.

"In doing so I ventured to think and say that I was not violating any principle of propriety; the statement in question having been made, not to a private individual, but to an official body, and having reference solely to matters which were patent to the observation of the whole world; the statement, moreover, being one, as I conceived, both true and important, and which there could be no possible reason for concealing from any one.

"If the report of my speech which you saw, was that which appeared in the Scottish Guardian, the quotation from my note book, as there given, is verbatim et literatim, as I wrote it down within an hour from the time when the words were spoken by Sir Robert Peel. The interview at which the statement was made took place on the 24th March, 1838. It was addressed to a deputation from the Church of Scotland on the subject of Church extension. The deputation consisted of the Rev. Dr. Muir, of Edinburgh; the Rev. Dr. M'Leod, of Glasgow; the Rev. Dr. Simpson, of Kirknewton; Mr. William Collins, of Glasgow, and myself. Mr. Colquhoun, of Killermont, and Mr. Pringle, of "Whytbank, were also present on the occasion.

"As to the accuracy of my note book, I have the most perfect confidence. Written as the memorandum was, so immediately after the words were spoken, and read over, as I was accustomed to read all my notes of our official interviews to my Colleagues at the time, I am as certain of its correctness as any fact whatever.

"In all this, Mr. Collins, to whom I have shown your letter, cordially and unhesitatingly concurs.—I am, dear Sir, your's most truly,


"The Right Hon. Fox Maule."

"P. S. I have thought it better to send you a copy of the entire passage of my note book, to which this letter refers.

"R. B."

This was the statement made by Dr. Buchanan, a man who, from all his knowledge of him, was incapable of making any misrepresentation on the subject. He would not contend that it was to be assumed that this statement was perfectly true, until he had heard what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) had to say against it; but if he were to suppose it to be true, what were they to think of the great leader of a party in Opposition — a party who thought it their glory and their happiness to be guided by such a man, and to have their minds influenced and swayed by him, because he avowed that he entirely went along with them in this strong "No-Popery" feeling which they most conscientiously entertained, who no sooner than that he had assumed the reins of Government came forward, and to the total and entire subversion of all political consistency of character, proposed a measure of the description such as was now before the House? Without pretending to dictate what other course the right hon. Gentleman might have pursued, still he (Mr. Fox Maule) certainly thought the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues might have avoided falling into this difficulty if they had honestly set to work in a real and true way of legislation for Ireland. They had attempted to bribe that country to peace by a paltry grant of money, and the concession of a most indefensible principle, instead of legislating for the country in the only proper mode, which they might easily have done, namely, by removing the injuries which the people of Ireland had received from this country in their political relations, and by relieving them from injustice which they now suffered under in various forms of their civil Government. To such measures, he would answer for it, if they had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, the House would have cordially agreed, and they were measures which would undoubtedly have had a much more permanent effect in tranquillising that country than the present proposal. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) had said that, with this measure he sent to Ireland a message of peace; but what, if he should by so doing leave the apple of discord in this country? If he had sent out a message of peace to the whole civil community, and the benefit had been bestowed with an equal hand, then a large money grant might have been willingly concurred in, and might have produced a salutary effect on the whole body of the people; but framed as this measure was, it would not and could not have the effect of allaying discord, but would, in his opinion, raise a feeling of discontent, such as could only be the effect of the worst possible policy. For it was impossible the right hon. Gentleman could hold out any hope that this was a measure on which he could permanently rest. It had been attributed to agitation, and its origin had been traced to their fears, and not to their love of justice; and they might rely upon it that all those who traced it to that origin, and who saw what they had got by agitation, would never let that system rest until they had wrung from the Government conditions to which the people of England would never willingly consent, but to which if the Government did force them to consent, he believed in his heart it would make them more thorough-going Repealers than the people of Ireland themselves now were. He believed it was the conscientious conviction of the great body of the people, certainly of his (Mr. Fox Maule's) countrymen, at this moment, that the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, in connexion with the State, would be a circumstance to which they would prefer the sweeping away of all State Church Establishments together. Yes, even this they would rather see than submit to such a violation of their conscience. He could not believe that it was even yet too late for Her Majesty's Government to try whether there was not some mode by which to confer peace on Ireland other than this. He did not believe that the sacrifice they were making was worth the result they were anticipating from it. In giving this measure to Ireland they were making a sacrifice of all public character of public men—[Loud cries of "Hear, hear."] Yes, they were sacrificing all public character of all public men. He thought they would do more damage to the character of the public men of this country by such a measure as this, than it would be in the power of any Minister, even with all the consistency of his noble Friend the Member for the city of London (Lord John Russell), in his long tried and honourable political career, ever to restore.

Mr. Pringle

As it is very rarely that I intrude myself on the attention of the House, perhaps I may be allowed to bespeak their indulgence at this time. It was neither my wish nor my intention to have taken part in these discussions, nor would I have done so now, if special reference had not been made to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted certain words said to have been spoken by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, at an interview at which I was present; and my recollection has been appealed to as to the accuracy of the quotation. Sir, I perfectly well remember the interview alluded to; but after the lapse of so many years it is very difficult to speak to precise words, and I should be sorry to do so with confidence; but as to the substance of what was then said, the report appears to me to be a very fair report so far as I recollect. Now, I have no doubt that these were the genuine sentiments of my right hon. Friend at the time he uttered them; and I have no less doubt that he still continues sincerely to entertain them. I moreover believe, that if my right hon. Friend had thought that this measure would have a tendency to shake or weaken the Protestant interests in this country, and to exalt those of the Roman Catholics, and bring them into immediate and direct collision with each other, he would never have introduced it. And it is just because I myself believe that it will have this effect that I have differed—and I need not add that I have done so with the greatest pain—from my right hon. Friend. There never was a statesman in this, or in any other country, to whom I have looked up with greater respect and esteem. I have admired the comprehensive wisdom of his policy, and was proud to be connected with his Administration. On all ordinary measures of Government I willingly gave him my confidence; and if, at any time, from imperfect information I might have been disposed to differ from him, I was ready to give way, and yield to his superior judgment. But in the measure now before us there are considerations involved, on which I can yield my judgment to no man. I fear that it has a tendency, certainly not contemplated by my right hon. Friend, to give an impetus to the growing power of the Roman Catholics in the British realms. It is a step in a wrong direction. It is a departure from the long-cherished policy under which this country has prospered. It contains a principle which, if carried out, must lead to very serious consequences. I have observed in some speeches delivered in the course of these discussions a disposition to exaggerate the minor differences amongst Christians, and to place them on a level with the more serious—confounding the essential with the nonessential differences in form with differences in doctrine. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh treats all alike, and makes no allowance for distinctions which are generally considered the most serious and important. With such latitudinarian opinions I have no sympathy. I have observed that in the Roman Catholic religion there is that, which, whenever it is brought into collision with Protestantism, will always bring on a struggle for ascendancy; and I greatly fear the measure now before us is one which will go far to advance the Roman Catholic power to that position, and hasten that struggle. You will certainly have it sooner or later; and when it comes, it will be a fearful one. The measure itself is represented as not very important: one calls it a mere question of education; another, only one of more or less money. We are told that the principle has been admitted before, and long acquiesced in; that we are disputing now that which we ought to have contested at an earlier stage. This may, perhaps, be all very true; but the lesson which I would deduce is, that we ought to be the more careful and circumspect when measures affecting the religious interests of the country are brought forward, and consider well, and anxiously, what may be their ultimate tendency. At every step which we may be called on to take, we ought to be watchful and on our guard against the admission of any principle on which an argument for ulterior measures may be raised. It is my observation of the past, that renders me the more jealous on the present occasion. It is for this reason that I have been led to consider the subject now before us with the deeper anxiety; and it is for this reason, that after such anxious consideration I cannot give it my acquiescence. I, at the same time, do not shut my eyes against the embarrassments with which the Government are surrounded. I am well aware of the difficulties which they must encounter in their endeavours to govern a country so divided as Ireland is by religious parties: and I can make great allowances for their willingness to go great lengths in their anxiety to maintain peace in that country. I can farther conceive how in their eagerness to effect this important object, they may have overlooked the depth and strength of Protestant feeling in this country, and not been sufficiently aware how much their course was calculated to wound that feeling. I give them credit, too, for the sincerity of their declarations that they do not contemplate ulterior measures; and I believe that they not only do not intend any ulterior measures, but that they do not consider this as necessarily leading to ulterior measures. But then I cannot overlook the light in which it is viewed by other speakers in this debate; more especially when I find the same view taken by statesmen who entertain the most opposite sentiments regarding its expediency. I may allude, particularly, to the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell), and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport (Sir George Grey), who extolled the measure chiefly as introducing a new course of policy, and as leading necessarily to ulterior views which the Government disclaim, and which would, confessedly, have the effect of depressing the Protestant interests in this land, and exalting the Roman Catholic. They have said, and I fear with too much reason, that though the present Ministers may not be disposed to take the next step, yet they have removed an obstacle and prepared the way; and those who come after them will thus be enabled to take it. Such are the hopes which they build upon this measure. And such also, are the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, and others who oppose it. In these fears I am compelled to participate. I shall not discuss the reasons why I entertain them. In doing so, I could hardly avoid expressing opinions which must give pain to certain Members of this House, who differ from me on important points of religion; and I am most desirous to avoid saying anything which would hurt their feelings. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) has done his utmost to provoke such discussions; but I shall not be tempted to enter on them. I have never seen them lead to any good result in this House; and in an assembly constituted as this is, I do not think that they would be edifying. To my Roman Catholic fellow subjects and fellow Christians I entertain nothing but sentiments of kindness; and I should be the more inclined to treat their feelings with consideration, and bestow on them every favour, because I cannot, conscientiously, accord them this. I have now to thank the House for the attention and indulgence with which they have listened to me while I have endeavoured briefly to state the grounds for my decidedly opposing this Bill. I may have stated them feebly and imperfectly; but I know that they are the grounds on which it is resisted by a great proportion of the people of England and Scotland. There may be some who may not have rested their opposition on enlightened views; and there may be many who have had other reasons for agitating the question loudly and clamorously; but do not suppose that the resistance is confined to these. The feeling is strong and deep in the bosoms of many—many of the most loyal and attached of Her Majesty's subjects amongst Protestants of all denominations—but more especially amongst those who, in connexion with the Established Churches of these realms, have long been reluctant to give full vent to their feelings, though these have not been the less deeply wounded, and who are now mourning in anguish over the progress of measures which they dread, but cannot successfully avert.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

rose to express to the House the feelings which he knew to prevail pretty extensively among his fellow countrymen and co-religionists on this subject—a feeling of cordial gratitude, which was not confined indeed to the Government, but which was extended to them, for the manner in which they had brought this measure forward, as well as for the measure itself. He thought it was an honest confession which the leading Members of the House had made. They perceived that their Government policy to Ireland had been founded in error, and in the most candid manner they had come forward and stated that error to the House, thus giving Ireland hope that this was the beginning of a better policy towards that country. He must also express the thanks of his fellow countrymen—though that had not been so generally signified by others, yet he knew it was entertained towards the great body of the Opposition party, particularly to the noble Lord the Member for London, for the manner in which he had thrown himself into the support of this measure—notwithstanding those temptations to a contrary line of policy which a man of less strength of mind could not have resisted, and which others of his Colleagues have not so well resisted—he, rising above all such temporary motives, had given this measure a support which he was certain would be gratefully remembered in Ireland. The measure was valuable in spite of the smallness of the sum, with which the hon. Member for Ashton had taunted them tonight—it was valuable to Ireland, because they looked at it as first of a series. Let him not be misunderstood, and, if possible, let him not be misrepresented. He did not speak of the endowment of the priests, which hon. Members were so anxious to combat before it was proposed, though upon that question he would appeal to the whole party opposed to him—from the hon. Member for Oxford University to the hon. Member for Knaresborough; but he wished to know on what intelligible principle the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church would now be refused if the people of Ireland were to ask for an endowment on the ground that their religion was the religion of the majority. Those who made the grant to Maynooth must take care that they did not open the eyes of the Irish to the fact that they were entitled to more. He was glad that the people of Ireland did net wish it. He believed that a better arrangement could be made. The measures to which he alluded were of a class which were pressed upon the House two years ago, in the memorable debate on the Motion of Mr. Smith O'Brien. There was the landlord and tenant question. They had made inquiry into the subject; and he was bound to say that the result of the inquiry had far surpassed the hopes which he entertained. Though it was not all he wished for, it was much better than he expected. He trusted that the Government would, as soon as possible—for in this case he gave more than twice who gave quickly—he trusted that the Government would, as soon as possible, bring forward some of the practical conclusions of that Report. Then there was the question of the franchise. He would not go into that question now, further than to say that he trusted no bigoted adherence to their past policy would prevent them treating this subject in an enlarged and liberal spirit. Then there was the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Sheffield, which was not now in debate; but he would say of that question, that all the measures for the pacification of Ireland would prove fruitless until that Church was put on a fair footing—on such a footing as would be satisfactory to them if they were the poor majority, and were called on to support the Church of a rich minority. They were told that the Irish people would not be grateful for this measure. If it were followed up as he had suggested he was confident they would be warmly grateful. He would not tell them that by these means they would suppress the Repeal agitation, or a desire for a domestic Legislature; but then there were two ways of conducting the Repeal agitation. There was, first, the system of large meetings, of which some were afraid, and some pretended to be afraid; and there was the system of agitating the question in pamphlets, in debates, in Motions before this House. If they would endeavour to conciliate Ireland they must act as much for her benefit as the best Parliament could do which would sit in College-green. Then they would take away all danger from the Repeal agitation; and the only question for Repealers then would be, had the British Parliament the power to secure their true interests. But there was one circumstance which he feared. If this extraordinary opposition to the grant continued—this strange coalition between the highest churchmen and the lowest voluntaries—if this flame should continue to burn till the next Session, he did fear that angry and dangerous feelings would be excited in Ireland. If they saw the first men in Parliament driven from their seats for supporting this grant, he confessed that he had strong fears, not only for the Legislative Union, but for that which was far more valuable, the form of the connexion between the countries, or even the substance of that connexion itself. His hon. Friend, if be might still call him so, had told them of the power of the voluntary principle, and had asked the Roman Catholics why they did not do as the English Dissenters did? and the hon. Member had read to them the enormous sums which the Dissenters paid for the support of their religion. Why, this reminded him of the old story of the lady, who asked how it was possible any persons could be starving, when so many nice cakes could be had for twopence? The twopence was wanting. How could the hon. Member compare the rich substantial Dissenters, composed of the middle classes of England, with the Catholics of Ireland. All the blue books which had been published, revealing the starving miserable condition of the Irish peasant, showed that the comparison was altogether absurd. He trusted the people of. Great Britain would, in the exercise of that vigorous common sense which they used in all cases except where their religious prejudices were excited, and even in those cases after the excitement had passed away, would see that, in supporting the grant, they were really doing an act which was worthy of Christianity—that they were uniting, in one bond, parties of different sects, but who yet, in the more important articles of faith, could recognise Churchmen, Dissenters, and Catholics as making up different portions of their common Christianity.

Sir R. Peel

said: Sir, as I have already had the opportunity on three several occasions of stating fully to the House the motives that have influenced Her Majesty's Government in introducing this measure, and their general views respecting it, and of answering questions put to me in the course of the debate as to their ulterior objects, I shall think it unnecessary on this, the fourth occasion, to trouble the House with many observations. Sir, I consider the present Motion to be precisely the same as that which we discussed upon the second reading of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge distinctly avows that his object is to defeat the measure. The issue, therefore, on the present occasion is precisely the same as that for which we contended on the second reading of the Bill, and those who voted for the second reading of the Bill will, I think feel themselves under an equal obligation to vole now against the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal was supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. That hon. Gentleman, I understand, is the organ and representative of the great body of public opinion in this country, which is not unfriendly to the voluntary principle; and yet I was surprised to hear in the course of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that if this measure had been proposed originally by me—if this grant, instead of being brought forward as a permanent, had been proposed as an annual one; or if I now consented, instead of proposing a permanent measure, to ask for an annual grant, that he should be prepared to acquiesce in that proposal to grant the whole sum which I propose of 26,000l., if it were merely an annual vote, although he feels it his duty to contend with the utmost vehemence against it as a permanent vote. Now, Sir, I cannot reconcile the hon. Gentleman's opinions upon the voluntary principle with his readiness to support the vole of an annual grant; and I cannot understand how, against the spirit of at least the great majority of those who have presented petitions against this Bill, if we merely make the change of converting the vote from a permanent to an annual one, he would support the measure. Sir, I think there is little difference in point of principle between the raising the sum of 26,000l. yearly, or embodying it in a Bill permanently. I think the former would amount to almost as strong an engagement on our part—unless there were some very strong and conclusive reasons for its withdrawal—as to propose now a vote of 26,000l. permanently; and that it would in point of fact, be virtually an engagement for its continuance little less binding than if we inserted it in a permanent Bill. But I cannot consent to purchase the hon. Gentleman's support by making that change. Sir, in the first place, I believe that it would purchase little support from those hon. Gentlemen who disapprove of the grant; and even if it purchased much support, I should not now be disposed to make the change; but I believe that in Ireland it would totally alter the character of the measure. Sir, I believe that it would be considered as an indication of distrust, and that the alteration would be completely at variance with that spirit in which I profess to bring it forward. On that account, therefore, it is wholly out of my power to consent to that alteration, and I shall do all that it is in my power to do to prevail upon the House to pass the measure in its present shape, and as a permanent grant. Sir, I must also be permitted to say, witnessing the feeling that prevails in this country, that I think there will be a great advantage in avoiding the absolute necessity for an annual grant upon this subject. Sir, I do firmly believe that by that means the present ferment will in a great measure cease. I believe that the example of the Protestant population of Ireland will not be lost upon this country. We cannot deny that the feeling of the Protestant population of Ireland with respect to this vote is materially different from that of the Protestant population of England; and I believe that one great advantage of the vote is the connecting link that it forms between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics of that country. Happen what may, I do believe that from the example set by the great portion of the Protestants of Ireland?—from the wish which I believe is cordially entertained by many, or at least a great portion of the Protestant body, to conciliate their Roman Catholic brethren, and put an end to these discussions—I do believe that that wish will have a tendency to abate religious animosity there. But certainly whatever be the issue of the present measure, I should contemplate with the greatest pain and regret the prospect of that annual agitation which must be the inevitable consequence of an annual grant. Sir, I may be told that there will be a Motion brought forward to repeal the Bill in the next Session of Parliament. I consider if any such discussion should then arise, that it will be of a totally different character than if the vote had been merely an annual and isolated one. So much with respect to the general feelings I entertain upon the subject, and which I thought it right to state before I notice the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. I must observe, that with regard to my conduct in 1829, the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the course I took with respect to the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities; and the right hon. Gentleman, after expressing his regret at the inconsistency of public men, has referred to-night, as he has a perfect right to do, to the course I pursued in 1829 with regard to the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks it is greatly to be regretted, both with reference to my own character, and that of the class to which I belong, that of public men, that I did not on that occasion retire from office, at the same time cordially supporting the measure for the relief of Roman Catholic disabilities. Sir, I admit, with the right hon. Gentleman, that there may be many occasions on which it would be the duty of a public man to relinquish office rather than propose a measure contrary to the principles he had heretofore supported. I think the propriety of his taking that course must mainly depend upon the effect which his retirement might have upon the success of the particular measure which he believed to be necessary for the public good. Sir, I believe it to be perfectly honourable and just to do so. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice President of the Board of Trade was fully justified in relinquishing office at the time he did, and the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I should have pursued, the same course in 1829. Sir, that is precisely the course I wished to pursue, and which I intended to pursue. Until within a month of the period when I myself consented to bring forward a measure for the relief of Roman Catholic disabilities, I did contemplate retirement from office, not because I shrank from the responsibility of proposing the measure—not because I feared the charge of inconsistency—not because I was not prepared to make the sacrifice of private friendship and political connexion, but because honestly believing that my retirement might promote the success of the measure which I then thought necessary, I thought I might assist my noble Friend in carrying that measure were I to make the sacrifice of office, and to give, as I intended, a cordial support in my private capacity to that measure. But, Sir, when did I change my opinion? I changed it when it was demonstrated to me that it was necessary I should make the sacrifice—that I should retain office; but when it was shown to me that however humble my abilities might be, yet, considering the situation which I held, that with my retirement from office, the carrying of that measure would become totally impossible; when it was proved to me that there were objections in the highest quarter which could not be overcome, unless I was prepared to make the sacrifice of much that was dear to me; when it was intimated to me by my noble Friend that it was the intention of the highest authorities of the Church of England to offer the most de- cided opposition to the measure; when my noble Friend intimated to me that he thought, if I persevered in my intention to retire, success was out of the question; it was then that I did not hesitate to say, "I will not expose others to the obloquy and the suspicion from which I myself shrink. I know all the consequences of my being the person to propose the relief of the Roman Catholics from their present disabilities; but the moment I am convinced that the obstructions to the success of the measure will be infinitely increased by my retirement, then I will set the example of making the sacrifice, and, be the consequences what they may, I will propose the measure." Sir, these are the facts of the case, and I must say that I do think I acted a more honourable part in consenting to retain office and proposing that measure—that I took a part more for the character of a public man, than if I had said to my Sovereign and my Colleagues, "You shall be exposed to the obloquy of proposing this measure while yon still retain office; I will advise the Crown to give its assent to the measure, but I will shrink from the responsibility of bringing it forward." Sir, whatever taunts may now be thrown out—I must say that believing this measure advantageous to the public — foreseeing the opposition with which it was likely to be encountered, I now, in spite of all these taunts and sarcasms, again say, that I think it is more becoming in me to propose this measure, and submit to its consequences, rather than say, "I think it necessary; but I advise you on the opposite side of the House to come forward and expose yourselves to the responsibility of proposing it." So much, Sir, for the principles on which I think public men ought to act in retaining office. If I believed now that my relinquishment of office would facilitate the carrying of this measure, I should unhesiatingly prefer the relinquishment of office to the loss of this measure. Sir, with respect to the reference made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth to an interview which took place, seven years ago, with a deputation from the Church of Scotland, I must say, that of that deputation I have so imperfect a recollection, that until my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) rose to speak, or at least until he referred to it himself, I had not the least idea that he was one of that deputation. I think the right hon. Gentleman says that it was seven years since that interview. Now, I must say, that when he stated that a reverend divine had taken a note of what had passed on that occasion—I must say, that I wish he had given me an opportunity of stating, at the time, whether I acquiesced or not in his statement. I should like to have had an opportunity of revising the whole of that conversation. Sir, I have not the least doubt that I stated then that I thought the Established Church of Scotland had a common cause with the Established Church of England—that I thought the cause of establishments as dissevered from the voluntary principle, was a common cause. No doubt I stated then what I feel now—my devotion to the principles of the faith I profess. I have not the slightest doubt, also, although I have no record of the conversation, no recollection of the proceedings—but, seeing that at the time a religious flame was excited throughout the Continent—seeing that in Holland, Belgium, and Prussia, a great deal of religious excitement prevailed—I do believe that I viewed with the greatest uneasiness and alarm the prospect of a religious contest in this country. I think it probable that I said, foreseeing from the disputes in the Prussian States that there might be a great struggle for ascendancy between Protestants and Roman Catholics—that I feared the approaching revival of those times when, instead of being engaged in political conflicts, we should be engaged in such religious disputes as agitated Europe three hundred years ago. Sir, of this I am confident, that I said nothing to encourage hostility towards the Roman Catholics. I never heard of that conversation, from the time of its taking place, till the present moment—and it is said to have taken place seven years since it—nor did I ever hear a whisper of till I saw it in the newspapers. At all events, no practical result followed from that conversation. Sir, with respect to these expressions about "Popery," I must say that they are very contrary to the language I had been always in the habit of using. It is very easy for a man, speaking of the Roman Catholics, to substitute the word "Popery," and we have been told that there is no difference between them; but as the matter took place seven years ago, I can only say that having no recollection of it, I cannot acquiesce in the correctness of the report of the rev. Gentleman. I should like to have heard the interlocutory observations; but, in short, I cannot undertake, when the rev. Gentleman says he made a note of it at the time, to recollect the precise expressions. I never since made any reference to it; and considering how my time has been occupied for the last seven years, I can only say that I am not prepared to give an unqualified and decisive assent to the hon. Gentleman's version of my words. I have no recollection of them; but I greatly doubt whether any of the observations I made had precisely the meaning which he has attributed to them. Sir, this I know, that during the whole time I was opposed to the Roman Catholic claims, I never encouraged the presentation of a single petition against them—I never raised a "No-Popery" cry—I advised those who consulted me to leave it all to the deliberate consideration of the Legislature—and I never was a party to any cry which might impede the progress of Catholic Emancipation. Sir, I must say, that if it was my object to form a combination against Popery, and to obstruct the views of Her Majesty's late Government, it is remarkable that I volunteered to come forward Session after Session, to support this grant to Maynooth; that in 1841 I did all I could to prevail on my hon. Friends, who were adverse to the grant, not to press it to a division, but to permit the vote to pass, and I said I would not be a party to any opposition to it. Sir, the general temper in which I spoke may be presumed from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, now an hon. Baronet, opposite, who spoke after me, and who in 1841 could not be considered as very friendly to our party. In referring to my speech the hon. Gentleman made these observations:— I think it would be more prudent for the hon. Gentleman opposite to follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, who has done himself so much honour by the course he has dared to take on this question, and for which he will doubtless gain credit out of doors. Then, with respect to this vote for Maynooth, when I was Secretary for Ireland, in 1813, I proposed it to the House; and in 1841, when there was a great deal of religious excitement, and when there was some doubt as to the course that would be pursued by Her Majesty's Government, and more especially with regard to their religious policy towards Ireland in 1841, I did not shrink from avowing my opinions in favour of that vote. I said that we had entered into a virtual and substantial engagement, and that it was impossible for Parliament, without hurting and wounding the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, to withdraw that which had been continued to them for nearly forty years. Sir, in saying this, I entertain all my former feelings and opinions with respect to the faith to which I belong; and I do believe that the vote I propose is not adverse to the interests of the Protestants of Ireland, either with a view to their temporal or religious principles. Sir, I think it utterly impossible to withhold this grant; I cannot advise the course which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge—he calls upon us to protect existing interests, but warns us against any alliance with the Roman Catholic religion. Sir, I believe the Roman Catholics of Ireland generally are very indifferent as to any alliance with the State; but how the hon. Gentleman could suppose that Her Majesty's Government would come forward and advise that this, whether it be an alliance or a connexion, or whatever term you may apply to it, should now be dissolved—that we should protect existing interests merely by withholding any future grant, and giving some principal sum which might provide for the claims of that body—with regard to that I can only say that it is utterly out of my power to be a party to such a proposition. I think such a course would be implying distrust, and subjecting to imputations, which I for one cannot be a party to. Sir, I do not bring forward this measure under the futile pretence that, it wilt promote the Protestant religion in Ireland—I do not bring it forward under the supposition that it will undermine the Roman Catholic religion—I do not propose it with any such views; but I believe it will produce an effect upon the feelings of those who will be the recipients of the grant—that it will dispose them to think more kindly of the people of this country, and that they will not retire from Maynooth receiving your bounty and yet indignant at your parsimony. Sir, I say it is unworthy of this country to propose to give the means of education to the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland, and then to give them a pittance which is only calculated to excite angry feelings and make them dissatisfied with the niggardliness of your vote. Sir, in that respect I feel that the spirit in which the grant has been made, the confidence which it has evinced, the refusal to interfere with the doctrines or tenets of that religion, will make it still more acceptable; and I believe that Protestantism will derive greater advantages on account of the cordial feeling with which the grant has been conferred, than if we continued to vote a sum of 9,000l. annually; and therefore it is that, with strong regard and attachment to the principles of the Protestant religion, I feel myself at perfect liberty to make this grant. Sir, I cannot help saying that I deeply regret the manifestation of public feeling which has been evinced in this country. I will not say that I was prepared for it to the full extent to which it has gone. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last has referred to it, and has expressed his apprehension that the feeling between Ireland and this country may be exasperated by what has passed. Sir, I can only say for myself, that the manifestation of that feeling in this country, much as I respect the public feeling here—but that manifestation of it is far from inducing me to relax in the course which I have pursued, and it will only impose an additional obligation on me to persevere steadily in the course I have adopted—I do not say in violation and opposition to popular opinion, for I have no desire to run counter to it; but this I feel, it is absolutely necessary to prove to the Roman Catholics of Ireland that the manifestation of that feeling should not induce public men to swerve from the course which, at any rate, appears to have produced kindly feelings among those in whose favour it is to be given. Sir, I fear it will not be in my power to satisfy altogether the expectations of my Roman Catholic fellow subjects. From the avowals which are made of what is necessary for their satisfaction, I am bound to say that I fear it will be impossible, if these are their expectations, entirely to satisfy them; but of this I will give them the assurance, that, in office or out of office, that which I have undertaken to do, I will to the utmost of my power fulfil. It may be short of their expectations; but they never shall have cause to charge me with abandoning their interests, to the extent to which I feel, consistently with my public duty, I can promote them.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said that, having opposed the Bill from its introduction up to the present moment, no apology was required from him for his vote on the present occasion. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that of course all those who voted against the second reading, would support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of the city of London; but, if he recollected rightly, the right hon. Gentleman stated the other evening, that every one of those Gentlemen who voted for the hon. Member for Sheffield, must, of necessity, vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge. [An hon. Member: He has changed his Motion.] Changed his Motion! How had he changed his Motion? He placed a Motion on the Votes, that the money should not be taken out of the Consolidated Fund; and he now proposed that the Report of the Committee, saying it should be taken out of the Consolidated Fund, should be read this day six months. He asserted that the Motion was precisely the same; and if the right hon. Gentleman was right in calling upon those Gentlemen to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge who voted for the hon. Member for Sheffield, they ought to vote for him now; but it did not appear that they would vote for him; they would not follow the advice given by the right hon. Baronet. We were told that these expressions of public feeling were to be treated as a ferment of the public mind which was about to subside. That was the language which the Prime Minister used to the people of England; and not only that, but the stronger the expression was, the more determined was he to resist it. There appeared to be something more than met the ear in the speech of the right hon. Baronet in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton. He talked of being ready to tender his resignation. Since he had been in Parliament, he had never seen the right hon. Baronet, whether in office or out of office (he could not say as much for all his Colleagues), show any indecent haste on his part to resume office, nor had he seen any unworthy desire on his part to retain office after his power was gone. That, he thought, due to the right hon. Baronet; and he believed that he thought it his duty to pass this measure, if he possibly could do it, through the two Houses of Parliament; but he (Mr. Duncombe) would tell him, at the same time, that he was carrying it in direct opposition to the feelings and wishes of a great portion of the people. The hon. Member for Ashton had said that he would vote for this measure if it were an annual vote; but that would not remove the whole of his objection, for this reason—that this was only the precursor of other measures. The hon. Member for the city of London had stated, that it was the preliminary measure to the endowment of the Catholic clergy in Ireland, and to that this country never would submit. Even the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield would not have removed the objection, because the great objection was the principle of endowment. To that principle the people strongly objected, from whatever source the money came—whether from the Consolidated Fund, or from the revenues of the Church. They objected to the establishment of another Church in a country where there was one too many. The right hon. Baronet had now set the public opinion at defiance; having a majority in that House made up of his political opponents, he was prepared to set a very great amount of public opinion at defiance. The right hon. Baronet had proved himself the greatest enemy of the Established Church in Ireland in that House; and further, he had proved himself the greatest friend to the extension of the elective franchise in the country, because the public would not allow it to remain as it was at present after they had been so contemned.

Mr. Collett

was understood to say that he was desirous to address a very few words to the House on the subject then before them. The Maynooth question had already presented itself in so many different aspects, that, to a young Member like himself, any farther discussion on it was attended with most formidable difficulties. After the principle of the Bill, however, had been approved of by the majority on the second reading, there could be very little difficulty in deciding on the course to be taken with regard to the Motion of the hon. and learned Recorder the Member for the University of Cambridge. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield was a very intelligible one. It might have been expressed in the simple words—" Who was to pay the piper?" Was the amount to be paid by the poor, hard-worked, under-fed, operatives of England, or would they force it to be disgorged by the well-paid, over-fed, and under-worked parsons of Ireland? He was himself a member of the Protestant (and the par excellence) Established Church; but he would confess that, excepting on the voluntary principle, he was against all religious establishments whatever. The Established Church in Ireland was one in which the religion of the minority was attempted to be forced down the throats of what would, but for it, be a contented and happy people. He already stated on a former occasion, that he strongly objected to any man having a right to interfere with the religious opinions of another. He thought religion was a matter to be left altogether between man and his God; and he considered it was the highest presumption for a Protestant to say that his religion was better than that of a Catholic, or for a Christian to allege that he was better than a Mahomedan. Pure religion consisted more (according to his opinion) in doing good, and refraining from evil, than in any attempt to revive the practice of obsolete forms and ceremonies, than in deciding whether the clergyman was to preach in a white or in a blue gown. He considered that if they were to have a Pope or a supreme power in religion at all, the farther he was off the better. He thought it would be safer to have a Pope at Rome than one in London or Exeter. His constituents were, he believed, greatly obliged to the right hon. Baronet, not only for the measure which he had brought forward, but also for the manner and spirit in which it had been introduced by him. Their gratitude would, however, be much increased if they found that the grant was to be voted in the least objectionable manner, and that it was to be appropriated out of the surplus funds of the Established Church in Ireland, as far as they would be found sufficient. If there were a deficiency in that source of revenue, he thought there were other sources from which a portion of the grant might be procured. For instance, he considered they might very safely take 5,000l. a year from the revenues of the Bishop of London, and 5,000l. a year from the revenues of the Bishop of Exeter. By doing so, they would place these prelates more on a level with the meek and lowly apostles from whom they were facetiously pleased to designate themselves the descendants, al- though they were no more descended from the apostles than he was.

The House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 119: Majority, 113.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Courtenay, Lord
Acland, T. D. Collett, W. R.
A'Court, Capt. Craig, W. G.
Adderley, C. B. Cripps, W.
Aglionby, H. A. Dalmeny, Lord
Aldam, W. Dalrymple, J.
Archbold, R. Damer, hon. Col.
Armstrong, Sir A. Davies, D. A. S.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Dawson, hon. T.
Denison, W. J.
Baillie, Col. Denison, J. E.
Baird, W. Dennistoun, J.
Baine, W. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Barclay, D. Dickinson, F. H.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Baring, T. Douro, Marquess of
Baring, rt. hon. W. B. Dundas, D.
Barnard, E. G. East, J. B.
Barron, Sir H. W. Eastnor, Visct.
Bell, M. Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Bell, J. Emlyn, Visct.
Bellew, R. M. Escott, B.
Blackburne, J. I. Esmonde, Sir T.
Blake, M. J. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bodkin, W. H. Etwall, R.
Boldero, H. G. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Borthwick, P. Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Botfield, B. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Bowes, J. Flower, Sir J.
Bowles, Adm. Forster, M.
Bowring, Dr. Fox, C. R.
Broadwood, H. Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.
Browne, hon. W. Gardner, J.
Brownrigg, J. S. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Bruce, Lord E. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Buller, C. Gladstone, Capt.
Campbell, Sir H. Godson, R.
Cardwell, E. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Carew, W. H. P. Gore, M.
Castlereagh, Visct. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Graham, rt hn. Sir J.
Cavendish, hn. G. H. Granby, Marquess of
Chapman, B. Granger, T. C.
Charteris, hon. F. Greene, T.
Chelsea, Visct. Halford, Sir H.
Childers, J. W. Hamilton, W. J.
Clay, Sir W. Hamilton, Lord C.
Clayton, R. R. Harcourt, G. G.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Hatton, Capt. V.
Clifton, J. T. Hawes, B.
Clive, Visct. Heneage, E.
Clive, hon. R. Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir. G. Hervey, Lord A.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Hinde, J. H.
Collett, J. Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.
Collins, W. Hogg, J. W.
Corbally, M. E. Hollond, R.
Corry, H. Holmes, hn. W. A'C.
Hope, hon. C. Round, J.
Hope, G. W. Rumbold, C. E.
Horsman, E. Russell, Lord J.
Howard, P. H. Russell, J. D.
Howard, Sir R. Rutherfurd, A.
Hume, J. Seymour, Lord
Hutt, W. Seymour, Sir H. B.
James, W. Sheil, R. L.
James, Sir W. Shelburne, Earl of
Jermyn, Earl Sheridan, R. B.
Jocelyn, Visct. Smith, B.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Smith, J. A.
Lambton, H. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Lascelles, hon. W. Smith, rt. hon. T. B. C.
Leyard, Capt. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Lemon, Sir C. Somes, J.
Lennox, Lord A. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Leveson, Lord Stansfield, W. R. C.
Lincoln, Earl of Stanton, W. H.
Listowel, Earl Staunton, Sir G. T.
Loch, J. Stewart, J.
Lyall, G. Stuart, Lord J.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. Stuart, W. V.
Macnamara, W. Strutt, E.
McNeill, D. Stuart, H.
Mahon, Visct. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Mangles, R. D. Tancred, H. W.
Manners, Lord C. S. Tennent, J. E.
Marshall, W. Thesiger, Sir F.
Martin, J. Thornely, T.
Martin, C. W. Tollemache, J.
Martin, T. B. Townely, J.
Mildmay, H. Trelawny, J. S.
Milnes, R. M. Trench, Sir F. W.
Mitcalfe, H. Trotter, J.
Mitchell, T. A. Vane, Lord H.
Mordaunt, Sir J. Vernon, G. H.
Murphy, F. S. Villiers, Visct.
Nichol, J. Walker, R.
Norreys, Lord Wall, C. B.
O'Connell, M. J. Warburton, H.
O'Connor, Don Ward, H. G.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Watson, W. H.
Oswald, A. Wellesley, Lord C.
Owen, Sir J. White, S.
Parker, J. Williams, W.
Patten, J. W. Wilshere, W.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Peel, J. Wood, Col.
Pennant, hon. Col. Wood, Col. T.
Philips, G. R. Worsley, Lord
Pigot, Sir R. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Praed, W. T. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Pusey, P. Wrightson, W. B.
Rawdon, Col. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W. W.
Redington, T. Wyse, T.
Reid, Sir J. R. Yorke, H. R.
Repton, G. W. J.
Rice, E. R. TELLERS.
Roche, E. B. Young, J.
Roebuck, J. A. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Acton, Col. Austen, T.
Alexander, N. Bankes, G.
Antrobus, E. Beckett, W.
Ashley, Lord Beresford, Major
Berkeley, hon. C. Henley, J. W.
Blackstone, W. S. Hill, Lord M.
Blewitt, R. J. Hindley, C.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Humphery, Ald.
Bright, J. Hussey, A.
Brisco, M. Jervis, J.
Broadley, H. Johnson, Gen.
Brocklehurst, C. Johnstone, H.
Brotherton, J. Kemble, H.
Bruen, Col. Knight, F.
Buckley, E. Knightley, Sir C.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Lawson, A.
Burroughes, H. N. Lefroy, A.
Chetwode, Sir J. Leslie, C. P.
Christopher, R. A. Long, W.
Cole, hon. H. A. Lopez, Sir R.
Colvile, C. R. Lowther, Sir J. H.
Compton, H. C. Mackenzie, T.
Copeland, Ald. Maclean, D.
Crawford, W. S. McTaggart, Sir J.
Curteis, H. B. Marsland, H.
Dawnay, hon. W. H. Masterman, J.
Deedes, W. Maule, F.
Denison, E. B. Morgan, C.
Dick, Q. Morris, D.
Douglas, J. D. S. Muntz, G. F.
Duke, Sir J. Neeld, J.
Duncan, G. Neeld, J.
Duncombe, T. Newdegate, C. N.
Duncombe, hon. O. Newry, Visct.
Du Pre, C. G. O'Brien, A. S.
Eaton, R. J. Palmer, R.
Ellice, E. Pattison, J.
Entwisle, W. Pechell, Capt.
Ewart, W. Philipps, Sir R. B. P.
Farnham, E. B. Plumptre, J. P.
Feilden, W. Polhill, F.
Fellowes, E. Protheroe, E.
Ferrand, W. B. Richards, R.
Filmer, Sir E. Rolleston, Col.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Rushbrooke, Col.
Ffolliott, J. Ryder, hon. G. D.
Forbes, W. Sibthorp, Col.
Forman, T. S. Smith, A.
Fox, S. L. Smollett, A.
Fuller, A. E. Spooner, R.
Goring, C. Spry, Sir S. T.
Greenall, P. Taylor, E.
Grimsditch, T. Thompson, Ald.
Grogan, E. Tollemache, J.
Hallyburton, Lord J. Tower, C.
Hamilton, J. H. Turnor, C.
Hamilton, G. A. Verner, Col.
Hampden, R. Wakley, T.
Hanmer, Sir J. TELLERS.
Hastie, A. Law, hon. C. R.
Heathcoat, G. J. Inglis, Sir R. H.

Main Question again put.

Mr. Tancred

moved the Amendment of which he had given notice, as follows: to add to the end of the Resolution the words:— Until provision shall be made for the same, by any Act to be passed in this or any subsequent Session of Parliament, either out of any surplus in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners of Ireland, or by an assessment of the lands of Ireland to an amount equivalent to the remission of tithes made to the landlords of Ireland by the Tithe Commutation Act, as Parliament may deem most advisable.

The House divided on the Question that these words be added:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 128: Majority, 76.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Marshall, W.
Aldham, W. Marsland, H.
Baine, W. Martin, J.
Barnard, E. G. Mitchell, T. A.
Bell, J. O'Connell, M. J.
Berkeley, hon. C. Pechell, Capt.
Blake, M. J. Philips, G. R.
Blewitt, R. J. Rice, E. R.
Bouverie, hon. E. Roebuck, J. A.
Bowring, Dr. Smollett, A.
Brotherton, J. Stansfield, W.
Christie, W. D. Staunton, Sir G.
Collett, J. Stuart, Lord J.
Curteis, H. B. Stuart, W. V.
Dennistoun, J. Strutt, E.
D'Eyncourt, C. Thornely, T.
Etwall, R. Trelawny, J. S.
Ewart, W. Wakley, T.
Forster, M. Walker, R.
Granger, T. C. Warburton, H.
Hallyburton, Lord J. Williams, W.
Hawes, B. Worsley, Lord
Hill, Lord M. Wyse, T.
Hindley, C. Yorke, H. R.
Hume, J.
Johnson, Gen. Ward, H.
M'Taggart, Sir J. Tancred, H. W.
List of the NOES.
A'Court, Capt. Chapman, B.
Adderley, C. B. Childers, J. W.
Alexander, N. Clayton, R. R.
Antrobus, E. Clerk, Sir G.
Archbold, R. Clifton, J. T.
Arundel, and Surrey, Earl Clive, Lord
Clive, hon. R. H.
Ashley, Lord Cockburn, Sir G.
Baillie, Col. Colvile, C. R.
Baring, T. Copeland, Ald.
Baring, W. B. Corbally, M. E.
Barron, Sir H. Corry, H.
Blackburne, J. Courtenay, Lord
Bodkin, W. H. Cripps, W.
Boldero, H. C. Damer, hon. Col.
Borthwick, P. Darby, G.
Botfield, B. Davies, D. A. S.
Bowles, Adm. Dawson, hon. T.
Broadwood, H. Denison, E. B.
Browne, hon. W. Dickinson, F. H.
Brownrigg, J. S. Douglas, Sir C.
Bruce, Lord E. Duncombe, O.
Campbell, Sir H. East, J. B.
Cardwell, E. Escott, B.
Carew, W. H. P. Esmonde, Sir T.
Estcourt, T. G. Macnamara, W.
Farnham, E. B. M'Neill, D.
Fitzmaurice, W. Manners, Lord C.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Martin, C. W.
Flower, Sir J. Milnes, R. M.
Freemantle, Sir T. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Gardner, J. D. Newry, Lord
Gaskell, J. M. Nicholl, J.
Gladstone, W. E. O'Brien, A. S.
Gladstone, Capt. O'Connor, Don
Godson, R. Patten, J. W.
Gordon, Capt. Peel, Sir R.
Gore, M. Peel, J.
Goulburn, H. Pigot, Sir R.
Graham, Sir J. Polhill, F.
Greene, T. Pusey, P.
Grimsditch, T. Rawdon, Col.
Halford, Sir H. Repton, G. W. J.
Hamilton, G. A. Round, J.
Hamilton, W. J. Sheil, R. L.
Hamilton, Lord C. Smith, T. B. C.
Henley, J. W. Somes, J.
Herbert, S. Sotheron, T. H.
Hervey, Lord A. Spooner, R.
Hinde, J. H. Sutton, hon. H.
Hogg, J. W. Tennent, J. E.
Holmes, W. Thesiger, Sir F.
Hope, hon. C. Thompson, Ald.
Hope, G. W. Tollemache, F.
Howard, P. H. Trench, Sir F. W.
Hussey, A. Trotter, J.
James, W. Vernon, G. H.
James, Sir W. C. Villiers, Lord
Jermyn, Earl Wellesley, Lord C.
Jocelyn, Lord Wood, Col. T.
Lascelles, hon. W. Wortley, hon. J.
Lennox, Lord A. Wortley, hon. J.
Lincoln, Earl Wynn, C. W. W.
Lopez, Sir R. Young, J.
Lowther, Sir R. Baring, H.

Resolution read a second time, and ordered to be incorporated in the Maynooth College Bill.—Agreed to.

House adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.