§ Mr. Hindley
, in rising to object to the Speaker leaving the Chair, was discharging an onerous duty, a duty which he undertook individually, without concert with any of the Members of that House. He felt great regret that the Government 102 should think it consistent with their duty to go on with the present Bill. They were throwing the whole country into confusion, and rousing religious feelings which would not easily be suppressed. He feared that at the next election every hustings would become a polemical arena, where the religious opinions of every man would be taken into consideration. He deeply regretted the feelings which at present existed in the country, and which had been aroused by the Government. The right hon. Baronet was aware that the measure had excited such dissatisfaction, that at least 1,200 individuals were brought from all parts of the country to spend several days in the metropolis to protest against the measure. As the right hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone) said, the whole country was against the measure. If that were the case, he (Mr. Hindley) would say, that before they went on further with the Bill, they should appeal to the country. The Government should not hastily act upon the possession of a temporary power, and upon the support of a tyrant majority in that House. Let them not say that they were wiser than the whole people of England. No measure which was ever proposed had offended the feelings of the people of England so much as this. He had before detailed the grounds on which he objected to the Bill. He would ask if the measure had created so much confusion and discord in England, was it likely to do good in Ireland? The right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) told them that this should be made an exception to the application of the voluntary principle; that the case of Ireland was so peculiar that they should do everything they could in order to conciliate it. He admitted that, and was ready to do everything, short of abandoning principle, to show the Irish people that he participated in their feelings against the injustice of which this country had for centuries been guilty towards them. Could they believe that this Bill would conciliate the people of Ireland? Let him read to them the letter of Dr. Higgins. That letter would show hon. Members how the measure was received in Ireland. He would beg to read an extract from the letter:—Much has been said about the gratitude we owe for the grant to Maynooth, but I confess that I for one (and I am joined in the sentiment by the priests and people of this 103 diocese) feel no gratitude whatever. In the first place, our own energies and determination wrung that paltry sum from a bigoted and anti-Irish Cabinet; nor shall we ever thank the rich glutton when he disdainfully flings us the crumbs from his table. Secondly, the grant is so miserable in amount, that it can be looked upon in no other light than as a sheer mockery and an insult. There are 8,000,000 of Catholics in this country, and the grant would be about three-farthings yearly for each. Does the childish Minister imagine that the Catholics of Ireland would not give annually three farthings each for the education of their revered clergy? or does he so far deceive himself as to believe that any one Irishman would sell his birthright for that notable sum? It would appear, however, that he does actually indulge in this extravagant delusion, and expects that we will, one and all, sit down quite contented with a mock representation, bad laws, bad partisan magistrates, a domineering and robbing corporation, called a Church Establishment; in short, that we will patiently endure every species of misrule, misrepresentation, and oppression, and all this for the yearly sum of three farthings a head.That was the way in which Dr. Higgins received this paltry grant. When, therefore, they witnessed the confusion which had been caused in England, and the way in which the Bill was received in Ireland, he would advise the Government to pause in their course, and he could assure them that it was a measure which, if persisted in, would do more to promote the Repeal of the Union with Ireland in England than O'Connell could ever effect. During the last week the Repeal of the Union had made great progress in the opinions of England. The Dissenters of England would rather consent to the repeal than have Ireland governed by principles which would be unjust to England. He felt that he was only doing his duty to his country in entering his protest against the measure, and he would, therefore, move that the House resolve itself into Committee that day six months.
§ Colonel Sibthorp
said, that no man would be more ready to second the hon. Member's Motion than himself, did he think there was the slightest hope of defeating this detestable measure. He should be the more anxious to second the Motion, could he anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury — the professed Protestant — could be brought to accede to it. He almost questioned the fact of that Gentleman being a sincere and true Protestant, 104 because he was accustomed to judge men by their actions, not by their words; above all in a Minister of the Crown, who ought in every way to promote the Protestant religion. It was a duty which the right hon. Gentleman owed to those who had placed him in his present position, and who had entertained such great expectations of him. How had the right hon. Gentleman treated the petitioners who had approached that House? The last Return made them nearly a million, and they were hourly increasing. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they only imposed on him an additional reason for persevering with the measure. If this grant was a measure of justice to Ireland, why had it been so long delayed? Bis dat qui cito dat, and he should have thought better of the right hon. Baronet and his measure if he had brought it in before. He implored the right hon. Baronet to appeal to the country before he proceeded further with this most important measure. Let him not go on with it in the company from which he expected his chief assistance. Did the right hon. Baronet think Gentlemen opposite gave him their support from any good feeling? His opinion was that their object was to undermine him. He did not blame them for it; they were consistent. He liked consistency, and hated truckling. The right hon. Gentleman went to strange places to look for friends; why not, then, go to the country at once, and see what was his present position in the estimation of the people? If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know what they thought of his agricultural measures, let him go to Lincoln market and ask. But, no, he could not answer for the consequences if the right hon. Gentleman went thither. In his opinion the first virtue of a Minister was consistency. Where was that of the right hon. Baronet? He had been placed in his present position by the Conservative people of this country as their supporter, protector, and friend; and the people had been duped, deceived, and betrayed by the right hon. Gentleman. It was painful to him to speak personally disrespectfully, but duty compelled him to say what he had said. But this was only one of a series of measures of endowment which the right hon. Gentleman kept locked up in the Downing-street bank. He had no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman—but where could he look with confidence? 105 He said it with deep regret, but he knew not where to look—for public virtue, or anything on which he could build hopes for the honour of the Sovereign, the safety of the Church, or the welfare of the people. He did not know where it was to be found; he wished to God he did. He hoped the House would have independent feeling enough not to support any Minister who so governed the country. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member opposite, he feared it would be futile to persevere with it. The right hon. Baronet had only to blow the Downing-street bugle, and, obedient to command, those who had anything, or expected anything, would come in troops to his assistance. Yet, if his (Colonel Sibthorp's) excellent—his exteemed — his hon. Friend below him—[cries of "Name!"]—he meant the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University—the Friend of the Church, would assume a leadership—[The remainder of the sentence was lost in general mirth and uproar.] Perhaps he spoke too strongly, but the best security for the country was reverence for the Protestant Church. If they did not succeed in the House of Commons, they must look to another place, where he trusted there were still some friends of the Church. He for one hoped for much from the reverend dignitaries of the Church in that place; but if they should forget the duty they owed to their Church, he for one hoped that the mitres might be dashed from their heads. If that failed, they had one hope left: let the people of the country take their petitions to the foot of the Throne, and if any Minister should dare to advise the Crown to disregard the opinions of the people, he (Colonel Sibthorp) should be ready—not perhaps to impeach him—but to condemn him to a seat on the opposite side of the House.
§ Mr. Plumptre
said, that amongst all the measures which had come before Parliament since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, there had been none which, viewed in all its bearings, was so calculated to excite alarm; and though the rejection of it by that House might cause great agitation in Ireland, such a consequence would not be so serious as the effect of passing the measure would be upon England. The right hon. Baronet had applied the word "ferment" to the state of feeling which existed in re- 106 ference to that question. Such an expression could only be applied to what was easily raised and quickly subsided; but he could assure the House, that a calm and deep religious feeling prompted the present movement. The ground on which he opposed this Bill was in principle the same as that on which he had from year to year opposed the granting of any public money for the College of Maynooth. In the view of those who thought with him in opposing this grant they were protesting on the side of truth against error, and they could not consent to pay the public money for the propagation of error. That was the feeling of this country, and that feeling was not rightly called a ferment. He would ask the Government (if they were not prepared to appeal to the country at present) whether they expected that this feeling would have subsided by the time the next general election must necessarily take place? The feeling now abroad was one which he fully believed would last until then; and if this measure were passed into a law now, he believed that in the next Parliament it would be repealed. It would be better to withdraw the Bill at present than to encounter that probability. He entreated the Government to consider calmly what the feeling of the country was. The fetter which the hon. Member (Mr. Hindley) had read, and which was written by a Roman Catholic bishop, he considered to be a pretty good sample of the feeling of the Catholics of Ireland. The language was straightforward enough. It was the language of stern and sovereign contempt. But he wished to call the attention of the House to the letter of Mr. O'Connell to the Committee of Repeal wardens of Cork, dated 18th of April, in which he stated that everything encouraged them to a peaceful perseverance in agitation for Repeal, and that the Ministers of the Crown, finding it useless to attempt crushing the agitation by force, had now adopted another method, and showed a disposition to conciliate. These were Mr. O'Connell's words:—I am delighted to be the instrument of another perfectly peaceable exhibition of the determination of the immense majority of the inhabitants of the city and vicinage of Cork to persevere in seeking, by legal and constitutional means, and none other—for none other would we sanction—the restoration of Irish nationality. Everything encourages us to continue our peaceful perseverance in seeking the 107 Repeal of the Union. The attempt to overawe the Repealers by the exhibition of a grea military force has proved to be quite futile and absurd—because we never have been, and never will be, guilty of any violation of the law that could justify, or even require, military interference. The ludicrous failure of the 'scandalous prosecution' has covered the opponents of Repeal with interminable ridicule. Every attempt to put down the demand for Repeal has served, and still serves, only to demonstrate the utility of our constitutional agitation.The Ministers of the Crown, finding it to be totally useless to attempt to crush the repeal spirit by force, or to extinguish it by legal form, have adopted another and a less blameless course. They show a dermination to conciliate public opinion by minor acts of justice and benevolence. The Maynooth Endowment Bill is a measure of this description—entirely devoid of any obnoxious provisions, and brought forward in a spirit of statesmanlike conciliation. A good measure in itself and entitled to gratitude—but immeasurably short of the substantial justice due from England, and which can never be obtained save by the restoration of our domestic legislature.Whilst the Irish brooded in sorrow and irritation, but in silent acquiescence, over the grievances which afflicted their country, no relief was afforded—no conciliation suggested by the Government. On the contrary, even in our earlier movements, we were emphatically told that 'concession,' that is to say, 'Justice to Ireland,' had long attained its limits. That assertion is now emphatically retracted; and the loud cry of Irish agitation has penetrated into the interior Cabinet of the Ministry, and (force and fraud having been found useless) is endeavoured to be quelled by acts of benevolence conferred in a conciliatory manner.Let us then persevere. We have every incitement to persevere. Every concession made by England is a fresh proof of her former injustice. It increases the strength of the Repealers, and diminishes the power and numbers of those who are opposed to Repeal.In the mean time we are guilty of no deception or delusion. No particular concession can lessen our determination to procure Repeal. We know full well that complete justice to Ireland cannot be otherwise attained, nor any permanent protection from wrong and oppression secured, save under the auspices of an Irish Parliament.Now, it had been strongly stated both by Ministers and Gentlemen on the other side, and declared on the part of the Government, that nothing should induce them to agree to the Repeal of the Union. Mr. O'Connell, on the other hand, said that no concession would induce him to forego Repeal. He deemed every concession so much fresh ground, whence to take a step 108 onward for Repeal. It was worthy the consideration of the Government, that Mr. O'Connell and the Irish bishops did in deed, if not in words, set them at defiance; and that being the case, whether it would not be acting wisely, as advisers of the Crown, to withdraw the Bill, He had opposed the Government on this question with great regret, but upon principle he must resist the measure as he hitherto had done; and on the part of his Protestant fellow countrymen, who sent him there, he did protest against the Bill.
§ Colonel Verner
would not have trespassed upon the time of the House upon the present occasion, having so lately expressed his opinion with regard to the measure now before it, had it not been for what fell from the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) on Monday last. The right hon. Baronet was reported to have said,—We cannot deny that the feeling among the Protestant population of Ireland, with respect to this vote, is materially different from that prevailing among the Protestant population of England. I believe there has been this one great advantage in the vote, that it has been the connecting link between the Protestant and Catholic population of Irelnad.Now, he (Colonel Verner) could not allow this assertion to pass unnoticed, because he felt that if there was any subject upon which he might venture to express a decided opinion, it was upon the sentiments entertained by the Protestants of Ireland upon matters such as the measure now before the House. He did not speak at random; he spoke from a long and intimate connexion with that highly loyal and respectable body, the Protestants of Ireland; and he took upon him to say, in the most positive and unqualified terms, that their opinions had undergone no change in this respect. True it was, and he was ready to admit, that from repeated oppression and persecution—from finding themselves deserted, abandoned, and betrayed, by those to whom they were led to believe they might look for countenance and protection—from seeing the bitterest enemies to themselves and to their religion, men leagued together for the avowed purpose of endeavouring to bring about a separation between this Kingdom and Ireland, appointed to offices of honour and trust under the Crown — the Protestants of Ireland may have felt disheartened, but never subdued. He could truly say of the 109 Protestant people of Ireland, what he had frequently heard applied to the Roman Catholics—that they were the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever—unchanged and unchangeable. The right hon. Baronet was further reported to have said that the few petitions presented from the Protestants of Ireland justified his coming to the conclusion that they were not, as a body, unfavourable to the measure. He (Colonel Verner) could not allow that the want of petitions was a fair criterion from which to judge of the sentiments of that body; because he felt confident that, had sufficient time been afforded, petitions would have flowed in from Ireland as numerously as they have done in this country. If the right hon. Baronet had entertained a doubt that the petitions did not represent the real sentiments of the people, it was easy for the right hon. Baronet to have dissolved Parliament, and thereby have cleared up the doubt. He wished the right hon. Baronet had had recourse to that experiment, before he brought forward his measure: it would have released many from the painful situation in which they were now placed. He regretted exceedingly to find himself severed from many of them, with whom he had gone hand and hand for many years, in this House and out of it. He could not tell from whence the right hon. Baronet derived his information as to the feeling entertained by the Protestants of Ireland respecting this measure; but he believed that the right hon. Baronet had been misinformed. He knew of one instance which had come within his knowledge, of a rev. gentleman having written to a Member of the House that the Protestants about him were indifferent as to the fate of this Bill: now so far from their feeling indifferent, he had presented a petition from the parish of which this rev. gentleman was rector, signed, he believed, by every Protestant in it. The hon. Member concluded by again most earnestly entreating that the right hon. Baronet would dissolve Parliament, and thereby ascertain the real sense of the country before he forced this Bill through the House.
§ Mr. Redington
did not at all concur in the view taken by the gallant Colonel. Judging from the tone adopted by the Irish Protestant papers, he thought that their forbearance did them great honour; and even within the last four days he had received a declaration signed by the lead- 110 ing men of the county of Galway in support of the Government proposal.
§ Sir Robert Peel
did not understand that there was any intention on the present occasion to revive the general discussion. He thought that there was a general understanding, not that one or two individuals might not deliver their sentiments; but that they were to proceed with the Committee that night. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Kent would consider that no disrespect was intended towards him when he declined entering into the discussion. None felt more disposed than he was to do justice to the motives that actuated the hon. Member; and he begged to assure him that when he had used the term "ferment," it was with no intention of offering disrespect to those who were opposed to the grant to Maynooth; at the same time he was bound to tell his hon. Friend, that it was his firm determination to persevere with this measure. He did not think it could with justice be said that he was forcing the measure upon the consideration of the House. He had never offered the slightest objection to the adjournment of the debate, and the subject had already been debated ten nights. He made not the slightest complaint of those repeated adjournments; but then there was the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Sibthorp), who thought that in proposing the adjournment to a distant day, he did so with some mysterious object. The reason for his doing so was, because he understood from his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that he thought it impossible that the debate could come to a conclusion on Friday, the day before the adjournment for the holidays. It was, then, because he did not desire to have an adjourned debate dormant during the holidays, that he postponed the third reading till Monday after the Whitsun recess. With respect to what had been said by the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Verner), he deliberately repeated that he did think that a feeling (one such as could scarcely be expected) had been exhibited by the Protestants of Ireland on this subject—a generous feeling—a feeling of great forbearance on the part of the Protestant gentry, and such as was calculated to engender kindly feelings throughout Ireland. He did not mean to say that the whole of the Protestant body were in favour of this measure; but the hon. and 111 gallant Colonel must not consider that the Protestants were confined to the north of Ireland. He held in his hand a declaration, which had been imperfectly signed, from the shortness of time which had been devoted to the subject, but this declaration was signed by Protestant and Catholic landlords of the county of Galway, the greatest Roman Catholic county of Ireland in point of numbers of the Roman Catholics there. In this declaration it was stated—The undersigned have seen with much satisfaction the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to increase the amount of the grant annually made in support of the Royal College of Maynooth.They feel that measures thus tending to improve the social position of the Roman Catholic priesthood will accelerate the growth of that mutual forbearance, and of that charity in politics, which have been of late springing up among all parties in Ireland.To that declaration were attached the signatures of thirty-four magistrates, Protestants and Roman Catholics. The first signature to it was that of the bishop, James Daly. The persons signing were chiefly Protestants—the leading landed proprietors—persons most devoted to the Protestant religion. He found this to be the case to a greater extent than he could have believed possible, and he found that such persons expressed their satisfaction at the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government. Therefore he thought he was justified in saying that much less opposition had been manifested in Ireland, both on the part of the Established Church and the Presbyterians, against the Bill, than in this country. He considered that he was fully justified in the statement he had made. He would not set an example of entering into the discussion of the Bill on that occasion. He had understood his hon. Friend's (Sir R. Inglis) views were the same as his own in this respect, and that the impression was, that they were not now to enter into the discussion of the general question.
Lord J. Russell
asked, supposing the House should decide on going into Committee, was it the intention of his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) to take a division on parts of the Bill in Committee, and if so, would he state what those parts were?
§ Sir. R. Inglis
would give to his noble Friend's question as direct an answer as 112 he could. It was the intention, so far as he knew, of those with whom he had the honour to act, to take the sense of the Committee on the Amendments of which notice had been given. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Law) did, he believe, propose, in accordance with his Notice, to move the omission of Clauses 10 and 11; but he was not aware whether any other hon. Gentleman, except his hon. Friends the Member for Hull (Sir J. Hanmer), and the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford O'Brien), who had both Notices on the Paper, meant to take the sense of the Committee on any other clause. With regard to the general question, having addressed the House at considerable length on two previous occasions on that subject, and proposing again to occupy its attention on the Motion for the third reading of the Bill, he did not think it would be consistent with the respect which was due from him to the House, if he obtruded himself upon them on the Motion for going into Committee. He spoke, however, but as an individual, and could not answer for any other hon. Member following the same course.
§ Sir A. Brooke
denied that the opposition to the Bill on the part of the Protestants and Presbyterians of Ireland proceeded from any bigoted or hostile feeling towards the Roman Catholics. He, and those whom he had the honour to represent, and whose feelings he expressed in respect to this measure, had no desire to deprive the Irish Roman Catholics—either priesthood or peasantry—of the benefits of a liberal education; they were anxious, on the contrary, that the most liberal amount of education should be extended to all classes, provided it was based on sound principles — for they knew that education would enable the people to judge for themselves, which, unfortunately, they could not do at present. He could not reconcile it with his views that the State should maintain, much less that the Protestant Church of Ireland should maintain, a college like Maynooth for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and the propagation of the Roman Catholic religion. He felt bound to give to the Bill all the opposition in his power.
§ The House divided on the Question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair:—Ayes 160; Noes 52: Majority 108.
|List of the AYES.|
|Acland, Sir T. D.||Gaskell, J. Milnes|
|Adderley, C. B.||Gladstone, W. E.|
|Aldam, W.||Gladstone, Capt.|
|Archbold, R.||Glynne, Sir S. R.|
|Arundel and Surrey, Earl of||Gordon, hon. Capt.|
|Baillie, Col.||Gore, hon. R.|
|Baine, W.||Goulburn, H.|
|Barclay, D.||Graham, Sir J.|
|Baring, F.||Greene, T.|
|Baring, W. B.||Grey, Sir G.|
|Barnard, E. O.||Hale, R. B.|
|Barrington, Lord||Hamilton, W. J.|
|Bellew, R. M.||Hamilton, Lord C.|
|Bentinck, Lord G.||Harcourt, G. G.|
|Berkeley, H.||Henniker, Lord|
|Blackburne, J. I.||Herbert, S.|
|Blake, M. J.||Hervey, Lord A.|
|Boldero, H. G.||Hope, hon. C.|
|Botfield, B.||Hume, J.|
|Bowles, Adm.||Ingestre, Lord|
|Bowring, Dr.||Irving, J.|
|Bramston, T. W.||James, Sir W. C.|
|Browne, hon. W.||Jermyn, Earl|
|Bruce, Lord E.||Jocelyn, Lord|
|Buller, C.||Johnstone, Sir J.|
|Buller, E.||Labouchere, rt. hn. H.|
|Butler, P. S.||Lascelles, hon. W.|
|Cardwell, E.||Lemon, Sir C.|
|Carew, hon. R. S.||Lennox, Lord A.|
|Carew, W. H. P.||Leveson, Lord|
|Castlereagh, Lord||Lincoln, Earl of|
|Clerk, Sir G.||Macaulay, T. B.|
|Clive, hon. R. H.||Macnamara, W.|
|Cockburn, Sir G.||McGeachy, F. A.|
|Collett, J.||McNeill, D.|
|Coote, Sir C. H.||Mahon, Lord|
|Corbally, M. E.||Manners, Lord J.|
|Corry, H.||Martin, J.|
|Courtenay, Lord||Mildmay, H.|
|Cowper, hon. W.||Milnes, R. M.|
|Cripps, W.||Murphy, F. S.|
|Damer, hon. Col.||Napier, Sir C.|
|Davies, D. A. S.||Neville, R.|
|Dawson, hon. T.||Nicholl, J.|
|Denison, W. J.||Norreys, Sir D.|
|Denison, J. E.||O'Conor Don, The|
|Dennistoun, J.||O'Ferrall, R. M.|
|Dickinson, F. H.||Pakington, J. S.|
|Divett, E.||Palmerston, Lord|
|Douglas, Sir C.||Parker, J.|
|Duncan, Lord||Patten, J. W.|
|Dundas, D.||Peel, Sir R.|
|Ebrington, Lord||Peel, J.|
|Ellice, E.||Pendarves, E. W.|
|Ellis, W.||Pennant, Col.|
|Escott, B.||Philips, G. R.|
|Esmonde, Sir T.||Ponsonby, C. F.|
|Estcourt, T. G. B.||Pusey, P.|
|Etwall, R.||Rawdon, Col.|
|Ferguson, Col.||Redington, T.|
|Fitzroy, hon. H.||Repton, G. W. J.|
|Forster, M.||Rice, E. R.|
|Fremantle, Sir T.||Roche, E. B.|
|Gardner, J. D.||Roebuck, J. A.|
|Round, J.||Sutton, hon. H.|
|Russell, Lord J.||Thesiger, Sir F.|
|Sandon, Lord||Thornely, T.|
|Sheil, R. L.||Trelawny, J. S.|
|Smith, B.||Vane, Lord H.|
|Smith, T. B. C.||Vernon, G. H.|
|Smythe, hon. G.||Walker, R.|
|Somers, J. P.||Wall, C. B.|
|Somerville, Sir W.||Warburton, H.|
|Sotheron, T. H.||White, S.|
|Stansfield, W. R.||Wodehouse, E.|
|Stanton, W. H.||Wood, Col. T.|
|Somes, J.||Wyse, T.|
|Stewart, J.||Yorke, H. R.|
|Stuart, Lord J.||TELLERS.|
|Stuart, W. V.||Young, J.|
|Strutt, E.||Baring, H.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Acton, Col.||Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.|
|Antrobus, E.||Law, hon. C. E.|
|Astell, W.||Lawson, A.|
|Austen, Col.||Lefroy, A.|
|Bouverie, hon. E. P.||Maclean, D.|
|Brooke, Sir A.||McTaggart, Sir J.|
|Bruce, C. L.||Maule, F.|
|Buckley, E.||Morgan, C.|
|Colquhoun, J. C.||Morris, D.|
|Crawford, W. S.||Muntz, G. F.|
|Dawnay, hon. H.||Newdegate, C.|
|Denison, E. B.||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Duncan, G.||Pollington, Lord|
|Duncombe, T.||Protheroe, E.|
|Duncombe, hon. O.||Rendlesham, Lord|
|Ewart, W.||Richards, R.|
|Farnham, E. B.||Smollett, A.|
|Fitzroy, Lord C.||Spooner, R.|
|Forman, T. S.||Thompson, Ald.|
|Goring, C.||Tollemache, J.|
|Greenall, P.||Troubridge, Sir J. E. T.|
|Grimsditch, T.||Verner, Col.|
|Hamilton, G. A.||Waddington, H.|
|Hampden, R.||Wakley, T.|
|Henley, J. W.|
|Hill, Lord M.||TELLERS.|
|Inglis, Sir R. H.||Hindley, C.|
|Johnstone, H.||Sibthorp, Col.|
§ House in Committee.
§ On the 1st Clause, which proposes to incorporate the Trustees of Maynooth as a body politic and incorporate, being proposed,
§ Sir R. H. Inglis
said, looking forward to the period when, by possibility—a very remote possibility he hoped — this Bill would become law, he would suggest an Amendment which he thought might be advantageously introduced, something to this effect—That the words,The trustees of the said College, and their successors for ever, shall be one body politic and corporate, by the name of the Trustees of the College of Maynooth, and by that name shall have perpetual succession, and a common 115 seal, and by that name shall and may sue and be sued, and shall have and possess the several powers and authorities vested in the said trustees under the said recited Acts"—should be omitted, and that the powers created by the present Act should be placed in the hands of the body incorporated by the Act of last Session (the Charitable Bequests Act), for the purposes of this Act. He did not look upon the matter as important, and, therefore, did not intend to press the Amendment to a division if it were resisted, but he was anxious rather to have the opinion of the Government upon it.
§ Sir Robert Peel
was sorry to inform his hon. Friend that he could not acquiesce in his suggestion. His hon. Friend had admitted that it would make but little difference whether it were admitted or rejected; and he (Sir R. Peel) could not suppose that he should conciliate any party in favour of the Bill by acquiescing in the proposition; while, on the other hand, it would imply suspicion of the trustees, and possibly give offence to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. What was it that his hon. Friend proposed? Not that the endowment should be less permanent, but that the trust for carrying the powers of the Act into effect should rest, not in the trustees of the College of Maynooth, but in the trustees appointed by the Act of last Session. Now the purposes and objects of the two Acts were totally distinct; and to take from the Maynooth trustees the trust which they had hitherto administered satisfactorily and without complaint, would imply suspicion of their conduct. He found the trustees of this College appointed by the Parliament of Ireland before the Union, and recognised by the Imperial Parliament afterwards—he found full confidence placed in them as the trustees for the management of this College. He found that the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and certain judicial authorities who had originally been appointed trustees, had ceased to act, and that their capacity as trustees was extinguished, with the consent of the Parliament, and that Roman Catholic trustees exclusively administered the trust—the judges ceasing to act, as being Protestants; and if, under such circumstances, he were to say he would not allow the trustees he found so appointed, and so administering the trust, to continue in the management of the College, but would transfer their 116 functions to another body, he felt that while he should not be conciliating any support to the measure, he should be running a great hazard of giving offence to the Roman Catholic body in Ireland.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On Clause 2, providing that "such corporate body may take and possess personal property and lands, not exceeding 3,000l. in value, exclusive of the properly already acquired by the trustees," being read,
§ Sir J. Hanmer
rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, viz., to omit the words which limit the trustees of Maynooth College taking any real property with which it might be desired voluntarily to endow them. The right hon. Baronet had given a good reason for not acceding to the Amendment suggested by his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) though, until he had heard that reason, he (Sir J. Hanmer) had been inclined to agree with the Amendment, as it would have enabled the Charitable Bequests trustees to receive any property it might have been desired to give them for the purposes of the College; while, as trustees under the Act, they would be restrained from receiving it. He was not willing to see the Government committed to this troublesome ecclesiastical question. Their policy with regard to Ireland would have been more easy and more beneficial if full facilities had been given to every man to endow his own church as he pleased. He did not wish to enter into any general principle upon the present occasion; but he could not understand the wisdom of continuing laws which had their foundation exclusively on feudal reasons. To the propriety of continuing the laws of mortmain, his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) had already, and would soon again, direct the attention of the House. From the reign of Henry III. to 15th Richard II., a code of laws containing various Statutes, had been passed, which was designated the Code of Mortmain. By the 15th Richard II. the object of that code had been defeated; but it was not until the time of Henry VII., that that defeating Statute had been applied to Ireland. The Statute of Superstitious Uses had been passed in the 13th of Henry VIII., by which many trusts and uses had been restricted, which had not been included in the former Act. This Statute, however, had not applied to Ireland; and even with regard to England, 117 it had been held not to apply to charitable uses. The conclusion to which these facts led him was that the restriction contained in the present clause was a restriction not intended by the law, and ought not, therefore, to be allowed. He saw no reason why free citizens should be restrained from doing so by the mere shadow of certain feudal laws. He contended that the ancient Statutes of Mortmain were intended to preserve to the Monarch certain feudal rights, and not to interfere with the devise of property for charitable and religious purposes. From evidence given by the Mortmain Committee, indeed, it would appear that there was no law which prohibited a Roman Catholic from leaving his property to a corporation for the endowment of religion, or the endowment of a charity. He believed, indeed, that there was a Statute, the 10th of Charles I., affecting Ireland, which made it imperative upon archbishops and bishops there to accept land devised to them in trust for charitable or religious purposes. He was not aware whether that Statute was or was not repealed; but if it still remained in force, it gave to Protestant archbishops and bishops great advantage over the dignitaries of the Catholic Church. He called upon the Committee to recollect that the Statutes of Mortmain did not apply to the Colonies; why, then, in the present state of Ireland, should they be applied to that country to the prevention of property being left for religious purposes by Catholics? He proposed, by his Amendment, to allow Roman Catholics who had confidence in Maynooth, and wished to see it in a flourishing state, to leave for its uses real property, as they were already allowed to leave personal property. He contended that there existed no adequate reason for the restriction proposed by the Bill; and, entertaining that opinion, he begged to propose his Amendment.
§ The Question having been put,
Mr. T.B.C. Smith
said, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment appear-to found it upon evidence given before the Mortmain Committee; but it was right in considering the question that no misapprehension should exist as to what the law was at present. In the Statute of 1808, amending the Maynooth Act, there was not only an enabling clause to take property to the amount of 1,000l. a year, but there was also a prohibitory clause against 118 taking lands to any greater value. There was, consequently, not the slightest doubt that under the existing law the College could not take landed property of more value than 1,000l. a year, except the land on which the College stood, and some other land specifically mentioned. Now, he admitted that the College, as incorporated by the present Bill, would fall within the Statutes of Mortmain; but he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman that those Statutes were founded on feudal principles, and were therefore at the present day entirely obsolete. On the contrary, so recently as the 32nd Geo. III., an Act was passed by the Irish Parliament analogous to the Statutes of William and Mary in England, by which power was given to the Crown to dispense with the Statute of Mortmain in England. The principle of the law with respect to lands in mortmain was to prevent landed property being placed extra-commercially, or made inalienable; and accordingly, at present, land could not be tied up for more than a life or lives in being, except in certain cases of charitable devisees. The effect of the clause in the present Bill was to allow landed property to be given in mortmain without license to the extent of 3,000l. a year, and personal property to any amount whatever. There was, however, no prohibitory clause in the present Bill, so that if it could be made appear that it would be expedient a greater amount of landed property should be given in mortmain to this College, the Prerogative of the Crown alone was quite sufficient to extend the amount according to the necessity. He would no. then enter into a discussion as to the general policy of the Statutes of Mortmain; all he would say was, if they were impolitic, let them be repealed, but let not the subject be discussed incidentally on the present measure. He trusted the House would be satisfied with these reasons that there was no ground for the Amendment, and that they would vote with him for the original proposition of the Government.
§ Mr. Hindley
said, he so much assented to the arguments stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he felt it his duty to express a hope that his hon. Friend would not divide the House on the Amendment.
§ Lord J. Manners
said, he had not the slightest intention of taking part in the present discussion, but he thought the 119 right hon. Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. T. B. C. Smith) had failed to show on what ground the value of real property to be held by the trustees of Maynooth College should be limited to 3,000l a year. He wished to know on what principle such a limitation was made, for he could not conceive on what principle the framers of the Bill had proceeded with reference to this subject. If it was contrary to their principles to allow landed property to be held in perpetuity for any purpose, why did they allow these trustees to acquire real property to the value of 3,000l. a year? In spite of all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, he felt the greatest doubt—founded upon the evidence taken before the Committee, over which he had the honour to preside—whether, under the old mortmain laws which applied to Ireland, the College of Maynooth would have been prohibited from holding land to an unlimited amount were it not for the Act of 1808, and the Bill now before the House. He would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Sir J. Hanmer).
§ Mr. Roebuck
applauded the generous spirit in which the Amendment had been brought forward; but he thought experience had shown the imprudence of placing property in such a position that it could not be alienated. On what ground was it proposed to depart from the wise policy of the law on this occasion? The noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) had asked why they limited the value of real property to be held by the trustees of Maynooth to 3,000l. a year? The House must see that a line must be drawn somewhere. He would ask whether it was advisable in this case to deviate from a principle established by long experience—that it was imprudent to render property inalienable? He would support the proposition of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury.
§ Sir Inglis
agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), that there would be great danger in giving to the Maynooth trustees the unrestricted power proposed to be vested in them by the hon. Member for Hull. If such a power were given at all, he could not see why it should be confined exclusively to Roman Catholics. The hon. Member for Hull (Sir J. Hanmer) did not attempt to effect any reduction in the amount proposed to bevoted from the Consolidated Fund for 120 the support of Maynooth; but he proposed to afford greater facilities for the voluntary endowment of that Establishment. He felt it his duty to resist the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull. He had heard his hon. Friends incidentally mention the English Universities in relation to this question. It must be remembered that those institutions were the depositories of the education of this country, so far as the Established Church was concerned. If they were not prepared to violate the distinctive claims of the Church of England, he would say there was no more reason for enabling persons to endow the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, than for affording facilities to the endowment of institutions connected with other religious denominations. The noble Lord had expressed his surprise that the value of real property proposed to be held by the trustees of Maynooth, should be limited to 3,000l. He presumed the noble Lord was prepared to proceed upon the rule of three—the rule upon which the Government seemed to have proceeded. The annual grant to Maynooth had heretofore been 9,000l., and now it was proposed to increase it to 26,000l.; and the value of real property held by the College of Maynooth, which had hitherto been 1,000l. annually, might now be increased to 3,000l. He hoped the House would affirm the proposition contained in the Bill, in preference to that of the hon. Member for Hull.
§ Sir R. Peel
said, that permission was expressly given to the trustees of Maynooth to hold personal property to any amount. Therefore, those individuals who possessed real property which they wished to bestow upon the College of Maynooth, had only to sell that real property in the market, and present the gift as personal property. He must say that he was favourable to the voluntary endowment of the College of Maynooth, but he did not wish that endowment to be made contrary to the general principles of law. It was not on any ground of jealousy as to the College of Maynooth, that he wished to limit the value of property to be held by the trustees to 3,000l. a year. If he were asked whether he would rather see 100,000l. real property, or 100,000l personal property presented to that establishment, he must say, independently of any consideration of the Mortmain Laws, that he would rather the gift was made in per- 121 sonal than in real property, because he did not think that real property was, generally speaking, beneficially managed by ecclesiastical corporations. On the whole he doubted if landed property would be so well managed in the hands of ecclesiastical corporations as it would in those of private individuals, and as to the limit which had been fixed—respecting which exception had been taken—he could not help saying that there was more apparent than real ground for objecting to such limit; for in the first place, the Crown could at any time widen the boundary. Though the sum was fixed at 3,000l. yet the Crown might grant permission to the College of Maynooth to hold lands of greater value than that amount. There must be some amount fixed; it was quite as convenient to fix a reasonable as an unreasonable amount; there was no principle in the matter; the operation of the clause merely would be to give effect to the power which the Crown possessed of granting an extended permission: he hoped therefore, that they would not quarrel about the amount, and he hoped also that they would not do anything to repeal the Statute of Mortmain.
§ Mr. Redington
said, that though he should not support the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hull, yet he should not oppose a clause the tendency of which was to facilitate the endowment of Maynooth. He trusted that the Statute of Mortmain would not be incidentally discussed upon any question that might arise, and that no attempt would be made to curtail the voluntary endowment of Maynooth.
§ Mr. S. Crawford
, being opposed to all State grants for ecclesiastical purposes, he thought it his duty to remove, as far as he could, every impediment to voluntary endowment. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment if it were pressed.
§ Sir J. Hanmer
, in reply, observed, that seeing the munificent manner in which Oxford and Cambridge had been endowed, he was anxious to extend the same facility to his Roman Catholic fellow subjects. Seeing the large proportion of people professing that religion in Ireland, he had no objection to their having a great and noble university. If the right hon. Baronet ever travelled along the Mediterranean, he must have observed that all those lands in the hands of the ecclesiastical bodies were the best culti- 122 vated. He was afraid that if a limit were put to endowment (particularly after the manner in which the Government had otherwise provided for the College), the progress of voluntary endowment would soon cease altogether. He had come to that conclusion from what had already taken place, for though empowered to hold land to the amount of 1,000l. a year, the College had never had that amount.
said that it was now perfectly competent to Roman Catholics to leave endowments to any amount for the benefit of Maynooth, if they took the precaution of committing their control to trustees. It was much better, therefore, in his opinion, to give them the power at once, in their corporate capacity, without any such intervention.
§ On the Question that the blank in he Clause be filled with the words "three thousand pounds,"
Mr. Stafford O'Brien
proposed that the blank be filled with the words "thirty thousand pounds." Seeing that the great number of petitions against this grant was in opposition to the endowment of any religion whatever, and seeing that the Roman Catholics, from their declarations in former years, might be supposed to favour such a principle, he wished (without charging them with inconsistency in their recent conduct) to place them in such a position that they might be enabled to say, "We have subscribed an amount equal to that Government intended for us — we are now independent of you, and we wish to dissolve the connexion." He understood the hon. Member for Montrose was opposed to this proposal, lest it might increase the irritable feelings that now existed. But he (Mr. O'Brien) was sure that those who opposed this grant, felt no objection whatever to voluntary endowments by the Catholics themselves.
§ Sir H. Inglis
could not but think that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was endeavouring to outbid Her Majesty's Government in respect to the favours to be conferred on the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment on the grounds urged by a 123 distinguished supporter of the measure, who considered that the proposition was likely to injure the Bill in the opinion of the country. He should not trouble the Committee by repeating his objections to the endowment of Maynooth. If he objected to the endowment of 3,000l. it was surely unnecessary to say that his objections to endowing it to the extent of 30,000l. must be ten times as great.
§ Mr. Smythe
said the position of the advocates of the voluntary principle was absurd. They objected to Roman Catholics spontaneously endowing their own college. [Mr. Hume; No.] He had no doubt the hon. Member for Montrose would carry out the voluntary principle by discontinuing Church Establishments altogether. [Mr. Hume: Yes.] Then the advocates of the voluntary principle would put the State in this position, that it facilitated all religions while it proscribed them.
§ Mr. Hume
had no hesitation in saying that he was opposed to unlimited endowment exercised in favour of any sect. If they asked him what he should do if he had the power of remodelling the three kingdoms; he meant, of course, the provision for the religions of the three kingdoms—he should place all on a perfect equality. But in his opinion it showed an absence of all Christian feeling or sympathy for their fellow subjects to oppose the endowment of a few thousands at Maynooth, and to give an unlimited power of endowment as to the Universities in this country. He was in favour of the original proposal, because he feared that raising the endowment to 30,000l. would but increase those bitter feelings, and that dread of Popery, which now unhappily prevailed.
§ Mr. Granger
said, there was nothing to prevent the Catholics endowing the College by money in the funds, which would, perhaps, be a much better course than by investment in lands.
§ The Committee divided on the Question that the blank be filled up with 3,000l.:—Ayes 100; Noes 32: Majority 68.
|List of the AYES.|
|Ackers, J.||Baillie, Col.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Baine, W.|
|Archbold, R.||Baird, W.|
|Arkwright, G.||Baring, hon. W. B.|
|Arundel and Surrey, Earl of||Barnard, E. G.|
|Bentinck, Lord G.|
|Bagot, hon. W.||Blake, M. J.|
|Boldero, Capt.||Hume, J.|
|Botfield, B.||Hussey, A.|
|Bowles, Adm.||James, W.|
|Brocklehurst, J.||Jermyn, Earl|
|Brotherton, J.||Jocelyn, Lord|
|Browne, hon. W.||Lennox, Lord A.|
|Bruce, Lord E.||Macnamara, W.|
|Buller, Sir J. Y.||M'Neill, D.|
|Busfield, W.||Manners, Lord C.|
|Butler, P. S.||Martin, C. W.|
|Cardwell, E.||Mitchell, T. A.|
|Carew, hon. R. S.||Neville, R.|
|Clerk, Sir G.||Nicholl, J.|
|Clive, hon. R. H.||O'Brien, J.|
|Cockburn, Sir G.||O'Conor Don, The|
|Collins, W.||O'Ferrall, R. M.|
|Coote, Sir C. H.||Patten, J. W.|
|Corry, H.||Peel, Sir R.|
|Cripps, W.||Peel, J.|
|Darby, G.||Philips, G. R.|
|Duncan, Lord||Pigot, D.|
|Escott, B.||Pusey, P.|
|Esmonde, Sir T.||Repton, G. W.|
|Ewart, W.||Roebuck, J. A.|
|Fitzroy, hon. H.||Smith, B.|
|Forster, M.||Smith, T. B. C.|
|Fremantle, Sir T.||Somes, J.|
|Gaskell, J. Milnes||Stewart, J.|
|Gladstone, W. E.||Stuart, W. V.|
|Gladstone, Capt.||Sutton, hon. H.|
|Godson, R.||Tancred, H. W.|
|Gordon, Capt. hon. W.||Thesiger, Sir F.|
|Gore, hon. R.||Thornely, T.|
|Goulburn, H.||Trelawny, J. S.|
|Graham, Sir J.||Trench, Sir F.|
|Granger, T. C.||Wall, C. B.|
|Guest, Sir J.||White, S.|
|Halford, Sir H.||Wilde, Sir T.|
|Hatton, Capt. V.||Williams, W.|
|Heneage, G. H.||Winnington, Sir T. E.|
|Herbert, S.||Wood, Col. T.|
|Holmes, W. A.|
|Hope, hon. C.||TELLERS.|
|Hope, G. W.||Baring, H.|
|Howard, P. H.||Young, J.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Acton, Col.||Hill, Lord M.|
|Austen, Col.||Inglis, Sir R. H.|
|Bowes, J.||Jolliffe, Sir W. G.|
|Buck, L. W.||Law, hon. C. E.|
|Chetwode, Sir J.||Manners, Lord J.|
|Clive, Lord||Marsland, H.|
|Colquhoun, J. C.||Polhill, F.|
|Corbally, M. E.||Rendlesham, Lord|
|Crawford, W. S.||Redington, T.|
|Dawnay, hon. W.||Shaw, F.|
|Dickinson, F. H.||Somers, J. P.|
|Duncan, G.||Tollemache, J.|
|Forman, T. S.||Wakley, T.|
|Gardner, J. D.||Wyse, T.|
|Hamilton, G. A.||O'Brien, S.|
|Hanmer, Sir J.||Smythe, hon. G.|
§ On Clause 4,
§ Mr. Ferrand
wished to ask the Government how their message of peace had been received in Ireland? Mr. Smith O'Brien had talked in the Conciliation Hall of 50,000 Frenchmen landing on the coast of Ireland, an American fleet in the Channel carrying hostile bands of Irish emigrants. That was the result of acting on expediency, and forgetting the principles which placed them in power—the result of conduct such as no Ministry, professing to act on constitutional principles, was ever before guilty of in the history of this country. He hoped that during the Whitsuntide holidays the Protestants of England would convene the constituencies, and compel their Representatives to appear before them, and give an account of the conduct they had pursued on this Bill. There were many of the Members of that House who had pledged themselves, on their words of honour, to resign their seats when called upon to do so by a majority of their constituents. He asked them if they would redeem that pledge? Were they not bound, as men of honour, to repair to their conttituents, and inquire what their feelings were on this occasion. He observed an hon. Member opposite representing a borough in Yorkshire, whom, from the line which he had taken, and the declarations ascribed to him in the public journals, he regarded as especially bound to give his constituents the opportunity of expressing their opinion upon his conduct, and of returning, if they chose, some Member who would honestly and faithfully discharge his duty to them.
§ Mr. Stansfield
, being the Member alluded to, said, that what he had told his constituents was, that he felt himself bound in honour to vote according to his own conviction, and that it was his intention to vote with the Government, merely from a view of the necessities of the State, as propounded by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury. He would merely add that he had given his vote in accordance with the convictions he entertained. He thought the right hon. Baronet was the best judge of the public necessities; and when the right hon. Baronet stated them so strongly, agreeing as he did with the right hon. Baronet as to the propriety of doing justice to that great portion of Her Majesty's subjects who hitherto had been so neglected, he was 126 prepared to give the right hon. Baronet, on this question, his most cordial support. He almented, at the same time, that the funds ofr the endowment of the College should be drawn from the Public Revenue, having always supported the measure advocated by the hon. Member for Sheffield, and now being prepared to vote for it. He had said on the occasion referred to, that he was sorry to differ from his constituents, as he had never done so before; but while he admitted their right to influence him in local matters, yet, feeling that he was a Member of the great Commons of England, he considered it his duty to merge the local in the general interest. He had added also, that rather than be compelled to vote against a measure which he conscientiously believed to be but a reparation to Ireland at the hands of a country which had hitherto for centuries oppressed her, he would resign his seat. This was what he had said; and it was scarcely fair to represent that he had said positively that he would resign his seat. He had not said so, because it did not appear to him necessary. The more consideration he gave to this measure, the greater was his conviction of its justice and necessity, and therefore he should continue to support it.
§ Mr. Shaw
would not place his own objections to the present measure upon any lower ground than the total denial of the right of the Legislature, according to the fixed principles of the British Constitution, to endow, in permanent connexion with the State, a Roman Catholic Establishment in any portion of the United Kingdom. But assuming for a moment the ground taken by the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that a great improvement was to be expected in the College of Maynooth, should the Bill pass, he should like to hear some Irish Members of the Roman Catholic religion give an answer to the question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre), whether it was really a want of funds amongst the Roman Catholics, applicable to Roman Catholic purposes, that rendered the measure proposed by the Government even expedient? He could not believe that it was; for while he contended that the real object of the Irish Act of 1795, was to enable Roman Catholics to endow Maynooth for themselves, which they had not done to any extent worth mentioning, from that time to the present he saw immense sums expended from Ro- 127 man Catholic sources in Ireland on the erection of chapels and public seminaries for those professing their religion; and he believed large sums were sent from Ireland for the propagation of their faith abroad. Still Maynooth was neglected—and, notwithstanding the present measure, unless it were supported by the Roman Catholic aristocracy and gentry, which, from all he could observe and learn, he did not think it would be, he did not expect that its condition would be materially improved. He believed that it was unpopular amongst the higher and even the middle classes of the Roman Catholics themselves; and in reference to the observation made by the hon. Member for Montrose that 2,000l. a year was granted to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, he was happy to say that no sum was granted by that House to the University of Dublin. But he would ask that hon. Member and the House, if that paltry sum, or ten times the amount, would be available to placing the English Universities in their present position, if they were not sustained by the respect of the country, and the feelings of those who sent their sons to be educated there. It was for these reasons that he (Mr. Shaw) considered that while the Government was violating a great principle, which no improvement in Maynooth could, in his mind justify, still that they would not even produce any sensible improvement in that establishment.
§ Mr. Wyse
said, the learned Recorder for Dublin spoke as if the Catholics of Ireland did not support any college out of their own funds, when the fact was they supported colleges at Galway, Meath, Kilkenny and Carlow. They also supported their own bishops, as well as their inferior clergy and several schools. It was therefore, too bad to tax them with illiberality. He thought this was another ground for the present grant. At present the funds of the College of Maynooth were insufficient to educate students for the high office they were called upon to fill as Catholic priests. There was no parsimonious feeling on the part of the Catholics of Ireland; and surely the Protestants of Ireland had no cause to complain since they had Trinity College to themselves.
§ Mr. Shaw
said, the hon. Gentleman quite misconceived his (Mr. Shaw's) argument, and corroborated it by stating that 128 the Irish Roman Catholics had liberally endowed the seminaries of St. Jarlath's, Carlow, and others. He had not accused the Irish Roman Catholics of any general parsimony; on the contrary, what he had said was, that money was always forthcoming for any object they desired to promote, but that they had not supported Maynooth; and that therefore, he concluded, they did not like to support it, and would not now, although the grant was increased; and that, while that grant, by way of permanent endowment, violated a great constitutional principle, still, that without the co-operation of the Roman Catholic gentry, it would do a mere nothing in improving the general character of the College. As to the University of Dublin, he had only to repeat what he had over and over again stated in that House, that so far as education was concerned, all the studies, honours, and advantages of the University of Dublin were as open to Roman Catholics as to Protestants; and the hon. Gentleman himself had in his speech within the last few minutes given the reason—namely, that it was a Protestant ecclesiastical establishment—why it was impossible that any but members of the Established Church could be admitted as fellows, or on the foundation, or as part of the governing body, without an entire subversion of the intention of the founders, and the purposes for which that University was expressly established.
§ Mr. Redington
referred to the number of splendid Catholic churches springing up throughout Ireland as an additional proof that the Catholic clergy and laity of that country were not indifferent to the spiritual interests of the communion.
§ Sir R. Inglis
said, reference had been made to strong language used out of doors against the Roman Catholics; but he begged Gentlemen would recollect what strong language had more than once been uttered out of doors against the Established Church, by those who would do well to remember the professions and promises which they had made—that no measure prejudicial to that Church should receive their support.
§ Mr. M. Gore
said, he was so strongly convinced of the justice of this measure, and its beneficial tendency, as regarded not only Ireland, but the Empire at large, that nothing should dissuade him from 129 giving it his cordial and strenuous support.
begged to state a fact which might be gratifying to the hon. Member for Kent, and also to the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford—namely, that the Catholic Legislature of Belgium granted very handsome sums for the maintenance of the Protestant clergy. This would be a bright example for this country to follow, in compliance with the injunction, "Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you."
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On Clause 15 being read,
§ Mr. Plumptre
said, he must take that opportunity of calling attention to the nature of the education given in Maynooth College. The doctrines there taught were, he contended, antisocial, immoral, and intolerant. He would read to the House some specimens from the class books used in Maynooth. A venial sin, according to Dr. Doyle, in the catechism taught to Roman Catholics in Ireland—Is a sin which does not break charity between man and man, much less between God and man, such as the stealing an apple," &c. "By what kind of sins are the commandments broken? By mortal sins only; for venial sins are not, strictly speaking, contrary to the end of the commandment, which is charity. When is a theft a mortal sin? When the thing stolen is of considerable value, or causeth a considerable hurt to our neighbour. When is a lie a mortal sin? When it is any great dishonour to God, or notable prejudice to our neighbour.One of the Maynooth class books, by Dr. Bailly, contained the following, in chapter 7, p. 232:—How great must be the quantity of the thing stolen in order to constitute the theft a mortal sin? The quantity cannot easily be determined, since nothing has been decided on this point, either in natural, divine, or human law. Some are of opinion that a quantity necessary for the maintenance of an individual for one day, in a manner suitable to his station in this world, is sufficient to make the theft a mortal sin. Others think that it requires a quantity which, everything considered, inflicts a grievous injury on our neighbour, and deprives him of something particularly useful. A loss, however, which in respect of one, a rich man for instance, is slight, in respect of a poor man maybe considered heavy. It is generally laid down, and you (the priests) may lay it down as determined, that in order that a theft should be a mortal sin, when committed on persons of the first rank, fifty or sixty pence are sufficient.130 He went on to say with respect to persons in a lower class, forty pence are enough to constitute a mortal sin; and, with respect to others in a still lower class, twenty pence, if their trade is very lucrative; if less lucrative, tenpence. What morality was that? How unlike the majesty and simplicity of God's commandment, "Thou shalt not steal!" Dr. Bailly, in his Moral Theology of Oaths, mentioned several causes which took away the obligation of an oath. One was, "If the thing sworn becomes impossible or unlawful on account of the prohibition of any superior." Another cause was a dispensation or commutation made by the superior. One case assigned was, "when the public good is concerned, which ought always to be preferred to private good." He contended that his quotations justified his statement that the doctrines taught in Maynooth were of an antisocial and immoral character; and appealed to the Government whether they could properly and consistently call upon the Protestants of this country to endow a college in which such doctrines were taught from day to day as a part of the system of instruction; and he threw on it the responsibility of endowing a college where such doctrines were inculcated.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On Clause 17 being put,
§ Mr. Wyse
observed, that before the Clause was put to the vote, he wished to take that opportunity, not of continuing the discussion—if discussion it might be called—but of denying the charge which had been frequently made in this debate, that a book entitled Dens on Theology was read at Maynooth. It was not read there, nor had it ever been read at Maynooth. Moreover, many of the doctrines which were supposed to be inculcated in that College, particularly the doctrine of the power of the Pope over temporal princes—that of the power of deposition, and that of the power of breaking oaths with heretics, instead of being taught at Maynooth, were repudiated there, and the very reverse of these obnoxious doctrines was not only taught, but studiously inculcated, and every one of the professors was specially ordered by the statutes of the College to inculcate the doctrine that the Pope had no temporal power either in this kingdom or in any other kingdom in Europe. Obnoxious paragraphs had been cited by the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre) and by 131 other hon. Members, from Roman Catholic books, in order to call down the condemnation of the House upon the principles taught at Maynooth. But he could cite passages from Luther and from many others amongst the early Reformers, which the House, he was sure, would regard as equally objectionable, and to which Christians of the present day would be equally unwilling to subscribe. But such would not be the proper mode of treating this question. He would not cite such paragraphs in the way of recrimination, but merely to show that such charges made upon the one side, could be met with similar charges on the other. But these were matters which should, on all hands, be allowed to pass into oblivion. They should, on an occasion like the present, forget everything which might tend to heighten the acrimonious animosities which already prevailed. They should rather remember that they all belonged to one great Christian family, and should, by their acts more than by their professions, preach faith and charity together, and, by so doing, not only assist in the spread of true religion, but assist every denomination of religion, whether Protestant or Catholic.
§ Mr. Colquhoun
would like to call upon the hon. Gentleman for some proof of what he said. The hon. Gentleman stated that he was prepared to prove from Protestant works, that sentiments abounded in these works as objectionable as those to which the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre) and others had alluded in the course of the debate. Would the hon. Gentleman consent to cite any one passage to the House and to the country which had any sort of colour or connexion with the sentiments cited by his hon. Friend? All that he (Mr. Colquhoun) could say was, that if the hon. Gentleman could prove that such sentiments were taught in any part or portion of any book used as a class book in any college of England or Scotland, or in any University in either country, he would undertake to come down to that House, and call upon them to institute a most searching inquiry into that institution, its doctrines and discipline, where such sentiments were inculcated. An educational institution teaching such sentiments deserved neither public confidence nor support. It was established beyond doubt that many of the books used at the College of Maynooth inculcated Ultramontane opinions, 132 which were so dangerous to the peace of states and to the order of the country. There was Delahogue, and he might also cite Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest advocates of these opinions. When the hon. Gentleman said that these opinions were never taught at Maynooth, he (Mr. Colquhoun) would only refer them to the evidence in their own library—the evidence adduced by the Commissioners appointed by themselves, for a refutation of what the hon. Gentleman thus stated. These opinions had been taught, and were still taught, at Maynooth.
§ Mr. Wyse
did not originate this discussion; it originated on the other side of the House. He would not detain the Committee a single instant beyond what was necessary, not for his own vindication, but to prove the correctness of the statement which he had made. He had stated that Dens' book was not now read, and that it had never been read, at Maynooth. That statement he would repeat, and he did so, on what he considered authority of the most unquestionable character—the authority of the heads and professors of the College at the present moment. With regard to the particular doctrines to which hon. Gentlemen might object, and which might be found in this or in that book, it was one thing to find them in books, and another thing to ascertain whether they were doctrines taught at the College or not. To the assertion that they were taught there, he would return in answer, that they were not taught, nor had they been taught there, within his recollection. He placed this assertion, on his part, on the same ground as he had placed the former,—the authority of the professors of Maynooth. They declared that it was a portion of their statutes that these doctrines should be repudiated; and, further, that instructions were given to the professors of theology to inculcate their repudiation upon the students. He was ready to point out in the writings of the different Reformers who commenced the Reformation in Germany, and in those of many others who were looked up to as the great authorities of the several Protestant denominations in the country, and whose opinions reached in various forms down to the present day, passages which that Committee, as well as every other body similarly constituted, could not but consider condemnable. He had books now in his hand from which he could read such 133 passages, and if the House called upon him to read them he would willingly do so. ["Read, read."] He would select one passage from the early Reformers, and that he thought would be enough. Luther taught in his works that—God works the evil in us as well as the good," and that "the great perfection of faith consists in believing God to be just, although by his own will he necessarily renders us worthy of damnation, so as to seem to take pleasure in the torments of the miserable.Again—Free-will is an empty name;" and, farther, "if God foresaw that Judas would be a traitor, Judas necessarily became a traitor; nor was it in his power to be otherwise. Man's will is like a horse; if God sit upon it, it goes as God would have it; if the devil ride it, it goes as the devil would have it; nor can the will choose its rider, but each of them studies which shall get possession of it.And farther, following up this doctrine, he taught—Let this be your rule in interpreting the Scriptures: wherever they command any good work, do you understand that they forbid it, because you cannot perform it." "Unless faith be without the least good work, it does not justify, it is not faith." "See how rich a Christian is, since he cannot lose his soul do what he will, unless he refuse to believe; for no sin can damn him but unbelief.The doctrines of the other Reformers, Calvin, Beza, &c., was similar. Wesley first followed the doctrine, that a believer is not obliged to use the ordinances of God, or do good works, &c. Fletcher stated that the Antinomian Calvinists preached that "what were damning sins in Turks or Pagans, were only spots in God's children;" and in a treatise of one of their supporters, the hon. Richard Hill, he found it maintained that—Murder and adultery do not hurt the pleasant children (the elected) but work even for their good;adding—My sins may displease God—my person is always acceptable to him. Though I should outsin Manasseh himself, I should not be less a pleasant child, because God always views me in Christ. Hence, in the midst of adulteries, murders, and incests, he can address me with 'Thou art all fair, my love, my undefiled; there is no spot in thee.' It is a most pernicious error of the schoolmen to distinguish sins according to the fact, not according to the person. Though I highly blame those who say, 'Let us sin, that grace may abound,' yet adultery, incest, and murder, upon the whole, make me holier.
§ Mr. Colquhoun
thought that the hon. Member for Waterford occupied a very extraordinary position. The hon. Gentleman came down to the House, as he said, wholly unprepared; [Mr. Wyse: No;] and yet he most opportunely found in his pocket ["No, no;" "Order, order,"] a volume from which the hon. Gentleman quoted extraordinary opinions, which he was hardly able to discern whether they belonged to Luther or Wesley—to either or to both of them. The question for them to consider was, should that House provide for the teaching of opinions which were opposed to social order and constitutional peace in this country? The hon. Gentleman had taken it upon himself to affirm that neither was the work of Dens, nor were the opinions referred to by the hon. Member for Kent, ever taught in the College of Maynooth; and he cited as his authority the opinions of the professors. But he could not take their opinions. They had the Return of the Commissioners before them, from which it appeared that passages from the books referred to were brought to the attention of those gentlemen (the professors) by the Commissioners; and these opinions appeared, to every intelligent man, opposed to social order and to the peace of society. If this country were guilty of the extraordinary folly of endowing colleges in England or Scotland, which propagated opinions opposed to social order and peace, such as it was proved were propagated at Maynooth, in the standard works used in that seminary, it would be guilty of an act of folly equal to that which it was now perpetrating, in not only continuing but in increasing the grant to Maynooth.
Mr. M. J. O'Connell
would be sorry to be guilty of any breach of order. He had interrupted the hon. Gentleman because he had misrepresented ["Order"]—
called the hon. Gentleman to order, and stated, that if there had been any misrepresentation, it must have been unintentional.
Mr. M. J. O'Connell
said, that he hardly believed himself that it was intentional. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse) stated that certain doctrines were to be found in Protestant writings. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Colquhoun), in replying to him, with that ingenious acuteness which he always manifested, put the issue upon the doctrines taught, or alleged to be taught, at Maynooth, which was not 135 the phrase used by the hon. Member for Waterford. His hon. Friend (Mr. Wyse), following out his original idea, cited passages from certain works which proved to the House that doctrines as objectionable were held and taught on the one side, as could be pointed out on the other. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Colquhoun) came to the charge and accused his hon. Friend of misrepresentation, when he must say, with all due deference to the House, that if there was any misrepresentation, it was altogether on the hon. Gentleman's own side. There were, and had been, doctrines of the kind alluded to, written and taught by divines; and he believed that it would be admitted on all sides that there were no works, at least no standard works, of an old date, in which some doctrines were not to be found—pushing principles to extreme lengths, and which all Christians would now join in condemning. His hon. Friend said that these doctrines were not taught at Maynooth. On the correctness of this, the House might rely. He (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) would take a practical question. The hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre), with a charity which he shared with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Line (Mr. Colquhoun) towards his Roman Catholic brethren, quoted passages on the subject of theft. Now it was admitted for years past that the poorer classes of Irishmen who came over to this country, and who professed the same faith—at least most of them—as he (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) did himself, were peculiarly remarkable for the absence amongst them of paltry thefts. If their creed was of an antisocial tendency, would these results have been shown? It happened that, bad as the doctrines which the Maynooth priests taught might be, they taught the people better than did some of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Plumptre) own constituents. Ignorant, uneducated, and demoralized as he might think the peasantry of Ireland to be, they never yet worshipped in the neighbourhood of one of their cathedral towns in Ireland a maniac as the Messiah.
§ Mr. Plumptre
had never quoted a passage from Dens, nor had he ever stated that Dens had written a book which was used at Maynooth. The hon. Member for Waterford, and the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, allowed that the doctrines attributed to the Catholics were 136 to be found in the books which he had cited, but alleged that these doctrines were not taught. He would ask them why were these doctrines not expunged from these books? They should certainly give to the visitors of the College the power of ascertaining whether the books which were taught at the College contained such passages.
§ Mr. Monckton Milnes
observed, that he must express his conviction that most of the Members of that House, who had paid any attention to the subject, could not regard the argument deduced from certain passages, even in the text books of Maynooth, as available against the present measure.
§ Mr. D. R. Pigot
observed, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Colquhoun) had affirmed that particular doctrines were taught in Maynooth, for that he had referred to the Report of the Commissioners who had examined into the state of Maynooth; now, he (Mr. Pigott) on the other side, maintained that the doctrines referred to—the Ultramontane doctrines—doctrines exalting the supremacy of the Pope, the right of the Pope to temporal power in the dominions of other princes, were not taught in the College of Maynooth. And to prove that statement, he referred to the evidence of three persons—the President, the Vice President, and the Dean of Maynooth—these three persons being the only authorities—the only persons charged with the discipline of the College. The first of these witnesses was Dr. Crotty. The President was asked if the Transalpine doctrine was inculcated in Maynooth; to which his reply was, that it never had been. The Rev. Dr. Montague, the Vice President, was then asked, if he were acquainted with the principles inculcated in Dr. Delahogue's class book? He answered that he was; that Dr. Delahogue had been the professor of moral theology, but Dr. Hearne latterly filled that situation; and not only was he as great a defender of the French or Gallican doctrines—in inculcating the Cisalpine doctrines — that he was even more violent than Dr. Delahogue against the Ultramontane, or the doctrine teaching any political or temporal power being exercised by the Pope. The third person examined was the dean, the Rev. Mr. Dowling. He stated that he was educated at Maynooth; that he attended Dr. Delahogue's lectures; that he knew his book, the 137 "Ecclesia;" that they taught the Cisalpine doctrines; and in answer to the question had the Transalpine doctrines been taught in the College, he replied that they had been never taught, never inculcated, and never encouraged. He had heard the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Colquhoun) make a distinct proposition, and, referring to the evidence in the Report of the Commissioners, he met that proposition, he read the evidence, and he now left it to the hon. Gentleman to prove his proposition.
§ Mr. Colquhoun
hardly understood what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant, unless it was to confirm what he had already stated. That which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just read confirmed what he had never disputed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman showed that the authorities at Maynooth said that there were not Ultramontane doctrines taught at Maynooth; but then, by citations from the books used in the College, it would be seen that these doctrines were taught, and there was the discrepancy between the assertion of the authorities and the evidence in the Report. At a future stage of the debate he meant to bring from that Report passages which would prove that Ultramontane doctrines were taught; that they were to be found in the standard works read in the College. That he would prove; and to that proposition he meant to nail the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Redington
said, if he recollected right, a certain number of years ago, there was a Mr. Colquhoun, who made a charge that there were taught certain doctrines in a school in the city of Glasgow. That charge was publicly made; the persons who were trustees of the school required the Mr. Colquhoun to whom he referred to substantiate the charge. The Mr. Colquhoun he alluded to never succeeded in substantiating the charge, and if he was not mistaken, a vote of censure was passed upon that Mr. Colquhoun. He might be mistaken in the person, but he was strongly reminded of that Mr. Colquhoun when he heard the hon. Gentlemen opposite talk of being prepared to nail any Gentleman to a certain point. He might, too, be erroneous in his reminiscences on another subject; but if it were not a lapse of memory on his part, there was, some years ago, a Mr. Colquhoun, a Member for Kilmarnock, in that House; that Mr. Colquhoun had 138 been examined before the House of Lords, and he there made a grave charge against the National Board of Education in Ireland, namely, that one of the teachers was a ribbonman. He was asked what evidence he had of the fact, and he stated as his authority Lord Lansdowne's agent. This was a gentleman named Price, that he had met on board of a steam boat, and the reason he said the man was a ribbonman, because Mr. Price had said he was a blackguard. Now this Mr. Colquhoun might be the same individual who had distinguished himself in Glasgow, and rendered himself remarkable before the House of Lords, and who would now make a charge against Maynooth, because certain passages were in some books to be found there. Were members of colleges in England to be made responsible for every opinion promulgated by Locke, and every argument employed by Paley? Were all the passages in all the books in the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge to be deemed to be the doctrines taught by the professors in these Universities? He had listened with great pain to this discussion. Catholics permitted frequently calumnies to be uttered against their religion; and they did so without troubling the House with a refutation of them. Facts answered slanders. If half a dozen of the multitude of doctrines imputed to them were inculcated by their religion—the religion of the great majority of the people of Europe—it would be undeserving of the name of religion, and its vices must appear in the conduct of its professors and disciples; whilst, as to Ireland, instead of being a moral and virtuous nation, it must be the most debased on the face of the earth. The religion which had been taught, which had existed for eighteen centuries, might well defy the puny efforts of such as those who now spoke of nailing others to the point.
§ Sir R. Peel
said he had heard the discussion which had just taken place with great pain; for of all assemblies he thought this House was least fitted to discuss questions of this nature. He had before stated that the servants of Her Majesty had considered whether any public advantage could result from instituting an inquiry into the course of education pursued at Maynooth. They had read with great attention the Report of 1827. He did not consider that that Report had exhausted the whole subject; but he thought it very improbable that any new 139 light could be thrown upon it by a new inquiry. They had provided for the appointment of visitors. They had required that those individuals should visit the College once at least in every year, call before them the professors and officers, and inquire into the condition and management of the institution. It was also provided that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should possess the power, whenever he thought fit, of directing an inquiry into the management and government of the College. They did not, therefore, consider it expedient or possible to carry inquiry much further. Differing as he did from the religious persuasion of many of those hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in this debate, and who had spoken with some natural irritation, he must entreat the House to beware how they drew inferences from doctrines contained in particular books. He would remind the hon. Member for Kent, that in the course of the evidence given before the Committee on Maynooth education, the following question was put to one of the professors at Maynooth:—Are you aware that Dr. Paley, in his Moral Philosophy, in treating of promise, undertakes to show that promises are not binding where the performance is impossible; that promises are not binding where the performance is unlawful; that promises are not binding where they contradict a former promise; that promises are not binding which are released by the promisee; and that erroneous promises are not binding in certain cases?Now, if these sentences had been read without the name of Dr. Paley being mentioned, would they not have been apt to produce a wrong impression? But what was the answer to this question? "I have not read that work, but all those principles are the same as ours exactly;" these being the principles of Dr. Paley. But, as another proof of the danger of trusting to such indications, he might state that, during the same inquiry, the following question was put to another professor at Maynooth:—In the third Council of Lateran, is it not understood that amongst the punishments decreed against the Albigenses, this was determined—'Illorum subditi et vassalli relaxatos se noverint a debito fidelitatis dominii et totius obsequii donec in tanta iniquitate permanserint?'This appeared to imply that, in certain cases, a spiritual authority might release the subjects of a Sovereign from their al- 140 legiance; but what was the reply of the Professor of Dogmatic Theology? He said—If it be supposed that a Council or Pope, or any authority whatever, assumed the right of absolving subjects from their allegiance to their Sovereign, I would disregard their decision, and consider the subject by no means freed from the obligations of fidelity. Not only would I despise and disregard such a decree, but, if a subject of the Sovereign in question, I would consider it my religious duty to openly resist it, and advise such of the people as might be committed to my care to remain unshaken in their allegiance.Now let them place that practical statement against the doctrine of the Council of Lateran; and because certain doctrines were contained in some books used at the College of Maynooth, let them not suppose that the instruction given at that institution was inconsistent with the duty of the scholars to God, to their neighbour, and to their Sovereign.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 10 read; expense to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
§ On the Question that it be read a second time,
§ The Committee divided on the Question that the clause be read a second time:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 88: Majority, 122.
|List of the AYES.|
|Acland, Sir T. D.||Boldero, H. G.|
|Acland, T. D.||Botfield, B.|
|A'Court, Capt.||Bowes, J.|
|Adderley, C. B.||Bowles, Adm.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Bowring, Dr.|
|Ainsworth, P.||Bramston, T. W.|
|Aldam, W.||Browne, hon. W.|
|Archbold, R.||Bruce, Lord E.|
|Arundel and Surrey, Earl of||Buller, C.|
|Byng, G. S.|
|Baillie, Col.||Cardwell, E.|
|Baine, W.||Carew, hon. R. S.|
|Baring, rt. hon. F. T.||Carew, W. H. P.|
|Baring, rt. hon. W. B.||Castlereagh, Visct.|
|Barnard, E. G.||Cavendish, hon. C. C.|
|Barrington, Visct.||Chapman, B.|
|Barron, Sir H. W.||Charteris, hon. F.|
|Bell, M.||Childers, J. W.|
|Bell, J.||Cholmondeley, hon. H.|
|Berkeley, hon. F. H.||Clayton, R. R.|
|Blackburne, J. I.||Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.|
|Blake, M. J.||Clifton, J. T.|
|Bodkin, W. H.||Clive, hon. R. H.|
|Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir. G.||Hope, G. W.|
|Colebrooke, Sir T. E.||Horsman, E.|
|Collett, J.||Howard, hon. E.|
|Collins, W.||Howard, P. H.|
|Corbally, M. E.||Howick, Lord|
|Corry, H.||Hume, J.|
|Courtenay, Lord||Hutt, W.|
|Cripps, W.||Ingestre, Lord|
|Dalrymple, J.||James, W.|
|Damer, hon. Col.||James, Sir W. C.|
|Davies, D. A. S.||Jermyn, Earl|
|Dawson, hon. T.||Jocelyn, Visct.|
|Denison, W. J.||Labouchere, rt. hn. H.|
|Dickinson, F. H.||Lambton, H.|
|Douglas, Sir C. E.||Lascelles, hon. W.|
|Drummond, H.||Layard, Capt.|
|Duncan, Lord||Lemon, Sir C.|
|Duncannon, Lord||Lincoln, Earl of|
|Dundas, D.||Listowel, Earl|
|East, J. B.||Macnamara, W.|
|Easthope, Sir. J.||M'Geachy, F. A.|
|Eastnor, Visct.||McNeill, D.|
|Ebrington, Lord||Mahon, Visct.|
|Ellice, rt. hon. E.||Manners, Lord J.|
|Emlyn, Visct.||Martin, C. W.|
|Escott, B.||Mildmay, H.|
|Esmonde, Sir T.||Milnes, R. M.|
|Etwall, R.||Mitcalfe, H.|
|Ferguson, Col.||Murphy, F. S.|
|Ferguson, Sir R. A.||Napier, Sir C.|
|Fitzmaurice, hon. W.||Neville, R.|
|Fitzroy, hon. H.||Newport, Lord|
|Fitzwilliam, G.||Nicholl, J.|
|Flower, Sir J.||Norreys, Sir D.|
|Forster, M.||Northland, Lord|
|Fox, C. R.||O'Brien, J.|
|Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.||O'Connell, M. J.|
|French, F.||O'Conor Don, The|
|Gardner, J. D.||O'Ferrall, R. M.|
|Gaskell, J. Milnes||Ord, W.|
|Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.||Owen, Sir J.|
|Gladstone, Capt.||Paget, Col.|
|Glynne, Sir S.||Pakington, J. S.|
|Godson, R.||Palmerston, Lord|
|Gordon, hon. Capt.||Parker, J.|
|Gore, M.||Patten, J. W.|
|Gore, hon. R.||Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.|
|Goulburn, rt. hon. H.||Peel, J.|
|Graham, rt hn. Sir J.||Pennant, hon. Col.|
|Granby, Marquess of||Philips, G. R.|
|Granger, T. C.||Pigot, rt. hon. D.|
|Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.||Ponsonby, hon. C.|
|Hale, R. B.||Praed, W. T.|
|Halford, Sir H.||Pusey, P.|
|Hamilton, W. J.||Rawdon, Col.|
|Hamilton, Lord C.||Redington, T. N.|
|Harcourt, G. G.||Repton, G. W. J.|
|Hatton, Capt. V.||Roche, E. B.|
|Hawes, B.||Round, J.|
|Heneage, G. H.||Rous, hon. Capt.|
|Heneage, E.||Russell, J. D.|
|Herbert, rt. hon. S.||Rutherfurd, A.|
|Hervey, Lord A.||Sandon, Lord|
|Hinde, J. H.||Seymour, Lord|
|Hollond, R.||Sheil, R. L.|
|Holmes, hn. W. A'C.||Smith, B.|
|Hope, hon. C.||Smith, J. A.|
|Smith, rt. hon. R. V.||Trelawny, J. S.|
|Smith, rt. hon. T. B. C.||Trench, Sir F. W.|
|Somerville, Sir W. M.||Vernon, G. H.|
|Stansfield, W. R. C.||Villiers, Visct.|
|Stanton, W. H.||Walker, R.|
|Staunton, Sir G. T.||Warburton, H.|
|Stewart, J.||Watson, W. H.|
|Stuart, Lord J.||White, S.|
|Stuart, W. V.||Wood, Col. T.|
|Stock, Sergt.||Worsley, Lord|
|Strutt, E.||Wortley, hon. J. S.|
|Sturt, H. C.||Wynn, rt. hon. C. W. W.|
|Sutton, hon. H. M.||Wyse, T.|
|Tancred, H. W.||Yorke, H. R.|
|Tennent, J. E.||TELLERS.|
|Thesiger, Sir F.||Young, J.|
|Thornely, T.||Lennox, Lord A.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Acton, Col.||Hamilton, G. A.|
|Archdall, Capt.||Hanmer, Sir J.|
|Ashley, Lord||Henley, J. W.|
|Astell, W.||Hill, Lord M.|
|Austen, Col.||Hindley, C.|
|Bankes, G.||Hornby, J.|
|Bateson, T.||Hughes, W. B.|
|Beresford, Major||Hussey, T.|
|Broadley, H.||Jolliffe, Sir W.|
|Brotherton, J.||Lefroy, A.|
|Bruce, C. L. C.||Leslie, C. P.|
|Buckley, E.||Lowther, hon. Col.|
|Buller, Sir J.||Mackenzie, T.|
|Chetwode, Sir J.||Maclean, D.|
|Christopher, R.||M'Taggart, Sir J.|
|Cole, H. A.||Marsland, H.|
|Colquhoun, J. C.||Marton, G.|
|Colville, C. R.||Masterman, J.|
|Connolly, Col.||Maule, F.|
|Crawford, W. S.||Maunsell, T. B.|
|Curteis, H. B.||Morris, D.|
|Darby, G.||Neeld, J.|
|Deedes, W.||Neeld, J.|
|Denison, E. B.||Newdegate, C. N.|
|Dick, Q.||Pechell, Capt.|
|Dodd, G.||Plumptre, J. P.|
|Douglas, Sir H.||Rendlesham, Lord|
|Douglas, J. D. S.||Richards, R.|
|Duncan, G.||Ryder, hon. G. D.|
|Duncombe, T.||Shaw, F.|
|Duncombe, O.||Sibthorp, Col.|
|Du Pre, C. G.||Smith, A.|
|Egerton, Sir P.||Spooner, R.|
|Ewart, W.||Thompson, Ald.|
|Farnham, E. B.||Tollemache, J.|
|Ferrand, W. B.||Tower, C.|
|Fitzroy, Lord C.||Turner, E.|
|Forbes, W.||Turnor, C.|
|Forman, T. S.||Tyrrell, Sir J.|
|Fox, S. L.||Verner, Col.|
|Fuller, A. E.||Waddington, H.|
|Greenall, P.||Wakley, T.|
|Gregory, W. H.|
|Hallyburton, Lord J.||Inglis, Sir R. H.|
|Hamilton, J. H.||Law, hon. C.|
§ On Clause 11,
§ Mr. Hindley
said, that after this display of the crossfire of Cambridge, he should never trust Cambridge again upon any matter of importance.
The several clauses having been thus agreed to, the question was put on the preamble of the Bill, and then
§ Sir R. Inglis
said, that he wished to put upon record a sort of protest against the present measure, by bringing up a Clause to declare that no enjoyment of pecuniary advantage under this Bill should create a vested interest.
§ Clause brought up and read a first time.
§ On the Question that it be read a second time,
§ Sir R. Peel
said, that such a clause was hardly worthy of any Legislature—such a clause, moreover, could not bind them. Surely the House would not sanction the principle that if a professor were to enjoy his salary for thirty years, that he must by reason of such a clause as this be deprived of all the advantages of a vested interest. He really did not see how such a clause would promote the objects which his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford had in view.
§ Sir R. Inglis
observed, that no man could be said to have a vested interest, when he was made aware beforehand that one of the conditions of his accepting office was, that he must have no vested interest.
§ Clause negatived. The House resumed. Bill to be reported.