HC Deb 21 May 1845 vol 80 cc659-750

"Dr. Cooke was desirous of stating, that in the event of his congregation not forwarding a petition, the reason would be found not in any want of disapprobation to oppose the measure, but in the disregard of Parliament to the expressed opinions of the Christian people. He had assisted at the previous meeting of the Presbytery in preparing the resolutions which were adopted, and had concurred in the petition agreed upon in opposition to the grant; and having thus borne his testimony, he was not prepared to say that he would again approach the Legislature upon the subject. Their rejection of the prayer of the numerous petitions of last year, in opposition to the Chapels Bill, had convinced him that it was in vain to appeal to them on any matter affecting the religious interests of the community."

He would also read two communications he had received:—

"Armagh, May 8, 1845.

"DEAR SIR—I am directed by the Presbytery of Armagh to request that you will be so kind as to present to the House of Commons their petition against the proposed endowment of Maynooth College, which I forward to you by this day's post. You are aware that the Presbytery of Armagh is one of the largest in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, consisting of twenty ministers, and as many congregations. At our meeting, held on Tuesday, that is, of the ministers and the representatives of the congregations, it was moved and unanimously carried, that we should petition both Houses of Legislature against the grant to Maynooth. Sir Robert Peel may infer from this what is the mind of the Protestants, at least of the Presbyterian Protestants, of this part of Ireland. The truth is, we are all most decidedly averse to the Bill, and earnestly trust that some merciful change will take place, by which it may yet be thrown out. You and all those who are giving their decided opposition to the Bill have our deepest sympathy and warmest gratitude. May you be crowned with success.—I am yours, faithfully,


"Presbyterian Minister of Armagh.

"Colonel Verner, M.P."

"Killyman, 9th May, 1845.

"MY DEAR SIR—My reasons for not inviting petitions is simply this—that I am sure they will be disregarded in Parliament, and the rejection of them will add a grudge the more to the discontents of our poor Protestants. You know as well as I do how many there be to taunt them, and to tell them that they are despised and scorned by the Government, and you know well how this will increase the difficulty of keeping them within the letter of a severe and partial law, when they see the Repeal agitation renewed, and no effectual discountenancing of it, on the part of either the Government or the Legislature. I may add, that it little became Sir Robert Peel to found such an argument on the absence of Protestant petitions. He had himself, he boasts, discouraged petitions against concessions, when he conducted the opposition to the Roman Catholic claims. Did he do so with a purpose that the absence of petitions should be used as an argument of Protestant acquiescence? It would be discreditable to him if he did. If he had not this purpose, why does he employ the present argument?—Yours very truly,


In his Parliamentary experience he could confidently say he never saw a measure of consequence brought before the House which had so little to say in its own favour, and for which its advocates have said so little. The arguments upon which they rest seemed to be little better than these—we have been doing wrong for fifty years, therefore, let us do wrong now. He remembered the promises of old. He remembered when the Bill of '29 was brought forward; we were told that if it had not the effect of satisfying the expectations of those in whose behalf it was granted, and of thus putting an end to agitation, the Ministers of the Crown would come before Parliament and ask for additional powers to do so. The agitation did not cease: the promises were not kept. One set of Ministers adopted a practice of further concessions—they reduced the number of Protestant bishops—diminished the incomes of the clergy—menaced the existence of the Church: and now another set of Ministers come forward, and finding the Protestant religion has been beaten down with as heavy blows as their predecessors were able to inflict, they try their hands on a new experiment, and set themselves to build up the Church of Rome. If there are hon. Members who think the doctrines of Maynooth good and true, it is natural they should desire to augment its powers—if there be Members who think it justifiable to propagate opinions and doctrines which they think erroneous, or who, believing this to be wrong, are yet willing to do the wrong "for a consideration"—he could not understand their consciences, and he felt he had no right to intrude his conscientious scruples upon them. He, therefore, would not argue the question on religious grounds; but would confine himself to repeating what he had before said, that the Maynooth Endowent Bill was an infraction of principle, founded on no argument, and recommended by no promise of good. There was one argument which had been put forward in favour of this Bill, which must have surprised every person who retains what used to be regarded as British feeling, and a sense of British honour—and that was the argument of fear. He never wondered, to hear an argument like this employed in the Conciliation Hall in Dublin. He was little surprised when he heard an advocate for Repeal repeat it in the House; but that it should, come from the Bench below him—that a British Minister, a Conservative Cabinet, should make it their excuse for the introduction of a measure that had neither justice nor expediency to recommend it—was a proceeding for which nothing he had yet seen, miraculous as were the changes he had of late witnessed, could have prepared him. One hon. Member called the measure "hush money" to the Roman Catholic priests—an appellation against which some of the right hon. Baronet's Friends strongly protested. But had not the right hon. Baronet intimated as much himself? Had he not intimated that the measure was "wrung from his fears?" From fears unworthy of the right hon. Baronet and of the country whose interest and whose honour were confided to him. Upon a measure like this he must declare that he abhorred anything like insinuation. Let the truth, however disreputable it is, be openly stated. If Her Majesty's Ministers are afraid of the Repeal party in Ireland, let them candidly avow it, and let the wisdom and valour of England, decide between the Conciliation Hall and the Cabinet. He would, warn the House, that if the Repeal party are too strong for England, the paltry bribe which the present Bill offers will not produce peace, or break up a powerful confederacy. It may disgrace the country—it may disgust the faithful and loyal friends of British connexion—it may end by losing you the affections of the Irish Protestants; but it will not win for you one friend worth having of the party you are making so imprudent an effort to conciliate—no, not one. If the fears of the right hon. Baronet are real, let him act upon them with a becoming spirit. Let him ascertain on what terms he can purchase peace with the Irish Repeal party. They have distinctly declared that this concession will not satisfy them—what will? It is better to know the worst at once—one thing is certain, concessions that do not go all the length required, count for nothing, as much and more will be asked next year as if nothing had been given this. Let us know all we have to expect—let us know the extent to which we are to be wronged, and then we shall endeavour to be prepared to meet with fortitude and resignation the dangers and calamities which await us.

Lord Harry Vane,

rising at the fag-end of a long series of discussions, would have abstained at that period from taking any part in them, had he not received letters from constituents whose conscientious objections he sincerely respected, although he could not share them, expostulatory of his past vote, and earnestly entreating him to recede from that course which he still felt it an imperative duty to pursue to the end. He would accordingly very shortly and succinctly state the views which he took. He was one of those who had originally thought that the question now under consideration did not really possess all the importance that was given to it out of doors. The old grant to Maynooth voted by the Irish Parliament, and accepted by the Imperial Parliament, had endured during half a century with uninterrupted continuity. More than thirty years ago, the grant was increased, because the augmentation of population extended the spiritual requirements of the country. But if the increase of populalation, and the increase of the spiritual requirements of the country, consequent upon that iucrease of population, called for and justified an increase of grant at that time over the original grunt, surely the great changes and the great increase of population since that period, loudly demanded a much greater increase at the present time. It surely, then, was desirable that there should not be an annual agitation on the subject—that the country should not be annually disturbed with the spectacle of meetings in Exeter Hall, and with yearly discussions in the House of Commons. So much for the permanency of the grant. But he was by no means disposed to deny that the importance of the question had expanded as the debate had advanced. It had derived much importance from the declarations made by Ministers and their supporters. The declaration more especially by the Home Secretary, that he was prepared to pursue an altered policy, was important; important too was the circumstance that a considerable section heretofore opposed had declared their adhesion to this altered policy of the right hon. Gentleman. The petitions against the Bill were no doubt of two kinds—those of persons opposed to any State endowment, and those opposed, on religious grounds, to Roman Catholic endowment; but there could be no doubt that the primar mobile of the opposition springs from religious objections, although certain petitioners alleged the superadded objection which they entertain to any State Endowment for religious purposes. It might be possible that another mode of providing for this endowment might have been found; and he himself regretted that some years ago, when the House legislated on the subject of the Irish tithes, they did not adopt a plan different from that of giving 25 per cent. to the Irish landlords; moreover, the mode of dealing with Church leases was much to be deprecated. In England, in the case of lands belonging to suppressed stalls, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, acting upon the principle upon which Mr. Pitt acted in the resumption of Crown lands held on lease, ran out the leases, and exacted the uttermost value for the land. He did not now discuss the equity of the case; but why should a rule directly opposite have been pursued in Ireland, and the property most shamefully given away to those who had no claim to it? The hon. Members for the Universities of Oxford and Cam- bridge opposed any grants, or what they termed concessions, to the Roman Catholics; he was happy to find that the hon. Baronet was not successful in his endeavour last night to fasten finality on the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth; for this measure could not be final, and could not be conclusive. The hon. and gallant Officer who spoke last seemed to think that Ireland should be governed by force; was he not aware that it was precisely the non-success of this system which proved the necessity of another? How could he allay the irritation, if 6,500,000 out of a population of 8,000,000, were excluded from the advantages of a State provision for their religion? His noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire seemed to have entire confidence for the future in the expansive character of Protestantism, and would hesitate to endow the Roman Catholic religion, from entertaining the conviction, that at some distant period, the population would be drawn within its pale; he agreed with him in thinking that the Church of England was a holier and purer Church: but when he recollected that his noble Friend felt shame at the former treatment of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and that the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had admitted the cruelty of which this country had been guilty, he could not think that any such hopes of change in the religious profession of the people could be entertained. But it had been said ont of doors, more than in that House, that many would rather see a Repeal of the Union than be parties to the endowment of Roman Catholics. Now, if, by a combination of unhappy events, foreign and domestic, this country should be obliged to yield to the pressure of overwhelming misfortune, and that the Repeal of the Union should be wrested, what would take place? Why, the Roman Catholic religion would be established, which these Gentlemen deprecated, and the sacrifice of the greatness of this country ensue; not that Ireland would benefit by Repeal; but, by a constant agitation on the subject, many in Ireland thought otherwise. In one respect, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer who spoke last in deprecating part of the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury on conciliation. No man with whom he had conversed, were he Whig or were he Tory—were he in favour of the grant, or were he adverse to the grant, failed to express the same surprise and regret. For his part, he should rest his support of the Bill on no such ground; he would concede nothing to mere clamour. He should support the Bill, because it was just, and inasmuch as justice was the only true policy, it was expedient because it was just; and not being forbidden by any religious scruples, he felt himself bound by Christian charity to give the measure his cordial and hearty support.

Mr. Colquhoun

I come to a different conclusion from that at which my noble Friend (Lord H. Vane) has arrived, though in many of his remarks I concur. In the necessity for conducting the affairs of Ireland on a principle of firm and impartial Administration we are perfectly agreed. My noble Friend has spoken of the religious scruples felt upon this question. I should rather call them deep religious convictions, affecting both the moral and the temporal interests of the country; but into that portion of the argument which affects the religious view of this discussion, my hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford has entered so fully as to supersede the necessity of my treading on a ground which he has occupied. I shall apply myself, therefore, as I have hitherto done, to the political view of this question. I shall regard it solely as a measure of State policy, and shall endeavour to trace its effects upon the political condition and future prospects of Ireland. Let me first advert to two incidental points raised in the present discussion. Some remarks last night fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin—remarks of a personal nature, in which he will pardon me for saying that I am unable to agree with him. I do not dispute the right of my right hon. Friend to make these remarks; they have been called for in the vindication of his own character, in reply to observations addressed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department—observations which, I think, he will regret and recall; but knowing, as I do, the Secretary for the Home Department, and esteeming his character, I cannot for a moment suppose, that in his administration of Irish affairs (if, indeed, he is to be charged with their chief responsibility), he has been influenced by any but the purest motives, and the highest integrity. He may have erred in his administration, I think he has; but I am persuaded that convictions of public duty have prescribed the course which he has pursued. I make another remark, on an incident which occurred in the speech of the Member for Dorsetshire. My hon. Friend alluded to a petition sent to the Bishop of Cashel from the clergy of his diocese; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called our attention to the fact, that nine clergymen only had signed the petition. I hold in my hand a letter from the Bishop of Cashel which explains this. He informs me that the petition had been unguardedly sent to the newspapers with the signatures originally appended to it, when, in fact, it was at this moment in the course of signature throughout the diocese, and he expected there would be attached to it the names of almost all his clergy. Recently, a petition against the grant was set on foot in Dublin, to which 270 signatures of clergymen were attached in the course of two days; and the testimony of both the Dean of Cork and of the Bishop of Cashel is precise, that to this measure the Irish clergy are almost unanimously opposed. At the same time, if my right hon. Friend is as really cognizant of the state of Ireland as the Recorder of Dublin has supposed, he ought not, I must say, to wonder, if both clergymen and laymen, living in the south and west of Ireland, shrink from taking any prominent part against the present measure. It is a measure which the First Lord of the Treasury has announced to be agreeable to the Irish priesthood; any opposition to it, therefore, will provoke their hostility. Is that hostility of little consequence? Has it no bearing on the position of a clergyman of the Established Church? Need I remind you of their condition during the period of the tithe agitation, of which the priests were the movers? But these events are remote; I will give you some which are recent. I hold in my hand a letter, dated last month, from the clergyman of Finnoe, near Borriskane, the Rev. Mr. Gould; what is his statement?—"That during the last eighteen months, in this parish, within a circuit of half a mile there have been eight attempts at murder, wilful, premeditated murder; all the eight persons Protestants; four of these murdered on the spot; one has never recovered the effects of her wounds; two, while I write, are in the extremity of danger." From these facts this clergyman infers (and whether he is right or wrong, his inference shows the alarm of Protestants, and explains their silence), that Protestant life is not safe in many parts of Ireland; and he attributes this, not to the feelings of the peasantry, which are generous and kind, but to the teaching of the priests, who denounce the Protestants as heretics, and the clergyman as accursed. I take another letter, addressed to a dignitary in the Irish Church, from the incumbent of Castletown, near Berehaven, in the county of Cerk. His statements are corroborated by the evidence on two trials, which took place in February and April, at the Castletown Petty Sessions, before the stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Little. It there appears, that the priest, Father Healy, recommended his hearers to assault the Protestant clergymen in the lawful discharge of their duty; that in consequence Mr. Seymour was attacked; and the rioters were sentenced, some to two years', and some to nine months' imprisonment. The Rev. Mr. O'Grady was also denounced and assailed; his only offence was, that whereas formerly that parish had been neglected, its duties were now discharged with zeal; and the effect of Mr. O'Grady's patient labour was to induce two families to join the Church of England, one of whom, denounced by the priest, and denied employment, was almost starved, and the other had been driven from the parish, and obliged to take refuge in Cork. [Sergeant Murphy: "Hear, hear."] What am I to understand by the cheer of the hon. and learned Member for Cork? Does he mean to tell us that in Ireland a man may not change his religion? that in this free country the rights of conscience are to be denied? that if a man leave the Romish Church, he is not to do so with impunity? Is that his doctrine? It is the practice in many parts of Ireland, and as the hon. and learned Member has thrown out this challenge, I will give the House a further illustration of it. I hold in my hand a full report of a trial which took place at Tralee, on the 20th of March last, in which it was proved by evidence, which satisfied a Kerry jury, six of whom were Roman Catholics and six Protestants, that the 800 converts made in the west of Kerry, by the labours of the clergy of the Church of Ireland, were exposed to assaults and annoyance; the result, not of the feelings of the peasantry, but of the culpable denunciations of the priests, which are thus characterized in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Clonmel, who was counsel on one side, by Mr. Freeman, the counsel on the other. The House will observe, that this jury, half Roman Catholic, gave their verdict for Mr. Freeman's client, and thus admitted the accuracy of his statement:— Gentlemen, of all the cases that ever yet occurred, I have never heard, and I am sure you have never heard, one of which the spirit of persecution was proved to be more desperate, and more unrelenting. We have heard of riots at wakes; we have heard of struggles and outrages at funerals; we have heard of stones being pelted, unoffending people struck and assaulted as they passed on the high road; we have heard terms of opprobrium and insult applied to ministers of religion; we find that those gentlemen cannot move through the country, without being followed by insult and indignity. Gracious God! Is this a free country? Are we to be borne down by the tyranny of any body, or the oppression of persons of any persuasion? I appeal more strongly to the Roman Catholic than the Protestant; I call to him more impressively to go with me, than those of my own persuasion, because his is not the Church by the law of the land established. I tell him that if the principle is to go abroad, that the interests of religion are to be advanced through the agency of means worse than the terrors of the Inquisition, through the reckless, ignorant, brutal instruments of violence, there is an end to every thing like liberty of conscience, or the freedom of discussion. It is on the part of the Roman Catholics that I most strongly call for the protection of the law. If any one were to come forward, and assail them in the manner which you have heard that Protestants have been assailed, what would not be justly the cry? If, in places where Roman Catholics are in the inverse ratio of what they are in this part of the country, if in such places, I say, Roman Catholics were persecuted as we have heard the Dingle converts are in this county, what an outcry would be raised? If Roman Catholic clergymen were hooted and pelted through the Protestant districts of the north, insulted, reviled, called by indecent names, so disgusting, that they could not be mentioned in a court of justice, what would be the feelings of the Roman Catholics? They would say, and justly say, is this a country where discussion is allowed? where the principles of religion have existence at all? I must now revert to my argument, and state the grounds upon which I object to the further progress of this Bill. My right hon. Friend has, last night, alluded to the state of Ireland; and I agree with him that that question materially affects the policy of this measure. In one point, I think all sides of the House will agree, that whatever views we deliberately stated with respect to Ireland when in opposition, we ought to maintain when in power. We attacked severely the Irish Administration of the Whig Government; and the grounds of our charge were two. We objected that whilst Ireland was in reality in a state of turbulence, the Whig Government professed it to be in peace, and that for their party ends, and to purchase parliamentary support, they allied themselves with that Irish party who are the great instruments of such disorder. The First Lord of the Treasury stated, that he was aware he should find Ireland one of his difficulties. I agree with the Member for the University of Dublin, in condemning that statement, and thinking it most unwise. When he acceded to power, I do not believe that Ireland formed any serious difficulty. The embarrassment which he suffers, I shall satisfy you has arisen from his own acts. It has been said that there are two parties in Ireland, the Protestants and Roman Catholics. The distinction is a broad one; but it is inaccurate. There are four parties in Ireland; the Protestants, a million and a half to two millions; a minority, but energetic and powerful, combined in union, and attached to the connexion with England, who supply in energy what they want in numbers. I am far from saying that they have no faults; I have arraigned the conduct of the Irish landlord in past times. I admit that among the lower classes of the Protestants, both in Dublin and the provinces, you will find sentiments of strong exasperation, and trace marks of indefensible hostility against their Roman Catholic brethren; but I do the Protestant gentry of Ireland the justice to say, that their sentiments have greatly altered from former times; they have learned a useful lesson in the school of adversity. The Roman Catholics are divided into three parties; one, which is ably represented in this House, whose Members have spoken with a tone of moderation which becomes them. They have, I believe, few sectarian views and no dangerous political objects; their earnest wish is to see the fever of agitation allayed, and the repose of Ireland assured. They are aware that capital cannot advance without security, nor employment without capital; their desire, therefore, is for a strong Government which shall put down agitation. That party deserves at the hands of Government every possible encouragement. There is no support, no office, no favours of the Crown, which ought to be withheld from them. I can- not tell their numbers. My belief is, that they are large, much larger than they appear; comprehending the landlord, the mercantile, the manufacturing, and the agricultural capitalist. If Government only acted on an intelligible system, such a system as distinguished the Administration of Lord Ormond, the wisest Government in the Irish annals, that party would soon embrace much of the wealth and the intelligence of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. But, unfortunately, that party seems not to have entered into the contemplation of Government, whose views have been directed to conciliate two other parties, more numerous I admit, more turbulent and clamorous, for whose special benefit this measure is designed. One of these parties has been described by the hon. Member for Waterford, in his History of the Roman Catholic Association. He described it as much more formidable than the French party which haunted the imagination of Mr. Grattan; looking to America for sympathy, and hoping in Ireland to establish an independent republic. That party so described, existed at the time of the French Revolution, and embraced the Dissenters of the North. Mr. Wyse finds it again in vigour in 1828. It is stronger now than at either of those periods; its views are set forth with the utmost frankness, and in the demand for Repeal, its favourite example is the separation of Belgium from Holland. Is that party large in number? It is, at least eminent for talent. It has a strong weapon in its favour, the youth and ardour of the country. Its organ is the Nation, written with such vigour, that one could almost wish oneself a rebel, in order more thoroughly to enjoy it. Eloquent in prose, no less spirited in verse, its songs have been quoted in a court of justice by the Attorney General for Ireland, full of nerve, pathos, and as he has shown, of treason. The object of this party is plain. There is another party, the fourth and the most numerous; the most powerful, because commanding the masses of that susceptible population. Its avowed leader is Mr. O'Connell—its real leaders are the Roman Catholic bishops and priests—those 3,000 priests, whom the right hon. Member for Dungarvon has described as an "intellectual corporation, consisting of 3,000 men, energetic, bold, courageous; power is centralized in its hierarchy, and descends through all its ramifications; by the Catholic priesthood the triumph of the Clare election was obtained; by the Catholic priesthood the tithe excitement was raised; and by the Catholic priesthood the machinery of the repeal agitation had been put in action. Twenty of these priests, and not a layman, signed the requisition for the great Clontarf meeting." This party is powerful from the combination which leads, and the enthusiasm which sustains it. Whatever may be my opinion of the views of the priests, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will acquit me of the folly of supposing that it is the duty of Government to meet that party with menaces, or to brandish against it the language of truculent hostility. Their power must be acknowledged. They should be treated with respect; but they should be observed, they should be governed. The State ought not to enter into a confederacy with them against the rights and liberties of the people. These two parties then, that of the priests and of the republicans, have combined in one object—Repeal. The party represented by the Nation do not profess to share the religious feelings of the priesthood. They are cultivated and intellectual, and they regard the priesthood with contempt. They have shown this on recent occasions; when the Bequests Act was passed (an Act which I think just and right), the great bulk of the hierarchy condemned it. The republican party favoured it. Again, in the recent measure for academic education, Mr. O'Connell has declared that he must wait the opinion of the bishops; the opinion of the bishops is notoriously against it. The republican party have welcomed it with favour. But though thus divided in religious sentiment, they are agreed in the ardent desire for Repeal. The severance of Ireland from England; the establishment of an independent republic is the passionate aspiration of both. These, then, are the four parties which the right hon. Baronet had to face when he assumed the administration of Irish affairs. How did he face them? On this point all must agree, that a difficult country required the ablest administration. On the contrary, the Irish Department was the weakest part of the right hon. Gentleman's Government. In this respect the conduct of his predecessors was more wise, who in Lord Morpeth (however much we may differ from his views) found a distinguished administrator. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been charged with sustaining the responsibility of the Irish Adminstration. I wish he had. I wish he had been Secretary for Ireland. Had he seen with his own eyes, and heard with his own ears, much of our present difficulties might have been averted. But what was the result of the weakness of this part of the right hon. Gentleman's Government? Why, that in a short time these different parties, who had at first regarded the Tory Ministry with fear, began to view it with contempt. Uniting to agitate for Repeal, they found Government timid; they discovered that they might agitate in safety. For months they were permitted to do so, and the order of the country was shaken by a dangerous excitement. At last it became intolerable, and the Government interfered; and what was the result? Did they require coercive bills? did they need extraordinary powers? was the movement such as to require superior energy or unprecedented laws? A single proclamation from the law as it was, issued not very wisely, nor with any precaution, met and dispelled the storm. In one brief day the tempest fell. But during its course, what services were rendered you by another party which I have described? When two of the Irish parties were united for rebellion, and one was silenced by terror, when Government was timid, and the law was paralyzed, what part was taken by the Irish Protestants? I will tell you, and tell you on the authority of your own Irish Under-Secretary, who can confirm or confute me. I will tell you, during that summer and autumn of agitation in 1843, what was the condition of the north of Ireland, and what you owed the Protestants. The condition of the north of Ireland presented symptoms of real alarm. Nothing could be more formidable (I speak from the testimony of an eye-witness) than the sombre aspect of that dense population. Protestants and Roman Catholics, united before on terms of friendship, passed each other on different sides of the highway; no word was exchanged between them, no sign of acquaintance, but looks of hatred and defiance; each party distrusted, each feared the other, each was armed, each suspected midnight attacks, each lived in a state of preparation for them. At this moment, when an outbreak in the north must have been followed by the rising of the south, when a movement in Ulster among the Protestants would have led to a sanguinary explosion in other parts of Ireland, to whom did the Under Secretary turn for assistance in his extremity? To the military? to the police? He resorted to the clergy of the Established Church; he besought them to use their influence with their flocks: their influence was effectual. Some of them have received from him the strongest testimony of his sense of the value of their exertions. But if such was the conduct of the Protestants, and such the efficacy of their Church, how have they been requited? Did the Protestant clergy ask for patronage? Did they seek the sordid gifts of office? Did they demand coercive laws against their Roman Catholic brethren? Nothing of the kind. All they desired was, that the Government should establish throughout Ireland security and peace; that they should do to the Roman Catholics what they had already done to the Protestants. You have put down our combinations; put down theirs! You have disbanded Orange lodges; break up the Ribbon organization. You have stopped our processions; put down their monster meetings. They asked another right, but it was no sordid or selfish claim. They asked for that influence in education without which a Church cannot be maintained. They could not join in the system of National Education; they asked to be permitted to have schools of their own; that they should be placed on the same footing with the English Dissenter, and receive, as he does, a separate grant for their schools. That request was preferred to the First Lord of the Treasury in the most courteous terms, by the meekest and most venerable man that ever filled the highest station in the Irish Church. By a man in whose veins flowed noble blood, but whose life exhibited a generous munificence, better than the highest lineage. He, the accredited organ of the Irish Church received from the right hon. Baronet an answer hardly civil; a refusal couched in the most peremptory, I had almost said haughty, terms. Such was the conduct of Government towards the Protestants. How have they dealt with the other parties? The Bequests Act was carried. The monster meetings were crushed; all that was needed was a calm exercise of the law, that the Government should stand in an attitude of resolute command, holding its arm with unbending force over all parties in Ireland. That policy was not adopted. In its place Ministers have introduced into Parliament a measure called a concession, which is to conciliate to the British Crown three different parties—a measure of conciliation! how has it been received? I hold in my hand an extract from the Nation, published May 3, 1845:— The veteran foes of Ireland, strong in office with an invincible majority, have fallen on their knees, and sought Ireland's pardon with affected candour, genuine alarm, and plenteous flattery; and they have been scoffed at as frightened hypocrites. Over the heads of the Ministers Ireland has saluted her American ally with a hearty cheer. The Maynooth Bill, wherein they abandoned all their own principles in order to vitiate ours, has been taken as a bold instalment, signal chiefly for the gigantic apostacy which introduced, and the monstrous bigotry which opposed it. If the Queen conies she shall be welcomed with the cry of Repeal; in our thoroughfares it shall make her coursers tremble; in her revels it shall break in like a round shot; in her levee it shall approach her in the green uniform of the new volunteer; in her Council it shall reach her. A confederate nation's demand for an army and a senate of their own. The right hon. Baronet, when pressed the other evening upon the opinions of the professors at Maynooth, took as the standard opinion from that College that of the professor of dogmatic theology, Dr. Higgins. I cannot err, therefore, if I follow the right hon. Baronet's example, and appeal to the same authority. I shall quote the language of the rev. gentleman, addressing Mr. O'Connell, and signing himself "Dear Liberator, with the sincerest attachment and respect, yours unalterably, William Higgins." This letter was written but a few weeks ago:— Much has been said," says that right rev. gentleman, "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 the people of this 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 insult. We want and demand a Repeal of the iniquitous Union. There is no other remedy for the wrongs of our country. That was the way in which the measure was received by that portion of the Roman Catholic party; and if it were necessary to quote in order to prove that no- thing but Repeal would satisfy them, I may quote largely from Dr. Higgins, and from other prelates. Dr. Higgins said, at a dinner given to Mr. O'Connell, "I wish to state that I have every reason to believe—I may add that I know—that every Catholic bishop in Ireland, without an exception, is an ardent Repealer!" Then said Mr. O'Connell, "Let Bobby Peel hear that." His Lordship then proceeded to say, "I know that virtually, you all have reason to believe that the bishops of Ireland were Repealers: but I have now again formally to announce to you, that they have all declared themselves as such, and that from shore to shore we are now all Repealers." These are the sentiments which without the slightest reserve the Roman Catholic hierarchy, with scarcely an exception, have avowed. What becomes then of the hope of conciliation by the present measure? If we look at it simply in the light of policy, never was so great a blunder committed by any Government. Let us look at the condition of a neighbouring country. We find the French Government involved in such difficulties by the proceedings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, that the organ of the Government, the Journal des Débats, felt itself constrained to say— We are aware that circumstances have changed; in 1840 a war had not arisen between the State and a portion of the clergy. The Ultramontane doctrines slumbered, and might have been considered for ever extinguished. Such was the pressure of their difficulties, that the Government of Louis Philippe, one of the ablest in Europe, had been obliged to resort to the unusual course of applying to the leader of the opposition, M. Thiers, to extricate it from these embarrassments. That I may present to the House the actual position of France, I take an extract from the Edinburgh Review, a periodical which certainly does not advocate illiberal opinions; and the House will observe that the position of the Romish clergy in France is very different from that of the priesthood in Ireland, the one encumbered by State restrictions, and the other absolutely unfettered. This is the language of the Edinburgh Review of April 1845:— The first dream of the (French) Government was to consolidate its authority at home by making allies of the priesthood. Every indulgence which could be shown without arousing the jealous spirit of the Liberal party, has for years been vouchsafed to the High Church faction. With Louis Philippe, as with Napoleon, this selfish policy was not long in bringing on its own retribution; fifty-three out of the whole eighty bishops have pronounced against the Government on the question of Education, including a large majority of those of recent appointment. On Louis Philippe's fête of 1842, came the declaration of war. That a new and more violent attack on the part of the clerical party is in preparation can hardly be doubted. But it seems to be generally felt, that concession has gone far enough; the body of the French nation will stand by the Minister, who resolves to abide by the established institutions. The priesthood, the Ultramontane and leading party among them, will take every instalment that is offered, but they will not the less insist on the payment of the debt of 1830, to the uttermost farthing. Let their domain in France be extended and strengthened as it might, their Church would not the less be beyond the Alps, or their King beyond the Rhine. My hon. Friend the Member for Selkirkshire has attested in his place the accuracy of the statement of which I am a witness, made in 1838, by the First Lord of the Treasury, who then talked of the progress, not of Popery—I do not think that was the word he used, nor of the Roman Catholic religion, that matter was not, I imagine, present to his mind—but of the progress of that Roman Catholic party in Europe, who are opposed to civil government, or who at least wish to subordinate it to ecclesiastical rule. The right hon. Baronet then pointed to the progress of that party in Prussia, as filling him with alarm. I must now ask him whether, after the recent experience of France, where the ablest and most powerful Government have been brought to a stand by that Ultramontane party, which the right hon. Baronet then feared, and, as I think, was so well justified in fearing, whether the affairs of Europe, in which, to the experience of Prussia have been added the warnings of France, have so altered in their character from the time when he, the leader of a great party, on the threshold of office, told the representatives of a National Church that he contemplated these political events with alarm, that now his fears can be all abandoned, and his forebodings removed? Does he, who told us in 1838, that those fears were reasonable, and those alarms to be justified, tell us now in 1845, that those alarms are childish, those fears fanatical? and that they are in error who tell him, as on the floor of this House I tell him now, that we regard his measure as opposed, not only to religious principle, but to sound policy; that by it he is adding greatly to the difficulties of his Irish government; that he increases the strength of that party, with which, if he is ever to govern Ireland efficiently, he must contend. He places the whole education of the Romish priests of Ireland in the hands of their bishops, for they alone send students to Maynooth; and he thus deposits in the hands of a hierarchy, not paid by us, as in France, not appointed by the Government, nor controlled by them, a power which, possessed in France, has shaken the Government to its centre, and which, I tell the right hon. Baronet, existing in Ireland with superior power and absolute freedom, will shake its Irish Government to its foundation. I do not appeal to religious passions—to these I have not addressed myself; I regard the question as one of grave public policy; I arraign it as injurious to the peace of Ireland. Already has this measure strengthened the agitation in Ireland, which it was his wish to put down: and until that agitation is subdued, there will be neither security for capital, nor employment for industry. When Government introduced this Bill, agitation was at its lowest ebb, the Repeal rent was declining, the prestige of the Conciliation Hall was gone; but the moment we told them that the terrors of their intimidation could wring concessions from your Cabinet, you gave a premium to agitation; you have had swelling rents, fervent assemblages in the Conciliation Hall, and the renewal of monster meetings. But I address myself to the right hon. Baronet. I ask him whether in dealing with the Romish priesthood he intends that they should be amenable to the law, or the law subject to their will? Is the law to be at the discretion or caprice of any set of ecclesiastics? If he answers me that it shall not, that this would be foreign to the genius of this country, and to the principle of the British Constitution, then I point out to the right hon. Baronet the difficulties with which he has to contend. There are in Ireland a priesthood, the avowed friends of Repeal, and a hierarchy equally devoted to that measure; with these the Government who resist it cannot expect to be at peace. But again; do the Government intend to administer the law, and to maintain freedom of opinion? Do they mean to provide, that converts from the Roman Catholic faith should walk unharmed in Ireland? If they do, if they are prepared to defend them by the arm of the law, then I refer them to the trial at Tralee; I warn them of the part which the priesthood took in that trial; I show them that in many parts of Ireland the priests are violently opposed to proselytism. I admonish them, that if they maintain the liberty of conscience, again on that point they will be in strong collision with the priesthood. In the Report of the Land Commissioners it was stated, that one of the great evils of Ireland was the estrangement of the humbler classes from the landlords. How can we hope to remove this whilst religious and political differences prevail between the landlord and the priest, and the latter uses these to inflame against the proprietor the passions of his neighbourhood? Look at the evidence before the Committee of 1835; read there the language in which the priests have denounced landlords, simply because they differed from them in politics; trace the effects of such language in the attacks upon the resident proprietors. Will the Government abandon the landlords to the consequences of their denunciations? Will they interfere to protect them from violence? Here again they would be at variance with the hierarchy and the priesthood. In the Report of the Land Commissioners it is stated, that there can be no security in Ireland until the law is administered and crime repressed; but the Report of the Lords' Commissioners of 1839 contains the evidence of stipendiary magistrates, and of Mr. Tierney, the Crown Solicitor, who show that the Irish priesthood are in the habit of interfering to defeat the ends of justice, and to protect the criminal from the sentence of the law. Will the Government enforce the law, and vindicate its authority? Here again they will be at issue with the priesthood. While Lord Morpeth was Secretary for Ireland, I brought under the consideration of the House that habit of the Irish priesthood which, I again repeat, is intolerable in a free country, the habit of denouncing individuals from the altar, and exposing them, in consequence, to injury to property, and often to personal violence. Such a practice is not tolerated in France, yet that practice, inconsistent both with the liberty of the subject and the administration of the law, is habitual in Ireland. Out of many instances I select one, because it is established by a trial in a court of justice, at the Nenagh Assizes, March, 1843; and the statement has been for- warded to me by the gentleman who was then counsel for the Crown. It appeared in the evidence on that trial, that a person of the name of Tierney having been fired at by two men, prosecuted his assailants; but these parties, criminal as they were, enjoyed the favour of the priest of Toornevara, the Rev. Mr. Maher. About a fortnight before the assizes, the priest exerted himself actively for the prisoners, and declared that the prosecutor was swearing falsely. The unfortunate prosecutor repaired to the house of the priest, remonstrating against his interference, and asked if it were true that his reverence intended publicly to denounce him. Notwithstanding the poor man's entreaties, Priest Maher denounced him in the chapel the following Sunday, as a person who ought not to be allowed to remain in the country. On the same evening Tierney was murdered by a party who broke into a house where he was seated, and beat out his brains! Can that state of things be permitted? Will these atrocities of the priesthood be tolerated? They are no single cases: will the Government interfere? Then again will they find themselves at issue with the priesthood, and the attempt to govern through them must fail. Let me now, in a few words, sum up the blunders of this measure. They are three. The first blunder is their dealing with Maynooth. They have now as perfect experience of the working of that College as could be had by mortal man. Half a century ago, when the College was formed, it might have been represented that its books and doctrines were bad; and the answer would have been, as given by the right hon. Baronet the other evening, that those doctrines were theoretic, that the evil was partial, and that it was not right to anticipate pernicious results; but now, in addition to the books and the discipline, they had fifty years' experience of the training; and it appears that this training has produced—I say it in the face of those who are their clamorous representatives—a priesthood the most illiterate in Europe, who have not given to letters or to science a single man of talent or of taste, with the exception of Dr. Doyle, who was educated abroad, unless we include Dr. M'Hale, of whose proceedings hon. Members can judge, and Dr. Higgins, quoted as a standard authority by the First Lord of the Treasury. If we ask, what is their loyalty, we find 3,000 Irish priests marshalled in the movement which took place two years ago, the avowed object or which was to sever Ireland from England—an object which all parties declare to be treasonable, and maintain they will resist to the extremity of a civil war. If that is the result of a fifty years' trial of the principles and training of Maynooth, I leave the Government to say if there can be a more perfect proof of an utter failure. If indeed Ministers proposed to correct the system, to amend the College, to exercise civil control over those dangerous ecclesiastics, to subject them, as in Prussia, to the influence of the State; I do not say that that would be a proper course, but at least it would have some colour of reason, some foundation in policy; but the Government proposes to take the College such as it is, to stereotype it, to engraft it upon the permanent institutions of the country, and to place it on a level with Oxford and Cambridge. Much as I admire these Universities, strongly as I am attached to Oxford, in which I was reared, I should be compelled to oppose all grants of public money to them, if it could be shown that they teach such doctrines, and produce such ecclesiastics as the College of Maynooth. That, then, is the Irish blunder of the Government. I turn to their English blunder. Do you mean to agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury? Do you mean to submit to the judgment of the English people, this College which you love, but which the people detest: which you venerate, but which the people repudiate; which you seek to endow, but from which the people would take away all endowments? I address myself to the First Lord of the Treasury. I ask him, from whom we have heard so eloquent a dissertation on public opinion, if he knows what is the fixed opinion of the public? He says that the storm is abating. The next election will prove his mistake. He may now trample on the feelings of the English people; with his majority here he may defeat the sense of the public out of doors, but he can only do this for two years. At the expiration of that period, his principles and the College of his choice will come under the impartial consideration of the people of England, whose opinion, not the result of popular delusion, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh has stated, but founded on principle, and matured by reflection, will show to the right hon. Baronet whether the storm has abated. The second blunder, therefore, has been, to take up a measure contrary to principle and feeling, and to endeavour to thrust it down the throats of the people of England. Now let me show you the third blunder. At the commencement of the Session, the right hon. Baronet was the powerful Minister of a powerful party. He held together a united phalanx, not entirely agreeing with him (when would such a thing be found?) in all the steps of his policy, but tendering him a cordial, and, I am sure, a disinterested support. We have nothing to seek—no place, no salary, no offices in the Treasury. All we sought was the maintenance of those principles which we thought we held in common with the Government, by which the right hon. Baronet had gained our confidence, on which we were willing to continue our support. By this unhappy question this great party is riven in twain—cleft to its centre. With what reluctance and pain some of us have opposed the right hon. Baronet, Members of his Cabinet may be able to tell. But he had driven us below the gangway, and I do not think we are likely to pass it again. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury has spoken of one right hon. Gentleman who, having gone below the gangway, would probably repass it. I must confess that, looking to the principles now acted upon, that destiny is not likely to be ours. We certainly have no intention of abandoning our principles; we will not change our deep and resolute convictions. At whatever cost, at whatever sacrifice of feeling, at whatever estrangement, public or private, the question is one in our judgment so clear and so paramount, that we must discharge our duty, be the consequences to the party what they may. The eloquent and demolishing speech of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh was, I felt at the time, painful to listen to, and difficult to answer. But the First Lord of the Treasury answered it by appealing to the noble Lord the Member for London, and saying that it was very hard when he conceived that there had been a generous understanding between them, to the effect that if he followed the noble Lord's policy he should have his support, that he should be thus turned upon by his Colleague, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh. But that is the invincible result of such mésalliances. Their first result is the fruit of the union. The next is the scorn of the seducer. The right hon. Baronet may unite with the noble Lord upon this question, against our diminished phalanx; he may tell us that he scorns our resistance, while he can command a more effectual support. I can only say that I deeply regret the course which the right hon. Baronet has pursued, by which he has driven from his side independent, it is true, but honest friends, in order to live a brief, and, I fear, inglorious season on the forbearance of his foes.

Mr. F. Mackenzie

After the allusions that have been made to me by the hon. Member for Newcastle—allusions which, although he did not mention my name, could not be mistaken by the House as intended to apply to me, and which I only wish had been more directly personal, and made in any other place than this—I am sure the House will admit that I have a claim upon their indulgence for a few moments. Sir, I deny in the presence of this House and the country that I have sacrificed my principles to place. I say it in the presence of the right hon. Baronet, who is the best judge in the matter, and I appeal to him to say whether any communication, either direct or indirect, took place between him and me previous to my vote upon the second reading of the Maynooth Bill. I maintain that the present question is different from the question which has hitherto come before the House in reference to Maynooth. The right hon. Baronet, when introducing the present measure, said that either of three courses were open to him—viz., to abolish the College altogether; to leave it as it is; or to endeavour to improve it—adding that he would rather abolish it than leave it as it is. Sir, I think that in that remark may be found a justification of my former vote. I felt that it was simply a question of leaving the College as it is, or taking away the grant; and the latter I preferred and voted for. But I do not at all see that by having done so I am precluded from voting in favour of this Bill, which does not leave the College as it is, that being the ground of my objection to the grant, but which goes to improve it. I stated that in my speech at Peebles—a speech that has been much referred to, and which has certainly caused more public remark than I expected it would, I had not the slightest idea that I was speaking in the presence of those who would not believe my words; I thought that I was addressing those who had confidence in my assertions. That speech, however, was reported, and the copy of the report which has been so much referred to has been taken entirely from the Radical Papers of Scotland; and the report is restricted to one part only of a sentence, in which I said that I had voted against the grant because it was too small: whereas I stated that I had voted against the grant when it was small because I thought it did harm; and that I now voted for the larger grant, not because I was certain that it would do better, but because I certainly thought it ought to be tried. And I illustrated my argument by a reference to the relative state of Scotland and of Ireland. I referred to what had been done in Ireland; and I said that if the Irish would devote themselves to the cultivation of the land, and would repudiate that agitation which was tearing them to pieces, I had no hesitation in saying that the best consequences would arise to Ireland. This was the slight speech I made on the hustings in Peebles-shire, and it cannot be easily recognised in the distorted caricatures of it which we have recently seen.

Mr. Wyse

said, that the speech which they had heard from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Colquhoun) would seem intended for the discussion of the general question of Irish policy, rather than for a debate concerning an educational establishment, which had been over and over again before the House. Much stress had been laid on the opinion expressed by the people of England on the subject of this grant. That opinion he could only collect from the petitions which had been presented to the House, and from resolutions passed at public meetings. With regard to petitions, he did not undervalue their importance. It was a right belonging to and inherited by the people, equally with that of the liberty of the press, and was as valuable and as essential as any portion of the British Constitution. He, therefore, would be very sorry to show any disrespect to the petitions which had been presented on this question; but he could not recognise, either in their number or in the amount of signatures they bore, that universal expresssion of opinion on the part of the people of England, before which the House of Commons ought to bow. Many of the petitions had not more than three or four signatures; others were signed solely by the clergyman of the parish. Many were from large dissenting communities, the importance of which no one more readily acknowledged than he did—for no one less doubted their influence, and these were the legitimate expressions of their real feelings; while others were the result of a cleverly conducted machinery. A form of petition against the grant had been issued by the Presbytery of Edinburgh, and printed in the North General Advertiser, in which there were blanks left to be filled up with a statement of the special reasons—whether those of bigotry, ignorance, or prejudice, he would leave to the judgment of the House—on which the opposition to the grant might be founded. Such was the nature of the petitions which had been so strongly insisted upon by hon. Gentlemen as a ground for asserting that the people of England were hostile to the proposition of the Government. If, however, such importance was to be ascribed to these million of signatures, how happened it that when last year he himself presented a petition signed by 800,000 individuals, asking for an inquiry into the recent "State Trials," and the mode by which they had been conducted, no importance was attached to that petition? How happened it that when, in the year before, a petition was presented by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Thomas Duncombe), signed by nearly 2,000,000 of the people of England, demanding "the People's Charter," the House did not then think it sufficiently expressed the will of the people of England? There was no appeal then made either in the House, or in public meetings, by the Gentlemen opposite, to the fears of the Government, or of the country. He, therefore, called upon those hon. Gentlemen who now so emphatically dwelt upon the force of the petitions of the people on this question, to give the same weight to other petitions, which had been presented on other subjects, equally deserving of notice in reference to numbers, places and signatures; or, if they were not disposed to do so, then to mitigate, in some degree, the consideration which they sought to attach to those that were now before the House. Looking at the petitions which had been presented, he thought the petitioners might be classed under three heads—those who petitioned on the ground that it was an unjustifiable application of their (the petitioners') money to Ireland, and who would indicate by this statement, that they were oppressed by an unfair distribution of financial burthens; secondly, those who from an honest conviction were opposed to all endowments; and, thirdly, those who, whether they felt disposed to give their money to Ireland or not, or whether they were in favour of endowments or not, still entertained so strong an antipathy to Catholic doctrines, as such, that they would not in any way consent to apply the public revenues to the purposes of a Catholic endowment established for instruction in those doctrines. And, first, in reference to the financial objection. The Roman Catholics of Ireland had been condemned to hear, in a thou- sand shapes, in that House, this objection put forth in a manner most mortifying to their feelings as Irishmen and Catholics. They heard again and again this question treated as if the Catholics were supposed to stand in a position not coequal with the other inhabitants of the United Kingdom; and instead of merely requiring the application of their own funds, or that portion of the public funds which belonged to them, to their own purposes, they actually presented themselves to that House in the attitude of men soliciting alms from the bounty of others. He held in his hand a petition agreed to at a meeting of the "John-street Relief Congregation, Glasgow," in which a paragraph very nearly to that effect occurred:— Our Roman Catholic fellow subjects cannot justly complain of us when we protest against any grant of our money being made to their seminary at Maynooth, since we neither receive nor ask any grant of their money for our religious institutions; and should they reply that the united Legislature burdens them with the support of the Protestant institutions of others, though not ours, our rejoinder is, that they are in this respect no worse situated than we are. Now, he (Mr. Wyse) denied that in this application of the grant, they were taking the money of these petitioners; and, in the next place, he would contend that if they (the Catholics) did so, they had an equal right to say that they gave to them (the members of the John-street Relief Congregation) their money in return, because Parliament had voted 7,080l. to the Scotch Universities annually, specially including the University of Glasgow. The demand made by the Roman Catholics on the Treasury of the United Kingdom was not greater than they had a right to require, in return for their proportion to their joint contributions. The debt of England, funded and unfunded, in February, 1800, was 424,519,343l.; the charge on which was 16,571,572l.; while the debt of Ireland was only 23,100,784l. and the charge 1,029,271l. In 1817, the debt of England was 734,522,104l., the charge on it was 28,238,416l.; and the debt of Ireland was 112,704,773l., and the charge 4,104,514l. The taxation of Ireland at the Union was 2,440,000l.; in 1810 it was 4,280,000l.; in 1816, 5,760,000l. In 1815, a Committee of the House admitted that "they could not but remark, that for several years Ireland had advanced in permanent taxation more rapidly than Great Britain." The taxes imposed on Great Britain from the time of the Union to 1843, were 37,000,000l.; those on Ireland, 5,560,000l. The relief given to England from 1815 to 1843, in taxation, was 45,550,000l.; the relief to Ireland during the same period 2,400,000l. The proportion of taxation on the two countries was as 1 to 7; the relief given as 1 to 18. But was this all? Were the burthens imposed by an expensive Church Establishment, not the Church of the Irish people, to be forgotten? Was there not evidence to prove that there was not only a large sum applied to the purposes of the Protestant Church in Ireland, in places where religious instruction was given, but also in districts where it was impossible for the Church to fulfil its functions, because placed in the midst of an exclusively Catholic population? He had a Return made by the Commissioners of Public Instruction, Ireland, by which it appeared that out of 2,000 parishes, there were not less than 217 in which there was not one single Protestant to be found. The policy of this country, in its misrule, had been to eradicate the Catholics from Ireland, and make it a Protestant country; but had any such change as was anticipated been yet realized? After the experience of two centuries, had there not been an augmentation instead of diminution in the proportion of Catholics to Protestants in that country? Was not the complaint which was made by Archbishop Boulter, in the reign of George II., as applicable to the present day as to that in which he wrote?— The number of Papists in Ireland was so great, that it was of the utmost consequence to the Protestant interest there to bring them over by all Christian methods to the Established Church. There was another consideration connected with the financial view of the question. The Catholics of Ireland were doubly taxed. They not only paid tithes to the clergy of the Established Church, but they had to support the priesthood of their own. It appeared by the report of an Irish clergyman, that there were in Ireland 1,128 priests, who, supposing they were paid at an average of good and bad parishes 400l., would require a total of 451,200l. a year; and 1,128 curates, which, at an average of 20l. a year to each, including salaries and perquisites of all kinds, would give a sum of 22,560l. a year. There were 27 bishops, at an average of 1,200l. a year to each: including cathedral cures, marriages, dispensations, gratuities, and funds of all kinds, their total expense would be 32,400l. a year; making in the whole a gross voluntary fund for the Irish bishops and priests, of 506,160l. This burden on the people was exclusive of the building of the chapels, rents, altars, organs, clerks' salaries, repairs, and many other necessary demands. At the time of the institution of Maynooth, and prior to the French Revolution, there existed abroad, for the purposes of education, not less than 27 professors, and 478 students. In France, at Paris, there was the "College des Lombards," rue Cheval Vert, 180 pupils; at Nantz, 80; at Bordeaux, 40; at Douay, 30; at Toulouse, 10; and at Lille, 8. At Louvaine, 40; at Antwerp, 30; at Salamanca, 32; at Lisbon, 12; and at Rome, 16. All these institutions were frequented by Irish students. This was of course an additional expense imposed upon the Catholics of Ireland; because, had they enjoyed the means of education at home, there would be no necessity for their resorting to foreign universities, or endowing foreign schools or colleges. Limiting, therefore, the question to the mere financial point of view, the Irish had a right to demand from the House something for a portion, if not the total restoration, of their own funds, which, if they had not been deprived of, they would long ago have been applicable, and probably applied, to the College of Maynooth. The second point on which he wished to address the House was, the objection to the endowment principle. He admitted, that there was no one who had considered history but must admit, that a too close alliance of Church and State necessarily tended to produce, in reference to both, injurious consequences. It made the clergy the mere hangers-on and lacqueys of power, and converted them into a body of servile dependants on those who had the dispensation of their honours and emoluments. On the other hand, it was not less true, that the State often used the Church as the cheapest instrument of its despotism. But he could not, at the same time, be so ignorant as not to know that where the people of a country were wholly surrendered to an unendowed clergy, the subserviency of that clergy to popular opinion, too frequently degenerating into popular passion and impulse, was as likely to be injurious to religion as the subserviency of an endowed clergy, however humble, to the State. The Irish priesthood were more protected against these results than any other class of clergy not endowed by the State: although they had no endowments, they still possessed all the advantages of private endowments in connexion with their religious orders, and were still further controlled and steadied by the regular degrees connected with a hierarchy. In speaking, however, of endowments, he begged it to be understood he did not, strictly speaking, consider this grant to be endowment, indeed, if he had, he would have to enter far more at length into the subject. The endowment of the Catholic priesthood was a question which should be approached with great caution. Many concomitant measures would be required: the first would be a concordat with the Holy See. There was another objection which must occur in the instance of the endowment of the Catholic, which would not particularly affect any other Church. If the Catholic Church were to be endowed, it would be perhaps found necessary to extend the measure to monasteries and convents. He did not consider this grant as an endowment; neither did he regard it in the nature of a salary. When the grant was once out of the hands of Parliament, though it might hereafter be withdrawn by Act of Parliament, it did not follow Maynooth was to be under its control. This measure was for the purpose of obtaining an order of instruction for the benefit of the country as well as of the Catholic Church, not by altering the religious instruction of the priesthood, but by super-adding to that another kind of instruction which would qualify them for conveying useful knowledge to the people committed to their charge. Happily, this question of endowment was not now under discussion; if it were, he should be much puzzled how to explain the conduct of many hon. Members, for he found that those very men who had expressed themselves most strongly opposed to it were not equally opposed to endowments of other Churches. Nothing was heard against the Regium Donum granted to the Presbyterians of Ireland, or against the sums given to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, or against the votes passed in favour of the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. It was only when the Catholic Church was in question that the feelings of the country were aroused, not against endowments generally, but against endowments to the Catholic Church alone. When they came to look at the charges stated in the petitions against this measure, they would be found to be very little other than a repetition of the doctrines professed at the time of Lord George Gordon, and con- tained in the declarations of the Protestant Association—declarations, however, it must be remembered which tended at last to exasperate the people to such a degree that a furious outbreak ensued, not against opinions only, but against both property and life. Thank God they now lived in a state of society so far superior to what existed at that period in general good feeling and knowledge, that he apprehended no such result at the present day. On the contrary, he thought these charges against the Catholics and their religion might be met with the greatest facility and success. The petitioners spoke of the Catholic religion as the great apostacy, and of its spiritual head as the Antichrist of the Revelations; but he would not make the House of Commons the arena for the discussion of these subjects: he referred to them only for the purpose of expressing his desire that they should never again be mentioned in that House, composed as it was not of Protestants only, but of Catholics as well as Protestants; but Catholics as well as Protestants, he trusted, of the one Christian religion, all belonging to the one faith of universal charity and love. The numerical argument might be urged in support of these views, and in favour of mutual forbearance. The population of the world was estimated at 657,000,000:—of these there were Roman Catholics, 142,145,000; Evangelicals (all Protestant communions), 62,785,000; Greeks, 57,110,000; Armenians, Copts, &c., 5,850,000. If the Catholic religion were antagonist to the social state, how had it happened that so many millions of that religion for so many ages had held together in perfect harmony in the great family of nations? But why go so far? He had only to refer them to their own Constitution—who framed it, who confirmed it? Their Catholic ancestors. Did he say this in a bigoted spirit? Far from it: he mentioned it merely to show that they were all essentially of the one Christian religion, and that whatever might be their minor diversities, it became them to exercise a spirit of mutual kindness towards one another. He trusted they would henceforth cast into oblivion those feelings of domination and oppression which had hitherto deprived religion of its efficiency; and that the genuine spirit of the Gospel might be allowed to work out its chiefest end, and have to boast (with reason), of its brightest gem—mutual consideration and brotherly forgiveness. He mentioned this, because he believed that in speaking thus he was speaking, not his own feelings merely, but the feelings of all classes of his co-religionists; and he hoped, also, of a large portion of all those classes who did not belong to them. Considering the many circumstances calculated to arouse the religious feelings of hon. Members on either side which this discussion involved, he must say that he could not call to his recollection at any period in that House so noble a display of good feeling, and at the same time of manly, religious bearing, and firm but calm conviction, as had characterized the whole of this debate. If he had wanted anything to give him confidence in the result of the great conflict of opinion that was now agitating the country, he should have looked for it in the temper exhibited within these walls, and the dignified attitude maintained by that House, which had on this occasion shown itself the director, guide, and counsellor of the country, instead of being driven before it by its momentary impulse and passion. On a former occasion, when certain passages had been read from books said to be used in the College of Maynooth, he said he could produce passages from Protestant writers which, if taken separately, were calculated to convey instructions quite as injurious to religion as any that could be quoted from works written or taught by Catholics. He had not quoted these passages for the purpose of recrimination; but merely to show that it was unfair to select particular words without adverting to the context, or intent of the writer. One of the extracts he had read was from a translation of Luther; and in order to prove that he was right in the interpretation he had given, he read to the House first the English, and then the original Latin. The English ran thus:— 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 Latin was in these terms:— Ita vides quam dives sit homo Christianus, etiam volens non potest perdere salutem suum, quantiscumque peccatis nisi nolit credere. Nulla enim peccata eum possunt damnare, nisi sola incredulitas. It was not true, therefore, as was somewhat rashly stated, that he had not cited the words accurately; much less that he had mistaken a collective deduction from passages generally for the passages themselves. After all, the question must be, whether Maynooth was to be treated as a College to be founded, or as one already founded. It stood to the most obvious reason that the priests should be qualified for their task: if, hitherto, they had been allied rather to the people than to the Government, could it have been otherwise with such a code as the penal laws, and such administrators as a Protestant ascendancy Executive? It could not be shown that they were the cause of agitation: the laws were the cause of agitation; the moment a young man left the College of Maynooth, he was surrounded by it in every shape, with Mr. O'Connell, supported by the strong sense of national grievance, at its head. The priests were as often led by, as leaders of, the people. Until the people could be tranquillized, they must naturally be allied to their priests, and their priests to them. He admitted that if the grant to Maynooth stood alone and isolated from all future concession, he should consider it too little; he valued it, however, as a link in the chain, if not the chain itself; as evincing a disposition to do right, and doing right as far as it went. Nor would he call it a boon of conciliation; conciliation belonged to hostility, and he hoped that, with respect to Ireland, the word, as well as that of toleration, would be banished from the vocabulary of Parliament. The Legislature was dealing not with the occupants of a camp, but with a body of fellow citizens and fellow Christians. The Roman Catholics knew that they were the equals of the Protestants; they knew it from increased wealth and increased intelligence, and ere long they would be able to assume the position it was proper for them to occupy in the full exercise of all social rights, as well as full participation of all social advantages. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had at length discovered the true line of policy; instead of continuing a system of coercion and exasperation, he had wisely adopted the only course which could or ought to sway a brave and much wronged people. The "Quos ego," with which he had begun his Administration, in the midst of the strife of contending elements, had at length yielded to the "motos præstat componere fluctus" of the poet; and Ireland was to be governed henceforth as an equal, and not as a rebellious province.

Mr. Darby

complained that the right hon. Gentleman had assumed the Roman Catholic religion to have been the religion of Ireland from the earliest period, and upon that assumption he had proceeded to contend for the restitution of ecclesiastical property to the Irish Roman Catholic Church; but as his premises were unfounded in fact, his conclusion must be untenable. Then, as to the expression, "Antichrist," he (Mr. Darby) offered no opinion on the wisdom of using the expression, but would ask the right hon. Gentleman by whom it was first adopted? It did not come from Exeter Hall, but it came from Rome. In the 4th vol. of the works of Gregory published at Rome, there is a letter of his to the Emperor Mauritius, in which he states that the Patriarch of Constantinople, in assuming authority over all the bishops, is guilty of inordinate pride, and is the precursor of Antichrist. And as to the judgments of God falling upon a nation for pursuing a particular course, the hon. Gentleman might inform himself upon the subject by consulting a letter, addressed Universis Episcopis per Hiberniam, in which Gregory condemns the Irish bishops for attributing the war, pestilence, and famine in the Italian States, to the conduct of Rome with respect to the three chapters. He considered, that if the Church of England was admitted to be a part of the Universal Church, it should also be admitted that she had a right to protest against erroneous doctrines. With respect to the Motion before the House, he had looked into the various Acts of Parliament relating to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and upon a review of the whole subject, he could not come to the conclusion that the object of those Acts of Parliament was the propagation of the Roman Catholic religion, but to keep revolutionary doctrines out of the country. But the present Bill was not founded upon that principle. He could not assent to the statements of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh; for a more illogical speech he had never heard in his life, and he had little expected to hear such a one from a man of so much talent as the right hon. Gentleman. Because, if there was no principle in this question, and if the men who voted for the grant of 9,000l. would act absurdly if they did not vote for the grant of 26,000l., then the Government were not guilty of any dereliction of duty in proposing such a measure. But the fact was, that it was a new principle, and the right hon. Gentleman could not but be aware of it. The principle on which this Bill was founded was that of a permanent endowment; its object was decidedly different from that of the annual grant. That was the distinction which he saw between the two propositions; and that difference compelled him to give his decided opposition to this Bill. He had heard a great deal about the system in Prussia; but this Bill went a great deal further than the Prussian system. And, moreover, Rome was decidedly opposed to the Prussian system. He believed that Rome would even oppose this new system, if attempted to be carried out, in other countries. What was the case now? They were proposing a State endowment, and there was a repudiation on the part of those who were to be endowed of all control over them by the endowers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford was the person who had used the expression — "Maynooth is beginning to be felt." What guarantee was there, if this Bill passed, that Maynooth would not still further be felt? He believed that the Church of Rome looked for the extension of herself throughout the world. But it was asked, why was Belgium and other Roman Catholic countries satisfied? — Why? Just simply because they were Roman Catholic countries. Hence the Roman Catholics in Ireland would not be satisfied until things were carried still further to please them. There was, and had been from the time of the Conquest, an antagonistic principle in this country; he might say, indeed, that every revolution in this country had been a religious revolution. It was true that some few petitions had been presented to the House, in which the union of Church and State was condemned; but those which he had presented from Dissenters had recognised and approved the principle of a religious establishment in the country. He knew that a very large body of Dissenters wished to support the Church of England on the ground that under that Church, since the Revolution, they had enjoyed civil and religious liberty to an extent which they would not have enjoyed under any other system; and that, too, he believed, was the principle on which the people throughout the country were opposed to this grant. If the hon. Gentleman asked him to go further, he would ask, in return, did the hon. Gentleman think the antagonistic principle in this country would permit it? He was for Protestant ascendancy. But he did not mean a Protestant ascendancy to be exercised in the way of banners, and lodges, and of offering insults to our neighbours by party or religious processions. To that he objected. But if he looked to the principle on which the Constitution of this country was founded, if he saw that it was a religious principle that brought our present Sovereign to the Throne, and that the Constitution was founded upon religious principles which were part and parcel of the law of the land, and entirely mixed up with it, then he must say, that he wished Protestant ascendancy to that extent, without desiring to offend others; and when Protestant ascendancy should cease to that extent, that moment the Constitution of this country must cease too. Was the House prepared to go that length? Would they tell him that the Constitution of the country was now to cease? If so, then the time was come to make all religions equal, and say at once that they would not support that religion on which the Constitution was founded, and by which the Church had become connected with the State. But he believed that such a circumstance could not take place in this country without another revolution. If the Church was part of the State and Constitution, the Legislature was bound to support the Church. If they wished to go further, to what extent would they go, and in what particular direction? He believed, that if they attempted to go further, they would raise such a feeling in the country as could not easily be allayed. It was because he felt that this country was a Protestant country, and that this Bill was a permanent endowment for the propagation of principles antagonistic to the Constitution, that, as long as that Constitution was worth preserving, he must be among those who were compelled to oppose this measure. He believed the system of Romanism to be entirely opposed to civil and religious liberty. He intended not to apply that observation personally to hon. Gentlemen opposite, because from their own declarations, as far as they were concerned, it could not apply to them. But he really did not understand their arguments, because they were telling him every day that Rome was unchanged and unchangeable; and the next moment that certain doctrines according to the Council of Trent were obsolete. It might be, so far as they were concerned; but, then, to that extent, they dissented from the Church of Rome. But, if she did maintain those principles—as long as she did so—as long as she did not repudiate them—as long as this country possessed a Protestant Constitution and a Protestant Sovereign—so long must this country, to a certain extent, remain antagonistic to the Church of Rome; and, on that ground, so long as he aetained a seat in that House, he must vote gaint any measure which proposed to endow the system of Rome.

Sir J. Graham

Sir, the debate on the third reading of this measure is now far advanced, and whatever differences of opinion there may be between hon. Members on other points, we are all agreed upon one, that it is desirable that this protracted debate should now soon come to an end. Satisfied as I am with the course of the debate on the general question, I should not have thought it my duty to intrude myself on the notice of the House, if it had not been for several observations which have been made not only on the conduct of the Administration of which I am a humble Member, but more especially on my own personal conduct, which renders it indispensable that before the close of the debate, I should offer myself to the notice of the House. Before I come to the general question, then, I will take the liberty of noticing some of those observations. I cannot but feel that it is a very painful duty to address myself to the observations of those hon. Gentlemen with whom I have acted for many years, and from whom I have on many occasions received the most cordial support. But it is more deeply painful to me to have to reply to a right hon. Gentleman sitting on this side of the House, who has thought it necessary to comment on my personal conduct towards himself. The House will naturally perceive that I advert to the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. That right hon. Gentleman charged me with neglect of the business, in which Ireland is concerned, transacted in the Department over which I preside; and almost in the same breath, and with some degree of inconsistency, he broadly and distinctly charged me with assuming to myself, as he thought, improperly, too much control over Irish affairs; and this he did in a very different tone from that adopted by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, in the able speech which he addressed to the House. I can truly assert that, in the discharge of my official duties, I have not, so far as I am aware, exceeded in any degree the limits prescribed to my office, nor departed from the practice of my predecessors. Most certainly, it is my duty, as Secretary of State for Home Affairs, to exercise a general control over the conduct and proceedings of the Irish Government on the part of the Cabinet of which I am a Member; and I thought I had seen in the House a growing opinion that it was highly expedient that the conduct of Irish affairs should be in the main assimilated as much as possible to the conduct of English and Scotch affairs, and to the general administration of this United Kingdom. It is not possible that this object could be effected, unless that control was exercised in one office and by the same authority; and I had the advantage, in the management of Irish affairs, of being connected with my noble Friends Earl de Grey and Earl St. Germains. With them I have constantly corresponded; and I have the satisfaction of saying, that with neither of those noble Lords have I had any difference of opinion which has for one hour interrupted the harmony of our official intercourse, and from them I have never received the slightest remonstrance against the assumption of undue authority on my part. At the present moment the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme thinks the vice of the present Administration is the weakness of the Irish Government. I have the advantage of daily correspondence on the subject of Irish affairs with the present Lord Lieutenant, who may challenge, for talents and integrity, comparison with any who ever before have filled that high office. To that noble Lord I frankly communicate the views of the Cabinet; he has exercised a most independent judgment; and I may say, not only in reference to him, but I have the satisfaction to state generally, that the whole of the Members of the Irish Government, with respect to all our measures, and more especially in reference to this measure, do perfectly and entirely agree with us. The right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin commented in a strong manner upon a former debate, respecting the distribution of patronage. There was some nameless individual connected with the law who had not, it seemed, received the promotion which it was thought he merited. The right hon. Gentleman did not explain precisely what was that grievance; but he did complain that an Englishman was appointed to hold the Great Seal of Ireland; for he said, he had reason to deplore that appointment, and to blush that an Englishman had been selected for that office. I am not aware that when Sir Edward Sugden was first appointed to hold the Great Seal, in the year 1834, there was any such poignant regret expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. I think Sir Edward Sugden is the man above all others whom we require in Ireland in that office at the present time. I am persuaded, that at no time, and under no former Administration, were law and equity ever administered more impartially, more promptly, or more ably, than by my right hon. Friend the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. And certainly, I must say, that I am surprised to hear it stated, from this side of the House, by a lawyer and by a Member for the University of Dublin, that he blushed when such an Englishman was selected to hold the Great Seal of Ireland. I am bound to say, that although the tone of that speech in many particulars gave me great pain, I am not sorry that I should have unintentionally offended that right hon. Gentleman, if I have given the occasion of eliciting from him what I heard with peculiar satisfaction—the renunciation, on his part, of any desire that Ireland should hereafter be governed on Protestant ascendancy principles. But it was with pain I heard from the right hon. Gentleman the awful sentence, that while he extended to other Members of the Administration the continuation of his esteem and regard, yet from me he had withdrawn all such feelings. I certainly have survived a great deal of anonymous abuse from the Dublin Evening Mail, and other papers in Ireland; but I deeply deplore the loss of the right hon. Gentleman's confidence, which I must endeavour to bear with equanimity and without shame; for I feel conscious that it has been in the faithful discharge of my official duties that I have incurred the displeasure of the right hon. Gentleman. I now turn to the speech which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Spooner), made on a former evening; and I must say, that it brought to my recollection debates long past, and days which I thought could never be revived. In a great question of this kind, my hon. Friend said, that he entered into the discussion without reference to pecuniary considerations, and without reference to any political considerations; but that he took an entirely theological view of the subject. He said, that this was the only ground on which he condescended to argue the question, and he proceeded to quote Paley, Cappadocius, and Thomas Aquinas; the Coronation Oath and Dr. Duigenan were again introduced into this question, and formed indeed the staple of my hon. Friend's speech. My hon. Friend also reminded us that we are the Protestant Ministers of a Protestant Sovereign. The same ground has this evening again been taken by the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Darby). I admit that we are Protestant Ministers; and no man is more deeply attached to the Protestant Establishment than I am — none more deeply convinced that the maintenance of the Church Establishment is a great duty on the part of this House and of the State; but I must tell my hon. Friend that I am a firm believer in the great principle laid down by Burke in one of his last letters, where he says (I do not pretend to quote the precise words), that whenever in matters of State, questions of religion arise, those questions must be decided on political, and not on theological grounds. I conceive that principle to be undoubtedly sound and most wise; and I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, that it is now too late to refer to those arguments which he advanced on a former evening. I am sorry that the comments I made on a former speech of his, have induced him to repeat those sentiments which he uttered with reference to the religion of a large portion of his fellow subjects, whom, at the same time, he said he personally and individually respected. But the arguments which he used are the arguments on which the penal code was originally founded; and if they are worth anything, they ought to have prevailed against any relaxation of that code. They are utterly inconsistent with the grant of the elective franchise to the Roman Catholics, with the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, with the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in this House, and with their admission to any administrative and corporate privileges. They go a great deal too far for the comparatively narrow purpose for which we are now contending, and are irreconcileable with the whole policy of relaxation which for the last fifty years has prevailed. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred to the disturbed state of several districts in Ireland. I am unhappily not in a condition to deny the truth of that statement. It is unhappily true, that owing to the social condition of that country, crimes of an aggravated description against the person are very prevalent. But while I make this admission, it is also very important—as the demoralizing tendency of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church have been dwelt on—that I should in passing make another observation; and it is this—that though crimes against the person are rife in Ireland, yet, whether you look to the honesty of the men in reference to the rights of property, or to the chastity of the women in reference to morals, the people of Ireland (though you tell me that their teachers are Roman Catholic ministers) will bear an honourable comparison with the people of any part of the United Kingdom. That crimes in Ireland do exist to a painful and alarming extent I admit; but I say that you cannot regard this question with any degree of political wisdom, without observing that the particular nature of those crimes is evidence of a diseased state of society, which is deep rooted, and sheds its evil influence throughout the community. It is not denied by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, that the Roman Catholic priesthood in every country, and in Ireland particularly, have great influence over the adherents to the Roman Catholic faith; and when I consider the poverty, the misery, and the distress of the great body of the Irish people, being left, as far as this world is concerned, with scarcely any hope, and with barely a sufficient subsistence, I cannot wonder that they do esteem and regard, more than any other earthly object, the consolation they derive from their spiritual guides, and that they do love and venerate their clergy. And when I hear hon. Members speak of "antagonistic principles," and when I am reminded that I am a Protestant Minister of a Protestant Sovereign, I cannot, at the same time, forget that I am the Minister of a Sovereign who has 8,000,000 of subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion, so loving the Roman Catholic priesthood, and so led by and depending on them. I say, that if that priesthood, so loved and regarded by a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects, should, from any unhappy bigotry prevailing in this country, be reviled with contumely, and treated with disregard, we are approaching a state of affairs pregnant with the utmost danger to this united Empire. My hon. Friend the Member for Sussex repudiates the word "Antichrist," and says, that it is not of Protestant origin. I care not what the origin of the expression is. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire talks of the still small voice of the Protestant clergy in opposition to this measure. I will give you a specimen of this "still small voice." I regret that words, which I am almost ashamed to quote, have fallen in Exeter Hall from a minister of the Establishment, to the effect, that the banner under which they were fighting, should bear on one side, the inscription, "The Gospel of Christ," and on the other, "No peace with Antichrist." And what was the resolution passed at the meeting to which I am now alluding? It was this:— That there is one fundamental principle of union in a steady abhorrence of the Roman Catholic religion. This may be the principle of union be- tween the Wesleyans and the Independents; this may be the fundamental groundwork of union between different parties in this House, forming a strange combination; but it is my duty to say that you cannot rely on that ground, namely, a steady abhorrence of the Roman Catholic religion, if you seek to preserve the Union between Great Britain and Ireland. I am bound to say that, with respect to this particular question, I think, from the heat of public discussion, and from the force of public opinion, it has swollen into undue magnitude. When it was first brought forward it had not assumed the aspect of importance which it now bears; but I should fail to discharge my duty, if under the circumstances in which it is now discussed, I neglected to say that it has become a question of primary importance. To the question put by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire—"What good do we expect from the passing of this measure?"—I will answer by another question, "Can any one foretel the extent of the evil which would be caused by its rejection?" The hon. Member for Dorsetshire said, that when the College of Maynooth was first established, it was supposed that it would be maintained and endowed by the Roman Catholics themselves, and that yet it had received no aid or endowment from the members of that Church. But the hon. Member must bear in mind that until nearly the end of the last century there existed impediments in the way of the Roman Catholics holding landed property; and at an earlier period they could not even possess a horse of any value. This, therefore, is an answer to the objection that they had not endowed a College; and besides, as my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) observed, in opening this question, the very fact of Parliament coming forward and professing to endow this College, did prevent the Roman Catholic gentry from exercising the power which they afterwards obtained from a relaxation of the penal code, and providing out of their substance the means of enlarging this College. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire quoted the pamphlet of Dr. Duigenan, published in 1799; and he appeared to me to prove how deliberately the Irish Parliament, on a reconsideration of the question, went further in 1800 than they had gone in the first instance. What was the hon. Member's statement? It was, that while avowedly the British Government only gave 8,000l. to the College, on an investigation made in 1799, according to Dr. Duigenan's report, it was found that 40,000l. had been given for its foundation by the British Government. This was a plain demonstration that Mr. Pitt's Government, acting through Lord Camden, did attach the greatest importance to this College. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire went on to state, that it had been ascertained that nothing had been contributed by the Roman Catholics themselves; that the institution was an exclusively monastic establishment; that, as on the present occasion, so in the Irish Parliament, the Protestant Members complained much of the part taken by the Government in favouring such an institution, and pressing for an increase of its means; that actually in the Irish House of Lords the Bill for granting it money was thrown out in 1798; and that on the whole, even at that early period, the Government of Mr. Pitt had great difficulty in giving effect to this branch of his Irish policy. This is the history of the case up to the year 1799, given by Dr. Duigenan, and quoted by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire. In 1800 the whole subject came under the review of the Irish Parliament; and did they then, notwithstanding all this hesitation, depart from the policy of the Government, or restrict the endowment? Did the Irish Parliament contemplate doing that which appears, I think, to be the object of a great number of Gentlemen who are now opposed to the measure of the Government? Was it then proposed that the grant should be entirely withdrawn? Quite the contrary; a more confiding character was given to the measure than had been contemplated by the Act of 1795. The trust in 1795 had been a mixed trust, partly Protestant and partly Roman Catholic, and the trust so composed had been invested with visitorial powers. Protestants, therefore, had a concurrent right of interference under the Act of 1795 in matters of doctrine and discipline. Now, observe! The facts, as stated by Dr. Duigenan, having been ascertained, the whole subject came under review in 1800; and the nature of the trust was changed. It was thenceforth constituted exclusively of Roman Catholics, instead of being a mixed trust for matters of doctrine and discipline; and the general visitorial power, such as was constituted for other purposes, had reference to matters not connected with doctrine and discipline. The visitors named for this latter purpose were certain great officers of State. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire went on to state, that in the Bill before the House no attention had been paid to these points, and that there was no control as respected visitation in this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire must have imperfectly considered this measure. With respect to doctrine and discipline, it is most true that this Bill does not interfere with the arrangement made in 1800, which has existed for forty-five years; and I ask the House whether, if, in proposing this measure in a beneficent spirit, and with an earnest desire of giving contentment to the Roman Catholic body, by showing on the part of the State a desire to act with benevolence to the clergy, who are to be educated as the pastors of the great body of the Irish people, we had coupled with it an interference with the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic religion, we should not have defeated our object, and have caused the offer now made to be viewed as an insult, and not as a boon, by the Roman Catholics? But, excepting doctrine and discipline, we have taken effectual measures to secure the object which this Bill has in view. The primary object of this Bill is to place within the reach of the students at Maynooth, greater comforts, to habituate them to more social habits, to elevate their character, and to give them the means not only of theological instruction, but to enable them, by means of a library, and other repositories of art, to obtain a better education in general science. To effect these objects, there is given to the Executive Government the power not merely of appointing ex officio visitors, but the Crown is vested absolutely with the authority of nominating visitors for this special purpose; and whereas the visitation heretofore was only triennial, it must be under this Bill, annual; and visitations more frequent may also be appointed, as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland may from time to time direct. It has been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and the observation has been repeated by the hon. Member for Sussex, that we have had fifty years' experience of the fruits of the system of education at Maynooth; and the hon. Member for Sussex added that Maynooth had been felt, and would be felt. I admit the truth of that observation. I do not think that the fruits of the education given at Maynooth under the existing arrangement can be satisfactory. It has been said that the Roman Catholic priests have frequently taken an active part in political agitation. The hon. Member for Waterford has given an explanation of this which is quite irresistible. The Roman Catholic priests spring from the people, they are dependent on the people, they mix with the people, and they partake of the feelings of the people. But more than this, notwithstanding their sacred education and their devotion to sacred subjects, these priests, after all, are men—they partake of the passions and feelings of men; if you treat them unkindly they will and they do resent injury, oppression, and wrong. If you treat them kindly, it is not because they are pious and devout that I can believe that they will be ungrateful; and it is my strong persuasion that if by the liberality of this grant you alter the recollections of Maynooth; if, instead of the priests looking back to the period spent there as to a time of privation, while they were told that the State was making a provision for them, they shall look back to it as to a time of comparative comfort, due to the liberality of the Imperial Parliament; my firm conviction, is, that the priests will leave Maynooth with very different feelings towards the Legislature of this country; and whereas on many occasions they are now described as being political enemies, we may then hope in many cases to find them attached political friends. The hon. Member for Dungarvon quoted the other evening a passage from a very able pamphlet written by a Roman Catholic priest on the general question of academical education in Ireland. On many points the writer dissents from the views of the Government; but on one point he is very explicit—namely, with reference to the feeling you may expect from the priesthood of Ireland if they are treated with kindness and generosity by the State. He says,— If the civil authority, out of its good will, shall come forward to aid by its bounty in the institution of ecclesiastical colleges, unquestionably it has a right to expect some return for its liberality; and it will be paid back with interest by the services of religion, in promoting social order through its influence over the hearts of men, where the lawgiver will find the best sanction of his laws, as it is there, and there alone, the monarch can lay the sure foundation of his throne. If the bouuty of the State be a support to religion, religion is a necessary supplement to the power of the State, nay, for what it receives it renders back a hundredfold. I have heard it stated by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, that the Ultramontane doctrine is taught at Maynooth. I question the accuracy of his information on that point. He says that on the whole that doctrine is prevalent; and that the Government of France at the present moment has the utmost jealousy of the influ- ence of the Roman Catholic priesthood, notwithstanding that the Government of France has the appointment of the bishops, and notwithstanding that the parochial priesthood are paid by the State, and the Government have a concordat with Rome. I should regret if it were true that the Ultramontane doctrine is taught at Maynooth; but I put this to you—if the fact be so, is not the State now exposed to all the dangers and evils which can arise from that state of affairs? You cannot change the religion of the Catholics—you cannot diminish the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood; and the question now is, whether you will act liberally and kindly to that priesthood, taking your chance of winning their affections, or in a niggardly spirit, which would be certain to disgust them, and alienate their affections? I am about to read an extract, as to the influence of the Catholic priesthood, from an authority which, on this side of the House at least, I think is likely to prevail. I stated on a former occasion, not only that this College was founded under the direction and with the sanction of Mr. Pitt, before the Union, but I stated also that after the Union larger measures were contemplated by that Government. The late Lord Londonderry was Secretary for Ireland when the Maynooth Act passed, in 1800. The opinion of Lord Londonderry as to the absolute necessity of placing our Roman Catholic fellow subjects on terms of perfect civil equality with Protestants never varied; but in 1810, on a Motion of Mr. Grattan, in favour of the Catholic petition, he thus expressed himself in reference to the Roman Catholic priesthood; I should state, that this passage evidently contemplated ulterior measures, to which the Bill now under discussion has no reference whatever; still it is well worthy the marked attention of the House. Lord Londonderry said— It might be doubted whether the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland was not the most powerful instrument that existed in that country, to direct the minds of the people, not merely with respect to their spiritual, but their temporal concerns. How important, then, to the peace as well as social and moral improvement of the country, that the clergy of so large a proportion of the people should be connected with the State by every tie of common interest which may be compatible with the principles of their religion, and the character of its ministers! When he expressed his desire to see such a connexion established, it was not in the expectation of imposing upon them any unbecoming or unworthy influence which might lower them in the minds of their own people, and disqualify them from the due discharge of their sacred functions. It was no part of his purpose to endeavour to extinguish the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland; he might lament the extent of sectarianism in the Empire, as adding largely to the difficulties of governing it, but he was sure any attempt at this time to disturb the faith and habits of a people long attached, under every difficulty, to their religion, was equally unwise and impracticable. His wish was, therefore, not that they should cease to be Roman Catholics, for if they did, they probably would cease to have any religion at all, but that they should continue to be sincere, but liberal, Roman Catholics, connecting themselves with their own Government for purposes of mutual benefit, to the exclusion of all foreign connexion. Sounder or wiser opinions in reference to Irish policy have never been propounded; and, as far as I am concerned, I have an earnest desire in every situation in which I may be placed, whether as an independent Member of this House, or in the service of the Crown, to give effect to those opinions and that policy. Now, Sir, I am asked, what is the direction which the measures of Her Majesty's Government will take? To that I answer, that the present measure is one not in itself of so much practical importance, in the direct effects to be produced by it, as in the indirect operation which, in my belief, it cannot fail to produce upon the hearts, the affections, and the opinions of the Irish people. The measures which Her Majesty's Government contemplate and desire may be well expressed in the exact words of Lord Grenville, immediately after the Union, when a similar question was put to him. He said— The measures contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, were measures for conciliating the warmest affections of the Irish people, whose interests and feelings must be consulted, and for ensuring the success of the system of unreserved benevolence and kindness towards the great body of the people of Ireland. That is my answer to the question. It is impossible to forget that the great body of the Irish people are Roman Catholics; and as to the principle of regarding them and their religion with steady abhorrence, I think it one which is incompatible with the peace and safety of the State. Such principles cannot be maintained with safety. I say that every ground of policy forbids it; and if we put it on other ground, the highest of all grounds, the ground of religion—what was said by Mr. Grattan on that point occurs to me at once— I will try your doctrine, I will put it to you in the shape of a Protestant clergyman addressing a Protestant audience, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; love your neighbour as yourself, nay, love your enemies; and may the Almighty incline your hearts to hate and to despise the Christian ministers of a large body of your fellow subjects!' How did Mr. Grattan go on to apply this religious doctrine? He said you sought your principles of government from a place that shall be nameless; that in the precincts of Bedlam worse policy could not be found. I agree with him. It is not a Christian doctrine; it is not a politic doctrine; it is quite possible to maintain Protestant institutions, a Protestant Government, and a Protestant Crown, and at the same time to be actuated by the utmost generosity and the utmost benevolence to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects. We are told distinctly, that endowment they would not receive; endowment is not tendered to them; this particular boon we know that they desire; this particular boon we know they will accept; my belief is, they will accept it gratefully, and their gratitude will be productive of the greatest advantages to the United Empire. I might go further, but after so protracted a discussion I think I have said enough to show that no Minister of the Crown ever propounded a measure with a more conscientious conviction he was discharging his duty; and although I deeply deplore that so many of my Friends—kind and intimate Friends—on this side of the House, disapprove of the course I am pursuing, still I must say, that I should basely betray the confidence of my Sovereign, and the interests of the nation, at this moment, if I failed to recommend this measure. It occurs to me that it may be said this measure is extorted by fear. I absolutely deny it. Instead of a public benefit, it would be a public curse, if Government brought it forward on such a ground. On a former occasion I demonstrated from dates and facts that this is impossible. The hon. Member for Newcastle has asked us, why we do not put down Ribandism and the monster meetings in Ireland? I say, we have exercised the law firmly in opposition to the Riband system, and that we did inflict the punishment of the law on those who were convicted of violating it. We did not propound any measure of this kind till we had succeeded in demonstrating that the law is strong enough to deal with everything that is dangerous of this description. I gladly avail myself of this opportunity before I sit down, to state that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle in his testimony as to the conduct of the Protestant people of Ireland in 1844. Their conduct was most exemplary and praiseworthy. A high degree of excitement prevailed, and the temptation was great to resume their customary Orange processions at that particular time. The Protestant clergy did their duty on that occasion. They interfered to prevent those movements, and by so interfering probably prevented collision; I gladly pay them this tribute; but I must say, for the sake of the peace and prosperity of that country, it is necessary carefully to consider the causes of national discontent, and to go to the root of the evil; and I believe the best means, under present circumstances, is to satisfy the just expectations of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Roman Catholic people, in aiding the education of the Catholic priesthood. This is a boon which they will accept, and because they are willing to accept it—because it is proposed, not from fear but from a love of justice and a sense of policy—on these grounds, with earnestness and sincerity, I press this measure on the favourable attention of the House.

Mr. Sheil

There are circumstances connected with the first establishment of Maynooth, having no sort of concern with the question of contract, of which the House has already heard enough, to which the remarkable speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, made in the 19th of April, induces me to refer. In the fourth volume of the Correspondence of Edmund Burke, which was published last year by Lord Fitzwilliam, I find in page 321 the following words:— If that business is conducted as it ought to be (or merely as it will be, if the hands of jobbers are kept out of it), I expect more good from it than from anything which has happened in our age. What was it from which the great Irishman expected so much good? How many men there are who adore the name of Burke—who consider him the saviour of England, who believe that it was by his surpassing genius that revolution was stayed in its career—who denounce the enlarged and permanent endowment of Maynooth? They will be surprised to learn that it was in reference to that seminary that Edmund Burke expressed himself in the language of unqualified commendation. I have read those words from a letter written in 1795 to Dr. Hussey. Dr. Hussey was the first president of Maynooth, and was afterwards Catholic bishop of Waterford. He was a man of great ability and accomplishments. The Duke of Portland, at the instance of Edmund Burke, sent him to Ireland, with a view to the conciliation of the Irish Catholics. At a period of great public hazard, and when their fidelity was the subject of exceedingly anxious surmise, great value is to be attached to the correspondence of the great statesman and of the Catholic priest: both were thoroughly acquainted with Ireland. Although Edmund Burke was a Protestant, and educated in a Protestant University, he had lived from the earliest period of his life with Roman Catholics; he had the most intimate cognizance of their feelings. He has left us, indeed, in his writings on Ireland monuments of wisdom, by which all that has since been written or spoken is immeasurably surpassed. Dr. Hussey had, of course, a perfect acquaintance with every particular connected with the 3,000,000 (we were then but 3,000,000), to whom he himself belonged, and of whom he was in some sort the representative of the negotiation which ensued. The greatest alarm for the safety of Ireland is expressed in the correspondence of the two friends. When an Irish Catholic ventures in this House to speak of the hazard to which bad government exposes the country, his warnings are mistaken for menaces; his predictions are affiliated on his desires. But when you find the utmost apprehension expressed in letters never destined for publication, and written in the confidence of personal regard, you must needs believe that the writers were sincere, and that to their opinion great attention is to be paid. The Government of 1795 had contemplated two measures for the conciliation of the Catholic people and the Catholic Church; a farther relaxation of the penal code, and the establishment of Maynooth. The first project was suddenly abandoned, to the great dismay and the great grief of Edmund Burke; but to the second the Ministry thought it judicious to adhere; and, feeling the incalculable importance of reviving the attachment of the Catholic Church, Edmund Burke found some equivalent for the loss of Catholic Emancipation; and in answer to a letter from Dr. Hussey, in which he communicated the fact, that all the arrangements regarding Maynooth were completed, he expresses himself in the words which I have quoted. Edmund Burke does not appear to have thought of the amount of the grant: it is just alluded to—he did not see the mere cipher from the great height on which he stood; he looked into future results. He perceived that a great principle of conciliation had been deposited, and in the seedling beheld the oak. He was confident that a great effect would be produced upon the Catholic clergy, and events soon arose by which his anticipations were confirmed. Theobold Wolfe here embarked in his extraordinary enterprise. The Member for Newcastle adverted to the memoirs of that remarkable man, but for a purpose very different to that for which they ought to be employed. A French fleet, with several thousand men on board, was for several days anchored in the Bay of Bantrey, and a landing would have been effected but for that very Grouchy, for whom, on the 18th of June, Napoleon turned his glass so often to the horizon, and turned it, thank God! in vain. The rebellion of 1798 followed; it was put down just as every rebellion will be put down—but at what a cost of treasure and of blood! and how fearfully answerable to God are the men by whose misrule by whose fatal procrastinations, and by their sacrificing of country to party, those horrible calamities were produced! Why do I refer to those unfortunate incidents in the history of my country? Because in the crisis of England's destiny, the Catholic Church was unalterably true, and of its loyalty no doubt can be entertained. I pass from the year 1798 to the year 1824. During the whole of that interval, the Catholic clergy did not take any active part in any political proceedings; but when the Catholic Association was formed, the priesthood felt the influence of that great political confederacy. But it was not at Maynooth that the sacerdotal agitation began; it commenced at Carlow College, of which Dr. Doyle was the president. That most eloquent ecclesiastic, whom injustice had such cause to dread, was not educated at Maynooth: he received his instructions at Coimbra, and was an Augustinian friar His writings produced an extraordinary sensation: some of the tenets were startling. He went so far as to affirm that, in the event of an invasion the Catholic clergy were not to become the auxiliaries of the State. The Doctor of Coimbra was at once encountered by the professors of Maynooth. Let those who tell us, without the slightest warrant for the imputation, that the students of Maynooth are lectured, in disloyalty and graduate in treason—let those who assure us that the Jesuits have established a polytechnic school at Maynooth, in which dogmas subversive of allegiance to a Protestant State are broached, hear the following solemn declaration, signed by the professors of Maynooth, of their own mere motion, when they had no favour to expect from the Government, and when they could not have been actuated by any other motive than a sense of moral and religious duty.—[Here Mr. Sheil read a protest from several professors of Maynooth against the doctrine that resistance to the Government was justifiable.] Surely, surely, this document published under such circumstances—published during the great struggle for emancipation, ought to convince the honest antagonists of Maynooth that they have been doing it wrong: with respect to the more dishonest of its opponents, all remonstrance with them is vain. You may refute them again and again—again and again you may destroy their "web of sophistry," their stores of misrepresentation are inexhaustible, and with an instinct which they can scarce restrain, they are sure to return to their natural occupation. I do firmly believe that no political opinions have ever been inculcated at Maynooth which are at all at variance with the doctrines expressed in that important Protest. Much has been attributed to Maynooth, which ought never to have been ascribed to it, and which ought to be imputed to causes wholly different. A student at Maynooth hears little or nothing of politics; when he leaves Maynooth and enters the Church, he mingles with the people; in the midst of a great epidemic he takes the contagion, and propagates it; but for this result, Maynooth is not in any degree responsible. What Maynooth was in 1824, Maynooth continues to be, and verifies the view taken by Edmund Burke at its first foundation. The Catholic bishops were grateful for the first grant; they are, the great majority of them at least, grateful for this large and liberal endowment. The professors of Maynooth have signified their sense of the merits of this measure; and I am convinced that among the great body of the people, the same sentiment prevails. It is most gratifying to find that against this measure there has not been in Ireland any strong Protestant demonstration. The representatives of the University of Dublin, indeed, have spoken strongly against this Bill. I do not, however, regard these gentlemen as speaking the sentiments of the chief proprietors of the country, who are anxious for peace, and look to measures of this character as among the means by which the security of property can be confirmed. I believe that most of the Protestant gentry in the south and west of Ireland agree in the opinions expressed in a petition signed by almost every gentlemen of rank in the county of Galway. I observe among other names that of Mr. St. George, who is a Conservative and something more, and of Mr. James Daly, the brother of the rev. divine who was created Bishop of Waterford by the right hon. Baronet, and has proved the justice of an old Ministerial observation, that the first thing a bishop does is to forget his maker. While I feel confident that this measure will be welcomed in Ireland, I must admit that here it has met with vehement resistance. I have been condemned for complaining of the conduct of the Dissenters. Sir, I said—and I do not retract the observation—that it would be a great calamity if the people of Ireland had cause to think that the policy by which Ireland is to be governed was to be regulated by the religious prejudices or predilections of any portion of the English people. If the interests of one country are to be sacrificed to the passions of the other, there is an end to any real union. But having said thus much, I think it right to add, that so far from cherishing any feeling of resentment, whenever the Dissenters seek relief from any grievance by which they are still galled, I shall think a little less of Popery, and a little more of church rates. I make no doubt that every Catholic will support them, and that any wrong they have done us, will be remembered only that it may be forgiven. I think it right also to say that they do not grudge us the 26,000l. a year, on account of the magnitude of the sum, but on account of the purposes to which it is applied. They have been led to think that in Maynooth doctrines are taught at variance with virtue. This House has a strong and most just disrelish for all theological disquisition: not that this House is godless, or indifferent to truth, but that truth is not the object of disputation; and in the onset of conflicting controversialists, charity, which ought to part them, is wounded, and trodden under foot. Upon the doctrine of the Catholic Church, I shall say nothing; I once ventured to say to an hon. Member of this House, that I should leave him "to rush in, where angels fear to tread;" and I own that I do not see anything in his recent conduct which should induce me to follow his example. But while polemics are to be avoided, it is right that some of the odious instrumentality which has been resorted to in order to influence the public mind, should be exposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, who votes in favour of this measure, gave me a document which the opponents of Maynooth had actively and extensively dispersed, in which the principal charges against Maynooth are contained. This circular is a specimen, and upon this specimen I shall make but two observations. [Here Mr. Sheil read a document, imputing to Maynooth doctrines contained in writers, who, Mr. Sheil insisted, are not read at Maynooth.] Such are the expedients by which fanaticism imposes upon credulity, and labours to propagate the belief that Maynooth inculcates a latitudinarian morality in reference to the obligation of an oath. Every opinion taught at Maynooth is to be found in Paley, and in Saunderson, who was Regius Professor in the University of Oxford. If I am asked, whether I am prepared to defend every opinion contained in the text books of Maynooth—I answer, that I am no more prepared to do so, than to defend every thing in Coke's Commentary upon Littleton—or every thing contained in Blackstone, in his distinction between Malum Prohibitum, and Malum in se; nor do I conceive that Maynooth is responsible for all that is to be found in the books which are read in the course of its studies. The text books must be taken in conjunction with the lectures of the professors; and if it be alleged that, by the professors, any criminal or intolerant doctrine is taught or even broached, let a Committee of Inquiry be proposed by the Gentlemen by whom that allegation shall be preferred; and every Catholic Member of this House will vote in favour of the Motion. There is only the remaining charge against Maynooth to which I shall advert: it is insisted that books of casuistry, comprising details of depravity, are read at Maynooth. This accusation is preferred by Gentlemen who know the sixth book of Juvenal by heart. Sir, it is perfectly true, that books of casuistry, like books of criminal law, contain things from which delicacy recoils: the system of auricular confession involves the necessity of investigating the worst parts of human nature. The surgery of the mind, if I may use the expression—the dissection of the heart, in the state of decomposition in which the casuist must open it, is unavoidable; but I believe that in the process a train of licentious thought is seldom or never awakened. I am persuaded that no practical evil has ensued; and it is by the results of Maynooth College upon the minds of the clergy and the people of Ireland, that the merits of Maynooth are to be tested. I venture to assert, and I am satisfied that I shall not be contradicted, that there is not a more moral body of men in the world, than the Irish Catholic clergy who have been educated at Maynooth. I do not desire to make any invidious comparisons—nay, I will at once acknowledge that the Irish Protestant clergy are men of most exemplary conduct—excellent in all the relations of private life. The sinecurism of the Church I utterly condemn; but to the merits of the individual members of the Church I readily bear my testimony. But the Catholic clergy are most assuredly not inferior in any one moral regard. With celibacy and its privations is associated unblemished and unsuspected virtue; and whatever opinion you may form regarding the interposition of the priesthood in politics, I believe that there exists but one opinion with respect to the purity of their lives, as well as the zeal with which they perform their religious duties. In considering the results of Maynooth, it is right that we should look at the moral condition of the people over whom the clergy exercise so great an influence. I assert that the Irish are a moral people. I think that it will be universally acknowledged that among the peasantry of Ireland, there is less female frailty than in almost any country in Europe; and that as daughters, wives, and mothers, the women of Ireland are entitled to the most unqualified encomiums. Among men and women the domestic virtues exist in the most eminent degree; and in affection to each other — in attachment to their "flesh and blood," to use their own powerful language, at even remote degrees of consanguinity, they are unsurpassed. Sir, the people who are capable of these things are not an immoral people; and the clergy under whom their character has been framed, are not so vitiated by books of casuistry as their antagonists pretend. There are great crimes committed in the disturbed districts of Ireland; but those misdeeds are much more the result of agrarian disorganization, than of deep-rooted national depravity. Murder is not lucrative — atrocities are appalling, but they are not mean; nor have they their origin in that source of turpitude—in that thirst of "blood and of putridity," to use Dante's famous phrase, from which the crimes of a great metropolis are derived. But whatever estimate you may form of those outbreaks of terrible revenge, which are, however, confined in a great measure to districts peculiarly situated, it is certain that those enormities would be augmented tenfold, but for the interposition of the Catholic clergy. For the last thirty years, every Secretary for Ireland, of every party, has concurred in stating that in the maintenance of order, the Catholic clergy had used the most indefatigable efforts, and that the public gratitude was due to them for their successful exertions in the repression of atrocity. These are the facts on which I rely. These are the facts which no eloquence is required to set off, against which no eloquence can prevail. These are the facts which more than justify the measure of the right hon. Baronet; conceived in justice—free from offensive conditions in its details — carried out, despite of great obstacles, with a most courageous perseverance; and I do not hesitate to aver, that if all his other measures shall be in keeping with this—if he shall legislate with the same view to the interests of a great country, and not the passions of a small party—if he shall carry out the great principles on which this measure is founded, he will not only make reparation for every former error, but will, beyond doubt, acquire a permanent title to the gratitude of the Irish people.

Mr. Plumptre

entreated Her Majesty's Government to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and grant a Select Committee to inquire into the class books of Maynooth. If they did, he would be prepared to move it, as an Amendment, on the Question that the Bill do pass. He had several times invited them to investigate the subject; but he had been always met with refusal, on the ground that they would not interfere with the discipline of the College. That system of non-interference was one of the gravest complaints made by the Protestant people of England against the Bill; they could not understand how they should be called upon to endow a Roman Catholic College over which the Government should exercise no control. He believed the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) was not quite correct in his statement that the books he mentioned were not class books in Maynooth. The right hon. Home Secretary (Sir J. Graham) had alluded to a remark made at Exeter Hall—that Protestants should preserve a steady abhorrence to the Roman Catholic religion; and he had argued that it would be impossible to keep peace between this country and Ireland if that was to be the case. But it struck him with surprise that the right hon. Gentleman did not perceive the difference between abhorring the Roman Catholic religion, and abhorring the Roman Catholics. Though he expressed strong opinions—and none stronger than he felt on the subject of the Roman Catholic religion—he repudiated and disavowed any feeling except love for his Roman Catholic fellow subjects. It was the same sentiment that caused the present great movement against the measure of the Government all over the country. Her Majesty's Government, by persevering in the Bill before the House, had, as the hon. Member for Newcastle truly stated, committed three grave errors; they had, in the first instance, not pacified Ireland by it; in the second, they had outraged the religious feelings of England; and, in the third, they had created a powerful party against them as a Ministry. He deeply deplored the course they had taken in this instance; but, in the name of the Protestants of this great country, he felt it to be his duty most solemnly and most religiously to protest against it.

Mr. Sergeant Murphy

could assure the House that if they would bear with him for a short time he would not inflict a speech on them. When he came down to the House that evening, he had no intention of addressing them, and he should not have done so but for the personal allusions which had been made to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. In the charges brought by the hon. Member against his countrymen, he said that there was a degree of bigotry manifested on the part of those professing the Catholic religion in that country which could not be surpassed. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a system of proselytism going on in Ireland, on the part of the Pro- testant clergy, which, under the bigoted influence of Maynooth, involved in bitter persecution the Protestant clergy and their flocks; and the hon. Gentleman had favoured the House with sundry extracts from the report of a late trial at Tralee, in support of his assertions. When that book was quoted by the hon. Member, he (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) had cheered, and he would proceed to give some little bits of evidence from the same book, which would alone explain why he had cheered, and show that the system of undue persecution was not, at all events, all on one side, but that on the Protestant side there were persons who, under the semblance of religious zeal, had actually resorted to pecuniary means of debauching from the faith of their fathers the meanest and most ignorant of the community. Nothing, let him first remark, could be more utterly unfounded, in point of fact, than the aspersions cast upon the Roman Catholic priests in this respect; he had himself been brought up among that body, and he could affirm, from his own knowledge, that it was a principle with them that the conscience and belief of every man should be held sacred. Now, to the report of the trial: the Catholic priests were charged with undue proselytizing: what evidence about the proceedings of the Protestants appeared on this same trial? First, there was the case of a man, with a wife and five children, who had been converted to Protestantism by money given in hand, and work furnished to him by a Protestant proselytizer; and the convert himself stated that so little had he been influenced by any other considerations, that when the money became scarce, and the work was no longer supplied him, which events followed immediately after the proselytizer thought he had secured the convertite, he and his wife and his five children returned to the faith which they had never in heart relinquished. That was one specimen of Protestant proselytism. Next came the case of another Protestant proselytizer, who, on being questioned, admitted he had deceived two old ladies of the Protestant persuasion; and the name of one of these deceived damsels was of singular significance; when the questioner proceeded with his interrogatory. And what was the name of the first of these old ladies that you deceived? "Mrs. Peebles," was the reply. And Mrs. Peebles, when she was interrogated as to what had been done to her, said they took her to a church she had never been to before; and when she was asked what had induced her to listen to the voice of the tempter, said it was necessity compelled her, and the desire to keep her place. He (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) was aware that ill-disposed persons had suggested of him that he sometimes interpolated passages in his extracts; but on this occasion, at all events, he added nothing, and he would deposit the document he quoted with the clerk of the House, so that any Member might satisfy himself on the matter. Another Roman Catholic convert, a fish joulter (the hon. Member for Kerry, if he were in his place, would explain the term), on being asked what had secured him for a proselyte, very fairly owned that he had been worked upon by the promise that if he went regularly to church for a year and a half, he should have 5l. 6s. given him to buy a horse with, being at so much per church attendance. He had, it seemed, fulfilled his part of the bargain; but the proselytizing clergyman failed in his payment, and when the convert went to a barrister to have process issued against the rev. gentleman for the amount, he was informed that his immortal soul was a nudum pactum in law, and that he could not recover upon it. A fourth convert being asked what had induced him to lapse from his ancient faith, returned for answer, "Why my belly, of course; it was empty, and they promised to fill it if I would go to church, and so I went." Having given these little illustrations of what was doing in the way of Protestant proselytizing, he would not take up the time of the House any longer.

Mr. Ferrand

would not occupy the attention of the House for more than five minutes; but before the House divided on this important question, he wished to call to the recollection of the Government, and to that also of some hon. Members not belonging to the Government, the advice given by the right hon. Member for Tamworth while he was in Opposition. When that right hon. Baronet found himself in a minority in the House of Commons, he appealed from the House of Commons to the people of England, and he said to them, "You must fight the battle of the Constitution in the Registration Courts." What was the result of that declaration? A House of Commons was returned, the majority of which proved to be Conservative, and that enabled the Member for Tamworth to drive the Whigs from office. The majority—the Conservative majority—of ninety placed the right hon. Baronet at their head; they made him their commander, and he betrayed them; he led them into the midst of the enemy's camp; he was the Maroto of Conservatism. It was necessary to state these things plainly and openly; and he did not hesitate to make the declaration fearlessly, that he believed the battle of the Constitution must again be fought in the Registration Courts; that with the Whigs in opposition it would again be fought in those courts, and that its effect would be to drive the Conservatives from power. As sure as a dissolution of Parliament came, so sure would the traitors meet with their deserts. To those few remarks he should have limited what he had to say, were it not for an observation which fell from the hon. Member for Dungarvon. That right hon. Gentleman told the House that there was no Protestant feeling in Ireland on the subject of the grant to Maynooth; and the right hon. Gentleman called the attention of the House to a meeting of Protestant gentlemen which took place at Galway as a proof that many of the Protestants of Ireland were favourable to the grant; and in fact the right hon. Gentleman made use of the report of that meeting to show that the Protestants of Ireland were in favour of the measure. Now he happened to have a letter on the subject from Mr. St. George, a name which they all respected. The letter was dated from Dromore, in the county of Tyrone. ["Oh, oh."] It was not the Mr. St. George whose name had been previously referred to, but a different person. He knew it was not the same person; but he was not surprised that the mention of the name should produce so much excitement on the Treasury Bench. The letter from Mr. St. George was in these words:—

"Dromore Rectory, Omagh, April 24, 1845.

"My dear Sir—You will pardon the liberty I take in requesting that you will have the kindness to present the petition which I have forwarded to you against the Maynooth grant. Our county Members, Lord C. Hamilton and Mr. H. Corry, have cast off those principles of Protestantism which alone sent them to Parliament. Like Demas, they have forsaken the truth, having loved this present world; and though noble born, both have not been ashamed to become part of 'the organized hypocrisy.' Lord C. Hamilton exhibited, in his last reported speech, a most strange and gratuitous perversity. He greatly deceived the House when he said that there was comparatively no excitement on the subject in Ireland; that the clergy felt little alarm; and that petitions only came from the Dissenters. The direct contrary, in every case, is the truth. But perhaps he may know more of this if he again offers himself a candidate for Parliament. The petition is signed by above 1,000 names. I enclose one of the notices by which our meeting was held, to show by the date that it emanated from ourselves, and was produced by no call made upon us, either in London or elsewhere. Again entreating your forgiveness for thus intruding myself on your time, and assuring you how sincerely I admire your talents, integrity, and zeal,

"I remain, most truly yours,


That, continued the hon. Gentleman, was the authority of a Protestant clergyman. He hoped, then, they would hear no more from the Members of the Government or other hon. Gentlemen that the Protestants of Ireland did not feel strongly upon that question. One word more, and he would have done. He was aware that the Protestants of Ireland had not expressed their sentiments on this measure in the way they would have done if it had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They were disgusted with the conduct of the Government, and they had been betrayed. What said O'Connell to them? He told them that they had trusted the Conservatives, and they had betrayed them, and would betray them if they continued to trust them. They had as much right to believe O'Connell as they had the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. His (Mr. Ferrand's) firm conviction was, that they would find more political honesty and more political integrity in Mr. O'Connell, than they would in the right hon. Baronet. O'Connell was faithful to the party who had trusted him, and placed confidence in him. He had never betrayed the Repealers; but they (the Ministers) had betrayed the Protestants of England—the Protestants of Great Britain and Ireland. What was more, they had betrayed the party that sat on the benches behind them. Many hon. Gentlemen who sat behind Her Majesty's Government had been induced to give them their support in bringing forward this measure, under the belief that they would not compromise their seats thereby; but he could assure them they would find the reverse to be the case. He had been to the north of England during the Whitsuntide recess, and he had never before seen a more firm determination exhibited among all parties — Churchmen and Dissenters — to visit with due severity those who had betrayed them, and inflict due punishment upon them if they should ever show their face among them.

Captain Layard

said, he considered himself fortunate to have fallen under the observation of the Speaker. For standing there as an Englishman, a Protestant, and an Irish Representative, he should have considered himself unfortunate if he had not been allowed to express his opinion. But before doing so he could not help referring to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin. In that speech, the right hon. Gentleman had thought proper to tell the Prime Minister that he had acted unwisely in stating, as he did upon first coming into office, that Ireland would be his chief difficulty. Now, in his (Captain Layard's) opinion, the right hon. Gentleman had acted wisely in so doing. And when he made that prophecy, there was little doubt it would be fulfilled. Ireland had been a difficulty—was a difficulty—and would remain a difficulty until many more measures of a like complexion to the one under consideration were carried. And he (Captain Layard) would like to know if the hon. Recorder, or any other person, would have thought the right hon. Gentleman fit for a Prime Minister of this country, if he had not so considered it. Now, in his opinion, though the difficulty of governing Ireland might be great, that difficulty was greatly enhanced when the right hon. Baronet found every liberal measure thwarted by many of his own supporters. For his own part, he thought it a very affecting scene. When the Recorder took leave of his old loves—when he parted with that gay Lothario, the Prime Minister — who, though he had taken many liberties, he was determined should not entirely seduce him—whom with maiden modesty he parts with at the church door, but still casting one lingering look and giving one endearing word at this sad parting, said— This leave taking was such sad sorrow, He could say farewell until to-morrow. With his other love, he seemed to have parted with less pain. Indeed, he had stated, that honeyed words had been used only long enough to betray him. He then spoke of sitting on a different side of the House to the right hon. Baronet, and that accounted for his having benefited by the advice given in the adage— It's good to be merry and wise, It's good to be honest and true, It's good to get rid of your old love Before you begin with a new— thus hinting at a political suicide: still the gay Lothario need not be afraid, for it was proverbial that those who talked of those things seldom performed them. Take, for example, that pattern of patience and humility, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, who "sits like patience on a monument"—not only with the leader, as he is pleased to term him, but with those who, as he asserts, form an organized hypocrisy. But, if the right hon. Baronet, amongst his other accomplishments, was musical, he might know that celebrated tune, "Whistle and I'll come to you, my lad;" and perhaps it would be found efficacious enough to bring back, not only the right hon. the Recorder, but others of the lost tribes of Israel. He should refer no more to the right hon. the Recorder, who seemed like the gentleman in the Pilgrim's Progress, up to his eyes in the slough of despond, where for the present he must remain; for though he evidently, of his two loves, liked Betsy Peel better than Mrs. Gamp, yet it seemed he was unlike the bold captain in the Beggar's Opera. For the right hon. Gentleman had stated— That he could not be happy with either, Even Were t'other dear charmer away. He (Captain Layard) thought the right hon. Baronet had acted honestly, wisely, and boldly, in bringing forward this measure. He, for one, confessed he had rather it had been carried by the noble Lord the Member for London. He, unlike the right hon. the Recorder, had no reason to quarrel with his first love; but, at the same time, he felt he should be ill doing his duty to his constituents, to Ireland, and, indeed, to England, if he did not give his support to such measures, come from what source they might. He would be no true friend who dashed the cup from the lips of the parched traveller in the desert, be it offered by what hand it might. Nay, more, he felt that gratitude was due for seasonable relief, or even a desire to afford it; and he for one would not be found wanting. Some hon. Gentleman had complained that 30,000l. had been granted; for his part, he thought England would be well off if, by paying thirty times 30,000, she could impress upon the Irish people that it was her firm determination to act fairly and justly by her. We might talk of the crimes and disturbances in Ireland, which were greatly to be deplored; but he stated boldly—because he felt convinced of the truth of the assertion—that if Scotchmen or Englishmen had suffered one-tenth of the misery that the people of Ireland had undergone, there would long ere this have been a far more bloody rebellion than there had been on a successful revolution. He could bear witness to the unremitting and untiring zeal of the Irish priesthood. Differing from them as widely as he did, he could not help bearing his testimony to the zeal with which their labours were performed. He wished it was the habit of English Members to visit Ireland more than they did. He felt convinced a knowledge of the people would make them see more clearly than unhappily at present many of them did the stern necessity for more liberal measures. He (Captain Layard) deeply regretted the outcry which had been raised in England against this measure; it in a great measure destroyed its value; but for that the Ministers who brought it forward were in no wise answerable. For his part, he believed the Prime Minister of this country would enjoy the reward of having conscientiously fulfilled his duty under most trying circumstances. He believed such a consciousness would support the right hon. Gentleman, even should fearful phantoms appear in the shape of hon. Members for Knaresborough and Shrewsbury, comparing him to Judas Iscariot, and the leader of an organized hypocrisy. He, for one, gave cheerfully his support to this measure, trusting, and indeed believing, that it was only the herald to others which would be found to bear the same stamp of boldness, wisdom and liberality.

Lord F. Egerton

stated, at that late hour he felt both physically and morally incapable of addressing the House at any great length. He was not like the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, an Irish Member, but an Englishman and a Protestant; and in that character he ventured respectfully to protest against the speeches of the hon. Members for Knaresborough and Kent, in which they represented themselves as speaking on this occasion the views of the Protestants of England. He would not take upon himself to say that the Protestant voice was raised in Ireland against this measure; but he did say that the Protestants of England were far from unanimous in opposing it. Speaking as the Representative of a considerable portion of this community, being in communication with his constituents, and entertaining deep respect for sincerity, wherever it prevailed, though he knew there was considerable opposition to this measure, though he knew it originated in some of the best and most deeply rooted of the principles and feelings of our nature, he yet denied, and he protested against, the assumption that there existed any such feeling as that which the hon. Member for Kent had described, throughout the county which he represented. With respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, there was nothing in it which he felt called on to notice or answer; but he might be permitted to state his belief that the hon. Gentleman, in adducing the name of Mr. St. George, spoke of a very different person to the Mr. St. George alluded to by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvon. No doubt the Gentleman quoted by the hon. Member for Knaresborough was an authority of high respectability; but any Irish Gentleman must be aware that the Mr. St. George quoted by his right hon. Friend was entitled to the highest consideration as a resident Protestant proprietor. He spoke that of his own knowledge and recollection. But the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, which he was led to notice, was one delivered on a former occasion, when he was not present. He had no answer to make to it; but the hon. Member then did him the honour to quote a former speech of his, in which he had reflected with more animosity than perhaps the occasion could justify on a speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. C. Hobhouse), or rather what he thought had been intimated by that hon. Baronet in a speech delivered by him on some public occasion. He believed his observations on that speech had been quoted correctly enough, and, therefore, he had nothing to complain of; but he had to state to the House that he now believed he was totally unjustified in point of fact in making those comments, inasmuch as he had since ascertained the hon. Baronet never uttered any expressions which would bear the interpretation which, of course, he had put upon them. With regard to the question before the House, he would now beg to offer a few observations. He believed that if anything had occurred in the debate to mitigate or change his feelings, the able speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle had gone much further to strengthen his own opinion. Much of that speech was occupied by delineating a very able picture of the present state of Ireland. While listening to it the question necessarily suggested itself, what were they about to do in such a state of things—a state without parallel in the civilized world, with the single exception, perhaps, of Corsica. What did the hon. Member say they ought to do? To administer and enforce the law. He did not believe there had been any Administration since the Union which had not been actuated by a sincere desire and intention to enforce the law, though they might have failed from want of judgment or ability. But if that was the sole remedy offered by the hon. Gentleman for the present state of Ireland, he must say he thought discussion on the subject was idle. It had already been tried, and therefore, if that was all he had to propose, there was no use in discussing it. If they were to treat these things in the manner proposed by hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House—if they proposed to administer the affairs of Ireland on the principles which, in his opinion, were better fitted for the government of those who encamped in the wilderness and relapsed into idolatry, he thought it would be safer and better if they felt bound, in foro conscientiæ, to act on those principles, to abandon at once the dominion of that country. He would not speak of Repeal. He thought it a mischievous proposition, and an idle remedy. He thought they should go further than Repeal, if they were to carry out their principles to their ultimate and legitimate end and object. But were these principles fitting for the Administration of a country which included in its dominions Malta, Canada, Mauritius, India, and similar dependencies—countries "whose self the convex globe intrudes between," and which were placed beyond the sphere of all but a statesman's vision? He could believe that the pulsation of the great heart of England would be still unimpaired, though the National Anthem which, to use the expression of a figurative Amercan, "girdles the earth with its music," might suffer interruption in the continuity of its chime; though the flag might be hauled down from the heights where it was planted by Wolfe; and that country which Clive had acquired and Wellington extended, might be restored to the domination of its former savage tyrants. He believed that England, which rose like a giant from the loss of half a hemisphere in America, might survive that blow also, though she would feel it. Political economists might even tell them that the mother country would be the better for that result: not such was his belief; but he had never yet seen a page written by political economists which told him they might strike Ireland from their Empire, or that they could place that island in a hostile or unfriendly position to their flag, and the last page of the history of the glory of this country be not turned over for ever. Did he say that the measure before the House was the only direct means of preventing such consequences? Did he say that 30,000l., or three times 30,000l., was the mere remedy or preventive of such consequences? Far from it. But he would say, under the circumstances in which the question came before the House—after the principles laid down in the proposition—after the exposition of those, which he would term, rational principles—if the House called for the rejection of the Bill, then he would say that such rejection would be viewed by him, as to its future consequences, with anxiety, if not with apprehension. He felt as much anxiety now as when the great question of Catholic Emancipation was brought forward; and, indeed, there were some features in the present debate which so strongly reminded him of that period, that he could almost fancy he saw the gracious figure of Canning rising to reply to the sonorous peroration of Sir Charles Wetherell. And though he felt no apprehension then, still he felt the greatest anxiety for the fate of that measure, which anxiety was paralleled now in the case of the measure—in many points of view, a paltry matter—proposed by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. They were called upon on one powerful ground only to resist this measure. He had said before he was unable to reason with men on their religion. He was unwilling to treat the subject in a religious point of view, for he did not think that such a view was right. Whatever attachment Roman Catholics might have to auricular confession, he had a great objection to make a confessional of the Speaker's chair. But he would boldly say there was no Scotch Calvinist on the hill-side who clung faster to that book which was the book of truth than he did. He read the book by such lights as were vouchsafed to him, but certainly not at the dictation of Pope, Council, or human authority; and if it were stated, and he believed, truly stated, by Roman Catholic gentlemen that they bowed to any such authority, or believed in the infallibility of human actions, all he had to remark was that he thought them in error. He never would lay himself open to the same charge of error, by assuming the same infallibility for his opinions. By the feeble light, but by a light of his own, while he read the sacred volume, he felt that the days of inspiration had gone by. Our young men no longer saw visions—our old men no more dreamt dreams. No miracles were now-a-days performed at the doors of Exeter Hall. There was no cloud to go before him by day, no pillar of fire to guide him on his path by night; he marched through the wilderness by a better light; but still he did not walk with sufficient confidence to enable him to say to others who were pursuing a parallel or, perhaps, a diverging path, that they laboured under a sad delusion, and that they were marching to their ruin. They were all bound for one common goal, and he hoped, he prayed, he believed that all would reach it in course of time.

Mr. Maclean

rose, after the brilliant speech of the noble Lord, only for the purpose of calling attention to a misinterpretation of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork. His hon. Friend had made no charge against the Roman Catholics; he had only stated certain facts; and had referred to a certain trial in proof of them. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the report of the same trial, and read to the House the evidence of one witness, without stating that the jury, consisting of six Roman Catholics and six Protestants, utterly disbelieved the testimony which he had given, and found a verdict against it. Surely, when arguing so important a question as the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy—for that was the real question, it did not become the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman so to deal with the House. As to the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down, it astonished him to hear that noble Lord urge again the arguments which he had used in 1824; which had been rejected by the Protestants of England, and had been at the time most satisfactorily refuted by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. It was in vain to say, that this was not a question as to the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy; for that was believed to be the necessary consequence of it, not only in that House, but by the Roman Catholics themselves, who declared that they considered it but as an initiatory to a series of measures of the same sort. At the great meeting of the leading Members of the Roman Catholic party in this country, the noble Lord who proposed a vote of thanks to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, had declared that both parties in that House must be blind not to see in this measure the verification of all their expectation of the Roman Catholics; and that those must be purblind who supposed that a vote of 30,000l. to the College of Maynooth could be a solitary measure on a question of this kind. The hon. Member read an extract from the newspaper report of the Catholic meeting, confirming the words he had attributed to Lord Beaumont; and continued — What had his noble Friend said, who last addressed the House? He had stated, that this measure was not opposed by the great majority of the people of this country. What, then, were they to say of the immense mass of petitions which had been laid on the Table? What had been the effect on his noble Friend himself? He felt great repugnance in opposing his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government; but his feeling respecting this measure was, that it violated the great principles of the Constitution. He believed that his right hon. Friend did not see its consequences, which he (Mr. Maclean) believed would be the breaking up of the great Conservative party; and a serious injury to that Constitution on which the glory of England had been raised.

Sir R. Peel

I admit, Mr. Speaker, the reasonableness of the demand which the House appears so evidently to make for an immediate division on this subject, considering the length of time during which it has now been pressed upon the attention of the House. I am not accordingly about to enter into a detailed discussion of this question, the merits of which have now been altogether exhausted. I have myself besides had the opportunity, during the course of the discussion, of repeatedly addressing the House, and I have now nothing to add to the statements which I have already made, as to the motives and grounds on which Her Majesty's Government have introduced this Bill. I am un- willing, however, because I fear that misconstruction might be put upon my silence, to permit the debate to close without making a few observations. I must allude to some portions of one or two able speeches which have been made during the debate in opposition to the measure—one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), and another by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Colquhoun). The hon. Member for Dorsetshire alleged that I had very incorrectly stated to the House the history of the original endowment of Maynooth, and said that he would prove from contemporary history that my account of the origin of that institution was incorrect. Sir, the history to which my hon. Friend referred was a pamphlet written by Dr. Duigenan. That pamphlet I hold in my hand. I have read it, and I cannot find one word in that pamphlet which justifies the observations of my hon. Friend. I find nothing in it whatever, which is in the slightest degree inconsistent with what I have stated; but I do find much in it which is in complete corroboration of all that I have advanced. I find in it the most complete proof that His Majesty, at that time, attached the utmost importance to the establishment of this institution. I find proof that they contended with great difficulties; and I find proof that they thought it of the utmost importance to the peace and welfare of Ireland, at the critical periods to which this pamphlet refers—the year '95—one year before the invasion of Ireland by the French; and the year '99, one year after the suppression of the rebellion in Ireland. I find decided proof that the Irish Government, responsible then for the tranquillity of Ireland, attached the utmost importance to the establishment and preservation of Maynooth College. But I also find in the pamphlet a statement to which my hon. Friend referred, and which, if it were founded on truth, might answer well the purpose of his argument. I do find there statements made which, if they are correct, would implicate Maynooth, the professors of Maynooth, and the president of Maynooth, in the serious charge of affording countenance and encouragement to the Irish rebellion. It is stated in this pamphlet by Dr. Duigenan, that thirty-six Romish students from this monastery had, on the breaking out of the rebellion, joined the insurgents, and fought at Kilcock against the King's troops; that certainly sixteen or seventeen students had been expelled because of the rebellion; but the governors waited with becoming prudence till the rebellion was suppressed before they executed this act of wholesome severity. If that statement were correct, revived as it has been by my hon. Friend, it is calculated to create a most unfavourable impression with respect to Maynooth and those immediately connected with it. But what are the real facts of the case, and how do they bear out the accuracy of the statement thus made? It is stated that the heads of the College of Maynooth waited with becoming prudence until the rebellion was suppressed before they expelled any of the students. Sir, the rebellion broke out on the 23rd of May, 1798. What was the course which the trustees of the institution took? They were Roman Catholics, and the statement which I am about to read is similar to one which was made to-night by another Roman Catholic, the right hon. Member for Dungarvon. It is an extract from the journal of proceedings of the trustees of the Roman Catholic seminary at Maynooth:— Friday, the 11th of May, 1798—present, Lord Fingal, in the chair; Lord Gormanston, Dr. O'Reilly, Dr. Moylan, Dr. French, Lord Kenmare, Dr. Troy, Dr. Plunkett, and Dr. Cruise. The rebellion did not break out until the 23rd of May; this meeting was held upon the 13th, ten days previous; it is evident, therefore, that so far "from waiting with becoming prudence before they interfered, until the rebellion was suppressed," that they had interfered ten days before it took place, upon which occasion the trustees came to this resolution:— The trustees, considering with grief the unhappy system of political delirium which, after having marked its progress through some of the most cultivated parts of Christendom, by the destruction of order, morality, and religion, appears to have made such strides in this kingdom as menace ruin to everything we should venerate and esteem as Christians and as men, and deeply sensible of the perfect opposition between every part of such pernicious system, and the beneficent objects of the institution over which they preside, think it expedient to order that the president be directed to maintain the most vigilant inspection over the conduct of every individual admitted in any manner to a participation of the benefits of the College; that he be empowered, and he is hereby empowered, to punish by expulsion such persons or persons as may by their actions or discourse abet or support any doctrines tending to subvert a due regard to the established authorities; and that the scholars and students be admonished that on those topics, and in these critical times, a conduct not only free from crime, but even from sus- picion, ought to be expected from their gratitude, their attested allegiance, and sacred professional destination. This they did for the purpose of marking their utter condemnation of anything like seditious or improper conduct on the part of those placed under their supervision. What was the course practically taken? They directed a notice upon the subject to be given to the president of the College. Here is the memorandum of it:— The above instruction was sent immediately to the president, who, after a solemn investigation, expelled every individual in the seminary who appeared to have formed any engagement whatever with the Society of United Irishmen, although they all expressed the greatest sorrow, and took the Oath of Allegiance after the said investigation. And yet, notwithstanding the expressions of their regret, and their taking the Oath of Allegiance, those trustees, "not waiting with cautious prudence until the rebellion was suppressed," but ten days before it broke out, expelled every individual who was in any way implicated in it. Does not that prove that too much confidence was not to be placed in that contemporary history to which our attention has been drawn? We talk lightly now of withdrawing this vote from Maynooth; it was desired to withdraw it in 1799 and in 1800, as mentioned in this pamphlet. The House of Lords in Ireland did absolutely reject the Bill which had been sent from the House of Commons containing some modifications of the institution, and proposing the continuance of the grant. Lord Cornwallis was then Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, and the day after the rejection of the Bill he wrote to them, on the 17th of April, 1799, saying— I am sorry to say that a very different construction was put upon the proceedings of the House of Lords, and there was not a person amongst those whom I saw on Tuesday morning who did not conceive that this institution of Maynooth was entirely done away; and many of them were so blinded by their Protestant zeal as to exult exceedingly in the justice of the punishment which they conceived to be thereby inflicted on the Catholics for their late offences. When that opinion universally prevails at Dublin, there can be no doubt that the emissaries of faction, as well as of treason, will be very active in conveying it to every corner of the kingdom, and that it will most powerfully tend to inflame the minds of the Catholics of all orders against the Government, on the evil consequences of which it is, I am sure, unnecessary for me to expatiate. Lord Castlereagh was then Secretary for Ireland. He went down to the House of Commons the very next day, and declared that, notwithstanding the rejection of the Bill by the House of Lords, it was the determination of the Irish Government to prove to the Roman Catholics that they did not mean to abandon the institution. It was not on account of money that they came to that determination; but what the Government of Lord Cornwallis and Lord Castlereagh feared was, that the abandoning of the vote, and the institution having been established four years previously, would have been looked upon by the Catholics then, as I think it would be looked upon by them now, as an indication of a hostile spirit towards them. Another Bill was passed—the Act of 1800—and was afterwards adopted by the English Parliament; and it is not on account of the temporary continuance of the vote that I ever argued that a pledge of Parliament was implied, but on account of the Acts of Parliament directly sanctioning the institution, and providing for it that superintendence which, on the part of the State, was giving to it support, encouragement, and sanction. The only other speech which I desire to notice is that made to-night by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. During the progress of that speech, able and powerful as it was, I must own that the impressions entertained by my noble Friend, and that have been so well and so eloquently expressed by him, were precisely the selfsame impressions that it left on my mind. I will take the account of Ireland as he has given it, as being that of an active opponent of this measure. In Ireland then, for the last five or six years, this has been the state of affairs. There has been, he affirms, no free expression of public opinion on the part of the Protestants. That if you attempt to make proselytes to Protestantism, a man cannot live in safety or peace in Irelard—that a man's life is in danger if he exercises the privileges of a British subject, and seeks to express his own opinions. The hon. Gentleman says, we cannot give to the landed proprietors in Ireland protection from violence and outrage. The hon. Gentleman says, that in Ireland it frequently happens that priests, and priests too educated in Maynooth, denounce from the altar parties who have exposed themselves to their rebuke, and that these parties have been afterwards visited with severe punishment; and the hon. Gentleman proves that this is done in Ireland, and that it has become a common and frequent practice. However, the hon. Gen- tleman says, that there are 3,000 priests spread over the face of Ireland, and every one, and all of these, without exception, are active agents and instruments in favour of Repeal. Be it so. Granted that this is a correct account of the state of Ireland; then I ask the hon. Gentleman, what is the remedy he proposes? The hon. Gentleman himself, I believe, is not an advocate for the withdrawal of the grant from Maynooth; because, when the proposal was made on former occasions, he was decidedly opposed to it. [Mr. Colquhoun: No.] I speak from memory; but I thought that the hon. Gentleman said, that the Acts of Parliament had thrown around Maynooth so decisive and authoritative a sanction, that it would be impossible to withdraw the vote until we get rid of the Acts of Parliament. [Mr. Colquhoun nodded assent.] I think, too, that the hon. Gentleman did not advise the continuance of the vote, and the exacting from the professors of Maynooth a submission to active superintendence. I wish then to ask the hon. Gentleman what he proposes as a remedy for the state of affairs which he has described as existing in Ireland? He admits that we have done every thing which the law would enable us to do, for the purpose of giving protection to life and property; and yet, he says, that we have not the power to give protection. It cannot be said of us, that we have neglected any precaution that it was in our power to take. During the prevalence of the danger in the year 1843, there were not less than 30,000 soldiers in Ireland. We had there a police force of not less than 10,000 men. We had too a naval force on the coast. We were determined, as far as the law would enable us, and the power of the Executive could be exercised, that everything should be done for the maintenance of the public peace. The hon. Gentleman says, that we succeeded so far that agitation was, in a great measure, suppressed—that we had proved the supremacy of the laws—that we had proved our determination not to submit to intimidation—that the Repeal rent abated—that the influence of the Repeal leaders was much reduced—and that that was precisely the moment that was selected for intimating our intention of making an alteration with respect to the grant for Maynooth. I believe that was the proper moment for making such a proposition; and yet the hon. Gentleman's inference is, from all that he had thus stated, that we acted most unwisely in taking advantage of that op- portunity to propose remedial measures. Sir, it appears to me that it was precisely the very moment for introducing this remedial measure. We had done everything that it became an Executive to achieve. We had proved our determination to resist any forcible attempt to sever the connexion between the two countries. It was not then inconsistent with the honour of the Executive Government maturely to consider whether any other measures besides those of force could be regarded as a remedy for the existing state of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman says, enforce the law—protect property—suppress the present alarming excitement — and punish those denunciations from the altars. What is the meaning of these words, "enforce the law?" What is the instrument in any part of the Empire where the law is not suspended—what is the instrument of enforcing the law? It is not to be done by the arbitrary will of the Government—it is not by the decision of a single judge. Sir, the only instrument for enforcing the law is an appeal to trial by jury. While that tribunal is not interfered with—while it exists, it is the only means by which you can enforce the law. Well, then, I do say that the enforcement of the law was incompatible with the state of things in Ireland, even after the agitation had been suppressed in 1843—that trial by jury is an instrument not available for the vindication of the law in a country where the great mass of the population is hostile to the Government—that the vigorous enforcement of the law was hardly applicable to the state of Ireland even after agitation had been suppressed. We came then to the consideration of remedial measures. My hon. Friend says, that he does not think that I have been quite aware of all the consequences of these proceedings, and he hopes that I have been mistaken. I assure him that we have adopted this course with a perfect foresight of all the consequences that might arise. I assure my hon. Friend that I deeply regret the severance from political friends, who honestly and sincerely disapprove of the course we have pursued. He considers that we have lost their confidence. I deeply regret it; but, regretting it, I must still claim for the Executive Government, charged with duties of the highest importance to the Sovereign and the country, responsible for the consequences of their acts, I must, I say, claim for them the absolute right, without reference to the past, and without too much regard to what party considerations must claim from them, to risk even the loss of confidence of their friends, rather than abstain from doing that which conviction tells them the present circumstances require. It is not, Sir, my desire to notice the expressions made use of by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. It seems to me that a misapprehension is entertained in some quarters with respect to the position of a Minister of the Crown. I am as proud of the confidence as any man can be which a great party has placed in me; still I never can admit that he owes any personal obligation to those Members who have placed him in a certain position. And I should consider it as the happiest day of my life when I was permitted to act merely as an individual Member of Parliament, unconnected even with party, rather than continue to hold office by the servile tenure of the advice I gave to my Sovereign upon every subject, being exactly in conformity with every opinion which every Member of that party might hold. Sir, it would be difficult, indeed, for any Government to administer public affairs on such a principle; for, while I was trying to conciliate the hon. Member for Knaresborough, I should be forfeiting the confidence of my noble Friend near me (Lord F. Egerton). But, without reference to what may be the opinion of that man or this, I claim for myself the right to give to my Sovereign, at any time, that advice which I believe the interests of the country require. I have not, on this occasion, nor have my right hon. Friends, acted without deep consideration, and without feeling most severely the loss of the support, the permanent loss, perhaps, of the confidence of those who, it has been said, have placed us in power. I have been charged with having exhibited an indifference to public opinion on this question, and a disposition to disregard it; but for that public opinion, believing it to be influenced in the main by religious considerations, I have the highest respect; but I retain the determination I have before stated, and now repeat, that so far from that expression of public opinion inducing me to abandon, or causing me to waver in my course, I deliberately repeat, that with every respect for that public opinion, there are high political considerations which induce me to adhere to the course we have adopted. If I thought the opposition which has been raised to this Bill were now to prevail—if I thought the principle on which the opposition was founded were to triumph, I should despair for the maintenance of ami- cable relations between Great Britain and Ireland. I think, therefore, it is of peculiar importance, for the purpose of mitigating the evil which would arise from the success of that opposition—I think it is of the utmost importance that public men should show to the people of Ireland that they will not lightly abandon the course they have entered upon for their benefit, and that they are content to make any sacrifice, now and for ever, in the maintenance of the opinions which they have permanently placed on record. I think the misfortune of failure would be great; and it is too late now to inquire whether the grant should be withdrawn. I am convinced, notwithstanding all that has passed—I remain satisfied of the policy of the course we have pursued, and I do not think it would be wise if that be the character of the priesthood which has been stated, to continue this implied sanction to Maynooth—to permit this Act of Parliament to remain on record—to take the superintendence of the College, and by the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant and the official visitors, to be connected with the institution, and yet to hold out that miserable pittance, which induces indignation rather than gratitude in the minds of the priesthood. We have proposed a liberal endowment for Maynooth, and that proposition has been received in Ireland with as much of approbation and gratitude as I expected for it. I have never heard any objection to the grant on the part of the Roman Catholics; but on the contrary, I have found on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the professors of Maynooth, and the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland generally, so far as I have been able to collect their opinions, that they are disposed gratefully to accept the proffered boon. I must say, that this exhibition of kindly feeling on the part of the British Parliament has produced in Ireland all those good effects which I expected from it. One hon. Member has read a letter from the Rev. Dr. Higgins, and another has referred to a letter from the Rev. Dr. M'Hale, condemning the Bill; while another hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, has quoted a paragraph from a French newspaper, which he says speaks with the authority of the Government, as a proof that we are wrong. Now with all respect for my hon. Friend, I think we can scarcely look at the condemnation of a French newspaper as a proof that we are taking a wrong course in this matter. It was hardly to be expected that the agitation which has been so long going on would cease at once; but by creating a feeling of gratitude and good feeling in the minds of the people, we say we are cutting up the trade of agitation, and we must expect ere long that the agitation will be put an end to altogether. I do not take it for granted that the angry speeches we hear of as being made in Conciliation Hall afford any indication of the feeling of the people generally. You suppose that the whole Protestant feeling of Ireland is represented by a small section in the north; and the whole Roman Catholic feeling, you imagine, is represented by the speeches in Conciliation Hall. No opinion can be more erroneous. There is a great mass—a large intermediate mass of both Catholic and Protestant feeling in Ireland, which is not represented by the proceedings in the north of Ireland, or the speeches in Conciliation Hall, and is in no way influenced by them. I believe the course the Government have taken has greatly diminished the influence of agitation in Ireland generally, and has conciliated—I will not say the confidence of the people towards the Government; but, at all events, it has diminished the desire of the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland to connect themselves with turbulence and agitation. I look to the Irish Members of this House—to the Roman Catholic Members of this House, as the great representatives of the Roman Catholic opinions in Ireland, rather than to any less authentic or less foreign source; and I must say, the Roman Catholic Members have acted most fairly in the support they have given to the proposal of the Government. Before I conclude, I must take the opportunity of expressing my deep sense of the hon. and disinterested motives upon which the great body of those Gentlemen who are opposed to me in political life have acted in support of the Government. It would not be becoming in me to offer—nor would it be becoming in them to accept—any expression of personal acknowledgment, for I know, in so supporting us, they have only acted in accordance with their sense of public duty, and their convictions of what is most conducive to the interests of the country, and that these have been alone the motives by which they have been actuated. I know, in proposing and adhering to this measure—I know what may be the consequence, in alienating from me men with whom I have long acted, and whom I respect; while, on the other hand, I can claim no compensation in any demand upon the gratitude of those Gentlemen connected with Ireland to whom I have always been politically opposed. I am bound to admit that their continued gratitude is due, not to me, but rather to those who have been their constant and uniform supporters through a long course of political years. From them, therefore, I can claim no gratitude. We have acted, in regard to this measure, wholly on our sense of duty, and that is our only merit; and in acting upon that sense of duty we have been prepared to incur, and are prepared to incur, whatever risk may attend us; but our consolation and our compensation would be complete if the result of our measures be—if not to conciliate the support of our opponents—to engender a kindly feeling between Ireland and Great Britain, and increase the chances of maintaining a perfectly amicable connexion and relation between those two parts of this great Empire.

Lord J. Russell

Sir, having had an opportunity of addressing the House upon this measure on a former occasion, I have but a few observations now to offer, and I should have been quite ready to have made those observations before the right hon. Gentleman, if I had been about to address anything to the House which would have required any answer from him; but they are rather observations referring to the part I have taken on this subject, and to the present state of Ireland, than to the immediate conduct of the Government. I wish, in the first place, to address a large body, who have not been much represented in this House, whose sentiments I have heard very little of in the course of these debates, but whose opinions I am accustomed highly to value, and who I am sure have come to their conclusions from conscientious conviction; I allude to the large body of the Protestant Dissenters of England. I find that they, differing very much from many who oppose this measure on the other side of the House, say that they are quite ready to do justice to Ireland, but that that justice ought to be done in another manner. They say, "Grant every franchise which Ireland can claim to put her on an equality with England, but do not do any favour to Romanism; if the Established Church be objected to, reduce the power of that Church, but do not give that power into the hands of the Roman Catholics." Now, I am not going to dis- pute as to the preference of one over the other. For my own part, the view which I took of the state of Ireland many years ago was rather in accordance with their view than with the tendency of the measure now before the House; but in proposing our measures we met with opposition so strong, not only in this and the other House, but likewise (I must admit) in the country, that many of those measures were retarded for years; and with respect to one of the principal, proposing to reduce the revenues of the Established Church of Ireland, we entirely failed, and were obliged to propose a Tithe Bill without that proposition. If we had taken the course recommended by the Gentlemen to whom I now refer, let them consider what would have been the result. We should have been successful, I have no doubt, if we had joined hon. Gentlemen opposite, in defeating this measure on its first introduction, or on the second reading; but should we have obtained that which the parties referred to say is required by justice to Ireland? Should we have obtained measures for the reduction of the present Church Establishment in Ireland? Would those who should urge such a measure then have been aided by those who assist them in opposing the grant to Maynooth? It is evident, not only by what passed four years ago, but by what has passed this year, by what has passed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward), that we should have been utterly defeated in that attempt, and that while the Maynooth grant would have been lost, we should have been entirely unable to carry any measure tending to remedy the inequality existing in Ireland. Was it not then my duty to consider this alternative? Either the present Ministry would have remained in office after the loss of this measure, unwilling to bring forward any other conciliatory propositions; or, what is more probable, they would have resigned, and any Ministry which could succeed them would have been without power, or without inclination, to propose any measure of a different kind to that now before us, but still favourable to the wishes of the people of Ireland. So that the injustice which now exists, the inequality now complained of, would still have remained, and would still have been a curse to that part of the United Kingdom. What, then, was my duty? Seeing that I could not carry the measures which I deemed most desirable, measures which I thought most favourable to the freedom of Ireland, but also seeing a measure of a different kind brought forward—proposing, not to reduce the Protestant, but to elevate the Catholic Church, and thereby produce something like equality—seeing all this, was it not my duty, wishing, as I do, the welfare of Ireland, to give that measure my support, no matter from what party it emanated? But I cannot refer to this subject without taking some notice of a speech made the other night by the noble Lord the Member for Staffordshire (Lord Ingestre). That noble Lord said very plainly, and I give him credit for his frankness—he said that had this very measure—although, let the House remark, it is not the measure which he voted against on the Appropriation Clause, it is not a measure which proposes to take anything from the Protestant Church—yet, had this very measure been proposed by the late Government, he would have voted against it. Here is a sample of the treatment which any measures of ours would have met with had we joined in the defeat of this Bill, and proposed new schemes in its place. That noble Lord said he would vote against the Maynooth grant, emanating from us, because we truckled to Irish agitation. Really, Sir, I had thought that this accusation was quite obsolete; for although it was found useful as a party cry, yet I did believe that its evident falsehood, its entire groundlessness, had chased it away from the minds of all men. But the noble Lord is inspired with, as he says, a great wish for the welfare of his country. I do not dispute his anxiety for the welfare of his country. But I say that he is inspired likewise not only with a great ignorance, but with a most narrow-minded view of what is for the welfare of his country. And though, Sir, I admire, and will stand up for, the advantages of party—though I think party spirit useful, and though I believe that it tends to make men zealous in behalf of great principles, and to keep them in fellowship for great ends—though I think that it has enabled men, by bringing their different capacities and talents into one concentrated effort, to carry the most admirably conceived and planned measures—although I think that party has all these advantages, it has also its counterbalancing points; I think that it often instils blindness and bitterness into those who belong to it; and that while the noble Lord is an instance of the absence of all the advantages derived from the spirit of party, he is an example of the presence of all the defects. And this, Sir, to which I have alluded, is not the first instance of the deplorable evils to which party littleness may give rise. I remember some years ago what I thought a most remarkable and melancholy instance of the evil effects of party. At one of the dinners held in Staffordshire for the purpose of abusing the Ministry of the day—a most melancholy event—the murder of Lord Norbury—was made an instrument for party purposes, and for party warfare. The announcement of that crime was received with cheers, as though it afforded the means of attacking the Government for being wanting in making due provision for the enforcement of the law. I am happy to belong to a party which does not use such weapons. We have seen murders committed, and outrages perpetrated in Ireland within the last two years, more particularly in some districts; but we know that they may be attributed to causes unhappily existing for the greater part of a century. We wish, then, to see measures proposed tending to cure the evil we deplore. But to attribute any one of these crimes—to attribute even a series of murders, which during a winter may be committed in Tipperary, to the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, would be an injustice which I trust we are above committing. Sir, the right hon. Baronet opposite has alluded, as well as other speakers in this debate, to the present state of Ireland; but I should be sorry to give my vote in favour of the Bill before us—a Bill which I consider, certainly, to be an important one—I should, I say, be sorry to give my vote for it, under the impression that the increased grant will have a great or immediate effect in remedying the distresses of Ireland. I do not think, though the measure be a good one in itself, that it is sufficient to meet the evils of Ireland. The right hon. Baronet who last spoke has told us that such was the state of Ireland in 1843 that the ordinary course of law—the resources of the law, which must be put in force by trial by jury—were not sufficient as an instrument for the administration of Ireland. That, Sir, I have no doubt is a true con- fession, but it is a very sad, I may say a very humiliating confession for any Government to be obliged to make. It shows a disposition on the part of the people of that country not to convict even in cases when it is to be supposed that the law is in favour of the Executive Government. It shows that a disposition which has existed in this country, with the exception of the years 1794 and 1795, since the time of the Revolution of 1688—it shows an alienation on the part of the people of Ireland from the whole system of our laws. I hope—the right hon. Gentleman hopes that the disease may be cured—that we are now on our way to better times; but other measures must be adopted—recourse must be had to a continuance of—I will not say a policy of conciliation — but a policy of justice to Ireland. And let us not hear that continual cry of "how ungrateful the Irish are—they have this Maynooth grant, and they are not grateful!" This has been a continued parrot cry ever since the beginning of the relaxation of the atrocious cruelties of the penal laws. People in this country said, "We have allowed them to educate their own children, and yet they are not grateful. We have allowed them to have their priests; we do not banish or transport their ministers, and yet they are not grateful. We have permitted a Roman Catholic to ride a horse worth 30l. without his being deprived of it, and yet Roman Catholics are not grateful. We allow them to go to mass, we even permit them to inherit landed property, and yet they are such a savage and barbarous set that they are not grateful; nay, not content with what they have got, they still want more." They still want more! To be sure they do, and they will continue to want more, until you can say that between England and Ireland there is a perfect and just equality. And then, when you can say that there does exist such a perfect and just equality, I fear nothing from this cry for a Repeal of the Union, formidable as it is, and powerful as it is among a great mass of the people at the present moment. I think I can meet the proposers of such a measure by a fair line of argument. I should not meet it, not as it was well and eloquently put by the noble Member for Lancashire to-night, who said, and very truly, that if England was divided or separated from Ireland, the glory of this country would have departed for ever. But there is still more to be considered than that, in arguing with men representing Ireland, and asking for Irish benefit. I think I could go through with them the history of this concession, if this country were to make such a concession—such a mad concession. I would place before them the meeting in Dublin of an Irish House of Lords—I would show them a democratic assembly also assembled there, first quarelling with that House of Lords, and then trampling upon it and breaking it to pieces; inflicting penalties on absentees; next quarrelling with England because the manufactures of England were sent to Ireland, and endeavouring to set up in rivalry a manufacturing class of their own; then proceeding in a spirit of enmity against all those who held property in Ireland, and who did not agree with the majority, and in that manner forcing on, before a very long time, a quarrel with this country — which must be a quarrel, not for the Repeal of the Union, or for two Legislatures, but a quarrel as to whether England and Ireland should be united under the same Crown. And when it comes to a quarrel whether England and Ireland shall be united under the same Crown, the prospect of Ireland existing as an independent state, though it may be entertained by some young and enthusiastic—and, I will not deny, even patriotic—men, is the shallowest dream that ever occupied the brain of man. Ireland would then be looked on by the enemies of England as the great battle field for attacking this country. What then would be the situation of Ireland, with her advancing commerce, with her improving agriculture—what would become of the rights she has, in common with England—rights which we so dearly value, and which have been extended to her? Why, Sir, all would be lost—all would perish in that conflict. England would be weakened, but that England would be conquered by Ireland, is a supposition that enters into no man's head. England would suffer, but Ireland would suffer in a tenfold worse degree. She would become the subject of a Foreign Power—her commerce and agriculture would be torn to pieces—religious dissensions would be made more bitter than ever, and all hope of proceeding quietly and tranquilly to prosperity and freedom would be utterly and entirely lost. That, Sir, is my belief with respect to the consequences of a Repeal of the Legislative Union; and so believing, I do not say, merely as an Eng- lishman, and wishing to maintain the power and glory of this great country, that I am opposed to Repeal. I don't oppose it merely with the view of resisting the wishes of the Irish people (though I am entitled to oppose their wishes if I deem them mischievous to Ireland, as I am to resist the feelings of the people of England, in opposing the grant to Maynooth); but I oppose it because, deeply as the two countries must suffer from separation, deeply as the reputation and glory of England must be impaired, her suffering would be nothing as compared to that of Ireland. But before I can hope to put that argument with effect—before I can meet the question in detail—before I can expect Irishmen to listen coolly to reason on the subject, I think we are bound on every occasion, and in every way, to show that if there is any privilege which Englishmen enjoy, and which Irishmen wish to have, we are ready to grant it. My belief is, that whatever may have been our former prejudices in England — whatever may have been, I admit, former indifference, that the feelings of this country are greatly changed in that respect. Some say, reduce the Protestant Church and do nothing for the Catholics; others say, elevate the priests; others, improve the situation of the Irish people by giving them better means of subsistence, improving the tenure of land, and by other measures of that description. But whatever may be the views of this or that set of men, I believe there prevails in England a desire to see Ireland flourish, and her people enjoy every right and privilege to which they are fairly entitled. This being the state of feeling, I would say to the Government, "Do not stop short with this measure, as you see you have no party differences to fear when you bring forward measures really advantageous to Ireland. Whatever obstacles you may meet with, you will not be encountered by the anxiety of those who have lost power to possess themselves of office; expect a majority of this House to go with you if you fairly and boldly declare your intentions, and rely, as the right hon. Gentleman declares he will, on the value of those measures themselves, for the support and acceptance they will receive." I will not conceal that there are great difficulties in your way; I will not conceal that I think those difficulties immensely increased by the course you pursued in past years; but I do say, what- ever be the difficulties, they will not be lessened by shutting our eyes to their greatness and importance; and the only way you can deal with them, in a way becoming the character of this great country, is to meet them steadily and without shrinking, and rely on Providence for your delivery.

Mr. G. Palmer,

who rose amidst loud cries for a division, said, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had no right to bring such aspersions as he had thrown out on his party; and say it was too bad in them to expect that he should look to them for advice, as to how he should carry on his Government. If the right hon. Baronet's party had voted with the hon. Member for Sheffield the other night, where would the right hon. Baronet have been by this time? They (the Conservative Members) had a right to look for the fulfilment of the pledges that had been either directly given, or given fairly and fully by implication. He maintained that they had been given directly by the right hon. Baronet, through the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, on one subject. The right hon. Baronet had called together, at his house, a meeting of Conservative Members. He must say, that he was at that meeting, when the right hon. Gentleman declared his adhesion to the sentiments uttered by a noble Lord now elsewhere; and when he told his supporters that they might consider the declarations of one Member of the Government, as the declarations of all its Members. He had a right, therefore, to ask what had been done by the noble Lord and his Colleagues, since their accession to office, with reference to that measure of the noble Lord's, which had led to the change of Ministers?

Sir R. Peel

The hon. Gentleman must have greatly misunderstood what I said. I said, I felt convinced that those who differed from me, did so from conscientious feelings; but that, when I was charged with betraying my party, and acting as a traitor towards them, I would not consent to hold office on the servile tenure of asking every man's opinion as to any recommendation I should give my Sovereign.

The House divided on the Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Question:—Ayes 317; Noes 184: Majority 133.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Visct. Cobden, R.
Acland, Sir T. D. Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Acland, T. D. Colborne, hn. W. N. R.
A'Court, Capt. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Adare, Visct. Collett, J.
Adderley, C. B. Collins, W.
Ainsworth, P. Coote, Sir C. H.
Aldam, W. Corbally, M. E.
Anson, hon. Col. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Archbold, R. Courtenay, Lord
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Cowper, hon. W. F.
Craig, W. G.
Bagot, hon. W. Cripps, W.
Baillie, Col. Dalmeny, Lord
Baine, W. Damer, hon. Col.
Baird, W. Davies, D. A. S.
Barclay, D. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Barkly, H. Denison, W. J.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Denison, J. E.
Baring, T. Dennistoun, J.
Baring, rt. hn. W. B. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T
Barnard, E. G. Dickinson, F. H.
Barrington, Visct. Divett, E.
Barron, Sir H. W. Dodd, G.
Bell, M. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bell, J. Douro, Marq. of
Bellew, R. M. Drummond, H. H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Duncan, Visct.
Blackburne, J. I. Duncannon, Visct.
Blake, Sir V. Dundas, F.
Blakemore, R. Dundas, D.
Bodkin, W. H. East, J. B.
Boldero, H. G. Easthope, Sir J.
Borthwick, P. Eastnor, Visct.
Botfield, B. Ebrington, Visct.
Bowes, J. Ellice, rt. hn. E.
Bowles, Adm. Elphinstone, H.
Bowring, Dr. Emlyn, Visct.
Bramston, T. W. Escott, B.
Browne, hon. W. Esmonde, Sir T.
Brownrigg, J. S. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bruce, Lord E. Etwall, R.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Ferguson, Col.
Buller, C. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Buller, E. Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Buller, P. S. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Byng, G. Fitzwilliam, hn. G. W.
Byng, rt. hn. G. S. Fleetwood, Sir P. H.
Cardwell, E. Flower, Sir J.
Carew, hon. R. S. Forster, M.
Carew, W. H. P. Fox, C. R.
Castlereagh, Visct. Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. French, F.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Gardner, J. D.
Chapman, B. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Chelsea, Visct. Gibson, T. M.
Childers, J. W. Gill, T.
Cholmondeley, hn. H. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E
Clay, Sir W. Gladstone, Capt.
Clayton, R. R. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Clements, Visct. Godson, R.
Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Clifton, J. T. Gore, M.
Clive, Visct. Gore, hon. R.
Clive, hon. R. H. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Martin, J.
Granby, Marq. of Martin, C. W.
Granger, T. C. Martin, T. B.
Greene, T. Matheson, J.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G. Milnes, R. M.
Guest, Sir J. Mitcalfe, H.
Hale, R. B. Mitchell, T. A.
Halford, Sir H. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Hall, Sir B. Morison, Gen.
Hamilton, W. J. Murphy, F. S.
Hamilton, Lord C. Murray, A.
Harcourt, G. G. Napier, Sir C.
Hatton, Capt. V. Neville, R.
Hawes, B. Newport, Visct.
Hayter, W. G. Nicholl, rt. hn. J.
Heneage, G. H. W. Norreys, Lord
Heneage, E. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Henniker, Lord O'Brien, J.
Herbert, rt. hn. S. O'Connell, M. J.
Heron, Sir R. O'Conor Don
Hervey, Lord A. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Hinde, J. H. Ord, W.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. Ossulston, Lord
Hogg, J. W. Oswald, A.
Hollond, R. Oswald, J.
Holmes, hn. W. A'C. Owen, Sir J.
Hope, hon. C. Paget, Col.
Hope, G. W. Pakington, J. S.
Horsman, E. Palmerston, Visct.
Howard, hn. C. W. G. Parker, J.
Howard, hn. E. G. G. Patten, J. W.
Howard, P. H. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Howard, Sir R. Peel, J.
Hume, J. Pendarves, E. W. W.
Hutt, W. Pennant, hon. Col.
Ingestre, Visct. Philips, G. R.
James, W. Philips, M.
James, Sir W. C. Phillpotts, J.
Jermyn, Earl Pigot, rt. hn. D.
Jocelyn, Visct. Pigot, Sir R.
Johnstone, Sir J. Power, J.
Kelly, F. Praed, W. T.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Pusey, P.
Lambton, H. Rawdon, Col.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Redington, T. N.
Layard, Capt. Reid, Sir J. R.
Leader, J. T. Repton, G. W. J.
Legh, G. C. Rice, E. R.
Lemon, Sir C. Roche, E. B.
Lennox, Lord A. Roebuck, J. A.
Leveson, Lord Ross, D. R.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Round, J.
Lincoln, Earl of Rous, hon. Capt.
Lindsay, H. H. Rumbold, C. E.
Listowel, Earl of Russell, Lord J.
Loch, James Russell, Lord E.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. Russell, C.
Mackenzie, W. F. Sandon, Visct.
Mackinnon, W. A. Seymour, Lord
Macnamara, Major Seymour, Sir H. B.
McGeachy, F. A. Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
McNeill, D. Shelburne, Earl of
Mahon, Visct. Smith, B.
Mangles, R. D. Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Manners, Lord C. S. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Manners, Lord J. Smythe, hon. G.
Marshall, W. Somers, J. P.
Somerset, Lord G. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Somerville, Sir W. M. Warburton, H.
Somes, J. Ward, H. G.
Standish, C. Watson, W. H.
Stansfield, W. R. C. Wawn, J. T.
Stanton, W. H. Wellesley, Lord C.
Staunton, Sir G. T. Wemyss, Capt.
Stewart, J. Westenra, hon. J.
Stuart, Lord J. White, S.
Stuart, W. V. Whitmore, T. C.
Strutt, E. Wilde, Sir T.
Sutton, hon. H. M. Williams, W.
Tancred, H. W. Wilshere, W.
Tennent, J. E. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Thesiger, Sir F. Wodehouse, E.
Tollemache, hn. F. Wood, C.
Tomline, G. Wood, Col. T.
Towneley, J. Worsley, Lord
Traill, G. Wortley, hon. J.
Trelawny, J. S. Wrightson, W. B.
Trench, Sir F. W. Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Tuite, H. M. Wyse, T.
Vane, Lord H. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Vernon, G. H Yorke, H. R.
Villiers, hon. C.
Villiers, Visct. TELLERS.
Walker, R. Young, J.
Wall, C. B. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Ackers, J. Burroughes, H. N.
Acton, Col. Campbell, J. H.
Alexander, N. Chetwode, Sir. J.
Allix, J. P. Chetwode, J. H.
Antrobus, E. Christopher, R. A.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Codrington, Sir W.
Archdall, Capt. M. Cole, hon. H. A.
Arkwright, G. Colquhoun, J. C.
Ashley, Lord Colvile, C. R.
Astell, W. Compton, H. C.
Austen, Col. Conolly, Col.
Bailey, J. jun. Copeland, Ald.
Bannerman, A. Crawford, W. S.
Bateson, T. Curteis, H. B.
Beckett, W. Darby, G.
Baresford, Major Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Berkeley, hon. C. Deedes, W.
Bernard, Visct. Denison, E. B.
Blackstone, W. S. Dick, Q.
Blewitt, R. J. Disraeli, B.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Douglas, Sir H.
Boyd, J. Douglas, J. D. S.
Bradshaw, J. Duke, Sir J.
Bright, J. Duncan, G.
Brisco, M. Duncombe, T.
Broadley, H. Duncombe, hon. O.
Brocklehurst, J. Dundas, Adm.
Brotherton, J. Du Pre, C. G.
Bruce, C. L. C. Eaton, R. J.
Bruen, Col. Egerton, W. T.
Bruges, W. H. L. Egertou, Sir P.
Buck, L. W. Entwisle, W.
Buckley, E. Ewart, W.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Farnham, E. B.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Feilden, W.
Fielden, J. Morgan, C.
Fellowes, E. Morris, D.
Ferrand, W. B. Mundy, E. M.
Filmer, Sir E. Muntz, G. F.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Neeld, J.
Ffolliott, J. Neeld, J.
Forbes, W. Newdegate, C. N.
Forman, T. S. Newry, Visct.
Fox, S. L. Northland, Visct.
Fuller, A. E. O'Brien, A. S.
Gore, W. O. Packe, C. W.
Gore, W. R. O. Palmer, R.
Goring, C. Palmer, G.
Greenall, P. Pattison, J.
Gregory, W. H. Pechell, Capt.
Grimsditch, T. Phillipps, Sir R. B. P.
Grogan, E. Plumptre, J. P.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F. Polhill, F.
Hamilton, J. H. Pollington, Visct.
Hamilton, G. A. Powell, Col.
Hampden, R. Price, R.
Hanmer, Sir J. Protheroe, E.
Harris, hon. Capt. Rashleigh, W.
Hastie, A. Rendlesham, Lord
Heathcoat, J. Richards, R.
Henley, J. W. Rolleston, Col.
Hill, Lord M. Round, C. G.
Hindley, C. Rushbrooke, Col.
Hornby, J. Ryder, hon. G. D.
Hughes, W. B. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Humphery, Ald. Shirley, E. J.
Hussey, A. Shirley, E. P.
Hussey, T. Sibthorp, Col.
Jervis, J. Smith, A.
Johnson, Gen. Smyth, Sir H.
Johnstone, H. Spooner, R.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Spry, Sir S. T.
Jones, Capt. Stanley, E.
Kemble, H. Stewart, P. M.
Kirk, P. Stuart, H.
Knight, F. W. Taylor, E.
Knightly, Sir C. Taylor, J. A.
Law, hon. C. E. Thompson, Ald.
Lawson, A. Tollemache, J.
Lefroy, A. Tower, C.
Leslie, C. P. Trollope, Sir J.
Loftus, Visct. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Lopes, Sir R. Turner, E.
Lowther, Sir J. H. Turnor, C.
Lowther, hon. Col. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Mackenzie, T. Verner, Col.
Maclean, D. Vyvyan, Sir R.
McTaggart, Sir J. Waddington, H. S.
Mainwaring, T. Wakley, T.
Marton, G. Welby, G. E.
Masterman, J.
Maunsell, T. P. TELLERS.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Miles, P. W. S. Bankes, G.

Bill read a third time.

Mr T. S. Duncombe

said, that notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, he should now propose the clause of which he had given notice; and which was to the effect, that this Bill should not continue in effect longer than the month of August, 1848, and from thence to the end of the then next Session of Parliament, making a period of four years. Looking to the state of public feeling in the country, he thought he was not making an unreasonable proposition. They were passing this Bill against the feeling and wishes of the people. There were upon the Table petitions sent by about 1,300,000 people against the Bill; whereas in its favour there were some sixty petitions sent by about 16,000 of their fellow subjects. To be sure, he had observed that the petitions in favour of the measure had been made the most of, and that great pains had been taken to make the presentation of a petition conspicuous, when any hon. Member had one in favour of the Bill, whilst the petitions on the other side came up amidst the derision and contumely of the House. If the feeling of the country had been at all reasonably balanced, perhaps he could not properly have called upon the House to assent to this clause; but seeing the preponderance of opinion on one side, he had a right to ask the House to limit the continuance of this Bill. Besides the religious grounds of objection to the measure, there were others which appeared to be well founded. The people contended, that in passing this grant in perpetuity, the House was exceeding their powers. They say, that the House had no more right to vote the grant in perpetuity than any other of the Supplies. They might as well vote a Mutiny Act perpetual, as this grant. If there was one question more than another upon which the voice of the people ought to be heard, it was the application of their money; particularly when it was for the endowment of any religious creed. He should be told, it was competent to any future Parliament to repeal the Bill; but every one knew that it was much easier to impose taxes than to remove them—to pass a Bill than to repeal it, more especially when the whole influence of Government was in favour of that Bill. With these views he proposed this clause; he proposed it to all hon. Members who had constituents. He did not propose it to the dependents of the Government, or to those who had heretofore voted against this grant, nor did he appeal to the nominees of great borough proprietors; but, as he had said, he appealed to those Members who had constituents; and they, he maintained, had a right to defer to public opinion. He believed that his clause would be a messenger of peace to many constituencies, and would heal many breaches between them and their Representatives. It would prove that Government had confidence in the policy they had pursued in opposition to the wishes of the people, and would be a compliment to the good sense and intelligence of that people, as showing confidence, that if upon a future occasion they were proved to be wrong, they would acknowledge their error. The hon. Member concluded, by moving a clause to this effect:— And be it Enacted, That the Powers and Provisions of this Act shall not continue and be in force longer than the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight, and from thence to the end of the then next Session of Parliament.

Clause brought up, and read a first time.

On the Question, that the Clause be read a second time,

Sir Robert Peel

said, that the argument of the hon. Member was not applicable, as there had been many instances of permanent grants out of the Consolidated Fund. The proposed clause could not remove any of the objections to the measure, whilst it would affect its beneficial influence. He must give his decided opposition to the clause.

The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 243; Majority 98.

List of the AYES.
Ackers, J. Buckley, E.
Acton, Col. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Alexander, N. Burroughes, H. N.
Allix, J. P. Campbell, J. H.
Antrobus, E. Chetwode, Sir J.
Archdall, Capt. M. Cole, hon. H. A.
Ashley, Lord Colquhoun, J. C.
Astell, W. Colvile, C. R.
Austen, Col. Compton, H. C.
Bailey, J. jun. Copeland, Ald.
Bankes, G. Crawford, W. S.
Bannerman, A. Curteis, H. B.
Bateson, T. Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Beckett, W. Deedes, W.
Beresford, Major Denison, E. B.
Blackstone, W. S. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Blewitt, R. J. Douglas, Sir H.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Douglas, J. D. S.
Boyd, J. Duke, Sir J.
Bradshaw, J. Duncan, G.
Bright, J. Duncombe, hon. O.
Brisco, M. Du Pre, C. G.
Broadley, H. Eaton, R. J.
Brocklehurst, J. Egerton, Sir P.
Brotherton, J. Entwisle, W.
Bruce, C. L. C. Ewart, W.
Bruen, Col. Farnham, E. B.
Bruges, W. H. L. Fielden, J.
Fellowes, E. Muntz, G. F.
Ferrand, W. B. Napier, Sir C.
Filmer, Sir E. Neeld, J.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Neeld, J.
Ffolliott, J. Newdegate, C. N.
Forman, T. S. Newry, Visct.
Fox, S. L. O'Brien, A. S.
Fuller, A. E. Packe, C. W.
Gore, W. O. Palmer, G.
Gore, W. R. O. Pattison, J.
Goring, C. Pechell, Capt.
Greenall, P. Plumptre, J. P.
Gregory, W. H. Polhill, F.
Grimsditch, T. Rashleigh, W.
Grogan, E. Rendlesham, Lord
Hamilton, J. H. Rice, E. R.
Hamilton, G. A. Richards, R.
Hanmer, Sir J. Rolleston, Col.
Hastie, A. Rushbrooke, Col.
Hawes, B. Ryder, hon. G. D.
Heathcoat, J. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Henley, J. W. Sibthorp, Col.
Hornby, J. Smith, A.
Hughes, W. B. Smyth, Sir H.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Spooner, R.
Jervis, J. Spry, Sir S. T.
Johnson, Gen. Stanley, E.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Stewart, P. M.
Jones, Capt. Taylor, E.
Kemble, H. Taylor, J. A.
Knight, F. W. Thompson, Ald.
Law, hon. C. E. Tollemache, J.
Lawson, A. Tower, C.
Lefroy, A. Trollope, Sir J.
Legh, G. C. Turner, E.
Leslie, C. P. Turnor, C.
Loftus, Visct. Tyrrell, Sir J. T.
Lopes, Sir R. Verner, Col.
Lowther, Sir J. H. Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Lowther, hon. Col. Waddington, H. S.
Maclean, D. Wakley, T.
McTaggart, Sir J. Welby, G. E.
Mainwaring, T. Williams, W.
Masterman, J. TELLERS.
Maxwell, hon. J. P. Duncombe, T.
Morris, D. Hindley, C.
List of the NOES.
Acheson, Visct. Bellew, R. M.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bentinck, Lord G.
A'Court, Capt. Blackburne, J. I.
Adderley, C. B. Blake, Sir V.
Ainsworth, P. Blakemore, R.
Aldam, W. Bodkin, W. H.
Archbold, R. Boldero, H. G.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Borthwick, P.
Botfield, B.
Bagot, hon. W. Bowes, J.
Baillie, Col. Bowles, Adm.
Baine, W. Bowring, Dr.
Baird, W. Bramston, T. W.
Barkly, H. Browne, hon. W.
Baring, rt. hon, F. T. Brownrigg, J. S.
Baring, T. Bruce, Lord E.
Baring, rt. hn. W. B. Buller, C.
Barnard, E. G. Buller, E.
Barrington, Visct. Butler, P. S.
Byng, G. Greene, T.
Cardwell, E. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Carew, W. H. P. Hale, R. B.
Castlereagh, Visct. Halford, Sir H.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Hamilton, W. J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Hamilton, Lord C.
Chapman, B. Harcourt, G. G.
Chelsea, Visct. Hatton, Capt. V.
Childers, J. W. Heneage, G. H. W.
Clayton, R. R. Heneage, E.
Clements, Visct. Henniker, Lord
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Clifton, J. T. Heron, Sir R.
Clive, Visct. Hervey, Lord A.
Clive, hon. R. H. Hinde, J. H.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Holmes, hon. W. A'C.
Collins, W. Hope, hon. C.
Corbally, M. E. Hope, G. W.
Dorry, rt. hon. H. Horsman, E.
Courtenay, Lord Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Howard, hon. E. G. G.
Craig, W. G. Howard, P. H.
Cripps, W. Hume, J.
Damer, hon. Col. Hutt, W.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Ingestre, Visct.
Denison, W. J. James, Sir W. C.
Dickinson, F. H. Jermyn, Earl
Divett, E. Jocelyn, Visct.
Dodd, G. Kelly, F.
Douro, Marq. of Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Drummond, H. H. Lambton, H.
Duncan, Visct. Lennox, Lord A.
Dundas, F. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Dundas, D. Lincoln, Earl of
Easthope, Sir J. Listowel, Earl of
Eastnor, Visct. Loch, J.
Ebrington, Visct. Mackenzie, W. F.
Elphinstone, H. Macnamara, Major
Emlyn, Visct. M'Geachy, F. A.
Escott, B. M'Neill, D.
Esmonde, Sir T. Mahon, Visct.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Manners, Lord J.
Etwall, R. Marshall, W.
Ferguson, Col. Martin, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Martin, C. W.
Fitzmaurice, hon. W. Martin, T. B.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Matheson, J.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H. Mitcalfe, H.
Flower, Sir J. Mitchell, T. A.
Forster, M. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Fox, C. R. Murphy, F. S.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T. Neville, R.
French, F. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Gardner, J. D. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes O'Brien, J.
Gill, T. O'Connell, M. J.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. O'Conor Don, The
Gladstone, Capt. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Godson, R. Oswald, J.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Owen, Sir J.
Gore, M. Pakington, J. S.
Gore, hon. R. Palmerston, Visct.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Parker, J.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Patten, J. W.
Granby, Marq. of Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Granger, T. C. Peel, J.
Pendarves, E. W. Tennent, J. E.
Philips, G. R. Thesiger, Sir F.
Phillpotts, J. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Pigot, rt. hn. D. Tomline, G.
Pigot, Sir R. Towneley, J.
Power, J. Trelawny, J. S.
Praed, W. T. Trench, Sir F. W.
Pusey, P. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Rawdon, Col. Tuite, H. M.
Redington, T. N. Vane, Lord H.
Repton, G. W. J. Vernon, G. H.
Roche, E. B. Villiers, Visct.
Roebuck, J. A. Walker, R.
Ross, D. R. Wall, C. B.
Round, J. Warburton, H.
Rous, Capt. Watson, W. H.
Rumbold, C. E. Wawn, J. T.
Russell, Lord J. Wellesley, Lord C.
Russell, Lord E. Wemyss, Capt.
Russell, C. Westenra, hon. J.
Sandon, Visct. White, S.
Seymour, Lord Whitmore, T. C.
Seymour, Sir H. B. Wilde, Sir T.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Wilshere, W.
Smith, B. Winnington, Sir T.
Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C. Wood, C.
Somerset, Lord G. Wood, Col. T.
Somerville, Sir W. M. Worsley, Lord
Somes, J. Wortley, hn. J. S.
Stansfield, W. R. C. Wrightson, W. B.
Stanton, W. H. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W. W.
Staunton, Sir G. T. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Stuart, Lord J. Wyse, T.
Stuart, W. V. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Strutt, E. TELLERS.
Sutton, hon. H. M. Young, J.
Tancred, H. W. Baring, H.

House adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.