§ Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [11th May],"That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the system of Education carried on at the College of Maynooth:—(Mr. Spooner:)—And which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House shall resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering of a Bill for repealing the Maynooth Endowment Act, and all other Acts for charging the Public Revenue in aid of ecclesiastical or religious purposes,"—(Mr. Anstey,)—instead thereof.
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. FRESHFIELDwould have been content to allow the question to go to a division in its then state; but, having moved the adjournment of the debate, it formed a part of his duty to address to the House a few observations on the subject under discussion. He was at a loss to discover on what general grounds the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) could be resisted, or the Amendment that had been proposed to it adopted. His hon. Friend had stated his facts in perfect sincerity, and only asked the House to inquire how far they were true; and if they were so, how far they were consistent with the interests to be maintained by a Protestant people. It had been objected that the language used and the case stated by his hon. Friend, and the confidence he had expressed, tended rather to a repeal of the Act of 1S45, than to support a Motion for inquiry; but certainly this was the first time he had ever heard the confidence expressed by the mover 215 in the truth of his Motion used as an argument against it. If his hon. Friend had moved the repeal of the Act of 1845, he (Mr. Freshfield) could well understand such an objection; but his hon. Friend had made no such proposition; and he had only asked the House to inquire into how many of the facts were true, and if those which were so were inconsistent with the rights of the Protestant religion of this country. The next objection to the Motion was that of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), who said that inquiry was useless, as nothing could be done in consequence of the near dissolution of Parliament. But that was not the fault of his (Mr. Fresh-field's) hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had given notice of his Motion so early as the 23rd of February. It had been postponed from time to time under circumstances over which he had no control, and on the 11th of May it was distinctly submitted to the consideration of the House, and an Amendment proposed to it. How unreasonable was it, therefore, if, from circumstances over which his hon. Friend had no possible control, the discussion on his Motion had lingered on to the 8th of June, to infer that this Motion was less appropriate now than it was at any former period. If there had been any general desire to come to a conclusion on the question, it might have been arrived at long ago; and it was certainly no argument to say that nothing could be done, as the Session had so nearly reached its termination, for who could say how long Parliament would sit, or when it would be dissolved? It was consequently no argument against the Motion to urge that nothing could be clone in the way of inquiry before the dissolution of Parliament, as the period of that dissolution was altogether uncertain. Surely it was not competent for those who opposed this Motion now to come down to the House and say, "Well, there has been so much delay you cannot now proceed." Was it to be permitted that those who did the wrong should take advantage of it, and argue upon it? Inquiry, however, was generally agreed to be necessary. Was the hon. Member for Youghal the person who objected to inquiry? [Mr. ANSTEY: Hear, hear!] On the contrary, that hon. and learned Member said the inquiry did not go far enough, and he desired a Bill for the particular purpose of going further. A more serious objection, however, to the Motion, because of the source from which it came, was that of the noble Lord the Member for London. 216 That noble Lord had announced his intention of showing that a Motion for inquiry was materially distinguishable from the Motion before the House; that a Motion for an inquiry, by a Select Committee, differed from a general proposal for inquiry. Was that not differing upon terms, rather than dealing with the substance of the Motion? And, even supposing that the noble Lord succeeded in proving that a difference actually existed in point of form, would it not be believed by the hundreds of thousands who have petitioned for inquiry, that there was another term applicable to the case besides that "of insincerity," with which it had already been charged, namely, evasion. Assuming, however, that a resolution declaring the necessity for inquiry had been adopted instead of his hon. Friend's Motion for a Committee, the objection would naturally have been that a resolution would not be the usual course at the close of a Parliament; because, though it might bind for a few days the present, it could not be acted on by the future Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that if the noble Lord entertained a doubt on this point, he would not shape his objection in the form of a technical distinction, because whatever might be the form, the Motion was in substance a proposal to inquire; and whether by a Committee, now that no Committee was likely to sit, ought not to be regarded as the real question; for of all the other courses that could be taken, it would be the most unwise to adopt when all sides of the House were deprecating "a cry." What, indeed, was so likely to create a cry as to tell the hundreds of thousands of petitioners for inquiry, that there was a distinction between the present Motion in the now state of the Session, and a resolution that inquiry ought to take place, and that their prayer should be negatived on that account. That was not the mode of satisfying public feeling. Let the House, however, adopt the Motion, which would amount, at least, to a resolution that inquiry was desirable, and it would show to the Protestant people of England that at some time or other there would be inquiry—that the general proposition had been affirmed; there would no longer be the necessity for agitation, since that which they had asked, the House had done so far as it had the power, and there had been expressed a determination that there should be inquiry. It was generally 217 admitted that there ought to be, and must be, inquiry. He looked for the individual who should say no, and he looked in vain. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) had said that inquiry would redound to the credit of Maynooth, but that he should vote against the Motion—an illogical corollary certainly. The hon. and learned Gentleman undertook to vindicate Maynooth from the charge of Italian policy, by stating that the first two teachers at that College were actually Frenchmen; and the House was so very tolerant of bad argument, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman assumed the inference that since Cisalpine, and not Ultramontane, doctrine was taught on the foundation of this establishment by the teachers in question, it necessarily so continued up to 1851, he was not contradicted. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, however, not stated who were the trustees of Maynooth in 1850; neither did he refer to the change that had taken place since that time, nor reason on what would probably be the future policy of Archbishop Cullen and the two other archbishops, as co-trustees of that college. Indeed, it was impossible that the objectionable doctrines maintained by those individuals out of the college, should not, under their administration as trustees, have at least equal influence for evil within its walls. Every argument of his hon. and learned Friend assumed the character of a demonstration; one of his arguments was, that as the course of education in Maynooth comprised eight years, and as the Act of 1845 did not come into operation until 1846, no mischief could have been caused by the spread of the doctrines there inculcated, even if they wore as bad as they had been represented. It had not, however, occurred to his hon. and learned Friend to state, that in 1846 Maynooth was not empty; but, on the contrary, that there were many students then of six, five, four, and three years' standing, and that these were sent forth indoctrinated with those views which had been objected to. In 1830 and 1834 the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops had certainly prohibited their priests from interfering in matters of a political character; and it had been urged that Sir Robert Peel, cautious statesman as he was, would never have proposed converting the annual grant to Maynooth into a fixed sum by Act of Parliament, unless he had been perfectly acquainted with the whole character of the 218 institution, and the answers of the Roman Catholic prelates had been perfectly satisfactory. But why were they to take it for granted that Sir Robert Peel knew all the "ins and outs" of Maynooth? Why, the very circumstance of the Act of 1845 having been passed, was a subject of legitimate inquiry, and the people of England had a full right to know the grounds upon which it was based, if they chose to demand that knowledge. He did not complain of the existence of the Roman Catholic religion in this country, or of the equality of civil rights accorded to Roman Catholics, or that Roman Catholics should be taught the tenets of their own faith; neither did his hon. Friend, nor those who supported his Motion. The ground they took was this, that inasmuch as there were hundreds of thousands of persons who had petitioned the House against the grant to Maynooth on conscientious doubts, they were entitled to know that the sum which had been bestowed for years upon that college, and which had been confirmed by Act of Parliament in 1845, was administered fairly for the Roman Catholics, and not offensively towards the Protestants—that it had been properly and not mischievously applied. They had a right to have their minds set at rest from doubts as to the propriety of the application of the grant; they had a right to know that erroneous doctrines which they might tolerate they did not encourage. Nay, more, injustice to the college itself it was only right that the doubts which existed on this subject should he cleared up or confirmed. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had suggested the issue of a Commission by the Government to inquire into the subject. He (Mr. Fresh-field) agreed with the right hon. Member for Taunton that little else could be done in the matter this Session than to declare and resolve there should be inquiry; but much more might be done by a Commission. If the Government saw fit to advise the Queen to issue such a Commission, he did not see how the College of Maynooth could take offence at inquiry in the face of the inquiry pursued into the English Universities; and he could not conceive they would judge so ill as to resist affording all the information that should be sought. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, too, might justify such a course by his own conduct with respect to the Papal aggression in the early part of last year, when he recommended careful 219 inquiry before doing anything. This was enough to show that the noble Lord needed not to shrink from advising the issue of such a Commission. The report of such a Commission might be perfectly satisfactory; and, if not, the circumstance would be a ground for inquiry in Committee in another Parliament. For his own part, he (Mr. Preshfield) should enter upon any such inquiry without prejudice, and with the same anxious responsibility as a sworn juryman. He hoped, as there was not much time for the debate, Gentlemen would address themselves to the question whether it was asking too much that the matter should be left in that state which ought to satisfy the people of England, and without which they ought not to be satisfied.
§ MR. H. HERBERTsaid, that he had not intended to intrude himself upon the attention of the House; but having given notice of an Amendment, which he found the forms of the House would not allow him to propose, it had been his intention to give a silent vote against both the Motion and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Anstey). His object in rising was to add his recommendation to that of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the Government should adopt the course pointed out by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. If the real object of this Motion was fair and legitimate inquiry, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire could not resist the proposition; and he would show his sincerity by withdrawing the Motion, on which he admitted inquiry was impossible. It had been objected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Royal Commission would not have the power of compelling unwilling witnesses to give information, and that therefore it would not be satisfactory to the people of this country. Now the noble Lord the Member for the City of London stated that he considered the very worst tribunal before which an inquiry of this nature could take place was a Select Committee of the House of Commons. In that opinion he most cordially joined; but the difficulty would be solved by adopting his (Mr. H. Herbert's) Amendment, which had reference to inquiry by the visitors. The Home Secretary said the reports of the Maynooth Commissioners were meagre, and contained no information; that proved that inquiry was unnecessary. If an architect reported that no repair was needed in your house, the report might be called meagre. At present, 220 the Lord Lieutenant had the power to order a special inquiry whenever it was deemed necessary. To this it might be objected that the inquiry would take place under certain restrictions. But Sir Robert Peel stated in 1845 that unless such restrictions were made the grant would be utterly useless; for it was necessary to show Roman Catholics that no interference would be made with the free exercise of their religion; but the restriction preventing interference with religion, except by those members of the commission who were Roman Catholics, would commend itself to most men of sense, and the substance of that restriction ought to be embodied in instructions to a Committee, if ever the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) should hereafter be so fortunate as to obtain one. What was the nature of the inquiry which the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire proposed? Was he going to refer to a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic religions? Was he going to refer to a Committee of that House the momentous and ever-memorable question, "What is truth?" He hoped that House would never sanction a proceeding which would give rise to such scenes as would take place in the Committee-room if that was to be the nature of the inquiry. It might be objected that the constitution of the visitors was such that they were not a body which could enter into a fair and impartial inquiry. But hon. Members opposite could not be ignorant that there were eight visitors, three chosen by the College of Maynooth, and five by the Crown. Would they propose to inquire by a tribunal composed of persons like the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who openly declared, and rather rejoiced in the idea of being classed with those most hostile to Maynooth? Did they wish the inquiry to be conducted by the open, sincere, and candid enemies to that institution? He supposed they would hardly think it decent or right to have a tribunal without both sides of the question being represented upon it. He could not understand, then, any fairer mode than by means of the visitors. If there was any unfairness in the constitution of that body, it Was against the College of Maynooth, the college being represented by only three, whilst the Crown nominated five of the visitors, with the power to order additional inquiry if any of the reports were unsatisfactory. It appeared to him most utterly 221 absurd, and a most dangerous principle to establish, that a private Member might come forward and supersede a tribunal constituted by Parliament, and extremely well adapted for the purpose for which it was constituted. If that tribunal was incompetent, its reports meagre and unsatisfactory, and proper application had been made to the Government to order inquiry, the Government might upon their own responsibility have said to Parliament "the tribunal you have constituted does not possess sufficient powers, and it is for you to grant the Government a tribunal which shall institute a fair inquiry." That, he thought, ought to have been the course for the Government to have adopted, and not followed in the wake of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, in superseding the authority of a tribunal constituted by that House. He would not enter into the question connected with the college, or the policy of its endowment, nor should he have risen on this occasion, did he not feel that if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was sincere in his desire for inquiry, he would adopt the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge.
§ SIR WILLIAM VERNERconsidered it was the duty of Government to give sufficient information to the House on the subject, in order that the House might come to a proper decision on the question. He had intended to say a few words—not in vindication of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, for he needed no vindication—but the remarks of the hon. Member opposite rendered that course unnecessary. His hon. Friend had not brought forward any Motion for the purpose of suppressing Maynooth, but only for an inquiry into the system of education pursued in that institution. The college was supported by a grant from the Imperial Treasury, and Government were responsible for the proper application of the grant. The college was established for educational purposes; and when it was a matter of doubt whether the education at that seminary was such as it ought to be, when those who were educated there were of one sect, and professed a religion which was not the religion of the State, it was but right that the State should exercise a power of supervision—which it ought to exercise, more especially as it had endowed and become responsible for the institution. The object of that institution was to bring up clergymen for the Church of Rome. 222 Was it not right, then, that Parliament should know what was the kind of instruction they received there, and to what section of the Roman Catholic Church the Maynooth professors belonged '? Members accustomed to travel knew that there were two descriptions of Roman Catholics, one of which taught that "the Pope had no right to interfere with Sovereigns, and the other that no Sovereign had a right to expect allegiance from his subjects unless a higher authority—to wit, the Pope—acquiesced. To which section did Maynooth belong? Did it hold the authority of the Pope to be superior to the Sovereign, or did its views resemble those of the Roman Catholics who long existed in France, and who declared that neither Pope nor Council had a right to interfere with the Sovereign? It was stated that the most rancorous intolerance was taught at Maynooth; such doctrines, for instance, as that heresy and heretics ought to be punished by death. These things ought to be inquired into. Within his own knowledge he could say a treatise on education had been written by Delahogue, a professor of Maynooth, and that book was one of the authorised works of the College of Maynooth. The hon. and gallant Member read the following extract from the work:—
The Church retains her jurisdiction over all apostates, heretics, schismatics, although they no longer appertain to her body; just as a military officer has a right of decreeing severe punishment against a soldier who deserts, even though his name may have been erased from the muster-roll.If the civil authorities admitted or connived at such doctrines, there was no liberty of conscience; and were such a charge made against any institution to which he (Sir W. Vorner) belonged, he would never rest till the fullest inquiry had taken place, and the matter been settled one way or other. A charge was once brought in that House against a highly respectable body to which he belonged. Inquiry was called for; those hon. Gentlemen with whom he was acting as a leader in that body came forward to a man, and not only joined in the proposal for inquiry, but gave all the assistance in their power to carry out the fullest inquiry. That institution, he was happy to say, came out of the inquiry perfectly free from all the charges made. In Ireland denunciations from the altar were frequently followed by the loss of life; and he had received a letter in which the writer said he hoped the Com- 223 mittee appointed to inquire into outrages in Ireland would propose that Parliament should "pass a law to prevent the Roman Catholic clergy from denouncing persons in their chapels; not long ago he had been denounced because it was not his pleasure or convenience to contribute the sum pointed out by the priest to build him a house on another gentleman's property."[Cries of "Name!"and "Who is the writer?"] He was not going to hand the writer over to the assassin—
§ MR. MAGANIf the hon. and gallant Member withholds the name, the only conclusion to which this House can come is, that the statement is not true.
§ MR. SPEAKERI call upon the hon. Member to retract the expression he has just used.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member made use of the expression, that the statement made by an hon. Member was not true; that language is unparliamentary.
§ SIR WILLIAM VERNERFor the twenty years which he had sat in that House, he had never made a statement which he could not prove. They who advocated the inquiry had been charged by hon. Members opposite with bigotry and other feelings, which he hoped would never find place in his or any other hon. Member's breast. He would read another extract from a communication by a highly-respectable gentleman, which would prove the effect of the teaching at Maynooth. ["Name!"] Hon. Members should have the name if required. The writer said—
I entertain no doubt that the disorders which originate in hatred of Protestantism have been increased by the Maynooth education of the Roman Catholic priesthood. It is the Maynooth priest who is the agitating priest; and if the foreign educated priest be a more liberal-minded man, less a zealot, and less a hater of Protestantism than is consistent with the present spirit of Catholicism in Ireland, straightway an assistant, red-hot from Maynooth, is appointed to the parish. In no country in Europe, no not even in Spain, is the spirit of Popery so intensely anti-Protestant as in Ireland.The name of this gentleman was Inglis. Another writer said—As I departed from the college, I could not but reflect with melancholy interest on the prodigious moral power lodged within the walls of that mean, rough-cast, and white-washed range of buildings; what a vomiting of fiery zeal for 224 worthless ceremonies and fatal errors. Thence runs the priestly deluge, issuing like an infant sea; or rather, like a fiery flood from its roaring crater, pours over the parishes of Ireland, to repress all spiritual improvement by their anti-Protestant enmities and their cumbrous rites.This was the opinion expressed by the Rev. Baptist Noel. An hon. Member, not then in his place, had told the House that the Motion was a sham; that hon. Member had told the House he was surrounded in Ireland by a Roman Catholic population, and therefore he trusted the House would do nothing to irritate the Roman Catholics. But he asked the House whether it was not the duty of Government equally to take care that the interests of the Protestant population were not sacrificed. He would ask the House to say whether the hon. Member's speech to which he had alluded was not meant rather for the hustings than for that House. He trusted the House would decide upon having a full inquiry to ascertain whether a public grant given for one purpose was not applied to another.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLYI shall take the same view of the proposed inquiry that has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, and by the hon. Member for Boston, and which was followed up by the hon. Member for Kerry—all Gentlemen whom I believe to be perfectly sincere in this matter. There can be no sort of objection to an inquiry of a fair character, just as suggested by those hon. Members, that will not extend itself into a discussion of the tenets of the Catholic religion, or into the doctrines and discipline of that Church. There is no doubt whatever, that with this one salvo, an inquiry can be made by the existing visitors, to the fullest extent, and also upon oath. The inquiry need not even he so restricted as that, because an inquiry can take place into the doctrines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church by the present visitors, if the Lord Lieutenant orders it. Under the words of the Act of Parliament, such an inquiry can be made by the Roman Catholic visitors, in the presence of the Protestant visitors. I am sure the House will not expect me to follow the hon. Member for North Warwickshire through all the doctrines of De La Hogue and of Bailly, to which he has referred. The mode in which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward his Motion had equal reference to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic 225 Church, in 1826, when a full and searching inquiry was made; and in the year 1845, when the latest Act with reference to Maynooth was passed, increasing its endowment to 26,000l. a year; and I have not heard him make any observation that is not as applicable to the College of Maynooth in the year 1826, or in the year 1845, as at the present day. His speech contained an immense mass of vituperation and misrepresentation respecting the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, but every word of it was equally applicable to the Roman Catholic Church as it has existed for many centuries past. Therefore it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary entirely abandoned those obsolete grounds, and, seeing it was necessary to take a different position, he says that some portion of the Maynooth grant has been applied towards the education of Roman Catholic clergymen for America, and thus that the grant has not been applied to the object for which it was intended, but that some part of it has been diverted from its original purpose in order to educate Roman Catholic priests for foreign countries. That being his ground for an inquiry, another ground, namely, that of modern Ultramontanism, is urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. His legal acumen has induced him to put forward that additional reason, seeing that the grounds already relied upon were wholly untenable, and that unless something has occurred since 1845, that would authorise an inquiry, he cannot maintain it on any ground that occurred before 1845, without convicting the present Premier and some other Members of his Government of the grossest contradictions and inconsistencies. I do not mean to impute to the Mover or Seconder of this Motion that they are not perfectly sincere in their common object; but I assert they are not sincere in saying that their object is a fair inquiry. They avow that they regard the proposed inquiry as a mere step towards abolishing Maynooth altogether. They are at present quite prepared to abolish it without any inquiry, and all they can want is to have an inquisition to find the King's title and upset this Royal grant. It is altogether a sham in them to propose this inquiry; if they were in earnest about it, they have the means open to them of having an inquiry at once. They can have an inquiry upon oath, in the most strict and searching form, under the powers vested in the pre- 226 sent visitors of the college. They admit they cannot possibly have an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons during this Session; and if they are sincere, what harm can it be to have a preliminary inquiry made by the present visitors? Even should it prove unsatisfactory, which I am very far from anticipating, it will afford information to the House to enable it to come to a just decision next Session. I do not object to an inquiry at all as a Roman Catholic. I am ready that the most searching inquiry should take place; but I object to an unfair inquiry before a tribunal which, according to the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for London, who has much experience in those matters, is the very worst possible tribunal for an inquiry of this nature. If hon. Members opposite really wish for an inquiry, their object must therefore be to have it before an unfair tribunal; but I object altogether to any unfair or insulting inquiry. I object to going out of the ordinary course without necessity, and without any proof being brought forward to show the slightest reason for it. There being no evidence of any sort to show that there is anything wrong taught in the College of Maynooth, and there being a great deal of evidence directly to the contrary, it is perfectly plain that inquiry is not the object. The hon. Member for Boston has stated that the people of England call for an inquiry, but I say that the people of England are not calling for any inquiry; but some few of them are asking for the abolition of the Maynooth grant. I am aware that there are about '500,000 persons who have been induced to sign petitions against this miserable grant; but I am not aware that any portion of the English people have called for an inquiry, except the hon. Gentlemen the two Members for North Warwickshire, and the Member for Boston, who, perhaps upon some Tooley-street principle, designate themselves the people of England. No portion of the Protestants of Ireland have demanded an inquiry that would interfere with the Maynooth grant—they know their own interests too well to do so. They know the Maynooth grant is the greatest safeguard of the Protestant Established Church in Ireland. But there is a very small section of the people of England who have been put forward to sign petitions and to ask for an inquiry, without having the slightest knowledge of the subject-matter of their petitions. In the year 1845 a very great cry was got 227 up amongst the people of England against the Maynooth grant, asking not for an inquiry into its application, but for, its total abolition. On that occasion, as was stated the other evening by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, there were no less than 1,500,000 petitioners against the continuance of that grant; but there are only about 300,000 at the present moment. And what did Lord Stanley say on that occasion in the House of Lords? He said he had looked into the petitions, that he saw the way the petitions had been got up in England, and the reasons which they assigned, and that these were matters which the House had a right to examine into. He made these statements upon a Motion in the House of Lords, in the year 1845, for an inquiry into Maynooth College, being an Amendment on the proposition to increase the grant. He then stated that he had looked into the mode by which the petitions had been obtained, and he added that he would not be governed even by 1,500,000 petitioners, unless he concurred in their reasons for interfering with the grant. Now, we know very well that on the present occasion the petitions have also been got up in England by a number of discontented clergymen and mistaken fanatics (I mean no offence to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire), and that the honest and intelligent people of England are not for this absurd and sham inquiry, nor are they for the abolition of this miserable and paltry grant. Upon reading Lord Stanley's speech in regard to the petitions of 1845 it occurred to me to look at the petitions printed according to the orders of the House on that day, the 12th of May, 1852, and I there found eight of these anti-Maynooth petitions. [The hon. Gentleman here went through the eight petitions, showing that each of them had emanated from Protestant and Presbyterian clergymen of England and Scotland, with the exception of one, which he stated, appeared to have been got up by the Maynooth detective, Mr. J. W. M'Gregor, secretary to the London Protestant Alliance Association, and son of Sir Duncan M'Gregor, chief of the Irish constabulary force, and a director of the Protestant Alliance.] The right hon. the Attorney General for Ireland had said that the words Popery and Papist were terms of offence, and were not generally used at the present day; but in one of these petitions, containing about a dozen lines, 228 these expressions were repeated no less than eight times by the incumbent of a parish and his two curates. These eight petitions, as was intimated by Lord Stanley, in regard to the petitions of 1845, have been got up by particular men for a particular object, and for a very mistaken object. That such petitions should be signed by members of the Free Church of Scotland, is very natural, because it is their wish to upset all church establishments. And if those petitions are successful, they may lead to an investigation of all endowments for every religious establishment in the three kingdoms. If hon. Gentlemen are really in earnest in wishing for an inquiry, and are desirous of obtaining information they believe they do not possess, they will adopt the suggestion of their own Friend the hon. Member for Boston, and let an inquiry take place between this and next Session, in the only way they admit it can take place—either by Royal Commission, or, if they do not like that suggestion, and they insist that Royal Commissions cannot examine upon oath, let it be made by the visitors of the college, who have, under the Act of Parliament, most extensive powers to examine upon oath—who can inquire into everything connected with the College—who can examine the very servants and menials of the College, and into everything relating to it, with the only single restriction, that the Protestant visitors cannot examine into the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church; but even they may have that doctrine and discipline examined into in their presence by the Catholic visitors. The Act of 1845 did not impose more restrictions than that of 1800, and the only limits to the powers of the visitors is as to matters relating to the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, who are those ex-officio visitors? In 1800 they were the Protestant Chancellor, and the three Protestant Chief Judges of the Common Law Courts, and after the Act of 1845 two elected visitors were to be named, and five additional visitors were to be appointed by the Crown. With the powers conferred under that Act, the Lord Lieutenant may to-morrow direct a special inquiry to be made by the present visitors for the satisfaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they are really anxious to obtain information with respect to this College; and if they are in want of it, what objection can they have to such an inquiry? It would not interfere with the appointment 229 of a Committee next Session, should the House so think fit; but if the Government are in earnest, why should they wish to defer a proper investigation, or to throw the responsibility of it off their own shoulders? Why did they not direct that it should take place at once? The first of the visitors was the Duke of Leinster, a Protestant nobleman, the first in point of rank in Ireland, upon whose grounds the College was built, whose avenue-gate was opposite to that of the College—who was almost always on the spot, and intimately acquainted with its internal regulations. The second visitor was another Protestant Irishman, the Earl of Rosse, whose very name conferred a proud distinction on the whole Empire; and the third was also a distinguished Protestant, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. These were the three Protestant ex-officio visitors, and the Roman Catholics were the Earl of Fingal and the Chief Baron of Ireland. Is it possible to imagine a more satisfactory tribunal, or one more competent to do everything which could satisfy the most suspicious Protestant of the Empire. The Lord Lieutenant had a power to institute the most searching investigation into all matters connected with the College; and would not such a course be preferable to listening here to the horrible, abominable, and unfounded calumnies heaped upon us and upon our ancient faith in the presence of English Protestant Gentlemen? If the hon. Gentleman will shape his Motion in that way, we can at once put an end to the debate; but though we challenge and invite a full and fair investigation, we do object to have an unfair inquiry of an insulting character, or before a prejudiced tribunal—a mere sham, got up for electioneering purposes, not, perhaps, by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but by other interested parties, for it is notorious that this Motion is a mere English clap-trap, for the coming elections. Sir, I put it again and again to the Government to institute, on their own responsibility, a fair and full inquiry, to put an end to a state of things which has more public mischief in it than some may imagine, for it will disturb the good feeling which ought to exist between the people of England and Ireland—the subjects of the same United Kingdom. If the present Motion for an extraordinary inquiry were to be carried out and acted on, we all know very well what sort of an investigation would be had before a Committee of the House of Commons. We 230 have very recent experience in regard to the Mortmain and the Crime and Outrage Committees; we know the way in which witnesses might be summoned, and that their examinations might be conducted according to the peculiar views of the majority of such a Committee, and, without meaning any personal imputation on the motives of such Gentlemen, according to the conscientious prejudices and bigoted convictions of its members. We are perfectly well aware on whose side the majority of the Committee would be found, and that out of the fifteen Members composing it, at least two-thirds or three-fourths would be opposed to Maynooth. That would be an extraordinary mode of conducting an impartial inquiry. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to maintain that the Catholics of Ireland were entitled to the continuance of the grant on the three grounds, of faith and compact, of right and justice, or of "pure policy, without regard to any abstract principle of right or wrong." If there was no virtual compact existing, and no right derived from the payment of their share of taxation, it was a matter of prudence and wisdom to continue it. The Catholics of Ireland were 5,000,000, the Protestants of the Established Church about 600,000. This grant was therefore about a penny a head, while the entire revenue of the Established Church in Ireland was not less than two millions a year; and it required, moreover, another million a year for the police force and military to support it. No such state of things prevailed in any State on the Continent—was it wise, then, to provoke such an inquiry as the present? The property of the Roman Catholic Church had been wrested from her at the Reformation, and handed over to the Protestant Church. It was absurd to argue, as had been done, that the whole prelates of Ireland went over to the Reformed Church in a body; for the actual dominion of the English in Ireland at that time extended over a few only of the smallest counties; but if the prelates did go over, did it follow that they took the property of the Church with them? If a Protestant bishop were to go over to the Roman Catholic Church, would he take the revenues of his see with him? As an Irish Member of Parliament, and a Roman Catholic, he did not maintain that this property should be restored to the Roman Catholic Church; but if he he were to look at this grant of 26,000l. a year to Maynooth in the light of a partial restitu- 231 tion, it amounted not to a penny in the pound, but to a penny in five pounds. I shall now proceed to show that were there no question of State policy involved in the circumstance of this small grant to Maynooth, and were the Catholics of Ireland not entitled to it as a matter of common justice, they would still have a right to it, upon the ground of good faith, and a distinct compact on the part of the British Government. The hon. and learned Member then proceeded to state the circumstances preceding the foundation of Maynooth, from the Treaty of Limerick to the French Revolution; showing the infraction of that treaty; the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics of Ireland were placed; and the gradual concessions that were made. We have it, Sir, in the records of Parliament, that in 1808 returns were obtained by the present Duke of Wellington, then Sir Arthur Wellesley, and Chief Secretary for Ireland, which showed that in the year 1793 the Catholics of Ireland possessed no less than 478 endowments or bourses for educating their clergy in foreign colleges, of which 348 were in France alone. In that year, however, the Catholics were deprived of all those French bourses, and were forced to withdraw their ecclesiastical students from abroad. Then it became the policy, as it was manifestly the true interest of England, that the Catholic priesthood of Ireland should be educated at home. In 1793, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, the Protestant university of Dublin was opened to the Roman Catholics. That statement reminded me of the story of the opening of the oyster, the whole of whose inside was retained by the person who opened it, while he generously presented the real owners with the empty shells. Just in the same manner was the oyster of Trinity College opened; for while the Catholics were allowed to contribute their quota to increase the revenues of the college, they were not permitted to participate in any of the emoluments or profits of that university. I have been, Sir, merely laying before the House a few facts, not by way of threat or intimidation, but in order to supply some useful information, which may induce this country to turn over a new leaf in regard to the Catholics of Ireland; that now the people of this great empire, being powerful and at peace, may act a generous part towards my Catholic countrymen, and not allow them to be continually subjected 232 to the insulting fanaticism of some interested parties in this country. In the same year, 1793, occurred in Ireland what is called "the little rebellion"—a sort of Ballingarry affair; and this also helped, perhaps, to open the Dublin oyster. The next matter to which I would refer the House, I extract from "Lord Castlereagh's Memoirs," and I would beg the particular attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the statement. In the year 1794, the Irish Catholic students being driven out of France, and being no longer able to receive their education there, the Catholic bishops of Ireland, anxious to avoid the contamination of foreign principles, wished that those who were to be brought up as clerical students should receive their education in Ireland. Accordingly, the Catholic hierarchy, in a body, presented a memorial to the Government of the day, which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House. The memorial is signed by Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, on behalf of himself and his fellow-bishops, and it states that—
Memorialists were formerly obliged to resort to foreign countries for education, especially to France, where they had procured many valuable institutions. Four hundred students were constantly maintained and educated therein for the ministry of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland. But in the anarchy which affects that kingdom, these establishments had been necessarily destroyed; and even though lawful authority should be restored, the loss would be irreparable, for as the profligate principles of rebellion and Atheism may not be speedily effaced, memorialists would not expose their youth to the contagion of sedition and immorality, nor their country to the danger of thus introducing the pernicious principles of a licentious philosophy. Although the mode of education practised in the University of Dublin may be well adapted to form men for the various departments of public business, yet it is not alike applicable to the ecclesiastics of a very ritual religion, and not by any means calculated to impress on the mind habits of austere discipline so indispensable to the character of a Roman Catholic clergyman.But it is to the concluding prayer of this memorial that I would especially call the attention of the House:—They humbly beg a royal license for the endowment of academies or seminaries for educating and preparing young persons to discharge the duties of the Roman Catholic clergymen in this kingdom under ecclesiastical superiors of their own communion.Being thus asked by the Catholic prelates of Ireland, not for any Government endowment, but merely for permission to establish Roman Catholic colleges out of their own funds, what did the English Govern- 233 ment do? Why, as the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel said in 1845, the whole Continent being convulsed, England struggling almost for her very existence, the English Government did not merely permit the establishment of a Catholic college, but, of their own accord, they undertook to endow it. Here, then, were the circumstances, under which that endowment was first made. Let me quote in proof of these statements, the speech delivered by Sir Robert Peel in 1845:—In 1795" that great and lamented statesman said, "the reigning sovereign was George III. The Minister of England was Mr. Pitt; the Secretary of State was the Duke of Portland, afterwards Chancellor of the University of Oxford. That was a critical period the year 1795. In a speech made to the Irish Parliament at the opening of the Session, the Lord Lieutenant said—' We are engaged in no ordinary contest. The time calls for great fortitude. You are engaged with a Power which was always highly formidable to the neighbouring nations. Lately this Power has assumed a new shape. To guard his people from the enterprises of this dangerous Power, His Majesty has availed himself of every rational aid, foreign and domestic. He has called upon the skill, courage, and experience of his people, wheresoever dispersed.' In that same speech, made at this most eventful epoch, the Lord Lieutenant said—'It is hoped that your wisdom will order everything in the manner most beneficial and best adapted to the occasions of the several descriptions of men which compose His Majesty's faithful subjects in Ireland.'"—[See 3 Hansard, lxxix. 26.]In this remarkable speech of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, no suspicion whatever was suggested of the disloyalty of any class of the Irish people—-nor indeed do we ever hear any such allusion in times of peril to the empire. What, Sir, was the result of that speech? Why, the Roman Catholics of Ireland received a Government endowment of 8,000l. a year to found the College of Maynooth, although they had never asked for it in any form. They, on the contrary, wanted to carry out the voluntary principle, but it was thought more politic and better for the safety of the State that their college should be endowed with public money. During the Session of 1795 the first Act endowing the College of Maynooth was passed, without any opposition or even discussion. It was admitted by all to be a wise and politic measure. This Act of 35 Geo. III., c. 21, was passed on the 5th of June, 1795, being the last day of the Session. On the same day, upon proroguing the Irish Parliament, the Lord Lieutenant said, that "a wise foundation had been laid for educating at home the Ro- 234 man Catholic clergy." Sir, in alluding to the circumstances under which this grant was originally made, the highest military authority of the age, in a speech made by him in 1845, thus corroborates the statements of Sir Robert Peel:—At that period of 1795,"says the Duke of Wellington, "the French Republic had already commenced. The arms of that republic had already conquered the Low Countries on the left-hand side of the Rhine, had overcome parts of Germany and Italy, and were established on the frontiers of the Pyrenees.Sir, I defy any one who may follow me in the debate to prove that I have not correctly stated the true origin of the Maynooth endowment. I have taken my proofs from unquestionable authorities—from Parliamentary documents. Hon. Gentlemen, then, will please to recollect that Maynooth was endowed in 1795, when George III. was King, Mr. Pitt Prime Minister, and Lord Camden Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and it received, also at the same time, the full approbation of other great authorities, such as Charles James Fox, and Edmund Burke. And now, I will endeavour shortly to point out how this grant must be considered in the nature of a compact. By making the grant originally, you dried up all sources of revenue which might be naturally expected from the Catholic population of Ireland, who may, therefore, now fairly say—"You have for upwards of fifty years continued to support the College of Maynooth by public grants. By doing so you have effectually stopped all these sources of private benevolence from which the wants of that institution would otherwise have been supplied. Is it just or fair to turn round now upon the Catholic people of Ireland, and deprive them of this miserable grant?" I, Sir, can conceive nothing more clearly unjust—nothing, I should say, more monstrous than such conduct. By endowing Maynooth you also effectually prevented the Irish Catholics from recovering any of those foreign endowments which they had possessed before the breaking out of the French Revolution, and which had been offered to be restored to them by France. To illustrate this view of the case, I would mention that the Catholic clergy of Ireland have long been supported upon the voluntary principle by customary donations from their flocks. They have never yet asked for any State provision, but, on the contrary, have often objected to such a mode of endowment. Now, if the British 235 Government, for its own interests, and as a matter of mere State policy, were to take upon itself to endow the Catholic clergy of Ireland, and thus supersede, and put an end to, the existing custom of voluntary endowment, would it be at all just or defensible, after a lapse of more than fifty years, to withdraw such State provision, and turn the clergy adrift upon the voluntary system, which would no longer exist? In 1798 the Irish rebellion broke out, and forthwith the President of the College of Maynooth put an oath to every student within its walls that they were in no way connected with any of the societies of United Irishmen of that day. And, Sir, Lord Castlereagh's memoirs contain a just tribute to the loyalty of all inmates of the College of Maynooth during the year 1798, and state that "the president, masters, and others of the seminary, exerted themselves in repressing the late wicked rebellion, and that the captain and other officers in the Duke of York's regiment witnessed and commended their loyal exertions." The same memoirs give an extract from the journal of the Visitors, of their proceedings at Maynooth on the 11th of May, 1798, which states that—They (the Visitors) cannot dissemble their painful feelings on observing their principles and conduct daily misrepresented in the public prints. They consider the indiscriminate censure and abuse of the Roman Catholic body as unseasonable and impolitic, as it is certainly unjust and unwarranted; and they apprehend that the disaffected of all religious persuasions will avail themselves of it to foster a spirit of discontent, distrust, and irritation amongst the ignorant, the credulous, and the needy. To deceive them is the constant object of all leading agitators, who use every means to excite jealousies, and cherish them for their own selfish and seditious purposes.In these days, also, the leading agitators of all classes in the three kingdoms will use the same topics to excite jealousies, and promote their own selfish and individual ends. For myself, Sir, I have never been in the habit of discussing these exciting and agitating questions outside the doors of this House, which is, I believe, the proper place to advance them boldly and frankly, in order that the people of England may no longer misunderstand the nature of things in Ireland. In this House, Sir, resides the power of doing much good or great evil, and, therefore, the floor of this House is the fittest place for such discussions to be maintained. In the year 1800, at the time of the Union, the whole affairs of the College of Maynooth were fully inquired into; and on that occasion 236 Lord Castlereagh received much important information from Dr. O'Bierne, the Protestant Bishop of Meath, who was a most intelligent person, and who, having been once a Catholic himself, was perfectly acquainted with all the bearings of the matter. In his letter to Lord Castlereagh, that prelate deprecates "violating in a moment of passion and prejudice the faith of Government, and the implied pledge of Parliament. He adds—You must make provision for the full establishment of 400, which was what the E. C. Bishops calculated as necessary to keep up the parish priests and their coadjutors. British subjects, educated in foreign institutions, whether in Italy, Spain, or Portugal, where they still abound, may, and most probably will, imbibe all the prejudices of their worst days, and propagate them. A door will therefore be still left open to admit Popish priests of the old description amongst us. They will, of course, be the most devoted to the See of Rome, and, being its greatest favourites, will have the greatest weight, and thus you will have a distinction between Government priests, and the Catholic priests, from which the most disastrous consequences must flow to the country. I would consider it a most unwise measure, to suffer the education of the Roman Catholic clergy to return to the old course, from which so much mischief has flowed to the empire. On that event they must either go for education to countries hostile to England, where, in addition to their religious prejudices, they would imbibe those civil prejudices, and that spirit of hatred and resentment, of which France and Spain have uniformly availed themselves, ever since the Reformation, to raise a party for themselves, and excite domestic disturbances in Ireland, or they will be left to pick up such an education as they can at home amidst poverty and ignorance. So far from it being a wise measure to diminish the number of students to be provided at Maynooth, the number necessary for the supply of the parochial clergy should be maintained to its fullest extent.That advice thus given by the Protestant Bishop of Meath, in 1800, was acted on by Sir Robert Peel in 1845, supported by every eminent statesmen of that day, and among others, the Duke of Wellington, who stated on that occasion, that, "No Minister has ever been found who has proposed, or who would ever think of proposing, to stop the Maynooth grant." We hear a great deal about these old Continental priests of the Catholic Church; about their superior manner, and the comparative loyality of their views; but it appears pretty plainly from these statements of the Protestant Bishop of Meath that it was very wisely considered the true interest of England to continue the College of Maynooth, where the Catholic clergymen of Ireland at present receive their domestic education. And again, we are 237 very much in the habit of hearing imputations cast upon the ignorance and want of refinement of the Irish priesthood. Allow me, however, Sir, to observe, that there never yet were uttered more atrocious and unfounded calumnies against any body of gentlemen, arising, no doubt, from utter ignorance of the true character of those who are thus so wantonly maligned. And if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire will only put an end to this absurd debate, and come over with me this very evening to Ireland, I will promise to introduce him there to a body of gentlemen as highly educated, in every sense, as any to be found within the pale of his own Church. I know something of the clergy of both religions; I have many near relatives in the Catholic priesthood, and some near connexions among the Protestant clergy, for all of whom I entertain the most kindly feelings. I know how the clergy of both churches are educated, having passed some years in Catholic colleges, and also in the Protestant universities of both countries, and I will not shrink from any comparison that may be instituted between the general attainments of the Catholic as compared to the Protestant clergy. Nay, more, I think if the hon. Gentleman will accede to my proposal, and come over with me to Ireland, he will soon be able to satisfy himself that the Catholic priesthood are infinitely better theologically educated than the clergymen of the Church of England. ["Divide, divide!"] I think it is not very generous in hon. Gentlemen opposite towards a small minority to refuse to hear our observations in reply to the vituperations which have been heaped upon our clergy and our religion. Now the Protestant Bishop of Meath, in his letter to Lord Castlereagh, deprecates above all things the withdrawal of the grant from May-nooth, and maintains that it was based upon the implied pledge and good faith of Parliament. "I should consider it most unwise," said he, "to suffer the education of the Roman Catholic clergy to return to the old course, from which so much mischief has flowed to the empire." That was the advice of the Bishop of Meath, who perfectly understood what he was writing about. Well, in the same year in which that Bishop wrote his opinions, the second Maynooth Act, 40 Geo. III., c. 85, was passed, which made some alteration in the constitution of the visitors, who were again altered in 1845, in order, as Sir Robert Peel then said, that there might be "a 238 bond fide visitation." And let me hero advert to an argument which has been sometimes used by those who have wished to abolish this grant, namely, that by the Act of Union it was stipulated that certain Irish charities should be continued for a period of twenty years; and therefore, that Parliament had entered into a compact to continue the Maynooth grant up to 1820, but not beyond that period. I deny, however, that there is anything whatever in that argument, for the Maynooth grant was never understood as included among those charities. This appears very clear from the circumstance that in the years 1801 and 1802, a reduction was actually made from that grant. I will now mention another important circumstance, in order to establish beyond all question, that there exists a clear and distinct compact binding on this country, to maintain this grant. For we find that in the year 1806-7, the French armies having prevailed in Spain and Portugal, the Irish ecclesiastical students were driven out of Lisbon, and lost all their bourses there, as they had in 1793 been deprived of all their endowments in France. That having been clone, what next occurred? Why, the French Executive, by order of Napoleon, made a distinct offer to the Catholic bishops of Ireland to restore all the French and foreign endowments if they would only send their ecclesiastical students to be educated in France. It appears from the Parliamentary records of 1808, that this offer was distinctly made by Napoleon to the Catholics of Ireland. It is referred to upon two occasions in the presence of the Duke of Wellington, then Sir Arthur Wellesley, and Chief Secretary for Ireland. In the debate of April 29th, 1808, Sir J. Newport stated, that, "The students at Lisbon had been lately invited to Paris, whereupon the Roman Catholic hierarchy expressed their determination to exclude any such from the Irish priesthood." On the 5th of May, 1808, General Montague Mathew, a brother to the Earl of Llandaff, urged upon Sir Arthur Wellesley and Mr. Perceval's Government the offer made by order of Bonaparte to induce Irish students to go for their education to France from Lisbon and Ireland, upon a promise of a restoration of all the Irish bourses; and he then read an extract from the answer of the Irish Catholic bishops, "expressing their gratitude to the British Government for their support of Maynooth, and denouncing suspension 239 against any functionaries, and exclusion from preferment in Ireland against any students, who should accept the offer of the enemy of their country." So here you have the French taking away the Irish Catholic endowments in France and at Lishon, and afterwards offering to restore them all upon the single condition, that Irishmen intended for the priesthood should receive their education at Paris, and you have that offer indignantly denounced by all the Irish prelates of the Catholic Church. I think all Members of this House will concur with me in considering that in making this offer, Napoleon was actuated by no good or benevolent motive towards the people of Ireland, but was acting upon the principle lately announced by the Prime Minister, when he stated that "he considered the question of the endowment of Maynooth was one purely of policy, as to which his Government must be free to act without reference to any specific principle of right or wrong." No doubt the objects and pure policy of Napoleon were to provide himself with a means for endeavouring to sow disaffection towards England in the minds of the future pastors and instructors of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland. Am I not fully justified, therefore, in my statement, that this grant is based upon a clear and distinct compact between the Government of this country and the Catholics of Ireland; and that it is impossible to withdraw it without at least giving full compensation to the Roman Catholics who in former years were deprived of all their foreign endowments, and who since that time have ceased to create any new endowments, relying upon the faith of this Parliamentary grant? Sir, several days have been lately consumed here in discussing a Militia Bill, which was yesterday carried through this House; and I would respectfully suggest for the consideration of English Members whether by withdrawing at once this irritating discussion, doubling this paltry grant to Maynooth, and enacting some useful measures for relieving the people of Ireland. they would not be adding more to the true defences of the country than by enacting fifty of their trumpery Militia Bills? Were I an English Protestant Member, I would, perhaps, suggest the possibility that a new Napoleon might soon arise, who would be anxious to act again upon the same "pure policy" principle, and to repeat the offer made by the great Napoleon in 1807. But, Sir, what was 240 the consequence of Napoleon's offer, and of the loyal course taken by the Irish prelates in regard to it? Why, in the year 1807, the grant was raised from 8,000l. to 13,000l. a year. In the very next year the matter was again brought forward, and though the Prime Minister, Mr. Perceval, and Sir Arthur Wellesley, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, resisted so large an increase as 13,000l. a year, they stated to the House that they did so solely on the ground that they considered a smaller increase would suffice to supply the existing exigencies of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. What did the same Sir Arthur Wellesley, when Duke of Wellington, afterwards say, during the debate of 1845, when advocating the increase to 26,000l. a year? He then stated—There can be no doubt of the absolute necessity of finding some means for educating Roman Catholic priests for the service of the Roman Catholic mission in Ireland. It was stated at the time this institution was founded, that the population of Ireland was 3,000,000. It had advanced, in 1841, to 8,175,000, and probably it is now 8,500,000, and of that number, about seven-eighths are to be considered as Roman Catholics.Here let me own that I have heard a great deal said during this debate about what they called Ultramontanism. Now, without intending the slightest offence to any hon. Gentleman, I must be permitted to remark that I really do not believe that one out of fifty of those persons who are perpetually talking about this horrid bugbear of Ultramontanism, know what that word means. Perhaps the best explanation of it would be that it is the Latin version of Ducdame, which they all knew is "a Greek invocation to call fools into a circle." The other day I happened to meet a very distinguished Protestant gentleman, who, in the course of our conversation, lamented the spread of Ultramontanism. Upon my asking him whether he was certain he knew the meaning of the word, he said he understood it perfectly, for he knew it meant "beyond the mountain." So, according to this explanation, every one living on the other side of the Alps is an Ultramontanist; but all of us English and Irish who dwell on this side of the Alps must be considered as good his-Alpinists. In this view of the matter, it certainly surprises me that amongst the numerous nicknames by which some ultra-Protestants have delighted to call his Holiness the Pope, it has never yet occurred to them that instead of calling him the "Man of Sin," he should rather be called 241 the "Man of the Mountain." Now I beg to state that, possessing as I do every opportunity for forming a correct opinion, I do not believe that any sort of Ultramontanism exists in Ireland; most certainly none in the College of Maynooth; which, ever since its foundation, has been essentially cis-Alpine and even Gallican in its doctrines; as was plainly shown upon the inquiry held before the Irish Education Commissioners in 1826. Well, if hon. Gentlemen opposite really believed that there is any of this dreadful Ultramontism in Ireland, surely it would he a most extraordinary course on their part to endeavour to destroy that establishment, which admittedly has always inculcated the very opposite doctrines. I shall, however, postpone for the present to discuss the speculative questions of Ultramontanism, which are really of no practical importance whatever, and shall proceed with my chronological statement respecting the College of Maynooth. In the year 1815 Napoleon was finally expelled, and the Bourbons restored to the French throne: upon that occasion full restitution was made for all the property of which British subjects had been deprived during the disastrous period of the French revolution, except only the ecclesiastical endowments for the Catholics of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] But, Sir, though Maynooth is essentially Gallican, and always has been so, this is not the first time that there has been raised against it a most false and unjust outcry. A similar course was taken to cry down this college shortly before the inquiry held in 1826 by the Education Commissioners, of whom four were Protestants, and only one Roman Catholic. Upon that occasion everything connected with the doctrines and management of Maynooth were investigated in the most searching and even offensive form. The president, the professors, and several students of the college were examined, as well as some gentlemen educated there who had afterwards changed their religion, and became clergymen of the Protestant Church. The report of these Commissioners is dated the 2nd of June, 1827. Upon referring to the evidence given by the Very Rev. Dr. Crotty, who had been president of Maynooth from 1813, we find him thus complaining of the unjust vituperations that had been recently poured upon that institution:—In a public newspaper which was supposed to be the organ of a large portion of the Protestant population of Ireland, including many of the 242 clergy, it was roundly asserted that the Catholic clergy of Ireland were composed of men trained up in the College of Maynooth in principles of treason and sedition. I said nothing, however, on the subject until those charges were repeated, perhaps a year after in the Courier, and avowedly on the strength of documents sent to the editor of that paper from Ireland. I then thought it necessary to interfere in defence of the establishment to which I belong; but instead of doing the thing in so public a way as might cause unpleasant discussions, I applied to his Excellency the Marquess of Wellesley, and requested of him as a particular favour, that he would order an extraordinary visitation of the College, or, if he thought it more convenient, send down the Commissioners of Education Inquiry to examine as minutely as they pleased into the state of the college. His Excellency told me that he conceived there was no necessity for either course, as the visitation by the Chancellor and Judges was to take place in three or four months. When the visitation did come on, I stated to the Chancellor and to the other Judges the nature of those charges, and begged of them either to continue the visitation in order to satisfy themselves of the falsehood of these charges, or, if it would be more convenient to them, to hold an adjourned visitation. The Lord Chancellor said he would consider it his duty to do so if he thought there was any ground for the charges brought against the college; but as he was perfectly satisfied they had no foundation whatever in truth, he did not think such a proceeding necessary. He afterwards told me, in the presence of Chief Baron O'Grady, that he had himself seen the words to which I alluded, and that he considered them a shameful and most unjustifiable charge made against the college.It being Four of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair.
§ MR. SPEAKERresumed the Chair at Six o'clock.