MAYNOOTH COLLEGE—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 02 March 1853 vol 124 cc889-926

Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Main Question as amended, [24th February] "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, to consider all Enactments now in force, whereby the Revenue of the State is charged in aid of any ecclesiastical or religious purposes whatsoever, with a view to the repeal of such Enactments."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he entirely approved of the Amendment, with the understanding that at the proper time the whole principle of religious endowments should be considered, including the Regium Donum, Ministers' Money, and all other grants of the same nature. The Regium Donum he always looked upon as a premium for inefficiency; and the State support of the Irish Church was unjust and indefensible. The principle of State endowments generally was most unjust to the majority of the community. He stood there with no small pride, representing, as he did, the Nonconformists of England and Wales, numbering, as they did, 20,000 congregations, and who did not receive one farthing of the State money in any form whatever; and they felt it a great injustice that they were taxed for the support of any denomination. With regard to the Roman Catholics (and it was not because the Maynooth grant was for their benefit, that he objected to it), he thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), when he claimed 6,000,000l. or 8,000,000l. for his own denomination of religionists, should have remembered that they were the Church of the minority, and remembering the enormous amount of property which the Church established by law pos- sessed, might very well have accorded some concession to the Roman Catholics. From whom did the Church acquire its property —if not from the State? Necessarily, if it did not come from the State, as the hon. Member said, it must have come from the Roman Catholics; and the total number of churches belonging to the Establishment, as stated by Mr. Horsman six years ago, was in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, 14,500; while the number of Nonconformist congregations was in England and Wales21,812, and in Scotland 2,543; while in Ireland the population was, as regarded the Established Church, either as Roman Catholic or Dissenting Nonconformists, in the proportion of nine or ten to one. The proportion which the members of that Church bore, therefore, to the entire community in the three kingdoms, was not more than one-third. The question before the House was not one of religious truth or error, but whether or not the State should give money endowments for religious purposes to any denomination. Regarding this Motion as a vote against all endowments whatever, and as a protest against the injustice and heart-sore of taxing and rating people for the maintenance of principles they believed to be erroneous, and not founded on the word of God, he gave it his warm support.

MR. SCHOLEFIELD

was anxious to say a few words in explanation of the reasons why he had brought forward his Amendment, in order that his views might not be misrepresented. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) having brought forward a Resolution for the repeal of the Act endowing Maynooth, he felt it his duty to move an Amendment embracing all endowments of a similar character, no matter for what religious sect established, charged on the revenue of the State. If hon. Gentlemen desired to know what endowments were included in his Amendment, he begged to refer them to a return produced on the order of the House, which comprised a description of them at length. He had been asked why he had not included in this Amendment Ministers' Money, Regium Donum, and the Irish Church? He had not included Ministers' Money in Ireland, because it did not enter into the endowments provided by the State, and rested on very different grounds. It had already been repeatedly brought under the notice of the House, and would probably be fully dealt with. With respect to the Regium Donum, he had already explained that it was not compe- tent for him to deal with it under present circumstances. It existed only in the Estimates, and might be rejected by the House when it came before them—though he should be sincerely glad if the Government would withdraw the vote altogether; for himself, he had always voted against it, and was prepared to do so again. As regarded the Irish Church, whenever that question was brought before the House, he should be very likely be found to entertain views differing little from those of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas); but, on the other hand, he could not consent to trammel a simple Motion with a question of the most complicated character, which had embarrassed some of the most eminent men in that House, and which was yet unsolved. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire had expressed a deep anxiety to get rid of the Maynooth grant, which he regarded as a national sin. Now he (Mr. Scholefield) offered his hon. Friend the means of getting rid of this grant, at the cost of a few pecuniary sacrifices of little consequence to the Established Church. If his hon. Friend and other members of the Established Church refused to come into his terms and vote for the abolition of other similar grants, they must be content to be considered by the public as persons who set a greater value upon the small subsidiary grants of money to which he alluded, than upon principles, even when the object was to get rid of a great national sin.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

expressed his regret that owing to indisposition he should not have been present at the division of last week. He was a firm supporter of the Established Church, and considered himself bound to forward its interests in every way. He would not subscribe to a proposition for the purpose of withdrawing all grants for religious purposes; but he must object to the continuance of the grant to Maynooth against which he had always protested.

MR. DUNLOP

said, that in the confusion of the last division he had gone into the wrong lobby, though he hoped his sentiments would not be misunderstood on that account. He should have had no difficulty in voting against the grant to Maynooth, and he should for the same reasons vote for the Amendment. He should not do so on the ground of voluntaryism, although he should perhaps come to pretty nearly the same conclusion as those who did; for he held it to be a scandal to truth that a Go- vernment should be so indifferent to error as to endow all religions alike. If he were a member of the Establishment, he should have no difficulty in sacrificing grants out of the public revenue in order to attain this great object of the Nonconformists. He appealed to all members of the Established Church in that House to avert what he believed to be a national sin and a national calamity by determining upon withdrawing all grants for religious purposes indiscriminately. He would withdraw the endowment to the Irish Church, for although it was the duty of a State to support the true religion, it was not necessary to do so by means of an Establishment. The Establishment in Ireland was an obstruction to the progress of religion, and he believed that the abolition of that Establishment would be the commencement of a better state of feeling in that country. At the time of the union with Scotland, Scotchmen were accustomed to look upon the English as enemies, as was now the case with Roman Catholics and Dissenters; but between England and Scotland, at the present moment, harmony prevailed. If justice were done to Ireland in religious and secular matters, existing animosities would soon pass away, and the two countries would be united by firmer ties than could be provided by any legislative enactments, for they would be bound together by the ties of love and devotion to the constitution.

MR. NAPIER

said, that he understood the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down to assert that the Irish Church was an obstruction in the cause of religious truth; but surely no one could assert that it had not done great service in the cause of truth. He (Mr. Napier) had a short time ago addressed a friend of his, opposed to religious endowments, and said, "Your Church has got free scope; it is not fettered with those inconveniences which you say surround the Established Church; what have you done? I am willing to test all Churches by their fruits, not by going back to former times, but taking the present period." And taken by that test, he (Mr. Napier) was prepared to affirm that the Established Church in Ireland was a great boon and blessing to the people of that country. An hon. Gentleman had stated that only one in ten of the inhabitants of Ireland belonged to the communion of the Irish Church. He was prepared to say, on the contrary, that to say there was one in every four would be nearer the truth. The late Bishop of Meath had stated to him, on the authority of a very accurate account taken in that prelate's time, of the relative numbers of the two sects, and on the authority also of Government documents, that the proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics was as 1 to 2½ It had been asserted that there were only 1,000 clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland; whereas there were upwards of 2,300 clergymen, all actively engaged. There were no sinecures, nor indolent men, and many were supported by voluntary collections. There was also scope and opportunity for many more in communion with that (lunch, as the proceedings of the Additional Curates Society would fully show. But this part of the question had no real connexion with the subject before the House; as he conceived that Church property and the Establishment were one thing, and the grant out of the Consolidated Fund for the support of different institutions another. Suppose they made the Church Establishment in England, Ireland, or Scotland, a voluntary institution, there would be no amount of property to be distributed; hut in the other case the tax was taken out of the pockets of the people—a tax to which all denominations contributed. He hold in his hand a return of those Churches and institutions which were contributed to out of the Consolidated Fund. As far as the Irish Church was concerned, there were some small sums coming to it, amounting perhaps to 200l. He found, however, that under the educational grant a sum of 13,000l. was granted for the Free Church of Scotland, and 10,000l. to the Established Church of Scotland—sums which came out of the common funds of the country. So with regard to Maynooth, the question must not be argued as a question of Church property. If taking part in a debate on the Irish Church, he should be prepared to explain why he did not think the property of that Church should be distributed or touched. In the mean time the House had to deal with the grant out of the Consolidated Fund, to which all contributed, and which it was their duty to see applied usefully and beneficially. He could not consent to sweep away those grants on the voluntary principle. Members of the Established Church said to the advocates of the voluntary principle, "We do not interfere with your voluntary principle; there is corruption enough to assail without doing that; let Dissenters and Nonconformists exert themselves. But, whereas we give you all this free scope, you wish to make your voluntary system compulsory on all." Now, he (Mr. Napier) was perfectly willing to give Nonconformists and Dissenters free scope. They contended for the voluntary principle, and he said to them, "God speed you!"—he would heartily co-operate with them in their efforts of Christian usefulness. But so long as he did not interfere with their freedom of action—so long as he did not ask them to contribute by taxation to the Church to which he belonged—he thought it both inconsistent and unjust in them to attempt, by force and compulsion, to thrust the voluntary principle upon others. He had already stated his views upon the general question of the Maynooth grant, but had thought it right to make those observations to the House upon the points to which allusion had been made in the course of this debate.

MR. HUME

differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman on one point, for he held that Church property was public property; and that the property of the Irish Church having been given by Act of Parliament for purposes of religious instruction, it was competent to Parliament to deal with it. He had great doubts whether that Establishment, which had been instituted by our forefathers to promote religion, did not run counter to that object; and those whose duty it was to uphold the Church as religious teachers and as trustees for the public, could not be said to have set a very good example in administering the patronage attached to that property. With regard to the question brought forward by the lion. Member for Birmingham, it was one of great importance—far too important to be dealt with incidentally in an Amendment to a Motion such as that of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner). He had bad no hesitation in voting for the continuance of the Maynooth endowment, which he regarded as an endowment for educational purposes only; and which Sir Robert Peel had established on its present footing for the purpose of promoting good feeling and allaying religious animosity in Ireland. Whether the amount paid was larger than necessary, or not, he would not now express any opinion. He would urge upon his hon. Friend not to press his Motion to a division in its present shape as an Amendment, but to bring the question forward at a subsequent period as a substantive Motion, and then to take a more enlarged view of it. His hon. Friend must include in his Motion all kinds of grants, and must be prepared to annul, for example, the grants now made towards increasing the stipends of the Ministers in Scotland. What, however, he had risen principally to say was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite must not run away with the idea that he was the pursebearer of the Church property in Ireland. Church property was public property, and was in the hands of Parliament to deal with it if it thought fit. He had no hesitation in voting for the grant to Maynooth, because he considered the Irish people entitled to the grant, and he looked upon it as an Educational question, and nothing more. For his own part, he was inclined to think it might benefit religion and promote the general interest of the country, and especially contribute to the good feeling in Ireland, if all public money for religious purposes were withdrawn. At present the quarrel appeared to him to be about the spoil, and not about the subject of religion. It was well known that the revenues of the Established Church were maintained as a means of promoting the interests of particular families, and not for the advancement of religion. He should be in a position to prove this in the Committee which had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall). If there were a sincere desire on the part of the clergy to promote religion, they would be the first to reform the abuses of the Church, and to put an end to the system of pluracies and absenteeism which now disgraced it. The subject was one, however, which must be discussed generally, and in reference to the three kingdoms and the colonies. There was no ground, so far as he could see, why the civil power should interfere in favour of one creed more than another. For the present, however, he begged his hon. Friend not to press his Motion to a division, but to postpone it to a future occasion, and then to bring forward the subject on a clear and intelligible principle.

Mr. BELLEW

thought he ought to express to the House that, while he approved of the principle upon which this Amendment was brought forward, he had made up his mind to vote against it; because he thought the endowments which were apportioned to Roman Catholic purposes in Ireland, bore much too prominent a part in the proposition submitted to the House, and constituted, in fact, its very vitality. Had this Amendment included not only all Parliamentary grants, but all sums voted by Parliament to religious purposes, he should have supported it; although he did not go the length to which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) was inclined to go, and could not support the withdrawal of all the temporalities of the Established Church. He was not an advocate of the voluntary principle, believing it to be the first duty of every State to furnish religious instruction for its people; and it was not therefore upon that ground that he opposed the Motion; but if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scholefield) would withdraw his Motion, as the hon. Member for Montrose had begged him to do, and brought forward a more extensive one, so as to include the Regium Donum and the Established Church, he would give his support to that Motion.

MR. STAPLETON

was unable to determine the principle upon which this Amendment was framed—for it certainly did not raise the question of the voluntary principle, neither did it touch the revenues of the Established Church in any part of the Empire. He had voted for the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, though not for the reasons assigned by that hon. Gentleman, but simply for the purpose of bringing about a state of perfect religious equality in Ireland. Now, his constituents being principally Dissenters, they did not care to maintain the Establishment in that country, nor certainly were they willing to give any assistance to the Church of Rome, from whose doctrines they most conscientiously differed. He had voted for the Motion, then, really believing that if he had done otherwise he should be committing a robbery. His difficulty in dealing with the Amendment was, that it went beyond endowments given to Dissenters, and included those given to the Established Church of Scotland, and to some extent those of England and Ireland also. He objected to that Amendment, because in effect it drew distinctions between different descriptions of Ecclesiastical revenue, which he did not admit to exist. And with regard to the grant to the Church in the West Indies, which it proposed to withdraw, though he believed the right principle was to leave the colonies to the voluntary system, he could not consent to a proposal that would affect one colony and one creed only. He denied the accuracy of the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), that they were forcing the voluntary principle upon the country, for it was quite easy to escape such a conclusion by adopting the principle practised in Canada. He could not vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, that if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Scholefield) had been more comprehensive in its nature, it should have received his most unqualified support; as it stood, however, he would be guilty of injustice to the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland if he assented to the proposal. Perhaps it was because his temperament of mind was rather dull that he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, that the Protestant Church of Ireland was either a great boon or a great blessing to the people of that country. He had formed a very opposite opinion; and he could not believe that it was either a boon or a blessing in Mayo, Achill, or in Dingle. He rather thought that by the mode in which the principles of the Protestant Church were propagated, the greatest misery was inflicted upon the people. And he was able to state—not upon his own authority, but on that of a gentleman in the county of Kerry—that the attempts at proselytism in Dingle and Kenmare had only had the effect of causing the people to trade upon the credulity of persons there, as they in their turn traded upon the credulity of persons in England. And he had heard, in addition, that sheep stealing had very much increased in those districts since those efforts at proselytism had commenced. But the same right hon. Gentleman had made another bold assertion—namely, that in this year of 1853 there were no sinecures in the Established Church of Ireland, Now that opinion proceeded from one of the most enlightened of the Irish Members. Now he (Mr. Ma-goire) knew of one parish in the diocese of Cloyne where there was only one Protestant, but the revenue of the Protestant clergyman amounted to 173l.; and of another where the congregation consisted of three parsons, and the collection to the munificent sum of 2½d. As to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Protestants were as one to four in Ireland, he knew that in many cases they were not one in ten, in others only one in 100, and in some they were not more than one in 200. A friend of his who had a taste for monuments went to a church in the diocese of Lismore, where, being unable to procure admission, he was told that the Roman Catholic sexton, who had the key, was attending to his religious duties. He was told also that the reason why the church was not open was that the congregation had "gone to the salt water." An Established Church in which such gross abuses occurred ought to be cut down, not 25 per cent, but 75 per cent, in order to save it from death by inanition. He thought the grant to Maynooth a fair and liberal act, but it was a mere instalment of the debt of justice due to Ireland. He was an advocate for the voluntary principle, though not for such an application of it that would rob the Catholic Church and leave the resources of the Establishment unimpaired. He had travelled through as many parts of Ireland as most hon. Members from that country, and he had seen the voluntary principle working well there; for he had seen chapels and convents raised by it in remote villages, and morality and education promoted; and therefore he would vote for it, provided the principle were to be applied universally.

MR. W. J. FOX

thought that the objections of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose must undergo a very considerable abatement if he would but advert to the fact that grants which were annually made must of themselves come under annual consideration; and that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Scholefield) had reference solely to such grants as were made in accordance with Acts of Parliament. It did not occur to him that the Motion under discussion took cognisance either of the principle of an Established Church, or of the voluntary principle. It did not seek to establish the universal existence of an unendowed Church, neither on the other hand did it attack anything which might be called church property, and which had descended from generation to generation for the use of the ecclesiastical corporations to which it was attached. The question to which the Amendment solely related was, whether taxation drawn from persons of all religious denominations was to be applied for the benefit of particular classes, or a particular sect? And on such grounds, as these he thought they had a right to the support even of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), for he (Mr. Fox) believed that the present Motion was quite as hostile to the Maynooth grant as was that of the hon. Gentleman; and he could assure him that had he not felt it so he should have supported his Motion on Wednesday last. He thought that the hon. Gentleman ought to adopt the Amendment decidedly and cheerfully, because it put his Motion in a better position; it gave it a dignity which it did not possess—it varied it from a particular attack upon a particular creed, and placed it upon the honourable footing of a general principle. He did not think that hon. Gentlemen ought to object to the Motion on account of its incomprehensive-ness, for it only meant to include all the grants specified in the returns moved for in the late Parliament by Mr. Anstey. An hon. Member on the other side of the House had said that he objected to pay for the maintenance of the religion of other persons: in that feeling he most entirely shared. But how did that hon. Member adhere to his own principle? Did he not object to the withdrawal of the grant from Maynooth? The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had pronounced a very able and eloquent panegyric upon the Irish Church. Now, it seemed to him (Mr. Fox) very extraordinary that a person holding the exalted idea of the merits of that Church which was entertained by the right hon. Gentleman, should have been willing to pay Dissenters —to arm them, in fact, against that establishment. It certainly manifested proof of his very high opinion of it to subject it to such a test. His hon. Friend (Mr. Scholefield), and those who thought with him, were the consistent opponents of the grant to Maynooth, because they were opposed as well to the Regium Donum as to all other grants for religious purposes. He thought the Regium Donum included in the Amendment; that it was not was a a drawback upon its comprehensiveness, which might easily be remedied, because the Amendment included those grants which were paid under Acts of Parliament; and the others would come yearly before the House, and might be dealt with in the miscellaneous estimates. Were he a Roman Catholic he should feel humbled by the acceptance of this grant. Did Roman Catholics take it as a compromise? He had, moreover, another objection to all such grants; and that was, that, although the Church Establishment was amply provided for, she was sure to take the lion's share of all grants of money for ecclesiastical purposes. She had not only a large revenue of her own, but was also "a snapper up of unconsidered trifles." He found, on looking through Mr. Anstey's returns, that the whole amount granted by Parliament out of the taxation of the country for ecclesiastical purposes was 160,000l.; and how was that divided? The Scotch Church got 22,500l.; the Irish Presbyterians, 47,500l.—and let him observe, in passing, that this Vote deserved the consideration of the House, because the effect of the mode of its distribution was to multiply congregations where members were not multiplied. The Roman Catholics received 30,500l., including Maynooth, and the Protestant Dissenters, not above included, together with some nondescript religious bodies, 3.500l; while the Established Church was receiving no less than 56,000l. out of the 160,000l. voted for these incidental and miscellaneous bestowments, being about one-third of the whole amount. Now, whatever might be said on behalf of an Established Church, could not apply to the payment of ministers and preachers of all denominations; because the effect was, that the people suspected that persons bearing this character were under an inducement to give their adherence to the Government of the day, however tyrannical it might be. Such assistance could not be given to enable these ministers to preach the truth, for they contradicted one another, and people would argue that it was given to promote some sinister object. He should have thought that nothing could be more objectionable to the Roman Catholics than any scheme for the payment of their clergy, by which the Roman Catholic Church should come to be regarded as a fraternal establishment by the side of the Protestant clergy. In the eyes of many the Maynooth grant was an outpost and breakwater of the Established Church of Ireland. People argued, "If you destroy Maynooth, what will become of the Established Church?" Such a result would clear the way for a consideration of the question whether such an establishment as the Church of the minority was just and expedient in such a country as Ireland. On these grounds he should give his vole for the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Scholefield).

MR. J. BALL

said, he must protest against discussing on such an Amendment as the present the ecclesiastical arrangements of Ireland, though he could not help pointing out that not one of the various parties in that House professed to be contented with those arrangements as they at present stood; for while on the one side some hon. Gentlemen objected to the en- dowment of Maynooth, others were dissatisfied with the maintenance of the existing Church Establishment; and others, again, were wholly opposed to the principle of religious endowments in any shape or form. It was evident that the time was not far distant when the whole of this vast question must be considered in a comprehensive spirit, on the principle of the equal right of every member of the community to choose what religious community he should support. He felt an additional objection to entering upon that question since he was told that his hands were tied by the oath which he had taken at the table of the House as a Roman Catholic Member. Although he was conscious that he and many others who were in a position similar to his own, were anxious to deal with the question of religious endowments in no narrow or sectarian spirit, but with an earnest desire to secure the welfare and tranquillity of the entire Empire by achieving the welfare and tranquillity of Ireland, he felt that he might be hampered in so doing by the oath which he had taken though he confessed that he did not know accurately what was the extent of the obligation by which he and others wore tied; he therefore thought it was incumbent on the House, at the earliest possible occasion, to consider the nature of that tie, and to determine whether it ought any longer to exist. His object in rising on this occasion was to call attention to a statement made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) in the former part of the debate. That hon. Gentleman had, on that occasion, produced a number of extracts from Irish newspapers, relating to the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy. Now he (Mr. Ball) was acquainted with some of those papers. In one of them be had been denounced each week for months past, and had been accused of every crime and atrocity; but such was the character of that paper in Ireland that he never thought it worth while to notice it, and certainly he knew enough of those publications to make him exceedingly chary of using their evidence in his character as a Member of that House. When, however, such a paper was brought forward by a Member of that House, as voucher for the authenticity of certain facts, he had thought it his duty, for the sake of a gentleman whose friendship he had long possessed, to obtain his contradiction of a statement that he had conducted himself in a manner in which he (Mr. Ball) knew he was incapable of acting. It was stated in this publication that the Rev. Mr. Maher (who had throughout a long life well fulfilled the character of a Christian pastor), bad, at the election before last for that borough, told an elector who would not vote as he wished, "that he might go and be d—d." Now he was authorised by Mr. Maher to state that this story was an entire fabrication. That gentleman said in a letter which he had received from him, "I have never conceived or expressed such a wish for any of God's creatures in the whole course of my life." He must say that he thought the hon. Gentleman should have been more cautious as to the statements he brought forward with respect to the Catholic clergy, knowing, as he must do, the extent to which the combined influence of the odium theologicum and of political animosity would go in the fabrication of utterly unfounded statements. For his own part, he trusted that if these theological controversies were to continue (which he hoped might not be the case), they would be conducted in a spirit very different from that which had characterised the one in which they were then engaged.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, that on a former occasion the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had said that those who were prepared to support the Amendment were guilty of the greatest bigotry, in proposing to abolish not only the grant to Maynooth, but to all other religious institutions. They were of opinion, on the contrary, that they were only proclaiming the principle of even-handed justice when they said that no man ought to be called upon to contribute to the maintenance of a religion from which he dissented; and he thought it most extraordinary that those who were prepared to enunciate, with respect to all these endowments, the broad principle that no man should be called upon to contribute to a religion with which he did not concur, should be accused of bigotry. The hon. Member had also objected to this Amendment because it said nothing about the Regium Donum. But the Regium Donum did not exist now; it was only an annual grant, dependent, with other votes, upon the passing of the Miscellaneous Estimates; and he trusted that there was every probability that it would never again be brought before the House. If, however, when it was brought forward, the hon. Member would move that it should not be agreed to, he would have the cordial support of himself (Sir John Shelley) and of most of the Nonconformists, who thought it below their dignity to accept such a grant. The hon. Member for Montrose had called upon the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield) to withdraw his Amendment; but he hoped the hon. Member would do no such thing, because if he did he would not be acting fairly towards those who had voted against the original Motion in the belief that they could afterwards vote for the Amendment. Had there been no such Amendment before the House, he should have voted for the original Motion; though, most certainly, not upon the grounds stated by the Mover (Mr. Spooner); for he could conceive nothing more horrible —if it wore not unparliamentary to use such a word—more illiberal than much of that hon. Gentleman's speech. He never heard anything so illiberal as his attack upon the Roman Catholics and the Jesuits; and he believed that, if he had the opportunity, he would boil, flay, or roast every Roman Catholic in the country.

Mr. LUCAS

was anxious to make a short explanation. No one was more unwilling than he was to deny the great claims which many hon. Gentlemen in that House had on the gratitude of the Roman Catholics, for the stand which they had made against the bigoted outcry which had been raised in this country against their religion. He must, however, say, that the observations which he had made on a previous occasion—though delivered, perhaps, in the hurry of the moment—were not altogether without some foundation. Now, since he had spoken, he had examined the division list, and what had he found? Why, there were no less than 36 Gentlemen, representing Liberal constituencies, found amongst those who voted with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, though those very Gentlemen had before them the alternative of voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham. Of these Gentlemen one third were pledged to support the voluntary principle, and to oppose all religious endowments; and they were, he thought, justly chargeable in choosing to vote with the religious principles of their constituents. He, therefore, was inclined to think that his censure the other evening upon those hon. Members—though he spoke under the pressure of calls for a division—was not altogether without some show of justification. He wished also to remark upon an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis)— namely, that he had in his observations adopted a very bitter tone towards the Church of England. Now he (Mr. Lucas), considering the very great kindness which he had met with from both sides of the House, should be very sorry to use any terms savouring of sectarian bitterness; but, speaking as he was upon the great grievance of the Irish Church Establishment, he felt that he had not used language at all stronger than that for which he found a precedent in the observations of many hon. Members when speaking of the Roman Catholic religion. It was stated that the priests educated in Maynooth were educated for other purposes than those deemed necessary for the priesthood; that those endowments were used for the promotion of extreme opinions held by members of the Catholic Church in other parts of the world. He believed such allegations to be utterly unfounded. There was, no doubt, a great movement from Ireland to all parts of the globe, and, of course, many Catholic priests had assisted in it; but such instances were exceptions to the general rule. He, however, asserted, that during the last ten or fifteen years the Catholics had done their utmost to support their own colleges, and to spread their foreign missions in connexion with their own colleges. An appeal had been made to him by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox), who said that the Roman Catholics of Ireland ought to be ashamed of receiving from the Parliament of the United Kingdom so paltry a sum. He answered that appeal frankly. Let the question be put before the House in such a way as would fairly raise the question between all classes of the community, and he would say, that every support his friends could give him would be given on every occasion upon which the question would be fairly raised. His party, however, complained that the question was not fairly raised in this instance, but proposed to take away from the Roman Catholics an endowment which as it stood was of considerable advantage to them: they complained that their opponents, viewing them as beggars, were stripping them of those rags with which they were clothed, while they were leaving the well-dressed and the well-fed gentlemen in full possession of those comfortable garments of which they did not stand so much in need. His party declined to make any demand on any part of the ecclesias- tical funds for their own purposes—they were simply claiming religious equality. This was beginning at the wrong end. If their religious opponents began at the proper source, his party would support them; but until they took that course they would not support them.

MR. PHINN

said, he thought that religious discussions in that House were at all times to be deprecated; and he trusted that that would be the last discussion they would have on so irritating a topic during the present Session. He wished to offer a few observations in favour of the vote he intended to give for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham, because it might be supposed to be difficult to reconcile that vote with the vote he had given against the proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He had voted against that Motion because he thought it was conceived in a spirit of hostility and unfairness against his Roman Catholic brethren, and because he thought the reasons he had offered in support of his proposition were not sufficient to sustain it. He thought that the time had come when they ought to consider the whole of the religious institutions of Ireland, with a view to adapting them more to the religious feelings of the population and the circumstances of the country. He could not attribute any other reason for the variance which existed in the present Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and that which he made last year, except that there were some persons behind the scenes who knew that the hon. Gentleman's allegations could not be sustained. It was not because the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham fully answered his expectations and embodied his sentiments that he supported it; but he voted for it because be considered it to be a step in the right direction; and his difficulty in voting for it was increased by the language which had been used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield. As far as Ireland was considered, he did not think that this matter had ever been placed on a fair footing; he felt that a thorough investigation into the whole question of the religious establishments was necessary, and that the wisdom of Parliament must ultimately be applied to the subject. It was not by coming down to Parliament and charging the Roman Catholic clergy with teaching immorality and disloyalty that the subject could be approached in a proper Way; but it was by bringing forward some vast comprehensive scheme, which would not seek to cast opprobrium on one sect or the other, but which would treat the whole question as a matter of State policy, that they could, with any hope of successful result, enter into the consideration of this great subject. The hon. Member had no doubt a right to inquire whether the Roman Catholics were a moral and religious body. He had heard charges of a most serious character made against the teaching of the Roman Catholics; but he confessed that he had never heard an impeachment that rested upon solid grounds against the morality of the Catholic clergy. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire said that he would show the House their books, and from these books they would infer that the Roman Catholics were immoral. Should he not rather have said that he would show by their conduct that they were immoral, and then have traced their immorality to their books? He of course was willing to bear testimony to the character and value of the clergy of the Established Church. He did not believe that there was any class better calculated to improve and to adorn society than the clergy of that Church. But surely, if he were told that they studied the immodest odes of Horace, or the licentious comedies of Aristophanes, it would be just as good an argument to urge against their morality as against the morality of the Roman Catholic clergy from some of the books that were taught at Maynooth. And, in reference to the allegations respecting the disloyalty of the Roman Catholic clergy, and the charge that the teaching at Maynooth was inconsistent with loyalty, what did they amount to? Let them take the history of this country for the last twenty-five years. Could the riots of Bristol and other places be adduced as an argument against the morality taught at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge? Surely upon the same principle of fair play the circumstance of the late insurrection in Ireland could not be made use of as an argument against the teaching of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth—particularly when it was a well-assertained fact that there was not a single Roman Catholic clergyman engaged in that unfortunate affair. He would vote for the proposition of the hon. Member for Birmingham, because he thought that, if carried, it would have the effect of conferring a great boon on the Established Church in Ireland. He trusted that the present Government would now be convinced of the absolute necessity for the introduction of a comprehensive mea- sure on this subject—a measure which would have the effect of allaying all animosities generated by these annual discussions, and which would leave a lasting legacy of peace and tranquillity to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, after the discussion which had taken place, he wished to make a few observations upon the real question which they had to determine. Nothing was so unfortunate, and had led to such mistaken legislation, as the assertion which was sometimes made too confidently on one side, and not sufficiently refuted on the other, that the Established Church in Ireland was on the wane. That night the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) had asserted that the Church of England, in Ireland, was dying of inanition. Such a statement was in the highest degree erroneous. On the contrary, he maintained that the Church of the Reformation in Ireland was never at any period of its history stronger, purer, or firmer in the affections of the people than it was at that moment. Never was it so strong in numbers, in the north of Ireland particularly, as it was at present. Let them look around. With the single exception of the hon. Member for Newry, on the opposite benches, all the representatives for Ulster were members of the Established Church. The same observation applied to the Members for the capital of Ireland, the county of Dublin, and the University of Dublin. The return for Cork had yet to be tried, and the representation of Limerick was divided. It was unfair to represent the Protestants of Ireland as being a small and feeble minority. Ireland had suffered a diminution of population from causes which every one must deplore, but the affliction had not fallen on the Protestant districts of the country. It had recently been his painful lot to observe the desolation which pervaded the southern and western districts of Ireland, while he saw that Ulster was never more prosperous or populous. The hon Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had no doubt spoken ably and temperately on the present occasion; that hon. Gentleman had, however, spoken frequently in that House, and in Ireland, in a somewhat different spirit. The hon. Member was an Englishman, who had transferred his talents to Ireland. He (Mr. Whiteside) would have been glad if the speeches and writings of the hon. Gentleman had been generalty as temperate and as judicious as the speech he had favoured them with that day. If, however, he (Mr. Whiteside) recollected right, he had read that the hon. Gentleman said that he would never rest satisfied until that accursed thing called the Church of the Reformation was extirpated from Ireland. He wished to know how the Government was to be conducted in Ireland if the hon. Gentleman's opinions were taught by the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland, and adopted by the people? He (Mr. Whiteside) had nothing whatever to do with the fasts, ceremonies, or discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, and if a Committee were appointed to inquire into Maynooth, he would not ask a single question on those subjects; but the State had a right to know what were the exact relations subsisting between the priests of Rome and a foreign Power. He wanted to know, distinctly and emphatically, whether any of the doctrines that were taught in Maynooth, or by the Roman Catholic Church, were incompatible with civil government. That was a fair question; a question which, if they had an honest Committee, he would wish to have inquired into, and solved. Roman Catholic laymen were not so much affected by it as the priesthood: nevertheless it concerned all, and it was a grave and a serious question to be inquired into and discussed. The hon. Member for Meath had treated this question in a manner, and had propounded a doctrine in reference to it, which struck at the root of any civil government in Ireland. He published such language when writing of a law, which, if passed, must, he said, by Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects be disobeyed, according to the behests of a foreign Power. The hon. Member wrote in these terms:— You arc only at the beginning of your perplexity. The Pope will speak more loudly than ever; and, what is more, he will be listened to. He will turn over your musty Acts of Parliament with finger and thumb, scrutinising them with a most irreverent audacity, examining those which concern him; and, when he has found these, rejecting some and tolerating others with as much freedom as you use when you handle oranges in a shop, selecting the soft and sweet, contemptuously rejecting the sour and rotten. And then, 0 dreadful thought! he will insist upon being obeyed. The very slates at Exeter Hall must erect themselves in thought of such a thing. What! the Bill read three times in each House of Parliament; it was twice passed, engrossed on parchment, garnished with a waxen appendage by way of seal, and had over it, pronounced by Royal lips, the mysterious words and creative fiat, La Reine le veut. The Queen wills it—Her Lords will it—Her Commons will it. What does it want to complete the perfect fashion of a law? Nothing of solemnity, nothing of force which the Imperial sceptre of this Realm could give, is wanting to it. But, truly, it may want the sanction of religion. The Pone snuffs disdainfully at it. An Italian priest will have none of it; it trenches upon his rights, or, rather, upon his duties; it violates the integrity of those interests which he is set to guard; and, therefore, Commons, Lords, Queen, wax, parchment, and all, avail it but very little! You may call it law, if you please; you may note it on your roll; you may print it in the yearly volume of your statutes; but, before long, you will have to repeal or alter it, in order to procure the sanction of a foreign potentate, without which it has not the value of a tenpenny nail, Now, they had the author of this passage here face to face. It was one thing to address the priesthood of Ireland, and to stand upon an Irish hustings to be returned by a Roman Catholic constituency, and another to stand before the British House of Commons, and to maintain arguments that strike at the root of all constitutional authority, and would, if acted on, place the Members of this free Assembly in the position of slaves to Rome. He had nothing to do with the Roman Catholics as religionists. He had a sincere regard for his Roman Catholic as well as his Protestant brethren, and he lived in peace and harmony with them in Ireland. He had domestics in his house Roman Catholics, whom he esteemed as faithful, honest servants, and he believed that they were sincerely attached to him. But the question they were now considering was one which involved a serious matter between themselves and the Papacy—between themselves and the priesthood. An hon. Member stated his belief that if such a feeling as he had described had ever existed in the breasts of the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland, there was every reason to suppose that it was dying away; and, under the fostering influence of a paternal Government, would soon altogether cease. He (Mr. Whiteside) was sorry to say that he entertained no such hope. He believed that it began at the Reformation, and that it would exist as long as the Papacy itself should stand. He wanted to know whether the doctrines taught at Maynooth were such as the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Murphy), whom he saw opposite, described them to be, or were what were known by the designation of "Ultramontane." He was informed that the most extreme doctrines were promulgated under the authority of the Roman Catholic Archbishop Cullen, and that he insisted that the Pope prescribed, as it were, the circle of his jurisdiction for himself, within the limits of which it was criminal for a Roman Catholic to doubt or disobey his authority. Had they observed what had taken place in Ireland within the last few months? Was the House aware that the Vice-President of the Queen's College in Gal-way, who was a Roman Catholic of education and ability, and who was appointed to that important office by Her Majesty, had been compelled to resign it, in consequence of the superior authority exercised over him by the Pope? That gentleman wished to continue in the office. The Queen commanded him to discharge his duty. The Pone called upon him to resign his office. What was the result? He obeyed the Pope and threw up his office. Now he (Mr. Whiteside) wished to know whose subject was he? He wanted to know the nature of the obligation which bound him to do that act which he had done within the last few months? The Most Rev. Dr. M' Hale, a Catholic archbishop, was, he thought, a very able and learned man, and was considered a great ornament to the Church of Rome. How did he conceive himself entitled to act in reference to the College of Maynooth? He, (Mr. Whiteside) was informed that no Roman Catholic student could leave the diocese of Tuam to enter Maynooth without his special authority. He also understood that within the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Dublin no man could enter into Maynooth without the written assent of Dr. Cullen. Now both of those Roman Catholic prelates were said to be the advocates of Ultramon-tane opinions, and would therefore take care that no one should enter the College of Maynooth who did not hold their own extreme opinions. The late Sir Robert Peel, whose name was often quoted by persons desirous of suppressing their convictions, or of not exercising their independent judgment, had been referred to as an authority in favour of the grant to Maynooth, because he had satisfied himself upon the subject by the Report of a Commission which had inquired into the whole question. Now, what was the fact? That Commission had never made any report upon the main point at issue—and for this plain reason—there was a curious question, more necessary to be inquired into, as to whether the Jesuits were not to be found in the very heart of Maynooth—whether they had not an establishment there, and were not actually the ruling body, he Members that composed that Commission were in the utmost difficulty how to report upon these facts. He understood that some of them were of opinion, that they had found a Jesuit establishment within the walls of Maynooth—others that they had not—but they had found a monastic establishment under the title of a religious society, called "The Sodality of the Sacred Heart." The fact was, that this society was nothing more nor less than an offshoot from the Jesuit establishment in Rome, and that the history of these monastic institutions showed that when the Jesuit establishment was expelled from some nations, it was set up in others, under the name of "The Sodality of the Sacred Heart." He did not know whether such a society existed there at present, but that was matter for rigid investigation. Was that the only question which required to be examined into? It had been stated by an hon. Member on a former occasion that the professors of Maynooth had conducted themselves as it was expected they would do when Parliament had doubled their pay. Now Dr. M'Hale was, some years ago, a professor of Maynooth, and was examined before the Committee before referred to. There was put into his hands a tract on a subject on which, it was said, the professors of the college were forbidden to write, namely, our Establishment. Dr. M'Hale acknowledged that such a prohibition existed; yet acknowledged that he had himself published the tract without his real signature attached to it. He (Mr. Whiteside) held in his hand a document written "by the Rev. Patrick Murray, Professor of Domestic and Moral Theology in the Royal College of Maynooth," to which was attached the name of the rev. gentleman. He was an able scholar and a clever writer; and in this publication he raised a discussion upon casuistry, in reference to the oath taken by Roman Catholics at the table of the House of Commons. The rev. gentleman says, that the meaning of the oath was to be determined by the application of casuistry, and he puts the question in a way which he (Mr. Whiteside) would read to the House. He, however, puts the question thus:— The law of God binds us to keep a promissory oath. Catholic Members of Parliament swear not to use any privilege vested in them to the injury of the Protestant Church as by law established in these realms. Does this mean that a Catholic Member of Parliament shall not exercise his power of voting in favour of any measure introduced for the purpose of diminishing or abolishing the temporalities of the Irish Establishment, or of curtailing the number of bishoprics or benefices of any kind? Or does it mean that he shall not use his privileges to accomplish such objects by violent, fraudulent, or other unlawful means? In favour of this latter interpretation a great deal may be urged. If the former meaning be that in- tended by the legislative authority which framed and sanctioned the oath, the same end might have been attained in a manner not more offensive, infinitely less bungling and uncertain, namely, by having inserted in the Emancipation Act a clause depriving Catholic Members of the right of voting on such questions. To confer upon men the power of voting, and, at the same time, to compel them to swear that they should not vote except in one way, is a very absurd proceeding. Again, what is the meaning of the words 'by law established?' Do they signify, established by the law as it stood when the Emancipation Act passed, or as that law stands for the time being? The first cannot be said, for the Protestant Church does not now exist in that shape. If a Member of Parliament cannot vote against the Church Establishment, neither can he as a Member of Parliament speak against it; for in thus doing, he would exercise his senatorial privileges. If he enumerates the monstrous evils—if he depicts the hideous iniquity of this abomination of desolation—if he originates or openly concurs in any Motion for its quick or gradual removal, he is a perjurer. Again, the Catholic Member swears not to use his privilege to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion. So he cannot, as Member of Parliament, utter a single word, by way of argument, against any of what he, of course, believes to be the absurdities and contradictions of the Thirty-nine Articles—if an occasion should arise to render this expedient and becoming. Thus much and a great deal more might be urged in favour of what may be called the more liberal interpretation of the oath. Still there are sensible and conscientious men (along with some canting rogues) who hesitate. We do not purpose in this place to express any leaning to either side—we arc merely stating difficulties. It is of considerable importance that this piece of casuistry should be settled, in one way or other. Whose interpretation is to be taken, as a safe and sure guide. That of the imponent? Who is the imponent? The Government or Legislature of 1829, or both together, or later Parliaments, or the Parliament for the time being, or the community at large? If Father Suarez lived now, his decision on this case, delivered in his own luminous and solid manner, would tend much to the quiet of some consciences, and perhaps induce Mr. Macaulay to doubt whether there were not, after all, a meaning in this casuistry he little dreamed of.… . We might fill many volumes, as, indeed, many volumes are filled, with descriptions of cases that occur every day in every department of life. Casuistry! Why this is, in the wider sense of the word, the great daily business of every Christian who wishes to ensure a holy life. It was desirable to know whether the learned professor taught such doctrines as these in the college. A teacher in Maynooth might, without impropriety, lecture against the Thirty-nine Articles, but he was not justified in inculcating the doctrines which he had put his name to in that book. What was the late Mr. O'Connell's opinion of Maynooth, as an educational establishment? It was recorded in a book, entitled The Life of 0'Connell, by his son Mr. John O'Connell. His words were these; he was speaking in reference to the appointment of a Mr. Bellow as counsel for the College of Maynooth:— He tells us that he is counsel for the College of Maynooth, and in that capacity he seems to arrogate to himself much theological and legal knowledge. I concede the law, hut I deny the divinity; neither can I admit the accuracy of the eulogium which he has pronounced on that institution, with its mongrel board of control, half Papist and half Protestant. I was, indeed, at a loss to account for the strange want of talent— for the silence of Irish genius—which has been remarked within the college. I now see it easily explained. The incubus of jealousy and rival intolerance sits upon its walls; and genius, and taste, and talent fly from the sad dormitory where sleeps the spirit of dulness. I have heard, indeed, of their Crawleys and their converts; but where or when will that college produce a Magee or a Sandes, a M'Donnell, or a Griffin? When will the warm heart of Irish genius exhibit in Maynooth such bright examples of worth and talent as those men disclose? It is true that the bigot may rule in Trinity College, or the highest station in it may be the reward of writing an extremely bigoted or more foolish pamphlet; but still there is no conflicting principle of hostile jealousy in its rulers, and therefore Irish genius does not slumber there, nor is it smothered as at Maynooth. Now he (Mr. Whiteside) did not go the length of saying that there were not scholars in Maynooth. That was not his opinion. Mr. O'Connell's depreciating judgment was given in 1813; but was there any evidence that the College of Maynooth bad since elicited higher genius, or produced nobler fruits? The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had also pronounced a valuable opinion on Maynooth, which was calculated to have great influence on the minds of thinking men. In his work, The State in its Relations to the Church, Mr. Gladstone said— In principle the grant (to Maynooth) is vicious, and it will be a thorn in the side of the State as long as it continues. When foreigners express their astonishment at finding that we support, in Ireland, the Church of a small minority, we may tell them that we support it on the ground of conscientious necessity for its truth. But how should we blush at the same time to support an institution whose avowed and legitimate purpose it is constantly to denounce the truth as falsehood. It is monstrous that we should be the voluntary feeders of an establishment which exhibits at once our lax principles and our erroneous calculations. Now he (Mr. Whiteside) was not going to say that he agreed with either the opinion of the late Mr. O'Connell or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because be conceived that an establishment for the education of a national clergy conducted sensibly and properly—one that was opposed altogether to Ultramontane doctrines —might probably prove a benefit to the country. But he altogether denied that Maynooth was such an institution. In reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox), who disposed so quickly of our Ecclesiastical Establishment in Ireland, he (Mr. Whiteside) could only say, that whenever parties chose to raise that question those with whom he acted would be prepared to meet them. If his Church were to exist upon the grounds that hon. Gentleman stated, he would at once vote, "Away with his Church," rather than he would vote against his conscience. He would not consent to have his Church maintained because the College of Maynooth was to be supported. He entertained no feelings of dislike against the Roman Catholics or any other body of his countrymen. On the contrary, he heartily wished them to be prosperous and happy. But when the hon. Member said that the Protestant Church of Ireland was to he kicked about from one little clique to another, and the Church disposed of according to their caprice, he (Mr. Whiteside) would tell him that his Church was consecrated by the possession of centuries, by the declarations of Mr. Pitt, the pledges of Lord Castlereagh, and that they were bound by an article of the Union to maintain it. He would tell him that it was a fundamental article of the Union, and that nothing would induce them to give up its independence. He would recommend the hon. Member, before he agitated this question, to reflect whether it was at all likely that the Protestant nation in Ireland would consent to give up all it held most clear on the demand of persons who seek to obtain their objects by striking down those sacred principles upon which the Church of the Reformation stands. He agreed in the opinion that tithes nor church-rates nor bishops constitute the Church. No, the Church consists in the pure teaching of Scriptural doctrine. If it do not inculcate the simple and sublime truths of the Reformation, then he said away with it. The Church was more powerful and pure in Ireland than it was in this country. If they in Ireland bad adopted the varnish— the mere illusions, and the miserable imposture, concealed in some of the doctrines got up by a school in this country, he should be the first to say—"Away with the Church!" He condemned as much as any one a system of proselytism carried on by unfair means. When the hon. Member for Dungannon alluded to the proselytism that was going on in certain parts of Ireland, he should recollect that the Bishop of our Church in those parts of Ireland is or was a Whig—a gentleman who would inherit the honours of Plunket, the great advocate of Roman Catholic emancipation. That bishop was there placed in opposition to Dr. M'Hale. He was the best man that could be placed in that situation, because he was the friend of the poor, and did not apply his energies and powers to the conversion of the rich and the great. The Church was not now forgetful of the poor. Let him remind the hon. Member of the recent arrivals in Ireland. Mr. Wilberforce was made secretary of the Roman Catholic Defence Association, in preference to a native clergyman, because it was stated, this great scholar and eminent apostate would do the work of Rome. None so competent or efficient to execute such duties—consequently, he was made the secretary of an institution that was to destroy the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. He did not blame the Roman Catholics for making such an appointment. They might boast of their Oxford converts; but as a set-off the Protestant Church in Ireland could count a thousand of the poor for each of the rich converts to the Roman Catholic Church. Again, he said, that if these proselytes were made by any unfair means, he agreed with the hon. Member in condemning the system; but then, if it were by means of the simple truths of the Gospel —which it undoubtedly was—he could not understand how a Protestant Parliament would look with disfavour on the Church in Ireland because it was merely performing its sacred duty and executing its divine mission.

MR. LUCAS

rose to explain: the hon. and learned Gentleman had attributed to him words that he never uttered. The language he had attributed to him never fell from his lips, and never was in his mind. He would not be in order, perhaps, if he were now to make an explanation as to the other point, and he regretted the hon. and learned Gentleman did not make his attack upon him when he was in a position to reply to him.

MR. SERJEANT MURPHY

regretted exceedingly, that after the question of Maynooth had been disposed of by the vote upon Mr. Spooner's Motion, last Wednesday, and after the conciliatory speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn), the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite should have introduced into the discus- sion such extraneous matter, and so much matter calculated to produce religious exacerbation. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a speech of his last year on the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and he should now only allude to it in order to point out the course of proceeding which that hon. Member had taken. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) had last year put upon the books, at an early period of the Session, a notice for the repeal of the Maynooth Act: afterwards he substituted, as he said, from motives of fairness and justice, a Motion for inquiry; and although he did not dare to take a division upon that Resolution, but allowed the matter to go off upon a mere question of adjournment, he now came before them, took everything for proved, and stated with the utmost complacency that an inquiry was not necessary. Such had been the extraordinary course of procedure adopted by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) had taken an opportunity of introducing a parenthetic sneer at Sir Robert Peel. That sneer was easily understood, coming from Gentlemen who had hunted down that most lamented statesman for opinions which they had since adopted, and made use of in order to perform an act of the grossest political tergiversation. The hon. Member had alluded to Galway College. He granted that the Pope had prevented a Roman Catholic priest from acting in connexion with that College; and, as a strong supporter of the Queen's Colleges, he would to God that the difference between Rome and the Government on this question were adjusted in a way that would be acceptable to both parties; but "those who lived in glasshouses should not throw stones." The late Premier, when Secretary for Ireland, had established as a great national blessing a system of national education, the want of which had been severely felt; but no fewer than 1,200 clergymen of the Established Church had refused to receive that system. Now the head of the Roman Catholic Church had not gone so far as that. He had not forbidden Roman Catholic children to attend; but he had thought it right so far to refuse his sanction to the plan as to forbid a Roman Catholic dean to act as vice-president of the College. Yet they were now told of the refusal to acknow- ledge the Queen's College, as if it were a new thing to the world. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave, as a reason for making inquiries into Maynooth, that it would he found that the doctrines taught there were ultramontane. Now he (Serjeant Murphy) might not be considered any authority on such a point; but having been associated the whole of his life with Roman Catholics, he claimed to possess some information on the subject, and he begged to tell hon. Gentlemen that the education at Maynooth was not ultramontane, but that which was known as Cisalpine. When at the Revolution the doctors of the Sorbonne were compelled to disperse themselves over Europe, two of the most eminent members of that University because professors at Maynooth, and from that time to this Cisalpine doctrines had always been taught there. Just in the same way, however, as every Roman Catholic priest was called a Jesuit, so, he supposed, every Roman Catholic in Ireland was called an Ultramontanist. It was a mistake which arose entirely from want of information on the subject An hon. Gentleman opposite pointed to the book from which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Whiteside) had read an extract; but as a Roman Catholic he (Serjeant Murphy) was not answerable for that book—nor had he, until he came into the House, ever so much as heard of St. Thomas Aquinas's Secundœ Secundœ. He must say he had received a good deal of information from the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) upon subjects he had never heard of before; but, as Dr. Johnson told a lady who was complimenting him on having omitted all naughty words from his dictionary—"Madam, you would not have known that, had you not been looking for them." It had been well said that they ought to judge of a system by its fruits; and the Roman Catholics could appeal to the world whether any body of men could be found with so little of blemish upon their moral character—considering their numbers—as the Roman Catholic clergy. If he were to follow the example of hon. Members opposite, he might just as well ground an argument against the morality of the English clergy, that because dissipated and vicious young men might be found at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. the clergy of the Church of England who come out of those Universities were not pure and honourable and moral in their character, But that would be a very fallacious and unjust mode of reasoning; for he was glad, as a Roman Catholic, to recognise many English clergymen whose characters were unimpeachable. The only agreeable circumstance that could be discerned when famine was stalking over Ireland, was to see the Roman Catholic and the Protestant clergyman and the Presbyterian minister vying with each other in the discharge of every kind and charitable office; and sad indeed was it to see the good feeling which that mournful dispensation of Providence had produced amongst them dissipated by such Motions as that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. The only new elements in that hon. Gentleman's speech were the statements he had read with respect to the riotous and violent proceedings, which he attributed to the interference of the priests in Ireland, at the last election. Now as he (Serjeant Murphy) was himself charged with owing his election to such interference, it would be obviously improper in him to make any minute statement on the subject until the matter should come before the authorised tribunal of a Committee; but he would tell the hon. Gentleman this fact, which might perhaps startle him to hear. He begged to declare, in the most emphatic manner, that it was the priests who were behind the people, and not the people who were led on by the priests. He repeated that the priests were dragged into the contest by the people. And they would feel no wonder that the people were excited, when they recollected the proclamation against harmless Roman Catholic processions, which had emanated from the Government within ten days of the general election; and when they remembered, too, that in the town of Stockport there had been a procession of little Roman Catholic female children, such as had taken place without interruption for nineteen years previous, carrying no banners, or anything that could irritate the feelings of Protestants, except that each child wore a small cross—a symbol he should hope that all Christians might equally adopt — and yet that two days afterwards the Roman Catholic chapels in Stockport were torn down, and rifled, and the sacred elements thrown into the streets and trodden under foot. Pour days aft or that Her Majesty's Ministers placed before the country a document called the Queen's Speech, in which, having abandoned their old principle of protection, they were obliged to raise in this country the cry of Protestantism. Let the House look to these things, and say whether the Roman Catholics of Ireland had not reason to be distrustful of the Government. In the courts of justice, too, the Irish people had seen the manner in which a Roman Catholic clergyman had stood his trial; and they had heard the cheers of those who had listened with kindness to everything that could tell against him. They had seen even the highest authority in the Court of Queen's Bench catching at the applause of the bystanders, and holding a paper in his hand at a distance from him as if he did not like it to come Betwixt the wind and his nobility, exclaiming, "Thank God, we have no Inquisition in this country!" Since then, by-the-by, they had seen the court repairing what they had complained of. They had appealed from the Court of Queen's Bench drunk to the Court of Queen's Bench sober, and four Judges had reversed the acts of one. But when the people of Ireland had witnessed all these things, no wonder that excitement should have prevailed at the general election in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made a boastful appeal to the proselytes making to Protestantism in Ireland. No doubt they might be shown by thousands, but of what kind were they? He would not stop to point out the means resorted to for the purpose of securing these so-called conversions; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman boasted so much of Protestantism in Ireland, surely he had overlooked what had been taking place in England. When the hon. Gentleman saw persons of high station in the Universities, and persons gifted with the means of investigating the truth, doing so, and then thinking proper to embrace the Roman Catholic religion, he might, as a lawyer, have understood, according to the legal maxim, that witnesses non numerantur sed ponderantur, were to be reckoned, not by their numbers, but by the weight which their evidence would carry. Surely, a few of such converts proved far more than the greatest number of peasants tempted by famine, misery, and desolation to do wrong. He could appeal to the names of such men as Mr. Newman and Dr. Manning; and he could well afford to make the hon. and learned Gentleman a present of Dr. Achilli. They had been told that they had no right to deal with the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the solemn compact entered into at the time of the Union. Now, on this subject he must call attention to the controversy which had been raised in that House, and in another place, with reference to the Canadian clergy reserves. A British Peer, a Scotch Presbyterian Peer at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and an English Bishop, had all concurred in recommending that a solemn agreement, entered into in 1795 with reference to the clergy reserves of Canada, might be taken up and reconsidered; the Bishop of Oxford had said that the principle of finality was not to be heard of in legislation; and if this was the case in Canada, what great injustice would there be if it was demonstrated that in Ireland there were funds held by the Established Church of enormous magnitude to which Roman Catholics contributed, and that of those funds there should be an entire redistribution? Well might it be observed, that it would be well for Ireland if she could be shifted a thousand miles more westward, and be dealt with as a colony. Would to God that she could! and then she might have a chance of being treated with justice and common sense. The Resolution before the House related to endowments for religious purposes; but he denied that Maynooth was such an endowment. It was an endowment for educational purposes, and did not stand on the same footing as the Regium Donum. It was the duty of the State to educate all classes of its subjects that had not the power to educate themselves, while they gave to every sect the right to worship God according to their consciences, so long as they violated no principle of decency or propriety. Even as a choice of evils, it was fit that they should have an educated rather than an uneducated clergy. But he would add that, if they did away with the necessity of contributing to the Established Church, he could truly say that that burden being removed, Catholics might probably be able, without coming to Parliament, to educate their own ministers.

MR. KIRK,

believing that he was the only Irish Presbyterian in that House, and might, therefore, he said, in some degree, to represent no less than 700,000 of the inhabitants of Ireland, said he felt deeply the extraordinary sneers which had been thrown out against that sect for their acceptance of the Regium Donum. The acceptance of the Regium Donum was not a matter which ought to be objected against them, because it was granted to them in the year 1689, as a compensation for a right of which their clergy were deprived. Prior to that the then clergy of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland Were endowed by the State, inasmuch as they received tithes on equal terms, and in the same manner, as the clergy of the Established Church. That system obtained from about 1601 or 1602 down to 1662, when the Presbyterian clergy were deprived of those revenues by the operation of the Act of Uniformity passed after the restoration of Charles II. On the landing of King William III, in Ireland, a deputation waited upon him, the result of which was, that he granted a sum of 1,200l. a year, to be charged on the customs of the port of Belfast, for the purpose of remunerating the Irish Presbyterian clergy for the revenues of which they had been unjustly deprived. When the Regium Donum was mentioned in this debate by some hon. Members, it had been sneered at; but whenever the question of the Regium Donum came fairly before the House on its own merits, which it did not now, he hoped to have an opportunity of defending it at much greater length than the House was now disposed to listen to him. The real question now under discussion had, in a great measure, been departed from. It had been said they were asserting a principle. If there was any principle at all involved in the matter, there must be two concerned in it. There was the question of a certain endowment or grant to the Presbyterian clergy of Scotland, and of another to the college of Maynooth for educational and religious purposes. He was acquainted with the opinions of the Roman Catholics of the north of Ireland; and he must say he had never conversed with a single Roman Catholic who was not most anxious that a fair and honest inquiry should be made into the doctrines taught at Maynooth, in the full belief that investigation would vindicate that institution against the attacks made on it. Under the belief that the Roman Catholics should be able to justify the grant, he thought it would be exceedingly unfair to withdraw it, now that it had been made, without such an inquiry; and for that reason he should decidedly vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham.

MR, COGAN

concurred in the abstract principle asserted in the Motion before the House; and if that principle was carried out in its full integrity, he should support the Motion; but he could not do so in its present shape, for he felt that the very same objections applied to it as to the original Motion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Spooner). If it was true that the clergy educated at Maynooth were taught doctrines there such as the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Whiteside) had represented, that seminary ought not only not to be endowed, but not even tolerated. According to the arguments of that hon. and learned Gentleman, the clergy educated there were unfit for civilised society; indeed, if the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasoning were pushed to its legitimate conclusion, not only ought the measure of Catholic Emancipation to be repealed, but the Roman Catholic religion itself should not be tolerated. He (Mr. Cogan) could not refrain from expressing his hearty satisfaction that that hon. and learned Gentleman had ceased to be one of the law officers of the Crown; for any person holding the opinions which that hon. and learned Gentleman held—and he (Mr. Cogan) believed held conscientiously—was not fit to carry out impartially the duties that appertained to that high office. He would advise the hon. Member for Birmingham not to press this Motion to a division, believing, as he (Mr. Cogan) did, that the time would come when the whole question of the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, and ultimately of this country, would be brought under review in that House.

MR. P. O'BRIEN,

as an Irish Roman Catholic Member, tendered his thanks to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn) for his kind and conciliatory speech, and expressed regret that the tone adopted by that hon. Gentleman had not been imitated by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis-killen (Mr. Whiteside). The speech of the latter seemed to refer much more to the Motion for inquiry into Maynooth than to the abolition of the grant, which was the question raised by the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Whiteside) had alluded to Maynooth as a "dull institution;" but immediately after doing so he read a quotation from a book published by a professor of theology in that college, and in which very book there was a review of a work by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in which, borrowing a phrase from Thomas Carlyle, the author termed the hon. and learned Member's book a "wind bag." He should not now go into the general question; but, with reference to the charges that had been brought against the Catholic priesthood for their interference at the recent elections in Ireland, he hoped the time would come when he should have an opportunity of stating to the House exactly how the influence of the priesthood had been exercised at those elections.

MR. MUNTZ

had opposed the endowment of Maynooth in 1845, both by his speech and his vote, because he believed that all grants for religious purposes were injurious to the State, and he did not value the religion that required support of that kind. He did not object to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) the other night; and for the same reason that he so voted then, namely, because he was opposed to all religious endowments, he should vote with his hon. Colleague (Mr. Scholefield) now. If the present vote was to be considered in the light of a bonâ fide vote, there could be no difficulty about the matter at all; it would be not only a vote against Maynooth, but against all other similar grants. It was said to be a very invidious thing to attack the Maynooth endowment first; but that he did not consider to have been done. In his opinion, the attack had been made on another Church first, in the matter of ministers' money, which stood precisely upon the same grounds. Did any Gentleman present conscientiously believe that the time would ever come when any one Motion would repeal all these grants? The fact was, they must proceed by instalments. All great reforms had been effected in that way. If he could not get all he wanted, he would take all he could get. Therefore, he contended, if they were ever to get rid of these grants generally, they must get rid of them individually. In giving his vote for the present Motion, he did so with the feeling that if they could get rid of all endowments at once, he would do so by one vote.

SIR JOHN FITZGERALD,

as the representative of a Roman Catholic county, protested against the language used by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Whiteside), which was calculated to stir up the worst passions. He said that every step had been taken by the last Government to defeat liberal candidates; and if the Roman Catholic clergy had interfered at the last election in Ireland, they had done so for the purpose of resisting the intimidation of the landlords. He considered the accusations against the loyalty of the Roman Catholic clergy to be most unfounded.

MR. SPOONER

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) had gone so completely into the question of Maynooth, that he should not touch upon the question now, but content himself merely with answering the appeals which had been made to him on the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) got up with a view to reply to his hon. and learned Friend; but feeling how great was his inability to do so, and that he could not deny the facts, or controvert the conclusions to which his hon. and learned Friend had arrived, with characteristic ingenuity he proceeded to divert the attention of the House from the subject, and delivered a long speech about the Canadian reserves. The hon. and learned Member said that he (Mr. Spooner) had put two different Motions on the books last year; and that when he found he could not carry the Motion for inquiry, he then tried to wipe off the endowment without inquiry. The hon. and learned Member added that at that time the Roman Catholic Members were all eager and anxious for inquiry. Now, he (Mr. Spooner) appealed to hon. Members who sat in that House during the last Parliament whether or not that was a fair statement of the facts? True, hon. Members professed a desire for inquiry; but whilst they did that, they took good care to meet him day after day with every obstacle which the forms of the House placed within their power. They acted, indeed, as if they were determined that an inquiry should not take place; and they used the forms of the House in such a manner that at length he felt himself obliged to rest altogether on the mere question of adjournment. He (Mr. Spooner) had been charged with having brought forward statements against the Roman Catholic clergy in regard to their conduct at the last elections in Ireland, which were totally unfounded; and it was said that the papers he had quoted from did not deserve the attention of the House. Now, at the time he quoted these papers he stated that he knew nothing about the parties they might chance to represent. He quoted extracts, not only from public papers circulated in Ireland, but from a number of English papers, into which extracts had been copied. And he had done this in order to show that the education at Maynooth had not been such as to answer the expectations of those who proposed the endowment of that college. But was it to be believed that the various papers he had quoted—agreeing, as they did, in the circumstances, and giving the names and the places—could be all in a conspiracy to state that which was utterly false? If they were, why did not the Irish Roman Catholic priesthood come forward and vindicate themselves in the courts of law? Why did they not file criminal informations against the papers which thus slandered them? Surely, if they suffered such statements to be made in their own country, under their very eyes, and to go uncontradicted, no one could be blamed for arriving at the conclusion that the statements were correct. That, in his judgment, afforded a pretty satisfactory proof of the charge he had made that the education at Maynooth had not answered the purpose for which the endowment of that institution was effected. He had also been told that the books from which he had quoted were not believed by all Roman Catholics, and that they were not bound by their contents. That point he left Roman Catholic gentlemen to settle with their priests. It was an undoubted fact, however, that the books referred to were taught at Maynooth, and that the State paid for such teaching. He did not arraign individuals amongst the Roman Catholics for their private opinions, but he did arraign this House and the Government of this country for giving their sanction to the doctrines disseminated at Maynooth. He had moved for the withdrawal of the endowment, not from any mere pecuniary consideration—not from any objection to endowments for the cultivation and teaching of true religion—his objection to Maynooth was, that doctrines were taught there which were not only repugnant and injurious to society at large in this country, but completely subversive of that Protestant principle which the Sovereign upon the Throne was bound to maintain, and which Parliament ought, by every means in its power, to uphold and defend. Show him any other college endowed with the money of the State in which such doctrines were taught—where the supremacy of the Pope of Rome was asserted as against the supremacy of the Crown—and where doctrines totally antagonistic to the holy word of God were maintained, and he would be the first to vote for the withdrawal of the endowment. But he could not consent to purchase it upon the low-ground his hon, Friend (Mr. Muntz) had suggested, and should, therefore, vote against the Resolution of the Member for Birmingham.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 68; Noes 262: Majority 194.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Hastie, A.
Alcock, T.	Hutchins, E. J.
Anderson, Sir J.	Jackson, W.
Bell, J.	Kershaw, J.
Berkeley, hon. C. F.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Biggs, W.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Laing, S.
Brown, H.	Langton, H. G.
Challis, Ald.	Laslett, W.
Chaplin, W. J.	Mackie, J.
Cheetham, J.	Massey, W. N.
Clay, J.	Miall, E.
Clay, Sir W.	Michell, W.
Clifford, H. M.	Muntz, G. F.
Cowan, C.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Pellatt, A.
Crook, J.	Phillimore, J. G.
Crossley, F.	Phinn, T
Currie, R.	Pigott, F.
Duncan, G.	Pilkington, J.
Duncombe, T.	Price, W. P.
Dundas, F.	Scobell, Capt.
Dunlop, A. M.	Scrope, G. P.
Evans, Sir De L.	Seymour, H. D.
Ewart, W.	Smith, J. B.
Fergus, J.	Stuart, Lord D.
Forster, C.	Thompson, G.
Fox, W. J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Freestun, Col.	Warner, E.
Gardner, R.	Whalley, G. H.
Geach, C.	Willcox, B. M.
Goderich, Visct.	Williams, W.
Goodman, Sir G.
Hadfield, G.	TELLERS.
Hall, Sir B.	Scholefield, W.
Hastie, A.	Shelley, Sir J.

List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Blair, Col.
A'Court, C. H. W.	Bland, L. H.
Adair, H. E.	Blandford, Marq. of
Adderley, C. B.	Boldero, Col.
Annesley, Earl of	Bonham-Carter, J.
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.	Booth, Sir R. G.
Arkwright, G.	Bower, G.
Bagge, W.	Brady, J.
Bailey, Sir J.	Bramston, T. W.
Baillie, H. J.	Bremridge, R.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Brisco, M.
Ball, E.	Brooke, Lord
Ball, J.	Brooke, Sir A. B.
Barrington, Visct.	Browne, V. A.
Barrow, W. H.	Bruce, Lord E.
Bellew, Capt.	Bruce, C. L. C.
Bentinck, G. P.	Bruce, H. A.
Berkeley, Adm.	Buck, L. W.
Biddulph, R. M.	Burghley, Lord

Butt, G. M.	Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Byng, hon. G. H. C.	Herbert, Sir T.
Cairns, H. M.	Hervey, Lord A.
Campbell, Sir A. I.	Heywood, J.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Higgins, G. G. O.
Carnac, Sir J. R.	Hildyard, R. C.
Charteris, hon. F.	Hope, Sir J.
Chelsea, Visct.	Horsfall, T. B.
Child, S.	Hotham, Lord
Christy, S.	Hutt, W.
Clinton, Lord R.	Ingham, R.
Cobbold, J. C.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Cocks, T. S.	Irton, S.
Cogan, W. H. F.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Coles, H. B.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Jones, Capt.
Corbally, M. E.	Jones, D.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Kendall, N.
Davies, D. A. S.	Kennedy, T.
Davison, R.	King, J. K.
Denison, J. E.	Kirk, W.
Dering, Sir E.	Knatchbull, W. F.
Devereux, J. T.	Knox, Col.
Drummond, H.	Knox, hon. W. S.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Laffan, R. M.
Duff, G. S.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.
Duff, J.	Lewisham, Visct.
Duffy, C. G.	Liddell, H. G.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Duncombe, hon. W. E.	Lockhart, A. E.
Dundas, G.	Lockhart, W.
Dunne, M.	Lovaine, Lord
Du Pre, C. G.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Egerton, Sir P.	Lowther, Capt.
Elliot, hon. J.E.	Lucas, F.
Emlyn, Visct.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Fagan, W.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Fellowes, E.	M'Cann, J.
Ferguson, Sir R.	M'Gregor, J.
Filmer, Sir E.	Haddock, Sir T. H.
Fitzgerald, J. D.	Maguire, J. F.
Fitzgerald, Sir J. F.	Malins, R.
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Mandeville, Visct.
Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.	Manners, Lord J.
Forbes, W.	Masterman, J.
Forester, rt. hon. Col.	Meagher, T.
Forster, M.	Meux, Sir H.
Forster, Sir G.	Miles, W.
Fortescue, C.	Milner, W. M. E.
Franklyn, G. W.	Mitchell, T. A.
French, F.	Moffatt, G.
Freshfleld, J. W.	Molesworth. rt. hn. Sir W.
Gooch, Sir E. S.	Monck, Visct.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Monsell, W.
Grace, O. D. J.	Montgomery, Sir G.
Graham, Lord M. W.	Moody, C. A.
Greenall, G.	Morgan, O.
Greene, J.	Morgan, C. R.
Grenfell, C. W.	Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Greville, Col. F.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Mullings, J, R.
Guernsey, Lord	Mure, Col.
Halford, Sir H.	Murphy, F. S.
Halsey, T. P.	Naas, Lord
Hamilton, Lord C.	Napier, rt. hon. J.
Hamilton, G. A.	Newark, Visct.
Hanbury, hon. C. S. B.	Newdegate, C. N.
Hardinge, hon. C. S.	Newport, Visct.
Heathcoat, J.	Noel, hon. G. J.
Heathcote, Sir G. J.	North, Col.
Heathcote, G. H.	Oakes, J. H. P.
Henchy, D. O.	O'Brien, P.
Heneage, G. F.	O'Connell, M.

O'Flaherty, A.	Stanley, Lord
Osborne, R.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Ossulston, Lord	Stephenson, R.
Paget, Lord A.	Stirling, W.
Pakenham, Capt.	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.	Stuart, H.
Palmerston, Visct.	Sullivan, M.
Parker, R. T.	Swift, R.
Patten, J. W.	Tancred, H. W.
Peacocke, G. M. W.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Peel, F.	Thompson, Ald.
Peel, Col.	Tollemache, J.
Percy, hon. J. W.	Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Phillipps, J. H.	Turner, C.
Phillimore, R. J.	Tyler, Sir G.
Portal, M.	Vance, J.
Portman, hon. W. H. B.	Vane, Lord A.
Powlett, Lord W.	Vane, Lord H.
Prime, R.	Vernon, G. E. H.
Repton, G. W. J.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Robartcs, T. J. A.	Villiers, hon. F.
Robertson, P. F.	Vivian, J. E.
Rolt, P.	Waddington, D.
Rushout, Capt.	Walcott, Adm.
Russell, F. C. H.	Wall, C. B.
Sadleir, J.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Sawle, C. B. G.	Welleslev, Lord C.
Scott, hon. F.	West, F. R.
Scully, F.	Whatman, J.
Scully, V.	Whiteside, J.
Seymer, H. K.	Whitmore, H.
Seymour, Lord	Wickham, H. W.
Shelburne, Earl of	Wigram, L. T.
Sibthorp, Col.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Smith, W. M.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Smyth, J. G.	Wyndham, Gen.
Smollett, A.	Wyndham, W.
Sotheron, T. H. S.
Spooner, R.	TELLERS.
Stafford, A.	Hayter, W. G.
Stanhope, J. B.	Berkeley, C. G.

Main Question, as amended, negatived.