MAYNOOTH COLLEGE— ADJOURNED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT).

HC Deb 06 June 1855 vol 138 cc1488-533

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [1st May]— That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the Acts for the Endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any Endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights or interests.

And which Amendment was to leave out from the word "considering," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "all grants or endowments for ecclesiastical purposes, whether charged on the Consolidated Fund or annually voted by Parliament, with a view to their withdrawal, due regard being had to vested rights or interests," instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. SERJEANT O'BRIEN

said, he was opposed to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), which was of no ordinary character, and involved considerations of greater interests than would appear from a reference to the mere amount of the grant. The establishment against which the Motion was directed was not the result of hasty or ill-considered legislation. For upwards of fifty years successive Parliaments had recognised, by their annual grants, the justice and expediency of the principle that some State provision should be made for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy. That principle had been adopted by their most distinguished statesmen—not alone by those who advocated the claims of the Roman Catholics, but also by those who were uniformly opposed to such concession. In 1845 it was felt by the Government of Sir Robert Peel that the amount of the grant was wholly insufficient for its purpose; they felt, also, the injurious effect of those irritating discussions which accompanied its annual renewal, and the necessity of putting it upon a more extended and permanent basis—and, accordingly, after much deliberation, and with the concurrence of unusually large majorities of both Houses of Parliament, that Act was passed which the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) now seeks to repeal. He (Serjeant O'Brien) regretted that this question had been brought forward—not that he apprehended any injury to the object of this attack, from inquiry or debate—not that he entertained any doubt that the justice and wisdom of the Legislature would ensure the ultimate rejection of this proposal—but he regretted the perpetual renewal of these religious struggles—the effort to convert this assembly into an arena for polemical discussion—he regretted still more the embittered spirit that would necessarily be aroused by perseverance in a measure which evinced such inveterate hostility to the religion of a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects, which was unjust in principle, and grounded upon reasoning so injurious to the character, so offensive to the feelings of those who professed that religion. With respect to the original establishment of Maynooth, in 1795, it would be unnecessary for him to go at any length into those details which had been so fully stated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, of the circumstances in which this country was then placed—the insecurity of her foreign relations—the imperative necessity which then existed of conciliating the Irish people, and of attaching them to the British Government by other motives than those of fear—the manifest danger of leaving the spiritual directors of the Irish people dependent for their education upon foreign and hostile states. These were the circumstances which rendered the original grant a measure of unquestioned expediency, and insured its unopposed adoption by a Parliament essentially Protestant, and by a Monarch whose strongest motive of action was to maintain, unimpaired, the supremacy of his Church. But he would not rest the case upon expediency alone—there were considerations to show that the original establishment of Maynooth might be supported on higher grounds—that it was an act of clear, though incomplete and tardy justice. It should not be forgotten that although on the establishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland, the great majority of the people adhered to the Roman Catholic religion, yet that the property originally dedicated to the support of that religion was transferred to the Protestant Church; it was transferred against the will of the people—by the strong arm of power—and because the rulers, though not the people, had changed their faith. When, at length, the profession of that religion was tolerated; when their clergy were permitted to discharge the duties of their calling without incurring the penalties of the law, then the people increasing in numbers and intelligence, but, impoverished by confiscation, were unable to meet those necessary demands for the education of their clergy which would have been provided for if the property of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as of the Roman Catholic people, had not been wrested from the hands of its original possessors. The injury did not rest here. During the continuance of the persecution, when the domestic education of the laity or clergy was proscribed by law, means had been found to establish in France and other European States various seminaries for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy. From time to time those establishments had been endowed by various grants from Roman Catholic sources; and at the breaking out of the French Revolution they were of sufficient extent to support nearly five hundred students. It appeared by returns laid before Parliament, when the late Duke of Wellington was Secretary for Ireland, that seven of these colleges Were in France, and others in Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Rome. By the French Revolution the establishments in that country were destroyed, and their property confiscated; and thus the Roman Catholics of Ireland, though deprived by the penal laws of the privileges of British subjects, lost in that Character the property which those very laws compelled them to place under the control of a foreign State. He would press these matters—particularly, upon the consideration of those hon. Members who dissenting altogether from the opinions and reasoning of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, repudiating any hostility to the Roman Catholic religion, were yet expected by him to support this Motion, because they were opposed to all State endowments for ecclesiastical purposes, and not because they considered the Roman Catholics of Ireland less entitled to such endowment than the members of any other religion. He would ask those hon. Members whether the circumstances to Which he had referred—the continued persecution of the Roman Catholics—the compulsory transfer Of their property—and the fact Of that religion being still professed by the great majority of the Irish people, did not put their claims for a State provision for the education of their clergy upon grounds very different from those applicable to other religions? did not (as had been already stated by higher authority in that House), give to the endowment of Maynooth somewhat of the character of restitution; and whether those hon. Members, notwithstanding the opinions which they held upon the general question, should not now support this grant. Supposing, however, they should not consider that these circumstances gave the Roman Catholics any greater claim for such provision than other religions had, then he would ask them to adopt the course taken by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield), who stated that if his Amendment was rejected he would support the continuance of the grant for Maynooth. The measure brought forward by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Spooner) was not for the abolition of all ecclesiastical endowments, but of one. In the further extension of the principle for which these Gentlemen contend, they could expect no support from that hon. Member, by whom such principle is disavowed. Would they then rightly assert that principle by concurring in his (Mr. Spooner's) policy, while they disclaim his motives. They should recollect that many principles, just in their general application, could not without injustice be partially applied—and it would be unjust to the Catholics of Ireland to make them the subject of the exceptional legislation now proposed—to inflict upon them a positive and immediate injury in the hope that these hon. Members by so doing might insure at some future period the abolition of all similar endowments. It had been argued that the Act of 1795, and the subsequent Statutes of 1800 and 1808, contained no provision for the permanent endowment or Maynooth—that the annual Acts made from time to time were Acts of bounty determinable at pleasure—and gave the Catholics no claim, and constituted no compact for such permanent provision. Now it was not necessary to rest this case upon the ground of compact. If no provision had ever been made for the education of the Catholic clergy, justice and policy would alike require that such a course should now be adopted. But with reference to this question of compact, he would contend that where the Government had deliberately adopted a certain policy towards the people of Ireland, and by continued adherence to that policy had induced the people to expect its continuance, and to act on the faith of such expectation, then, though no actual compact had been originally made, a capricious departure from that policy Would be inconsistent with the obligations of honour and good faith. In considering this question of compact, and the obligation which existed on the part of the Government to continue the grant, they were not left to mere inferences, which at this remote period might be drawn from facts imperfectly understood—they had surer sources of information in the recorded opinions of those who, from their position, had peculiar means of knowledge, and better grounds than how exist, of estimating the extent of such obligation. In 1807, when it was proposed by Sir John Newport to increase the grant to 13,000l. Mr. Perceval opposed the increase, but stated that, as the Irish Parliament had thought such a measure advisable, the United Legislature Were bound by good faith to continue the original grant. In the following year, when a similar proposition Was made for increase, Mr. Perceval, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, again opposed the increase, but stated that after the connexion of this country with the Irish Catholics since the Union, the grant of the Irish Parliament should hot be diminished. These opinions of Mr. Perceval—and he expressed the same opinions whether in or out of office—were adopted by the Government and party of which he was the leader, though comprising so many determined opponents of the Roman Catholic claims. In the Debates of that period would be found an instance of the conduct pursued by the Roman Catholics with reference to this matter. In 1807, Napoleon Bonaparte, anxious to have the Irish priesthood educated in France, made liberal proposals to the Roman Catholic bishops for the purpose, and offered to restore the endowments of the Irish Colleges, which were lost by the Revolution. To that proposal the Irish bishops gave (as by their loyalty and allegiance to the Crown they were bound to do) a decided rejection. In their answer they stated their gratitude to the British Government for the liberal support of Maynooth, and threatened suspension against any functionaries, and exclusion from preferment in Ireland against any students Who should accept the offer of the enemy of their country. Such was the conduct of the heads of that church whose loyalty is now impugned. If friendly relations had then existed as they now do between this country and France, the offer might have been accepted With disloyalty to the Crown; but would it have been Conducive to the interests of this country, that on the interruption of those relations, so uncertain in their continuance the candidates for the Irish priesthood should be recipients of the bounty of a hostile State? And could a stronger instance be adduced of the wisdom of the policy adopted by Mr. Perceval and his colleagues, who, with an attachment to the Protestant religion not inferior to that of the hon. Member opposite, did not think the continued endowment of Maynooth inconsistent with the interests of that religion. It was contended by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) that these references to the original establishment and annual grants for Maynooth did not affect the question before the House of repealing the Act of 1845, which provided for its permanent endowment out of the consolidated fund. It could not be clearly collected from that right hon. and learned Member whether if that Act was now repealed he would consent to a renewal of the former grants; but considering the manner in which this Motion was brought forward, and the grounds upon which it was argued, it was impossible to regard it has having any other object in view than the Withdrawal of all provision for the Catholic clergy, Whether out of the Consolidated Fund of otherwise. The circumstances, therefore, which occurred before 1845 bore Strongly upon the question now before the House. Besides, if justice or expediency required that any provision should be made for the education of the Catholic clergy of Ireland, could the right hon. and learned Member contend that such provision should not be made to the extent, and in the general manner provided for by that Act. The Act of 1845 introduced no new principles—it confirmed those upon which the Government and the people had so long acted—varying the mode of the application according to the increasing exigencies of the establishment for which provision was to be made, and remedying those defects which Were inseparable from the former system. But Supposing that in 1845 there was no obligation on the Government to make any such provision—supposing that the measure then passed was, as alleged by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Spooner) a free grant, without consideration, and without any corresponding sacrifice on the part of the Roman Catholics—was that to be relied on now as a ground for the repeal of an Act by which (whatever may be said of former proceedings) a compact was clearly and deliberately made by the Legislature with the people of Ireland? Should questions of national policy—of the obligations existing between the Government and the people—be decided by inquiries into the comparative amount of consideration? When privileges were conceded, and benefits conferred upon a people by their rulers, they were not revocable merely because they were voluntary. The right to their continuance acquired by the people may be forfeited by misconduct, but the existence of such misconduct should be clearly established. Now, with respect to the charges against Maynooth, how did the matter stand? They were not now brought forward for the first time. The hon. Member opposite having repeatedly made them and demanded inquiry, to substantiate them the late Commission was issued, and the Report of the Commissioners furnished of itself a satisfactory refutation of those charges. It would be anticipating the discussion of another Motion, of which the hon. Member opposite has given notice, to enter into the details of the complaints made by him against the proceedings under that Commission. But he (Serjeant O'Brien) would remind the House that from the circumstance and dates already mentioned by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was manifest that the fact of a copy of the evidence having been given to Dr. Cullen, and taken by him to Rome long after that evidence was completed and printed, could have no possible bearing on the case. With respect to the alleged alterations in the evidence of some of the witnesses after it was verbally given, and before it was printed, he believed it was legitimate and usual that in proceedings under Commission of inquiry, or before Committees of that House, witnesses interrogated on abstract points involving many and difficult considerations should be allowed, under certain restrictions, to explain or modify their verbal evidence. In the present instance they had the high authority of Lord Harrowby, from his statement in another place, and of Dr. Twiss, from his published letter to that noble Lord, that permission for such alterations had been given by the Commissioners, and that their rules had not been transgressed. But further, it was before the Commissioners that the verbal evidence was given; on that they had formed their conclusions, and it was not pretended that their Report was influenced by any such alterations. It was charged against Maynooth, that the doctrines taught there inculcated disloyalty to the Crown, and breach of good faith in our private dealings with those of a different creed, and that the minds of the students were demoralised by the course of their studies. It was almost humiliating that Catholics in that House should have to disavow opinions so derogatory to their character. He would refer to the evidence given before the Commissioners, not merely by Roman Catholics, but by some of those who had left that faith and become clergymen of the Established Church, as completely disproving these charges. [The hon. and learned Member then read extracts from the evidence of Dr. O'Hanlon, Dr. Crolly, the Rev. Mr. Butler—now a Protestant clergyman—and others before the Commissioners, with reference to these charges and the statements in the Reports.] After a full investigation of these charges the Commissioners concluded that they would be doing injustice to the College if they failed to report as the general result of the whole evidence before them, that they saw no reason to believe that there had been any disloyalty in the teaching of the College, or any disposition to impair the obligations of an unreserved allegiance to Her Majesty. After that Report could it be maintained that disloyalty and breach of faith were doctrines inculcated at Maynooth? Independent of that Report, and of the evidence before the Commissioners, he would refer to the conduct of the people of Ireland as the best and most unerring test of the character of their spiritual directors; and he would ask did that people deserve the imputations of disloyalty, immorality, and bad faith. The hon. Member opposite had not ventured to make that charge. He had admitted that he knew Roman Catholics who were sincere Christians—that the Catholic soldiers were loyal—but thought they would be more so if Maynooth were abolished. The hon. Member opposite had in his opening speech claimed credit for a wish to avoid all irritating and offensive topics. It was for those who heard that speech to say how far his language was in conformity with such intentions. Notwithstanding such profession he (Mr. Spooner) had not hesitated to declare as a further ground for the measure now proposed, that the religion of the Roman Catholics was idolatrous—that the original establishment and continued endowment of Maynooth was a great national sin; and that, if persisted in, the country should expect the judgment of the Amighty for thus abandoning her duties. He (Serjeant O'Brien) was astonished to hear that assertion—making every allowance for that hon. Member's inveterate prejudices—for his total misconceptions of the tenets of the creed which he made the object of unsparing censure—it was scarcely possible to think that at this time, in presence of Roman Catholic Members of that House, the hon. Member would speak in such opprobrious terms of a religion which had been for ages the religion of the great majority of the Christian world—a religion still professed by nations not inferior to our own in civilisation and intelligence, and whose alliance we so earnestly desired—the religion of those who in former times had laid the foundations of our country's prosperity and freedom—which numbered amongst its followers names alike distinguished in war and peace—men who in intellectual acquirements or moral worth—in their untiring efforts to promote the happiness of their species—would not suffer by comparison with the professors of that creed to which the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) himself belonged. It may be difficult to overcome the prejudices of the hon. Member—but if his opinions be adopted as the principle of our legislation, what would be done with the Roman Catholic endowments in our colonies? Were the Catholic establishments of Canada to be destroyed? Let it not be said that we were bound to maintain them by ancient treaty, if in Ireland the Act of 1845, and the policy of preceding years, were now to be repudiated upon the ground of national sin. Is the hon. Member prepared to withdraw the Roman Catholic chaplains from the army? Will he tell the Catholic soldier, on whose valour he relies, and to whose loyalty he has paid a reluctant tribute, that the evils of death which he encounters in our defence are not to be mitigated by the consolations of religion, because the religion which he professes is an idolatry and a sin? The impossibility to carry out such a principle shows its utter fallacy. But he would ask the hon. Member opposite, and those who acted with him, what result they anticipated from the success of their present efforts? They dread the influence of the priesthood on the people of Ireland; let them be assured that that influence would not be diminished by a measure such as this. They object to the endowment of Maynooth, because it tends to propagate a religion which they believe to be erroneous—it was in vain for them to hope that the existence or extent of the Catholic religion in Ireland will be affected by the withdrawal of the grant. They might depart from that liberal policy which in later years had attempted to compensate for the evils of former legislation; they might add another wrong to those which the Roman Catholics had already endured, but let them not think that by this miserable injustice they would destroy or weaken that attachment to their faith which had characterised the people of Ireland under more adverse circumstances and more oppressive laws. He trusted that this measure would be rejected by the House; that they would not be induced by prejudice and clamour to sanction the violation of an arrangement deliberately made to identify themselves with motives and opinions such as those professed by the hon. Member opposite—to yield to that spirit of intolerance which, encouraged, but not satisfied by success, would soon seek some other object of attack—to adopt a course, calculated, above all others, to revive and perpetuate those religious animosities which have proved so formidable an obstacle to our social and political improvement.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he must congratulate his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down on the fairness and ability with which he had spoken upon the question under the consideration of the House. That question was one which he was quite justified in contending ought not to be decided by clamour or prejudice. Though dissenting from the religion which his hon. and learned Friend professed, he yet recognised the force of the wise observation of an eminent man, that all forms of Christianity ought to be respected, because they all rested on the admission of man's weakness and the necessity of his appealing to the Divine power for forgiveness and protection. In dealing with the subject, he would beg to observe, that neither the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, nor his hon. and learned Friend, had made out that the College of Maynooth should be maintained as it now stood, which was the real question before the House. That question might be discussed either on the ground of policy, of expediency, or of principle; and no doubt the onus probandi lay with those who impugned the management of any existing institution. They had nothing to do with the form of prayer, the fasts, or the ceremonies taught and enjoined in Maynooth College; but it had been represented that this grant was a matter of compact and right. What, however, were the historical facts of the case? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had dealt with the question upon the broad ground of political expediency, and upon that ground he (Mr. Whiteside) was prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had commenced the observations which he had offered to the House upon that question by a reference to those interesting volumes which had been published by the late Marquess of Londonderry, and which contained a large portion of the correspondence which had passed between those eminent men who had flourished at the period of the Union. Now, he held in his hand a memorial of the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops in Ireland to the Government of the day, praying that permission might be grafted to them to establish a college for the use of Roman Catholics in Ireland. In that memorial they requested permission to establish and endow seminaries and academies in Ireland, asserting that the memorialists wished to provide places of education in that country for the Roman Catholic youth intended for the clerical profession, in order to avoid the danger to which they would be exposed, if sent to France, of imbibing the atheistical and seditious doctrines of the Revolution. The licence of the Crown was necessary for carrying out this project, and a permissive Bill was passed by the Irish Parliament, allowing the Roman Catholic bishops, at the expense of their own community, to found an educational institution on the principles of their memorial. The Irish Parliament likewise voted them 8,000l. for the purpose of enabling them to enter upon the construction of the proposed establishment. Now there was in connection with that subject a remarkable document extant, and one which, in his opinion, did great credit to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. When the laity of that Church had discovered that it was the intention of their bishops to confine the instruction to be given in the new establishment exclusively to students intended for the clerical order, they held a public meeting, and had at that meeting drawn up a petition which, in his opinion, contained Better arguments against the institution of Maynooth as it at present stood, than almost any document to which he could refer. That petition was to be found in the fifteenth volume of the Irish Parliamentary Debates. It strongly protested against the establishment of a college, to be conducted exclusively as a monastic institution; against the inexpediency of depriving members of the Protestant persuasion from enjoying those advantages of education which the proposed college might be supposed to confer, and against the continuance of that line of distinction between the members of different religious tenets which it was a duty, in their opinion, to obliterate. Such had been the language of the Roman Catholic laity before the first Bill with reference to May nooth had received the sanction of the Legislature. Parliament had originally intended that there should be in connection with Maynooth a lay college, and he believed that up to the year 1817 a college of that character had continued to exist. It was true, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated, that Mr. Pitt, Lord Castlereagh, and other distinguished men, at the time of the Union, considered what was to be done in regard to Maynooth. Sir John Cox Hippesley, writing on January 12, 1799, from Rome, after relating that he found "a world of friars," and "eternal squabbles and annoyance resulting from their employment in the episcopacy or oil foreign missions," recommended the British Government "not to blink, but fairly to face the whole Catholic subject, nor tacitly to allow, as they do, the introduction of bulls, briefs, and rescripts from Rome, without availing themselves of those safeguards which almost every Catholic as well as Protestant country on the Continent has wisely instituted;" and he then suggested that bulls should be delivered for inspection to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was said that the foundation of our liberties was laid by our Roman Catholic ancestors, but those men were nearer in principle to the present Protestant Church than they were to modern Roman Catholics, although he could not now stay to argue that point. The ancient common law of this country in Catholic times forbade, under the severest penalties, the introduction of papal bulls, and in the reign of Edward I. a subject who brought in a bull of excommunication against another subject of this realm, was adjudged to be guilty of treason against the Crown; but, instead of being drawn and hanged, the offender's punishment was commuted to perpetual banishment. On the 18th of April, 1799, Lord Clare, writing to Lord Cornwallis, the Lord Lieutenant, said, "it was essential to the public security that there should be a well-regulated Roman Catholic academy in Ireland;" but that he thought the insertion, in the Bill for voting a moderate sum to support Maynooth College for the current year, of any clause which could be constructed into a permanent sanction of their present establishment, would "enable the Popish prelates of this country to subvert the Government of it in ten years.'' A person named Hussey was made president of Maynooth College—a man who had professed opinions than which nothing more intolerant had ever been uttered in the darkest ages. On the subject of this individual's sentiments a letter was written by Bishop O'Beirne (Bishop of Meath), on the 27th of April, 1799, to Lord Castlereagh. The writer expressed the opinion that it was necessary there should be a majority of Protestant trustees; that the system pursued in Maynooth College instilled an "inextinguishable hatred to the Established Church" in the winds of the pupils, and was calculated to keep the Roman Catholic portion of the King's subjects "a distinct people for ever;" that one part of the plan avowed by Dr. Hussey, the first president of Maynooth (and who it appeared had been a regular religious firebrand), and practised by all the Roman Catholic clergy, was to exclude from confession and from the sacrament all the domestic servants of protestant masters who attended their family prayers or entered a church with them—and even to follow this up by excommunication; that an establishment which maintained such a tyrannical system ought not to be tolerated, much less supported by the State. Bishop O'Beirne was a whig, and had endeavoured to persuade Charles James Fox to adopt his views as to the expediency of establishing in Ireland a college for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy; but he had failed in the attempt to make a convert of Fox upon that point. The Whigs had not, it would appear, been such consistent advocates of Roman Catholic claims as some Gentlemen in that House seemed to believe; and he would remind those Gentlemen that the hardest blows their religion had received in this country in our time had come from the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) whom many of them were disposed to acknowledge at present as their political chief. Bishop O'Beirne had contended for the expediency of appointing Protestant trustees over the proposed new Roman Catholic College which was to be endowed by the State, and he had added that he would suppress all friaries and monastic institutions for either men or women. Those were the opinions entertained before the period of the Union in reference to the establishment of a college at Maynooth by a learned and liberal Irishman. It was true that in the year 1800 a second Act of Parliament had been passed, under which an engagement had been contracted to maintain that institution; and no doubt it had been maintained. In a letter of Bishop O'Beirne, dated May 1800, and addressed to Lord Castlereagh, he expresses a desire that the Government should exercise such inspection and control over the heads and teachers of the college as would effectually prevent the propagation of those anti-social doctrines which had produced all the distractions of Ireland since the days of Queen Elizabeth, and defeated the great object of blending the Roman Catholic and the Protestant population together. When the subject came again under discussion in 1807, Mr. Perceval, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, laid down this principle, "that the least thing that could be done was to give the Government something to say in the management of the institution, that they might know that they were not educating a society of Jesuits who would not be suffered to exist in any other part of Europe." Sir Arthur Wellesley also said, that when Maynooth was originally established "it was not intended that it should be maintained by the public purse." The eminent men to whom he had referred held, therefore, that the Government, if it was bound to support this institution, was entitled to know the principles on which it was to be conducted. What was the Statement of Thomas Moore in reference to this subject in a letter to Lady Donegal on April 16, 1805, as given in the noble Lord the Member for London's Memoir of the poet Moore—not perhaps very consistently with his religious opinions—wrote: I must say that much of this vile vulgar spirit is to be traced to that wretched faith which is again polluting Europe with Jesuitism and Inquisitions, and which of all the humbugs that have stultified mankind is the most narrow-minded and mischievous. So much for the danger of my joining Messrs. O'Connell, O'Donnell, &c. Now, was it contended that the Roman Catholic laity approved of Maynooth? What was Mr. Daniel O'Connell's opinion of that institution? It would be found fully recorded in the work on his life, published by his son. Nothing, in fact, could be more contemptuous than Mr. O'Connel's estimate of the education given at Maynooth; and when Roman Catholic gentlemen expressed their surprise that Protestants should believe that Maynooth had been a failure, he would recommend to their attentive consideration a letter written by Mr. O'Connell in the year 1808, in which he bitterley complained that genius and taste and talent found no home in Maynooth; and in which he asked when would that college produce a Magee, or a Sands, or a Macdonald, or a Griffin? Another authority which he would cite was the opinion of Mr. Cornelius Keogh, another clever Irishman and a Roman Catholic, who, after mentioning that the priests, formerly educated abroad, generally returned home "accomplished scholars," said that he considered that the institution at Maynooth was manifestly contrived for the purpose of replacing them by "a set of ignorant, pedantic, unpatriotic priests," and observed that, up to the year 1800, such was "the moral fermentation among the students in that college, that no fewer than ninety expulsions had occurred." He had quoted these statements of Roman Catholics for the purpose of showing that Maynooth as a place of education had been a failure. He was not using the evidence of Protestants upon that point, for it might be said that they must necessarily be prejudiced judges. Bat again, what did Mr. O'Connell state in his evidence, when examined on oath before the House of Lords' Committee of 1825, as to the College of Maynooth. He said that the old priests who were educated in France were men who entertained a natural abhorrence of French revolutionary principles; they were strong anti-Jacobins, and there was among them a great deal of ultra-loyalty. He went on to say, that this was not the case with regard to those educated at Maynooth, the anti-Jacobin feeling had gone by, and, as to what was usually called loyalty, the priests educated at Maynooth did not come within the description of it to such a degree as those educated in France. Being asked as to the advisability of educating the Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy at the same university, he expressed a very strong opinion that it would be a most advisable thing, and would be very much in accordance with the wish of the Roman Catholic laity. Clearly, therefore, in Mr. O'Connell's opinion at that time, the College of Maynooth, as a place of education, was a failure. Another Irishman of great ability, the late Dr. Doyle, titular bishop of Carlow, when examined before the same Committee, gave a strong opinion in favour of educating the Roman Catholic laity conjointly with the Protestant laity, which he thought would tend very greatly to promote the harmony of the different religious sects in Ireland. Mr. Inglis, who, although an Englishman, might be fairly cited as a witness for a fact, visited the college in 1854. He stated that though at first sight the course of education pursued at the college might appear varied and liberal, yet on a little further questioning be discovered that this course was not strictly adhered to, and be inferred that it might vary at the pleasure of the heads of the college, and that, in fact, any one who formed an opinion of the course of education at Maynooth from what he had read in the Report of the Education Commissioners would fall into grievous error. In 1826 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of the College of Maynooth, of which the late Sir Thomas Frank-land Lewis was an eminent member, and the Report of which was as superior to the shallow, flimsy, worthless production, emanating from the last Commission, as light was to darkness. One of the first things into which that Commission set themselves to inquire was, into the connection of the college with the society of the Jesuits, and they had not proceeded far before they discovered that there existed in the college a society, numbering 200 out of the 250 students then resident there, called the "Sodality of the Sacred Heart." They examined Mr. Kenny, a gentleman connected with the college, who stated that he was a member of the Society of Jesus, though there was some difficulty about finding out where he was admitted and sworn in, for it was thought that Russia was the only country in Europe to which the Pope's bull for the suppression of the Jesuits did not extend; and, on being asked, whether there was any connection between the members of the Sodality of the Sacred Heart and the Jesuits, he said there was not. It was evident, by the Commissioners putting this question, that they had read a passage from the Life of Scipio Ricci, in which it was distinctly stated that it had been discovered that there was a direct connection between the Jesuits and this Sodality of the Sacred Heart, and that when the Society of Jesus was expelled from most of the countries of Europe it was revived under that name. There could be no doubt that at that day Maynooth was a Jesuit establishment, but the Commissioners, not having been able to probe the matter to the bottom, and not having been able to obtain a satisfactory evidence on the point, could not report to that effect. Since then, however, abundant proof had been brought forward, that during the time that the Society of Jesuits was nominally suppressed, it in reality existed under the name of the "Sodality of the Sacred Heart," and that this title, in fact, served as the mask and instrument of Jesuitism. Henrion, in his History of the Religions Orders, stated that it was since the institution of the Society of Jesus that such institutions as this had been formed, or, at least, had become effective, and that the rules of the congregation were generally conformable to those of the Jesuits, who were, if not their direct authors, at least their constant protectors; and he went on further to relate how, after the French revolution, some young French ecclesiastics who had fled into Belgium, perceiving then the great injury which the suppression of the Jesuits had done to the cause of religion in France, conceived the project of re-establishing the order; but, by the advice of the Abbé Pey, they did not take the name of Jesuits, but that of the "Sacred Heart." He might be asked, however, supposing that all he had said as to the state of Maynooth in 1826 were true, how did that prove that the same opinions were taught there now? That was a practical question, and required an answer. When he had first learnt that Lord Harrowby was to be appointed the head of the Commissioners, he wrote to him, drawing his attention to a book which had been lately published by Dr. Murray, the Professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology at Maynooth. In that book the Rev. Professor had attempted to answer the brilliant remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) on the Jesuits, and he thus summed up his opinion of the bull suppressing the Jesuits:— Let it be then understood that, in speaking for the Jesuits, we speak only for innocence maligned, for truth oppressed, for well doing rewarded with evil doing; we speak as men long witnessing, with sealed up lips, one of the most abominable acts of injustice ever yet inflicted on guiltless man since the sentence of Pilate was pronounced; we only defend the truth against 'the buffoon and the sarcasm, the liar and the lie.' This was the judgment pronounced on the sentence of Granganelli, one of the best Popes who ever lived, suppressing the Jesuits, by the Professor of Moral Philosophy at Maynooth. In the same essay, too, Pascal fell under the Rev. Professor's condemnation as one of the sorest afflictions that had pressed on the Church since the time of Luther—of course, because he had attacked the Jesuits. His (Mr. White-side's) argument was, therefore, that the principles of Jesuitism were in activity at Maynooth, and that the writings of this professor proved it. When Sir Robert Peel was Secretary for Ireland, being rather above the common run of Irish Secretaries, and being a man of literary tastes, he employed a gentleman of considerable learning to draw up a catalogue of books relating to Irish history, statistics, &c., of which about fifty copies were printed for private circulation. In this catalogue appeared De Burgh's Hibernia Dominicana, purporting to be printed at Cologne. The copies of this book were exceedingly rare, especially the perfect copies, for from the greater number that portion relating to the politics of the reign of James II. had been carefully extracted. It would appear as though Sir Thomas Frankland Lewis had possessed a perfect copy of this book, for, when he sat on the Commission of 1825, he asked one of the witnesses whether there were any copies of the book in the library at Maynooth, and the answer was that there were four—two perfect and two imperfect. The right hon. Baronet had good cause for asking that question, for the book was the very quintescence of treason. In it the repeal of the Act of Settlement and the passing of the Act of Attainder of the Protestants by the Parliament of James II. were described as salubria decreta, and it went on to apply to those decrees and to others of the same nature a quotation from Maccabees, the signification of which was, that the Roman Catholics were thereby only taking back that which had been theirs before, and had been unjustly possessed for a time by their enemies. [Mr. DUFFY: Hear, hear.] The hon. Gentleman might cheer, but it was not a very pleasant thing for Protestants to pay for the teaching of such doctrines as that. In the preface of this book, too, was contained the letter of the Roman Catholic legate of the time, interdicting Irish Roman Catholics from taking the oath of allegiance, as it was incompatible with their duty to the Pope; and of this book, though it was generally a very scarce work, Maynooth possessed, at the time of the Commission of 1826, no less than four copies. It might be that these copies were still in Maynooth, though it was scarcely possible to believe that part of Lord Harrowby's Report which stated that there was no catalogue of the library there. A sum of 330,000l. had been voted by Parliament since the year 1845 for that College, and yet no one could know what were the books in its library. One of the professors of the establishment said that the library was in such a state of confusion that when he wanted any particular book he went up to Dublin and got it in the library of Trinity College; and another professor said that he never entered the library. Was it really true that no catalogue existed of the books in an institution so liberally endowed by Parliament? He said that if that were true it must be so because precautions had been taken that there should be no such catalogue. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Horsman) had told the House that the Commissioners had found that everything was quite right at Maynooth; but he (Mr.Whiteside) said it appeared from the Report of the Commissioners that every thing was quite wrong in that establishment. The humanity class was all wrong—the physical class was all wrong—English was not properly taught—and the money voted by Parliament was misapplied in the opinion of the Commissioners. Now, this was the college which the Parliament that had reformed Oxford, and was about to reform Cambridge, was asked to leave undisturbed. He had read with great satisfaction, in the newspapers of that morning, that a Roman Catholic had just gained the first scholarship thrown open to the competition of members of all sects. From the evidence of the professors of Maynooth themselves it appeared that the text books used there were of a very unsatisfactory or objectionable character. Dr. Murray expressed a wish that a new and better set of text books should be compiled for the use of the students. He said that the present text books were Italian, or French, or German compositions—that some of them were too short, and some were too long—and that others "contained decisions on equivocation and mental reservation, which, however applicable they might be in other countries, would be intolerable in this." He went on further to declare that these text books were like a beggar-man's coat, exhibiting to the world the intellectual poverty of Maynooth. The same rev. gentleman also stated that the answering of the students at the examinations had not, of late years, improved; but that, on the contrary, the students on those occasions made a poorer figure than the students of former times. Dr. Crolly, another of the professors, told the Commissioners that the theological class books had consisted, until within the last few years, of treatises composed by Delahogue, who had been a professor in the college, and of a part of the theology of Bailey, but that the latter work had lately been put in the Index Expurgatorius, and had since ceased to be used in Maynooth. And why had the work of Bailey been put in the Index? Why, it appeared that Bailey had maintained what he (Mr.Whiteside) considered the very fair and reasonable doctrine, that the Church ought to hold as valid marriages contracted in compliance with the law of the particular State in which the parties were united; but when it had been discovered at Rome that Bailey had put forward that opinion, his work had been put in the Index. Now, he (Mr. Whiteside) would tell the Roman Catholic gentlemen of these kingdoms that throughout the Continent, and more especially throughout Italy, the great mass of the educated Roman Catholic laity regarded the Index Expurgatorius as a frightful instrument for crushing the freedom of the human mind; and yet the doctrine taught at Maynooth was that no book placed in the Index could be read by any Roman Catholic layman, and in that doctrine the Roman Catholic laity of these realms tamely acquiesced. "He who kills a man kills God's image, but he who slays a book slays immortality," says Milton, and this was the principle of the Index Expurgatorius. Its object was that no book should be read, no school frequented or tolerated, which was forbidden by the Church of Rome. As he had said before, several of the professors were anxious that a new course of theology should be composed for the use of the students, but no such step had at present been taken. Although Dens had been condemned by Roman Catholic professors themselves as a sinful book, it was still a text book at Maynooth. He would now call their attention to the government of Maynooth; it was an oligarchy, being vested in five or six noblemen as trustees, and when one of them died he was succeeded by his heir-at-law, who might be a child of two or three years old. The Report said that this was an improper state of things; but no amendment was proposed by the Government. With regard to the toleration of the Jesuits, it was true that violent men, absurd Irish Protestants, might say something rash and improper, but what opinion had been given on that subject by one of the great statesmen of the day—by the present Prime Minister? The noble Lord, when he was Foreign Secretary, said, in a despatch which he wrote to Lord Normanby respecting Switzerland— The Society of Jesuits must be looked at both in a religious and in a political point of view. In its religious character it is a society avowedly established to make war upon the Protestant religion. What wonder, then, that in a small country like Switzerland, where two-thirds of the people are Protestants, the introduction of such a society should give rise to dissension between Catholics and Protestants, and should be viewed with aversion by the majority of the nation? In its ecclesiastical character the Society of Jesuits is known to be exclusive and encroaching. Can it be surprising, then, that in Switzerland, as in other countries, a great portion even of the Roman Catholic population should look upon the Jesuits with jealousy and dislike? In their political character the Society of Jesuits have always been known to lean to arbitrary power, and to be averse to popular rights. The Prime Minister was of opinion that civil war was justifiable in Switzerland, in order to expel the Jesuits from that country. What was the state of Ireland upon this all-important point? Now, he (Mr. Whiteside) believed that the late Sir Robert Peel had a policy in reference to the Catholics of Ireland which was the policy of a great statesman. Looking at the Acts of 1829 and 1845, it appeared to be the wish of Sir Robert Peel to have educated a loyal and learned parochial clergy, and, at the same time, to have extinguished the regular clergy. But what was the fact? Though the Maynooth endowment had been trebled, the laws prohibiting the presence of "regulars," and the spread of monastic institutions had been wantonly set at defiance. It was but right, then, that as the British Parliament had fulfilled its part of the compact, the upholders of Maynooth should also be compelled to perform theirs. The regular clergy were the body guard of the Pope, and, consequently, followed the interest taken in them by his Holiness, who, a short time since, addressed letters to the Irish bishops, counselling them to be more kind and considerate to the regular clergy. Had the laws with reference to monastic institutions been respected? He found, from a summary of the monastic bodies existing in Ireland, that there were now 133 nunneries, 115 monasteries, and about 440 regular clergy (the exact number had not been returned), but it was said there ought to be 600 at least. Thus they passed a law to extinguish the regular clergy and to educate the parochial clergy, but their law was studied only that it might be evaded, baffled, and defeated. Sometime ago he had had a conversation with an heir-at-law, some of whose property had been given to a monastic establishment by a deceased ancestor on his joining the fraternity. This gentleman said he was clearly of opinion that it was contrary to law to confer property upon such institutions. He (Mr. Whiteside) replied, that there were Roman Catholic gentlemen in Parliament who contended that this law should be systematically violated. He was told that the person who had given away the property was obliged to do so by virtue of the oath of poverty he had taken. He asked where that oath had been taken, and he was informed that since 1829 all persons newly sworn in as regulars were sworn in at Rome. This explained to him how the difficulty of administering an illegal oath was overcome. Notwithstanding the Emancipation Act and the Maynooth endowment, the monastic bodies and the Jesuits were increasing in Ireland to an extent never before known, and, in spite of the law, were acquiring lands, houses, and estates all over the country, and intended evidently to continue doing so. They had a Prime Minister who ranted Protestantism when it suited his purpose as Foreign Secretary. Would he now act upon his opinion; or would he maintain that what he had said was very good for Switzerland was not, notwithstanding the Moved increase of monastic bodies and of Jesuits, applicable to Ireland? The Jesuits had been condemned by France, by the enlightened Leopold of Tuscany, even by Popes of Rome. A breach of faith had been committed with regard to the monastic bodies, and if Maynooth continued to be maintained, if it was reformed and allowed to teach from books decent and fit to be read, those bodies ought to be compelled to submit to the laws. He would now refer them to a book written by a professor at Maynooth, a gentleman whose income had very properly been doubled by this country, and who, therefore, might be supposed to be under some obligation not to attack its institutions. The gentleman to whom he alluded was the rev. Patrick Murray, professor of moral theology, who had published a sermon advising the students to be moderate and not to interfere n politics, and had also written a book—a very awkward thing to do sometimes. In it he gave his opinion upon the Church of England and Ireland, and he thought it decent to write the following sentences— Many of those who hold too strong notions as to the corrupting influence of money on the clergy have, I believe, drawn them from a consideration of the English Protestant Church as by law established, or from what modern historians disclose of the state of the Catholic Church previously to the Reformation. Such persons I would briefly desire to note, first, that the present establishment is just what it is styled—a Church by law established, and nothing more; that its wealth is odious, because it is possessed by men who do not work for it; because it was violently turned from the purposes for which it was originally given—the support of the poor and of Catholic sanctuaries and cloisters—to deck out a state-begotten withered changeling; because it is the trophy of victorious lust and sacrilege, and robbery and murder. Here was a temperate piece of writing by a person who had been distinguished by Lord Harrowby as one of the most moderate and mildest of men! The former Commissioner asked Dr. M'Hale how he justified a book he had written? The present Commission did not think it right to ask a single question with regard to this book, although he had informed Lord Harrowby of its existence. The passage proceeded— Because it is so often diverted, by those who share it most largely, to purposes so abhorrent from Catholic feelings, as in the case of the late Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, who at his death bequeathed no less than 70,000l. to his wife. How could an institution be tolerated when it allowed a man so far to forget the duty he owed to his wife as to make a provision for her in his lifetime? The Government certainly ought to give some justification of an institution a professor of which could write such a book. He had been unable to understand the Roman Catholic doctrine, that some Protestant Governments were to be preferred to some Roman Catholic Governments. But, as Portugal was cited as an example, he had referred to the laws of that country for an explanation, and he found that no Papal bull or rescript was allowed to be promulgated there until the Attorney or Solicitor General had expressed an opinion that it was conformable to law. Thus, the Roman Catholics, no doubt, thought the Government of England more favourable to them than that of Portugal. There was more moderate writing in the book from which he had already quoted. The author proceeded to say— I think that a State endowment of the Catholic priesthood would confirm and perpetuate in Ireland one of the worst, if not the very worst, of the evils of past evil times, an abomination unequalled in its own kind in the history of the civilised world, the source of so much bitterness, of so much iniquity, of so much blood and tears in former days; preserving, as long as it is permitted to last, the rancour it first so largely contributed to generate, the spirit of social disunion and strife, the division on the same soil of two distinct nations, two hostile parties ever warring against each other; not the just separation of church from church, not the legitimate struggle of creed with creed in fair argument by the legitimate showing forth of their respective claims to a Divine origin, but, on one hand, a mere secular, state-privileged, steel-girded, power-inflated domination of a favoured minority, with the profession and show of a mere Christian society; and, on the other, all the discontent and hate and other bad effects which such a domination cannot fail to produce in such a majority. It is unnecessary to say that I allude to the ascendancy of the Established Church. The author, in another part of his book, treated of casuistry, and upon that subject there occurred the following disagreeable piece of writing:— 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, of curtailing the number of bishoprics or benefices of any kind? Or does it only 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 intended 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 on men the power of voting, and at the very same time to compel them to swear that they shall 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 thus, too, 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 are merely stating difficulties. It is of considerable importance that this piece of casuistry should be settled in one way or the other. Did they, as men of honour, approve of this explanation of an oath? Why had not the Commissioners called this gentleman to account for his writings, as they had called Dr. M'Hale to account? It was said he was responsible to the trustees; but, if so, the trustees were censurable for allowing him to write in this style. He would now call their attention to another important branch of the subject, that of the teaching of the canon law, and he supposed no one would contend that they ought to pay for teaching what was contrary to the laws of the land. The Rev. P. Lavelle was examined before the Commission with respect to the bulls which treated of the manner of dealing with heretics; and he said that the only case in which the society of heretics was to be avoided was where they were nominatim denunciati. He would give them an instance of how this rule was applied:—A miller in the north of Ireland brought an action against a priest who had denounced him, because in consequence of that denunciation no one would deal with or speak to him. The priest justified himself by saying that he had acted with the authority of the Church; and the case was argued in the Court of Queen's Bench before the late Judge Burton, and then in a Court of Error, the question being whether a priest was justified by the law of England in excommunicating the plaintiff according to the law of the Church of Rome. The Court decided that he was not. The matter was settled by the priest paying the damages, and no more was heard of the matter. He wanted to know whether this doctrine of the canon law was taught at Maynooth; and in order to ascertain this they ought to get from the professors a book containing a statement of what the canon law was. Dr. Doyle stated to the House of Lords that there would be no rest in any country in which the bull Cœna Domini was enforced; and Mr. Lavelle, in his evidence, said that bull had not the force in this country which arose from technical publication, although it had been printed here. Dr. Doyle stated that the security against its introduction into this country was the domestic nomination of the bishops. But since 1845 the Pope had extinguished their privileges, destroyed their fancied rights; he could now send into the country any number of Italian clergy that he pleased, and the bull might be published here to-morrow. He found, from the Nation of the 24th of February, that it was expected that Dr. Cullen would, if he could, "come back armed with regulations to enforce the Cœna Domini and the Index Expurgatorius, never yet received in Ireland." Mr. Lavelle was asked with regard to the treatment of heretics as prescribed in several of the Pope's bulls, and he stated his view of the subject to be— That physical coercion is not to be used by the Pope, as such; but where the civil power may have laws sanctioning a recourse to civil coercion, it may then be used against heretics, provided those heretics are disturbers of the public peace; but they are to be punished not as heretics, but as disturbers of the peace. He added— With regard to the historical question in those cases where heretics have been punished, we are taught in history that, with regard to the heretics who have been known to be punished in that way, such as the Albigenses and the Vaudois, there the State was justified in punishing them because they were disturbers of the public order. There was a statement of tolerant opinion in the nineteenth century, that it was desirable to exterminate the Albigenses and the Vaudois as disturbers of the public peace. He had now to bring before the House some passages in Professor Murray's book, which he should not have thought worthy of notice if Dr. Murray were not paid for teaching these things. He was much astonished to find, from Professor Murray's book, that no Roman Catholic could read a book, or enter an establishment for education, or write a book that the Church disapproved of. Dr. Murray said— The Church has the right not only of defining and pronouncing that such or such a book, system of education, association, &c., is dangerous or formally anticatholic, but she has, moreover, the right of commanding the faithful, under pain of sin, and, if need be, under the penalty of ecclesiastical censures, not to read such a book or frequent such a place of education, &c. He might mention, incidentally, that he came upon the following passage in Dr. Murray's book relative to Cranmer— But Cranmer decided according to the King's bidding, and became the King's true bishop; no clerical despot he, but the destroyer of clerical despotism, a truly Royal prelate, the corner stone of the new edifice of liberty, the great father of the Reformation—a mean slave, nevertheless, a hypocrite, a liar, a perjurer, a robber, a fornicator, and a murderer. And the gentleman who wrote this was Professor of Moral Theology at Maynooth. and it was thus he soothed the minds of the students about to leave the college, and taught them to breathe the spirit of love, and become gentle as doves to all their heretical countrymen. Another passage described, among the evils of Ireland, Protestant ascendancy as "still towering, as insolent, as hating, and as hateful as ever." "You put me in prison," said Professor Murray— And give my property to a stranger, and make him rich and titled and powerful above me. Then you break my bonds and set me free, and preach content, and say that I am to blame for my own wretchedness, because I am not on brotherly terms with him, while he is grinning at me and vilifying me from the mansion of my fathers, and displaying his purple and fine linen beside my rags. I grant that religious rancour has been one of the chief causes of our misfortunes; but it was the rancour of your own predecessors. For our fathers there was no alternative but ruin with the true faith or prosperity with apostacy. Are we to blame because they preferred a miserable life in this world to eternal damnation in the next. It could hardly be said that the Roman Catholics of the present day were persecuted when five out of six of the law officers of the Crown in Ireland were Roman Catholics, and when the professors of that faith appeared to be in possession of almost all the great offices of State in that country. Could it be said that such opinions as he had quoted could teach the Roman Catholic clergy to be loyal and obedient subjects, and to enter upon their duties with even a moderate respect for the established institutions of the country? He should not have brought forward these complaints against Maynooth but that they were now taken up in England and occupied a space in the public mind of this country. The whole subject of Maynooth and its teaching must be investigated and examined into. The books of the college were condemned, but no proposal had been made to rewrite them, and now it was proposed to leave the management in the hands of men whose management had likewise been condemned. Parliament must reform Maynooth, as it had proposed to reform the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and Dublin, and reform it thoroughly. The teaching of the canon law must be made consistent with the common and statute law, and it must be clearly understood whether or not an authority had been given to the Papal legate which had never been contemplated. He believed it would be consistent with the peace of the Roman Catholic Church that the laity should have some protection against the Index Expurgatorius and such teaching as that given at Maynooth. He should, therefore, support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire.

MR. KEOGH

said, he had listened for two hours and a half to the entertaining and discursive speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and, he was astonished at the introduction of subjects so unconnected with the question under consideration, and which it was scarcely possible any one could have anticipated in the course of this debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in discussing the regulations and laws which affected the College of Maynooth, thought proper to make a charge against the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, that they looked to and had obtained a Catholic ascendancy, and he asserted that the Roman Catholics were in possession of all the great offices of the State. But the hon. and learned Gentleman was altogether in fault in his assertion. He (Mr. Keogh) admitted that there were two of the law officers of the Crown who were Roman Catholics, and that two of the three Queen's Serjeants were also Roman Catholics. But there was the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who was necessarily a Protestant; there was the Chief-Secretary for Ireland, who was a Protestant; and there was the Undersecretary, who was also a Protestant. In fact, the heads of all the great public departments in that country were at that moment Protestants. Of the twelve Judges only three were Roman Catholics; the Lord Chancellor must be a Protestant, the Master of the Rolls was a Protestant, and five out of six of the Masters were members of the Established Church. Having made this statement, he thought he had disposed of that part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech charging a Catholic ascendancy and monopoly of public employment against the people of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had pleaded the cause of the Roman Catholic laymen against the canon law in Ireland. But the canon law had not prevented him (Mr. Keogh) from receiving his education from a Protestant clergyman, or from entering the University of Dublin and passing through the whole course of education there, nor would it prevent him from proposing any reform that might be thought desirable in the system of education at Maynooth, or from complying with any of the recommendations of the Commissioners; to whom had been intrusted the inquiry into the doctrines and discipline of the college, though he did not think he would be justified in doing that which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) proposed—to take steps for the abolition and withdrawal of the grant to that establishment. He had read with pleasure the paragraph in The Times newspaper which stated that a Roman Catholic had obtained the first scholarship in the University of Dublin, and he had been as sincerely gratified as surprised at that circumstance. Some years ago he had called attention to the University of Dublin, and had complained that all the emoluments of that University were confined to the Established Church. But now, for the first time, scholarships were instituted that a Roman Catholic could accept, although the fellowships were still restricted to the members of the Established Church. It had been made a complaint against Maynooth that no laymen were admitted there; but if hon. Members would turn to the Debates of 1807 they would find that there was a lay college at that period in connection with Maynooth; and it was in consequence of the objection then taken by Mr. Perceval on the part of the Government to the existence of that lay college that it subsequently ceased to exist. Yet it was now brought forward as a charge against Maynooth that laymen were not educated there. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had said a good deal about the abolition of monastic orders and the abolition of convents; but what had the present condition of the conventual establishments to do with Maynooth? He said the provisions of the Emancipation Act forbade the increase of monastic institutions; but nunneries and convents were specially exempted by the Emancipation Act, and, even if they had not been, what, he would inquire, had they to do with the subject they were now discussing? Then the hon. and learned Member had instanced the case of a priest who had excommunicated one of his parishioners, who eventually had obtained redress in a Court of Law. But did not that prove that the law protected the Roman Catholic laity sufficiently, and what he should like to know had that topic also to do with Maynooth? The hon. and learned Member said it was dangerous to write a book, but the hon. and learned Member had himself written a book, and in Dr. Murray's book there was a long article, headed "Whiteside's Italics," in which he found the following passage:— The readers of Carlyle's works are familiar with a class of persons whom, in his own rather quaint, but not less picturesque manner, he designates 'windbags.' Now, the writer of the book before us is a genuine specimen of the windbag class. In the truth of this remark he (Mr. Keogh) could not concur. The hon. and learned Member had quoted Dr. Murray's book, where he referred to the oath taken by Roman Catholic members. But Dr. Murray had added:— We do not purpose in this place to express any leaning to either side; we are merely stating difficulties. It is of considerable importance that this piece of casuistry should be settled in one way or other. When Dr. Murray had spoken of the Established Church in strong terms, it was to the ascendancy of that Church he had alluded. Stronger language than any used by Dr. Murray had been applied towards the Irish establishment by a divine of the Church of England. The Rev. Sydney Smith said,—"There is no abuse like it in all Europe, all Asia, in all the discovered parts of Africa, in all we have heard of Timbuctoo." The reasons cited by the hon. and learned Member against Maynooth, if they were applicable at all, were equally valid against the establishment of Maynooth at all, and must have been considered by those who established the college. The hon. and learned Member was in error when he talked of the college being paid for by British money. It was supported by money contributed by all the inhabitants of this country—Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Presbyterian. It was vain, therefore, to call it British or Protestant money, and he might as well call it Irish or Roman Catholic money. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire proposed to tell 6,000,000 of Roman Catholics in Ireland that they were not in future to receive any support from the funds of the country for the education of their clergy. It was not a question of compact, but whether, out of the 56,000,000l. that the State received from all denominations, while immense sums were devoted to the Protestants, and while a large sum was contributed to the Presbyterians, the Roman Catholics should be told, after fifty years' enjoyment of a grant, that it was a national sin, and that from this day forth they should depend on their own resources. That was the real question, which should not be spoken out on Wednesdays, nor evaded by any side Motions, but should be met with a straightforward and bold answer. It was a broad question which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had propounded in a broad manner, and it should be disposed of in a way worthy of that House. Some certainly had said the hon. Gentleman would have done well to wait until peace was proclaimed; but the hon. Member was perfectly right in bringing forward his Motion as one in which a great question of principle was involved. There was, in his opinion, nothing so prejudicial to this question as that it should be met by any evasion. It ought to be met broadly, and not by proposing further inquiry or the appointment of Commissioners. He believed that, if the Roman Catholics stood upon their rights, they were too strong not to defeat a Motion like this. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had done the Roman Catholics the justice of saying that the Roman Catholic soldiers in the army were loyal subjects. But were they not taken from the peasantry of Ireland, and were they not the class upon which the Roman Catholic clergy exercised the greatest influence? How could the Roman Catholic soldiers be loyal while the teaching they were supposed to receive was disloyal? But where was the evidence of disloyalty? Who were the Commissioners whose Report the hon. Member for North Warwickshire never intended to be guided by? Of whom was the Commission composed? Its president was Lord Harrowby, a distinguished member of the Protestant Church, and two of its members were Drs. Twiss and Longfield, also good Protestants and eminent in their position in life. It appeared to him they had taken all the steps in their power to obtain a knowledge of everything connected with the College of Maynooth. They had not only examined Roman Catholic priests who had derived their education within its walls, but they had also called before them gentlemen who were associated together for the purpose of putting down what was called Popery in Ireland. It was all very well to say the Rev. Dr. Murray was not to be believed because he had written passages in a book which had been quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen, but he would quote the evidence of a gentleman who had seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and was now a member of the Protestant Church, the Rev. Mr. Burke, who utterly repudiated such doctrines being held by Roman Catholics as the hon. and learned Gentleman had represented. The arguments which had been used in support of this Motion would be equally valid if used in advocating a repeal of the Emancipation Act, and of every concession which had ever been made to the Roman Catholic body. The opponents of Maynooth read the Report of the Commission, and then said everything was wrong at Maynooth. The Report did not bear out such a sweeping accusation, although the Commissioners did say that some things were to be found fault with in the College of Maynooth. They said the course of education ought to be made more liberal. So said Sir Robert Peel in 1845, and so said every Roman Catholic Member of the present House of Commons. He would beg to remind hon. Gentlemen who supported the proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that last Session the Roman Catholic Members were obliged to listen to long, weary, and tedious discussions concerning the University of Oxford. A Commission was issued to inquire into the condition of that University, and, having examined evidence, they brought strong charges against the system pursued at Oxford, and against the conduct of some of the members of the University. Surely hon. Members did not forget the passages in the Report of that Commission which described a system of dissipation and gross profligacy as prevailing at Oxford. The Roman Catholic Members might have referred to the Oxford Commission, and might have said, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire said now with respect to Maynooth, "Will you suffer such a University as that to exist any longer?" If they had been insane enough, they might even have proposed that the House should resolve itself into Committee to take steps to dispossess Oxford of those munificent endowments, the greater part of which was contributed by the Catholic ancestors of the people of England. But they did not do so. They joined the Protestant Members in endeavouring to carry into effect the recommendations of that Commission. A Commission was appointed to inquire into the University of Dublin, and effect was being given to these recommendations. A Commission was appointed to inquire into the University of Cambridge, and it would be proposed in the present Session to give effect to these recommendations. But a Commission composed of eminent men having been appointed to inquire into Maynooth, and having found fault with the institution as not fulfilling the intentions of the Legislature, it was not sought to give effect to these recommendations; on the contrary, it was proposed to throw over their Report, to sweep away the grant altogether, and to leave the Roman Catholics of Ireland to supply education for their clergy as best they could. Supposing the hon. Member for North Warwickshire succeeded in passing his measure through that House, and supposing the noble Earl at the head of the Conservative party (the Earl of Derby), forgetting the almost menacing appeal he made ten years ago in favour of this grant, could induce the other House of Parliament to assent to its withdrawal, did any one think the matter would end there? Would the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland remain uneducated, would Popery cease to exist, and would the people of Ireland be at once converted to the Protestant Church? He was inclined to believe such would not be the result. In 1806–7 when the French army entered Portugal, there were in that country large establishments for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland; the students all fled to Ireland. The great man who then governed France, and aspired to universal dominion, knew how useful it was to make allies wherever he could find them, and he proposed to the Roman Catholic priests, accompanying the proposal with tempting offers, that they should send their students to France to be educated there. What was the conduct of the disloyal bishops and the disloyal clergy of Ireland at that time? They immediately passed a resolution that no person should ever be allowed to officiate as a Roman Catholic priest in Ireland who availed himself of the offer of the French Government. Would the Roman Catholic religion, which had braved the greatest persecutions, bow down before the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen? Could they say to a people educated as the Irish now were, and to whom they had given political power, "You must support your own clergy, and you must not say a word about the enormous endowments which have been conferred on the Church of the minority in your country. He did not believe that they could tear to pieces the compact made with the Roman Catholics as worthless paper, while the Protestant Church and the Protestant University would be left in possession of their parchment and unassailable bond. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen would agree with him in opinion that the greatest man Ireland ever produced was Edmund Burke. He was a great statesman and a great Conservative, and yet he corresponded frequently with the very Dr. Hussey whom the hon. and learned gentleman called the firebrand President of Maynooth. But that was not all. When other officials were removed Dr. Hussey remained at Maynooth at the solicitation of Mr. Burke, in order to perfect, as that distinguished statesman phrased it, the great work he had commenced; and that was the eminent man who, fifty years after he had been in his grave, was described by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. White-side) as the firebrand of Maynooth. He would repeat the question he had put. Did the hon. Member for North Warwickshire think, if he carried his measure, that it would end there? The Roman Catholic religion was the religion of 5,000,000 of the people of Ireland at this moment, and did he think that immense body would at once yield up their opinions? If they did not, the questions remained, would they be instructed, would they have clergymen, and where would the clergy be educated? He supposed the supporters of the Motion had some plan to propose. Most probably they would say the people of Ireland would voluntarily contribute to the support and education of their clergy. No doubt the people would contribute munificently for such an object, but if they did, having once had political power conferred upon them, they would not forget how to use it. But supposing the Roman Catholics of Ireland were unable or unwilling to pay for the education of their clergy, was there no other part of Europe where they could obtain the necessary funds? What a strange and extraordinary conjuncture of circumstances! Up to one o'clock that morning they had been discussing the greatest affairs which could interest mankind—the alliances they had formed, and the probable durability of those alliances. They had been talking of prosecuting the war with vigour against the Emperor of Russia, of discarding Austria, and relying alone upon France. But was it not a question worthy of consideration whether we had done everything in our power to consolidate our own resources before calling upon other States to assist us? The Emperor of Russia was gathering together all his resources, conciliating the Pole, emancipating the Jew, trying to make terms with the Circassian. He found it necessary, before entering upon a war which might be of thirty years' duration, to endeavour to make things safe at home. Surely we should do the same, and not copy the example described by the historian of the Fall of the Roman empire, and be engaged discussing questions of theology when the Ottoman was thundering at the gates of Constantinople. We could not carry on the war an instant if France were separated from us, and hon. members had spoken of the generous aspirations of the French people; but it should not be altogether forgotten that France was a great Roman Catholic Power, and that intimate relations had before existed between the ancient chivalry of Ireland and that nation with whom we were now in alliance. He hoped that this country would triumph over every ill. It must be the most earnest wish and holiest desire of every Briton that she should conquer all her foes; but he did not think it would be wise or politic, or that they would be acting like statesmen and true lovers of their country, if, instead of closing their ranks, uniting every class in a phalanx at a moment of such peril and natural anxiety as the present,— ———cum plurima fuso Sanguine terra madet; stridentqne hastilibus auræ— they were to excite indignation, and rouse the bad passions of millions of men, who otherwise would be as ready as ever to carry the standards of England through the opposing ranks of the common enemy of Europe.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

Sir, the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland has been delivered in a tone which is characteristic of all the speeches on that side of the question, and I deny that it represents the true feelings of the Roman Catholic Laity. I consider every menace employed to check discussion as a slanderous imputation on the people of Ireland, as though instant rebellion were to be the result of free deliberation in Parliament. Nor can it be regarded as a well-judged compliment to the Irish priesthood to claim credit on their account for an extraordinary measure of patriotism and public virtue, because fifty years ago they did not jump at the first offer of the monarch of a country with which we were at war to involve themselves by insurrection, or desertion to the enemy, in all the perils and penalties of treason. Can there be any truth, moreover, in the insinuation, that if Parliament should think it right and expedient to repeal a statute passed ten years ago, that straightway our alliance with France would be imperilled, and the resources on which we depend for supplying the ranks of our army would be lost? Such assertions as these I regard as unmerited slanders on the loyalty of the Irish people, and as undeserving of any weight in the discussion of the question now before us. Now, the Attorney General has stated fairly enough what the question is, but he has most scrupulously, dexterously, perseveringly, and successfully avoided arguing it. Not one single sentence of his vehement address has anything to do with the subject in hand—namely, whether there exist any valid and sufficient reasons why the House should repeal the Act of 1845, and withdraw the money of the State from the support of the College of Maynooth. Of course, it is obvious that good cause must be shown before the Legislature will withdraw a grant which has been enjoyed for ten years; and I quite agree with hon. Members who affirm that the onus of proof rests upon those who are urging its revocation.

There are two modes—perfectly distinct—in which its opponents might argue against the continuance of this endowment. They may either allege that the institution teaches popery, and that popery is antagonistic to the constitution and perilous to the national interests; or they may urge that it has failed of its object, and, being confessedly nothing more than an experiment—it ought now to be abandoned. I think both these arguments valid and both decisive; but it is upon the second, and not upon the first, that the case against Maynooth is rested in this debate. We say, the advantages which we proposed to ourselves in the maintenance of this college we have failed to obtain—the evils which we aimed at mitigating or removing have been multiplied and enhanced—the scheme therefore has been unsuccessful; nay, it has been mischievous—and sound policy—to say nothing of sound principles—requires its instant abandonment. The chief Secretary for Ireland says, this is not a religious but a political question, and that we are not here to discuss the merits or tendencies of the Catholic religion, and hence he declines to enter into any controversy as to the doctrines and practices of the confessional; of marriage; or of oaths. But surely Sir, this is resolutely excluding from the debate every important consideration on which it should turn. For grant that the question is political and not religious; still, inasmuch as Maynooth is a seminary for the education of a priesthood, how can it be possible to decide upon the policy of its maintenance without any reference to the tenets professed and the practices enforced by that body of men? It is to exclude from our view all the vital and essential elements of the controversy, to argue as to the desirableness or otherwise of maintaining this institution, with a studied disregard of papal doctrines and observances. For all these become political, and not merely theological, as soon as it is shown that they have an influence on the social character and habits of the people; and, therefore, on the social and domestic institutions of the country. It is not that complaint is made of the views of the Roman Catholic clergy on the subject of marriage—the authority of Papal Bulls—the obligation of oaths—the nature and conditions of allegiance—as being theologically unsound—but as being practically unsafe—not as religious errors or heresies; but as political mischiefs and perils, that they are denounced on platforms and in Parliament by public men. We say, you hold doctrines subversive of the very foundations of morals—tending to loosen the ties which bind together the social system—which weaken the obligation of obedience—pervert the course, or poison the springs of justice, impair the sentiments of loyalty and patriotism—diminish the force and sacredness of law—invade the family relations—alter the devolution of property—withdraw the citizens from the service of the State. As the mere articles of a creed we do not quarrel with your tenets; but as touching in an intimate manner—and at all points—the social interests, the rights and the civil institutions of our English system, the stability of which is seriously endangered by the propagation and practice of the doctrines you are educated to teach, we feel bound to oppose and denounce them. And if it can be shown, that in any respect matters of such great public concernment are injuriously affected by Roman Catholic teaching, then, I think, great progress has been made in showing that Maynooth is a vicious institution, and should no longer be maintained by public money. Nor is the force of our argument to be evaded by the insinuation or assertion that we are busying ourselves about an exclusively religious question with which the Legislature has no authority to interfere.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who brought forward this Motion, that the Report of the Commission has not in the least degree altered the state of the case, and I concur in the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen, that the testimony of the witnesses has been so garbled, and the evidence so tampered with as to be unworthy of any credit or respect. In fact, no man who hears me, who has been at all accustomed to scrutinize and weigh proofs, to estimate the value of evidence and the credibility of witnesses, will venture to affirm after what has been both proved, and admitted, in relation to this report, that its findings, either as to facts or opinions, should be allowed to influence in any manner the result of this discussion.

The question then disregarding the passionate declamation of the Attorney General, is simply this: Is Maynooth a safe Institution? That twenty-years ago it was a Jesuitical Institution has been proved beyond all controversy. That it is so now, there are the gravest reasons for believing. But in this country, as in all the other countries of Europe, Jesuitism has never been deemed safe or tolerable, either by the Church or the State—but as dangerous at once to our religion and our liberty—that its professors are forbidden by law to establish themselves in the United Kingdom is familiar to us all. But the grant is in itself singular and anomalous. No other example exists of a college for the education of a priesthood being supported out of public funds. No such grant is made to either of our Universities, nor are they established for the exclusive training of the clergy. If, therefore, this vote were withdrawn to-morrow, the Roman Catholics would have no just reason to complain, for they would only then he placed on the same footing in this respect as all other religious bodies in the country.

But the Chief Secretary for Ireland meets the advocates of this Motion with compliments to the energy, the bravery, the endurance, and the capacity of Irishmen; with the assertion that Protestantism is made a cloak for every injustice; with the expression of devout thankfulness that his religion is one of charity and good-will; as distinguished, I suppose, from the religion of those who support my hon. Friend. How far these topics are appropriate, or these insinuations fair, each one will judge for himself; but upon the last, it is impossible to avoid saying a word—for it is often urged, and is much relied upon in debates on this and kindred subjects. It is uncharitable to oppose this grant. Sir, it seems to me that no principle in legislation is likely to be more mischievous than charity. In statesmanship it has no ligitimate scope or object. Its operation, which elsewhere is most beneficent, would here be disastrous. To judge leniently of the acts and the motives of others, to make great allowances for human errors and infirmities, to tolerate, to forbear, and to forgive much and long and often, is the duty of every individual in his private relations. But this is not the duty of a politician—but a weakness and a vice. The statesman must judge calmly, rigorously, even severely, and must act upon his judgment. For him to tolerate—much more for him to patronise and establish and endow, what in his sober judgment he cannot approve, but in timid subserviency or feeble indecision he dares not condemn, is a crime to the State. To perpetuate what he feels to be mischievous, because he hesitates to charge a mischievous intention upon those who promote it, is a fatal fault in a public man; besides, the word charity has no significance, no intelligible or definite meaning, in relation to a system. It is altogether a loose inaccurate style of speaking to say that we judge charitably of the working of an institution, for charity is a sentiment or virtue to be exercised by the individual man in relation to his fellow man, not in relation to any scheme or apparatus, political or religious, which a number of men may set up and put in operation. For such a scheme, and the results of its working, I may feel and express the most unmitigated abhorrence, whilst I candidly allow that those who are responsible for it, are actuated by the purest and most benevolent impulses. Their system I am bound by the most sacred obligations to denounce and destroy as pernicious. Their motives I am equally bound to respect; or, at least, not to malign. To the persons, charity; to the system, rigorous and unbending justice. And thus its opponents deal with Maynooth. The virtues and the learning of its professors, the diligence and piety of its students, are not conclusive arguments in its favour. They may be cheerfully admitted, doubted, or denied, and the merits of the controversy not much affected. This grant is to support a system. Has the system worked successfully and beneficially, or has it not? It was designed to secure for Ireland a domestic and loyal priesthood, a quiet and peaceable body of clergy, a well-educated and gentlemanly set of Christian ministers. Has it attained these objects? So far from it, that never in modern times has the priesthood in Ireland been so illiterate, illiberal, and coarse-minded as now—drawn from the lower classes of the population, educated by charity, and associating exclusively with men sprung from the same origin and victims of the same prejudices as themselves, the instructions of Maynooth do little to polish their manners, less to refine and elevate their minds, and nothing to liberalise and enlarge their sympathies; and they pass from college to their respective spheres of duty, with priestly pretensions and arrogance grafted on the feelings and habits of their peasant boyhood; in few respects improved, in many deteriorated by the college course. Hence they have less influence with the higher classes of society than the cultivated gentlemen, who half a century ago ministered to the religious instruction of the Catholics of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen has adduced ample evidence to show that an entirely different class of men have been trained for the priesthood since the establishment of the college of Maynooth. Have the Roman Catholic clergy been more loyal and peaceable, more patriotic and well-affected since their education was provided for out of the public bounty? Let the riotous parliamentary elections, the agitations, the rebellions, the political turbulence and seditious language of the parish priests, answer this question !

But does this college limit itself to the object for which it was endowed? That object was to give an education to those who should discharge the functions of parish priests in Ireland; but this institution restricts itself within no such bounds. It sends forth missionary priests in large numbers to the other portions of the United Kingdom. It sends many to Canada and to the other colonial dependencies of the Empire. It supplies India with a Maynooth-trained clergy. Surely, the Imperial Parliament had no intention to sanction such movements as these when it passed the Act of 1845; for, though a Protestant legislation may consent to make some public provision for the Roman Catholics of the Empire, it could have no idea that such provision should be employed in subverting the forms of religion recognised and established by the constitution. So far as this college, therefore, goes beyond the original object of its foundation, the giving a sufficient supply of priests to Ireland, so far it is a breach of the implied condition of the original grant; and if proselytising and controversial theologians are sent out from it, to shake the faith or change the religion of Protestants, it is a gross abuse of the bounty of the State, to be justly visited by a forfeiture of the endowment. When Sir Robert Peel brought forward the proposition for the Maynooth grant he said he introduced it as a measure of peace, and in the spirit of conciliation; and the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said that ever since that Act had been passed Ireland had improved in its social condition, and that every succeeding year bad been one of increasing peace and prosperity. Now I, on the contrary, maintain that there has been no ten years since the first annual vote for Maynooth was passed in which there have been such open aggressions of the law and of the constitution or the country, and such flagrant infringements of the usages of civilised and social life among us, on the part of the Roman Catholic priesthood, as during the last ten years. The Ultramontane party in that Church has made extraordinary progress since the passing of the Act of 1845, a party notoriously hostile to the laws and institutions of this country, and yet the avowed object and purpose of that statute was to give to the Roman Catholics a ministry domestic and national, free from the foreign sympathies, and less bound by a foreign allegiance than those whom they were to succeed. The very reverse of this has been the consequence of the measure; nor can any contrast be stronger than that between the proposed objects and the accomplished results of this legislation. As a signal illustration of this remark, we have only to recall the names of those who have been appointed of late years to the highest posts in that community, and contrast the characters of M'Hale, of Cullen, and of Wiseman, with the milder dispositions and more liberal feelings of those who preceded them. Those predecessors were moderate in their views, charitable in their sentiments, obedient to the laws, and loyal to the Sovereign. What those are whose names I have mentioned must be decided by a reference to what they have said and done. If the object of Sir Robert Peel were to conciliate popish bishops, and restrain them within the bounds of law, can any purpose have been defeated more signally? Never has relentless hostility to England and to Protestantism been shown more openly; never has law been violated so flagrantly, or evaded so perseveringly. A synod is convened and assembled against the law—various ecclesiastical titles are given and assumed against the law—religious habits are publicly worn, and religious processions pompously marshalled through the principal streets of our large towns against the law. Canons and decrees are framed and passed in illegal assemblies, to oppose the enactments and defeat the policy of the Imperial Parliament. The Queen's colleges—institutions provided by the State for the benefit of all classes, irrespective of religious creed, are loudly decried—and those for whose benefit they were principally established, and who were desirous of availing themselves of their advantages, are forbidden to enter them—and all this is done at the bidding of a foreign ecclesiastical power—and a bull, or evangelical letter from the Pope—illegally introduced into the country—neutralises and virtually repeals an English statute.

Look at the multiplication of Roman Catholic institutions throughout the land. Hundreds of nunneries, with thousands of entrapped and imprisoned inmates, and hundreds of thousands of ill-gotten wealth—scores of monasteries, every one in open defiance of the very statute which gave back political rights to the papists—a multitude of Jesuits and members of numerous other religious orders—all forbidden—and, with but trivial exceptions, all sprung into existence since 1845. What answer can be given to these complaints? Are nunneries and convents in conformity with our usages and the spirit of our institutions, or alien from both? Are monasteries the plainest infringements of positive enactment, or are they not? Is the multiplication of religious orders an observance or a defiance of the Roman Catholic Relief Act? And if these novelties are, either obviously a breach of the letter of the law, or palpably an invasion of its spirit, why are they to be tolerated or connived at?—nay, why are they to be patronised and encouraged by our rulers? Concession does not operate as conciliation. Forbearance does not secure moderation. Timidity and supineness do but invite further aggression—dishearten friends and stimulate and encourage the foe. Or, if the illustrations already given be not enough to prove the impolicy of the course we have adopted, surely the last I shall mention will be conclusive. What thinks the House of the recent papal aggression, of Protestant England parcelled out by the pontiff into popish dioceses, and the people handed over to the government of pope-made bishops, governing in the name and by the authority of a foreign Sovereign, and with territorial titles and absolute ecclesiastical jurisdiction ! Could it have been conjectured by the eminent author of the Act under consideration that within so short a period after the introduction of his well-intended experiment on the loyalty and gratitude of the Roman Catholics, so arrogant, insolent, and almost treasonable, an attempt should have been made to subvert the religion and the liberties of the country? Surely, had he lived to witness that strange exhibition of priestly assurance, he would have anticipated my hon. Friend in the Motion which he has introduced, and been the first to retrace the fatal step which he encouraged the legislature to take.

It may be a question, Sir, whether the College of Maynooth is not an injury rather than a benefit to the Roman Catholic Church. Sure I am that the Ultramontane teaching given within its walls, and the Ultramontane spirit encouraged by its professors, are seriously impairing—have perceptibly diminished—the liberties of that Church. Its members will tacitly agree with me, and it is well known that thousands of the best and most honoured of them think so, that the aggressive, intolerant, ambitious, hierarchical spirit exhibited of late by certain Rome-selected rulers has been anything rather than a benefit to the Church which they govern. They more than suspect that their own spiritual liberties, and even their ecclesiastical freedom are sacrificed to the despotic and arbitary rule of Cardinal Archbishops. The interest of England is to make the Roman Catholic community free and independent, to protect them as far as possible from the tyranny of Rome; and while the unity of their Church is preserved by preserving their connexion with its head, that its domestic character should be maintained by making its government as far as possible independent of the Vatican. The policy of the Propaganda is the reverse of this; their object is—and they have made great strides lately towards its attainment—to bring the Roman Catholics of the united kingdom into the closest relation to, the most intimate alliance with, the most entire dependence upon the Holy See. And in proportion as they succeed in effecting this purpose, they put in peril both our faith and our constitution, our religion and our liberty.

But, Sir, to conclude: I oppose Maynooth on the grounds I have stated. I believe its teaching to be unsound and dangerous; that it has a tendency to weaken the bonds by which the social system is connected together; to undermine the base upon which it rests. I believe that in tampering with the binding obligation of an oath, it perils all the social interests of the community, and so endangers its political welfare and its national independence. I hold that allegiance to the Crown is not more secure under its influence than obedience to the law has been found to be; and that both are at the mercy of a false and fatal system of moral philosophy. I am convinced, that this college goes far beyond the intention of its founders; that it has utterly refuted the predictions of those who advocated its permanent endowment; that it has disappointed all the hopes with which its establishment was hailed, and justified more than all the apprehensions with which it was regarded, and that the public support of it should be discontinued at once. The result of this motion, Sir, I will not pretend to predict. But of this I am well assured, the grant to Maynooth will at no distant period be withdrawn. Not, perhaps, during this session; not, perhaps, by this Parliament; but speedily and certainly, and finally. The minds of the people—those classes of the people who bring about all the social and legislative changes of the country, are made up on the subject. The thoughtful, the religious, the energetic millions of the middle class, are opposed to this grant as at once unprincipled and impolitic, and they are determined on its revocation—the thousands of their petitions on the subject (equalling, I believe, those presented on all other subjects together) show their feeling and foreshadow their triumph. They will succeed, for they are armed with deep convictions, with convincing arguments, with decisive facts, with ardent and devout sentiments, and their opponents can meet them only with spurious liberality or with specious excuses, with pleas of expediency or taunts of fanaticism. The false and temporising policy may survive for a time, but its days are numbered and we all of us know it.

MR. MAGUIRE moved the adjournment of the debate.

Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 27th June.

The House adjourned at twelve minutes before six o'clock.