MOTION FOR COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 19 February 1857 vol 144 cc874-919

MR. SPOONER moved,— That this House do resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of considering the Act 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 and interests. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, nothing but a strong sense of duty could, under any circumstances, have induced him again to bring the question of the grant to Maynooth under the notice of the House. But he felt it was his imperative duty—it was the duty of every Protestant, of every true patriot, of every Member of that House who had sworn allegiance to the Sovereign, to protest against the further continuance of the payment of public moneys for the education of priests in Maynooth College. There were many reasons which presented themselves to him against the continuance of the grant; but he was not going to trouble the House with any lengthened statement on that occasion, to which, indeed, he felt himself physically unequal, in consequence of a severe cold. He would say, however, that in bringing forward the question he had no views of personal ambition to serve. He had the highest respect for many, many Roman Catholics, and he had the pleasure of living on terms of intimacy with them. He knew them to be honourable and upright men, good subjects, and to act conscientiously according to their own views. He, therefore, could have no personal motives in taking the question up. In the first place, then, he wished to refer to the way in which the question had been met upon former occasions. He could have wished that hon. Gentlemen had dealt with him in that spirit of courtesy which was consonant with Parliamentary practice, and that when a Bill had been introduced and virtually read a second time, that advantage had not been taken of one of their rules by an hon. Member, whom he did not now see in his place, to defeat the declared opinions of the House. He feared that those Parliamentary tactics would be again resorted to to defeat his measure. He had been told, indeed, by some hon. Gentlemen, whose opinions he respected, and whose good opinion he desired to retain, that his Motion now assumed such a shape and character that it was absolutely a nuisance before the House. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but who was it that created that nuisance? Was it the individual who brought the subject forward, or was it those who opposed it? Was it not those who resorted to every factious means to prevent the question going to a division? The forms of the House were most valuable, and of much consequence to maintain; but the abuse of them, if often repeated, would ultimately demand the adoption of some measure to put an end to that abuse. He had one great reason for opposing this grant—it was exactly that which had been mentioned by an hon. Gentleman below the gangway a few minutes ago on the part of the Roman Catholics. He on the part of the Protestants of this country objected to be taxed to pay for the support of a religion the doctrines of which were contrary to the Word of God. That was a reason he now urged in support of his proposition. They, the Protestants of this great country, ought not to be taxed to support a religion which they believed to be not only a mistake—not only to be erroneous, but one which they declared was contrary to the Word of God—a religion whose doctrines were repugnant to the Holy Scriptures—a course which, if not abandoned, would sooner or later bring down upon this country those heavy judgments by which so many nations had already been overwhelmed, but from which Providence, in His mercy, had still spared us. That was the high ground upon which he stood. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members might laugh at and ridicule what he said, but they might rest assured that he was influenced by a sincere conviction of the truth. Whatever motives they might assign to him, he felt strong in the position which he occupied, that he was discharging a solemn duty which he owed to himself, as well as to his country and his God. But there were, besides, lower motives which should also come under their consideration. The support of this College he believed to be completely contrary to the Protestant constitution of this country. He asked them what did they require from their Sovereign when that Sovereign ascended the throne? What was the oath which that Sovereign was required to take? Why, that the Sovereign would maintain the Protestaut Church. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No!" but he maintained that that was the meaning of the oath, if not its words. He had not the oath before him, or he would read it. The Protestant Sovereign of this country had no title to the throne except that which she derived from the obligation she incurred in being the defender of the Protestant Church of the country as by law established. Well, what was the Established Church? What were its articles and its creeds which the Sovereign promised to maintain? One great article declared that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. And yet having signed those articles, they called upon that Sovereign to give her assent to a grant of money for the education and maintenance of a priesthood who were instructed to contradict the very principles embodied in those articles. They were taught to consider the Protestant authorities as out of the pale of the Christian Church. They were called upon to support a body of clergy who were intended to go from one end of the world to the other with the view of propagating those doctrines a denunciation of which constituted the very title by which the Sovereign holds her crown. Those hon. Gentlemen who had carefully read the Report of the Commissioners would agree with him that the conclusions at which the Commissioners had arrived were in complete contravention of the evidence upon which their Report was supposed to be based. He would not be in the least afraid to rest the whole of this question upon the decision of twelve men sworn as a jury to say whether the conclusion at which the Commissioners had arrived was to be justified by the evidence which they had heard. They said that there was no reason to believe that there had been any disloyalty in the teaching of the clergy, or any disposition to impair the sense of those obligations which they owed to their Sovereign. If he were to trouble them with extracts from that Report he could show them at once that those propositions were distinctly negatived by the best evidence that could be brought forward. The first witnesses who were examined were those who were naturally interested in the maintenance of the College. But the House would find that even in their evidence there were contradictions as to the character of the teaching that was carried on at Maynooth. There, for example, was a Mr. O' Hanlon, who said, "Oh, no, the priests have no right whatever to interfere with elections;" but he subsequently said, "there may be occasions in which to give a wrong vote would be a great sin against morality, and wherever it is a sin to give a wrong vote it is the duty of the priesthood to punish the individual." And then they would find, when they talked of the loyalty due to the Sovereign, that their evidence went to this extent—that their Church had the first and paramount claim upon them, and that whatever militated against the interests of that Church could not be justified in any way, even so far as obedience to the existing Sovereign. If the House would permit him to bring in his Bill, he would be prepared with those extracts which would fully justify what he said. Let them but look to the other witnesses examined. What was the evidence of those who had really suffered by the evils of the College, who had received their education there? He referred to men who had the sense and the courage to think for themselves, and who had been led by the grace of God to see their former errors. Those gentlemen had come forward to state that what had been said against the system of teaching in Maynooth was perfectly correct. They now enjoyed, as they deserved, a high position in the Protestant Church. They stated that when they were in the College they were taught such absurd views and notions that, to use the expression of one of them, they felt that they were rebels when they left the College. He (Mr. Spooner) then said that the evidence so given must convince every unprejudiced person that the conclusions to which the Commissioners had come were unfounded and unsupported by the evidence before them. These Commissioners were evidently misled and baffled by the machinations of a certain body of men going by the name of Jesuits. The noble Lord at the head of that Commission no doubt filled every relation in life in a manner honourable to himself and beneficial to the country at large. The noble Lord did not, however, possess calibre sufficient to contend with the Jesuits; for he was unfortunately deceived throughout by them. If hon. Members had read the first Report of 1827 upon Maynooth by a Commission, over which the father of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer most carefully, assiduously, and ably presided, they would see an obvious difference in the manner in which the whole of the question was treated. When the Members of that Commission met to consider their Report they could not agree, and they gave no opinion on the matter, but left the evidence to speak for itself. There were men on that Commission who were not to be deluded, who would never sanction a Report which was contrary to evidence. Any man who compared the two Reports would see how far superior the examination on the first was conducted. Let the House but reflect on the progress of the College of Maynooth. It was originally authorised by a Bill of a permissive character. The first measure simply gave permission to certain Roman Catholics in Ireland to form a College, to hold property, and to use that property for the teaching of the priests, which they could not do without the permission of such an Act. That boon was sought for with humility, and was gratefully received. It was given them with the full and confident hope that, by educating the priests at home, there would be a better class of priests created than by educating them abroad. If the Roman Catholics had but acted up to their professions, there would be a different feeling between Protestants and Catholics than that which existed at the present day. Well, having got permission, they came for money—still humble, still submissive, still suppliant—but earnestly asking for money. That money was unfortunately granted them. He insisted that the principle was wrong in any way whatever—sanctioning by the Government a grant of the public money for such purposes. It was not to be justified. If the House would but trace the doings of the Romish party, they would find them inch by inch advancing in their claims. Every concession given to them but created a fresh demand. They came now, not as suppliants—not with promises that they would really submit to the Government—that they would be good subjects—but they demanded this money as a right—["Hear, hear," from the Irish Members]. Well, he thought that the House ought to take warning by their past conduct, and not give them any more. He protested against giving them the sanction which they now enjoyed of educating their priests by means of the Protestant money of this country. He was reminded that some feeble-minded friends of his, who totally disapproved of the grant and of the conduct of the priesthood—indeed, as strongly as himself—were not yet prepared to vote for the discontinuance of the grant. They said, "Oh, if you meddle with that you will destroy the Protestant Established Church of Ireland." He, however, was not to be frightened from his position, even by such an apprehension. He was convinced that the noble Lord at the head of the Government felt as strongly as he did that there was no analogy whatever between the two cases. It was only about two years ago when the noble Lord stated as much in that House. The question of the endowment of Maynooth had nothing whatever to do with the maintenance of the Protestant Church in Ireland. He therefore left that question with the most perfect confidence in the hands of the noble Lord, satisfied that, so long as he was Prime Minister, not one sixpence would ever be extracted from that which belonged to the Established Church. His merry friends below the gangway said that it was their property first. All he would say in reply was, then they knew nothing of history. If they did they would know that long before the plague and leprosy of Popery found its way into Ireland there was a Christian Church existing and endowed there, holding the same doctrine, administering the sacraments in the same way, and preaching from the same Scriptures as the united Established Church did at this day. They preached exactly the same doctrines, and were endowed by many wealthy and zealous friends who believed in those pure doctrines. They might trace up the title to some of the property which that Church holds to a period long before the appearance of the Roman Catholic religion. The United Church of England and Ireland was a corporate body, and although there were abuses introduced into it, that Church still remained in its integrity. When the Reformation came all those abuses were swept away, and the Church was purified, but still remained the same corporate Church. No man who had read history could come to any other conclusion than that the title to its property was as good and as sound in the present United Church of England and Ireland as the property of any person whatever. But he was told that property had sometimes been left for certain uses to the Church which were contrary to Protestant feeling as well as the law of the country. He admitted such to be the case. But they must treat such property as they would that of any testator who bequeathed his money for improper purposes. If they had sound reasons for objecting to such application of property, they did not destroy the legacy; but, as they did every day in the Court of Chancery, they would order it to be appropriated in the best legal manner, so as to act as conformably as possible to the wishes of the testator. And if this were found to be utterly impossible, it would then become forfeited to the Crown, by which its ultimate application would be directed. He therefore said, that whether as regarded the original title to the property, or as regarded the question of legacies left during the period of darkness and corruption, the title of the Church to its property was as sound and as good as the title to any other property in the kingdom. He feared not, then, any such threats as had been made in respect to the Protestant Church of Ireland. Let them but look around and see how many men hold their estates by the same identical title by which a great deal of the Church property was held. The persons thus circumstanced would very soon find out that it was not only their duty, but it was their pecuniary interest to maintain such a faith. Self-protection, then, if they had no higher or worthier motive, would hinder them from giving any aid to the intended spoliation or to the adoption of any measures against the Established Church. The Roman Catholic party themselves were too powerful a body to have submitted to this state of things if they thought that by any possibility they could obtain a legal title to that property. An hon. and learned Serjeant had recently written a curious pamphlet upon this subject. In that document the learned Gentleman admitted the title of the property of the Church, but he put forth a beautiful scheme under which it might be distributed amongst the various sects throughout the country. It was very amusing to read such speculations. Another point, and a very important one for their consideration, was the great change that has for years been going on, and was now going on, within the walls of Maynooth. The great struggle was as to whether the Gallican or the Ultramontane doctrines should prevail there. [Here an hon. Member, Mr. DRUMMOND, ejaculated "What stuff!"] His hon. Friend, with his usual politeness, exclaims "What stuff!" He could assure him that it would require still greater eloquence and convincing powers than his hon. Friend to make him (Mr. Spooner) believe that this was all stuff. What was the object for which Maynooth was formed? The fear of this country originally was that the Ultramontane doctrines would be professed by the Irish priesthood. It was apprehended that they would be the mere tools of the Pope, and the Government did all they could to prevent such an evil occurring. For many years the Government exercised a close surveillance over the College of Maynooth; but the system gradually changed—the original trustees were removed. Their officers, who were supposed to watch over the proceedings of the College, were turned into visitors, and, to use the expression of one of them, "We just walk over the college once in one, two, or three years, but have no power to interfere in the affairs of the college." Then came the next change in the college in the alteration of the books. In the first Report the catalogue of the books used in the college was given. In the second Report it was stated, forsooth! that the students were not instructed in many of those books—that they formed no part of their education, although it was admitted that they might read them. There was, however, a great change in respect to those books. For example, "Bailly," that was in the former catalogue, was now prohibited. And why? It was said, indeed, that Bailly's book was rather of a Gallican character, which was not convenient for the Pope to entertain, and Scavini's Moral Theology was adopted in place of it, a book as full of Ultramontane doctrine as it was possible for any book to be. The edition quoted was that of Paris, 1853. He would take the liberty of reading an extract from this work:— Pope Pius IX. permits his letter recommendatory to be put in the preface of this work, and specially approves it, because it gives further propagation to 'the salutary doctrines of that most truly learned man Alphonsus Liguori, and imbues youthful minds with the same.'—May, 1847. Given at Rome. Let them but consider what were Scavini's doctrines. "He returns the compliment of his master by awarding the Pope the title of "Gloriosissimus," vol. i., page 199. Treating De Legibus, he says, vol. i., page 173,— The chief Pontiff has power to make laws for the whole Catholic world, because he is the successor of divine Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him is given the plenary power in behalf of the blessed Peter of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church. Now, no such words as spiritually governing appeared there. The omission of the word was very important. Now, what does this writer say about human laws. He says that the precept of Scripture enjoining obedience to human laws cannot be violated without high criminality, "unless"—and here the Jesuit betrays himself—"anything be enjoined which is against the laws of God and of the Church." Sovereigns, therefore, were to be obeyed by their subjects only when their laws were in harmony with those of the Church. And lower down "Human laws, if they are just, bind the conscience;" and at p. 201, "In a doubtful case (as to laws), no one is obliged to obey." In vol. i. page 218, he discusses the question if the pontifical laws ought to be promulgated in the provinces beyond the Roman States, and he affirms that "they ought;" and (page 219) he says, "it thwarts and degrades the Roman Pontiff (the true vicar of Christ over the whole Church, the head, father and teacher of all Christians) to call him a foreign Prince in regard to the faithful living beyond the Roman States, when reference is made to those laws pontifical which are issued from Rome to all Christians; or to call Rome a foreign territory when it is the centre of Christendom." He (Mr. Spooner) asked them now whether they would give their sanction to a college that taught such doctrines? The obedience of the Catholic priesthood to the laws of the country was only contingent upon their not interfering with the laws of the Church. Was the British House of Commons prepared to pay a grant of money for the support of an establishment which taught the subjects of Her Majesty that there was a human power superior to that Sovereign, which they were bound to obey before her? Then, as to witnesses, in vol. i. page 433 of Scavini was this passage— Is a witness bound to restitution who conceals the truth from a Judge lawfully interrogating? Some say he is so bound, but others—Lugo Molina, Lessius—deny that he is, and say that by silence he does not sin against justice. Now that passage was strong enough, but it was only very trifling to what came next. The witness is sworn to tell the truth; but in the passage he (Mr. Spooner) had read they had it stated that some Roman Catholic authors were of opinion that he was not bound to comply with what all Protestants held to be the sacred obligation of an oath. The author added, in a note— Indeed this is more probable, because thus swearing he (the witness) is not bound to observe his oath, as well because from his words it is invalid, as also because God did not accept his promissory oath except according to the intention of the person swearing. The Roman Catholics were free to state that it was no sin whatever not to tell the truth. [Cries of "No, no!" from the Roman Catholic Members.] Yes, in this book that doctrine was taught. Hon. Gentleman could read it. [Renewed cries of "No, no!"] He really believed that many of the Roman Catholics themselves did not know it—that very few of them knew it. In a conversation which he had had, on one occasion, with a Roman Catholic Member of the House, one for whom he entertained a very high respect, that hon. Gentleman asked him what made him so bitter against Roman Catholics. He (Mr. Spooner) replied that he had no bitterness towards them [a laugh]. He repeated his assertion. Individually he had not. He dealt with them just as impartially as he did with Protestants. He had nothing, nor did he wish to have anything to do with their private opinions. He knew that there were many Roman Catholics who would laugh to scorn the teaching in the book from which he had quoted; but let the House recollect whom they were teaching in Maynooth. They were teaching the priests, who were to be the instructors of the people of Ireland. They would have to answer for the consequences of that teaching, for it was coming from themselves; they were paying for it. Without taking the high ground of their responsibility to Almighty God, he asked them ought they, as Gentlemen, to send out such teaching through the priests to ignorant people who knew no better, and who would be told that it was extracted from a book authorised by a Protestant Government? But to continue his anecdote respecting the conversation with the Roman Catholic Member to whom he had been alluding. He replied to the hon. Gentleman that he was only bitter against the doctrines of the Roman Catholics, and as evidence of what those doctrines were he quoted books used at Maynooth. The hon. Gentleman assured him that he had never seen those books, and added that he was really astonished to hear of such doctrines in Roman Catholic authors. He could multiply his quotations; but he would not detain the House with more than one or two more. In vol. i. page 425, was this doctrine— One thousand jocose or officious lies are a thousand venial sins, but do not make one mortal sin; hence the Council of Trent teaches that venial sins need not to be confessed, nor do they extinguish grace. Again, vol. i. page 431, "Obligations of civil society say that a clergyman ought not make oath before a layman unless with licence of his superior," and quotes the Sacred Congregation's Instructions of 1823 as authority. And in vol. ii. pages 234–5— What is to be thought of a false promissory oath? Whoever promises anything with an oath, but without the intention of being bound by it, it is commonly agreed that he sins gravely, since it is a grave irreverence to call God to witness and not to be bound by it; but there are those who teach that this sin is venial, and, indeed, very probably, for without the mind to be obligated there is no oath, and therefore the oath cannot be violated. There has, therefore, been only a vain use of the Divine name. Now he seriously put it to the House and to Her Majesty's Government not to hear these statements carelessly. He called upon them not to allow these things to continue—not to suffer or endure the disgrace of having the country identified with such teachings. It was their duty to provide proper education for all classes of her Majesty's subjects; but they were not to teach them—he was going to use a light term and say, such trash; but he did not hesitate to say, such blasphemy as that which he had read. If they did, some day or other this teaching would recoil upon themselves. Nothing could have induced him to enter upon such a subject but the full conviction that he should be guilty of a great sin if he neglected to avail himself of the opportunity which his seat in the House afforded him of endeavouring to unfold those truths to their rulers. To the noble Lord at the head of the Government himself—who, he was sure, never read any of those books—he would strongly appeal. If he could stir up in the noble Lord's mind a sense of his responsibility, he (Lord Palmerston) had the power of putting a stop to the mischief. If he could but once get the noble Lord seriously to consider the matter, he was convinced of the noble Lord's upright character—so convinced that the noble Lord would recoil from anything taught by those books, that he was sure he would do in the matter what would become the Prime Minister of this great Protestant country. The noble Lord was very well read, and very well informed on every subject; and if he only availed himself of the opportunity now afforded him of examining the doctrines taught in those books, he would very speedily become satisfied that they were dangerous to a Protestant constitution, and that they would subvert the allegiance due to the Sovereign, destroy in the minds of the Irish population the obligation of an oath, and make them unfit to be sworn as witnesses in courts of justice—["No, no!" from the Roman Catholic Members]. He was only talking of the natural effect of such teachings as those contained in the book from which he had quoted. Hon. Members shouted "No, no!" because one-tenth of them he supposed had never read those books. He believed he had read more of them than had most Members of that House [Laughter]. He was farther of opinion that did those Members who now laughed, calmly peruse those works with a desire of arriving at the truth, they would themselves be the first to aid him in putting down a system fraught with immorality, and destructive of the allegiance which the subject owed to the Sovereign. If such a system of teaching were not put a stop to, he believed a day of retribution would assuredly arrive. This country was, under God, indebted for her liberty to her maintenance of Protestant doctrines; but let them once suffer an admixture of Roman Catholic doctrine to take place, and even those liberals par excellence, if they aided in bringing about such results, would find that they had made a great mistake. They would find that they had introduced a tyranny which they would be unable to grapple with, and they would then bitterly repent the so-called liberality upon which they now prided themselves. He had now concluded his observations on the general question. He would bow to the decision of the House, whatever it might be; but he asked hon. Members not to stop discussion on so important a subject. Let them give him an opportunity of bringing in his Bill that it might have due consideration. He had, on the grounds of courtesy and precedent, a right to ask that much, for the House had already sanctioned a second reading of the Bill by negativing a Motion to negative the second reading. He hoped there would not be any factious debating when once the House had pronounced a definite opinion on the measure; but he again asked that it might not be thrown out without a discussion of the grave facts which he held it to be the duty of the House calmly to consider.

MR. KENDALL

seconded the Motion. He felt it his duty, in so doing, to briefly state his reasons, but he could assure hon. Members that none of his remarks would be intentionally offensive to Roman Catholics. He should be a very ungrateful man did he use offensive language towards them, for since his earliest days he had been on terms of close intimacy with members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and both in this country and abroad he had experienced the greatest kindness from them. He was quite aware that Roman Catholics conscientiously treated him as a heretic, while, on the other hand, he conscientiously treated them as Christian brethren. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that it was impossible for any man of ordinary common sense to come to the same conclusion as that arrived at by the Commissioners who had inquired into the working of Maynooth College; but he (Mr. Kendall) should, he supposed, in his own case, attribute it to the fact that his education had been a simple one, and that he could not, therefore, enter into the subtleties which those learned Gentlemen were masters of. He based his opposition to the Maynooth Grant simply on the ground universally pursued by Roman Catholics towards Protestants in matters relating to religion, and that the people of this country should, in their bearing towards the Roman Catholics, hold themselves on the defensive; that they should in no way give the Roman Catholics power; and there could be no doubt that a grant of money increased their power. ["Oh, oh!"]. He did not mean to be at all offensive, but he should state the grounds of his opposition. He believed that every act of the Roman Catholics, as regarded their conduct towards Protestants, was the result of a conscientious motive; that there was a certain modus operandi prescribed for them, and that they approved of and carried it out. The union of the Roman Catholics was their strength, and Protestants ought to be ashamed that they had not amongst themselves such a union. They ought to take a lesson frm the Roman Catholics, and be more in union with each other. The fact was that Roman Catholics felt respect for the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for having come forward as he had done—constantly and zealously; and they despised the Protestant who had not courage and nerve enough to support him. Let hon. Members consider for a moment what had been the conduct of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Had there, during the last twenty years, been any one act commenced in Ireland by Protestants for the furtherance of their own religion which had not been opposed by the Roman Catholics, banded together as one man? Many hon. Members were in the habit of travelling on the Continent, where in Roman Catholic countries they experienced the utmost kindness and hospitality; but they must have observed that whenever the question of religion was involved everything was done to humiliate them. Whenever the Roman Catholics had the support of the Government of the State, they thought it their duty to oppress those who differed from them in religion. He was in Tuscany in 1834, and knew from personal experience that it was impossible to meet a man of more kindliness of disposition than the Grand Duke. Yet what had happened in that country during the last twenty years? The Grand Duke bound himself to the priests, and as a consequence had felt it necessary to oppress Protestants in order to carry out the practices of his religion. It was on these grounds that he (Mr. Kendall) opposed giving power to Roman Catholics, which they would use adversely to the Protestant religion. They need not for proof go outside the House. On any question that concerned Protestant interests they found the Roman Catholic Members bound together as one to oppose the Protestants. He, therefore, asked the House not to give the Roman Catholics power, for they would from conscientious motives make an oppressive use of it. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had often been charged with bringing forward his Motion for the abolition of Maynooth at inopportune times—he had been censured, for example, for bringing it forward last year during the war with Russia, when Roman Catholic soldiers were fighting side by side with Protestants; and it was said that any Motion that would excite a difference between them was to be deprecated. But if ever there was a fitting, an opportune time for such a Motion as that before the House, it was the present, and he would tell them the reason why he thought so. He, for one, suspected that there were without that House, and within it too, men who, though not professing the Roman Catholic religion, were still by their acts doing all they could to forward it. Some of these men did this, he believed, designedly; others did it unconsciously. They were not numerous; but they were powerful in intellect—powerful in regard of means, powerful in regard of position, and dangerous in regard of society. He believed that those men were not true to the constituents by whom they had been sent to this House. He held that to be a Protestant Parliament, and his belief as a Protestant was, that every farthing voted in that House for education, not based upon the Protestant religion, was money granted by an act of presumption which amounted to a national sin. He heartily seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend.

Motion made, and Question proposed— 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.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, the House would give him credit for not being in the habit of introducing theological questions, and therefore he trusted they would indulge him for a few moments whilst he discussed this Motion on other than theological grounds. Hon. Members must have wondered at the great difference between the speech of the Mover and that of the seconder of the Motion. There could not be a second opinion as to the good taste with which the seconder had put forward his views. He (Mr. Roebuck) wished he could say as much for the mover. It appeared to him that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had read history very curiously—read it by the light of his own prejudices. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that the College of Maynooth had been endowed for the purpose of shutting out the Popish power. Now he (Mr. Roebuck) would endeavour very shortly to trace the history of that college. He would endeavour to show the House that the grant to Maynooth was founded upon justice and upon policy; and that, going to those higher principles—the principles of morality—it was founded upon these too. When was the College of Maynooth founded? It was founded at the time of the French Revolution, when this country dreaded not Ultramontane, but Gallic tyranny. The Irish Catholic priests were at that time taught in revolutionary France, and it was in order to prevent a continuance of that teaching that Mr. Pitt became the originator of the College of Maynooth. Now, the College of Maynooth was first endowed or established by the Irish Protestant Parliament—not by a mixed Parliament like the present Imperial Parliament. The seconder of the Motion called this assembly a Protestant assembly. He (Mr. Roebuck) took the liberty to contradict the assertion. It was neither Protestant, Catholic, or Episcopalian. The British Parliament represented the opinion of the whole population of the three countries; and as opinions diverged in those three countries, so did opinions in that House diverge. These countries were not Protestant. No one could say that the people, or their representatives, were all Episcopalians. In England there was one religion; in Scotland another; and in Ireland a third—three—he could not say State religions, because the Roman Catholic was not the religion of the State in Ireland—but it was the religion of the great body of the people of that country, and recognised as such by the Government. Besides the people of these three religions, there were a multitude of Dissenting bodies represented in the House. They might call the representatives of those Dissenters representatives of Protestants of this country; but they were not more the representatives of the Protestants than the Catholic Members were—the Catholics in that House as much represented the people of this country as did the Protestant Members. Therefore, he said that House was not Protestant. But the Irish Parliament was a Protestant Parliament—it was elected by Protestants, and only Protestants could sit in it, and this Protestant Parliament erected the College of Maynooth and endowed it. That was in 1795. The House must remember why they did so. They dreaded not Ultramontane but Gallic doctrines. The thing they feared was revolutionary France; and revolutionary France was the place where the Irish priests were educated. Revolutionary principles, originating in France, had spread over the whole Continent; and it was in order to prevent Irish priests from imbibing revolutionary doctrines on the Continent, and importing them into Ireland, that the College of Maynooth was created. They then came to the time of the legislative union of Ireland with this country. When that union was effected, the Parliament of England felt itself bound to adopt what had been done by the Irish Parliament in respect of Maynooth. So thought all the great men of that day; and at the head of them was Mr. Pitt. They had left Maynooth as a legacy to the Parliament of the present day; and it was now in a position to see the obligations imposed on it by that legacy. For centuries Protestant England tried to root out Catholicism in Ireland. They passed laws which were a disgrace to any civilized community. They tried every possible means that bigotry and cruelty could induce men to put in force in order to root out Catholic doctrine. But they failed; and in 1829 the consequence of their failure was felt, for they were compelled to grant Catholic emancipation. He now asked what was the justice of the claim. The justice of the claim was, that Maynooth had been established for English purposes, and the Parliament of England had maintained it on that ground. Then with regard to the policy of the claim. The great body of the people of Ireland were Catholics, and it was for the interest of the empire at large that there should be peace and good-will in that country. The Government and Parliament of England had some years ago changed their system, and endeavoured to be just to Ireland, and the condition of the Irish people was now very different from what it had been under the old system of Protestant domination. The Irish were now a prosperous people; they were now a peaceable people; they were now—he was almost ashamed to say the word—a loyal people. When he said "ashamed to say the word," he meant shame that any man should be called upon at that time of day to vindicate before his fellow-men in that House the conduct of the Irish people. The Irish had, when called on, acted like brothers to the English. Let them look to the history of the battles, and did not they find Irishmen standing by the side of the English in all the great battles on the Continent? Should not the principles, then, of that House towards the Irish people continue to be those of kindliness, that they might again have the friendship of that people in the hour of danger? Some one had said "England's danger is Ireland's opportunity," but he would say that the people of Ireland had repudiated that sentiment—whenever they had been called on they had come to England's assistance. He said then that it was the bounden duty of this country, as a mere matter of policy, to do the Irish people justice—to study their feelings—not in any way to insult them. He was of opinion that Motions of this sort, repeated every year in language such as they had heard that night, were impolitic, and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner) would pardon him for saying that they were unchristian. He did not like that sort of Christianity which enabled a man to damn his fellow-man. He wanted to know what constituted the hon. Member for North Warwickshire judge in a matter of that kind? What was there in his intellect—what was there in himself—that induced him to set himself up and say to any other man, "You are a sinner?" [Mr. SPOONER: I did not say that.] The hon. Gentleman shook his head, and dissented; but the hon. Member could not say that he had not said it was a sin on the part of that House to maintain the College of Maynooth [Mr. SPOONER: Hear, hear!] He Mr. Roebuck) wanted to know what authorised him to assume the character of infallibility? His (Mr. Roebuck's) religion taught him that doctrines of religion were between a man and his Maker; and, if another man reproached his fellow on that head he went beyond the power which any human being possessed, or ought to possess. Nothing but weakness in his mind and bigotry in his heart could induce a man to act so. Having dealt with the policy and justice of the case, the higher doctrine of morality remained—that, in all questions of religion, the leading principle ought to be to give to every individual power and right to judge for himself. Was the House of Commons to enter into a theological controversy? He was a professor of the faith of the Established Church, and such he intended to remain; but he did not take on himself to catechise or school other men for dissenting from the Church. There were many hon. Friends of his who called themselves Protestant Dissenters, and he regarded the Catholics as Catholic Dissenters [Murmurs']. He knew that they would repudiate the term, but he stated it without intending offence, that, as a professor of the Church established by law, he believed everybody who departed from it to be a Dissenter. He believed that the high doctrines of morality should induce them to bear with each other on questions connected with religion; that Motions which must irritate and insult were unwise, unjust, and unchristian, and that, if they were to be repeated from time to time as they had been in the last few years, the House ought to express a strong feeling, as he sincerely believed they would tonight, by placing the hon. Member in a decided minority.

MR. BOWYER

agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) in protesting against the introduction of theological discussions into that House. The books which the hon. Member for Warwickshire had quoted were works of great learning, they were written in very crabbed Latin, were intended for learned men, and contained a great variety of doctrines and nice distinctions which were put with all the subtlety of the casuist. It was, therefore, easy enough for any one who chose to select passages, and suppress others to interpret them just as he pleased, and extract from them doctrines which were not in reality the doctrines of the writer. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the distinction between mortal and venial sins. How was it possible to discuss such a subject in that House? This was an instance of the unfitness of theological discussions in that House. He must, however, observe, as the subject had been introduced, that it was most unfair to suppose that because the Roman Catholic Church declared certain sins to be "venial," it therefore held them to be of no consequence at all. There were crimes of various degrees of gravity in the eye of the law, and in like manner there were sins of various degrees of gravity in the eye of the Church. But the Church held venial sins to be only less evil than mortal sins. The distinction was moreover in the Bible. The hon. Member had stated that one of the books to which he referred laid down the doctrine that the temporal laws were not valid if they were contrary to the laws of the Church. But let the hon. Gentleman read the context, and study the qualifications with which it was accompanied, and he would see that this doctrine was no more than that which every Protestant as well as every Catholic held—namely, that there were laws of his Church which a man was bound to obey rather than temporal laws. There must be a limit to the power of the temporal law over men's conscience. The hon. Gentleman would find in his Bible a narrative of three Jews who were required by the laws of their Church to say their prayers in a particular time and manner. They were forbidden to do so by temporal laws—they preferred to obey God rather than man, and they were punished for disobeying the temporal law. They were held forth as example as men who had done their duty. Did the right hon. Gentleman find that Catholics were practically less good subjects than Protestants? Did he know a single case in which a Catholic's sense of duty to his Church had prevented his being a good subject either in peace or war? The right hon. Gentleman said, that Catholics did not consider themselves bound by an oath. Let him remember the time when Catholics were excluded from this House, and from holding civil offices and commissions in the army and navy, simply because they would not take an oath which was opposed to their conscientious conviction. Surely, if they had held such a doctrine as the hon. Gentleman had mentioned, nothing would have prevented them from coming to the table and taking the oaths, with a mental reservation, and so taking their seats in that House. Yet it was notorious, that rather than take oaths which they knew they could not keep, they submitted to the degradation of being excluded from every office which could be coveted, and properly coveted, under a free constitution. With regard to the doctrines the hon. Gentleman had quoted, about what he called equivocation, he (Mr. Bowyer) was ready to prove that there was no doctrine on that subject in the authors referred to, which was not to be found also in those great Protestant writers Grotius and Puffendorf. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Church in Ireland was originally Protestant. The hon. Member reminded him of a zealous clergyman, who once wrote a book for the purpose of proving that St. Patrick was a Protestant. There was no doubt, however, that St. Patrick, the founder of the Church in Ireland was the Pope's legate, and as much a Papist as Archbishop Cullen himself. He could not see, therefore, how it was possible for the hon. Gentleman to support his doctrine that the Protestant Church existed before the Catholic Church in Ireland. But the hon. Member tried to turn the tables on his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire). The hon. Member for Dungarvan had stated in the course of the previous debate that the Roman Catholics objected to paying ministers' money for a religion that they did not believe in; and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire argued that, by the same reasoning, Protestants rightly objected to pay taxes for Maynooth. The argument was specious, but unsound. The college was founded, not as a favour to the Roman Catholics, but upon grounds of public policy, and it was a small and miserable compensation for the loss of the ecclesiastical property which once belonged to the Roman Catholics, and of which the Catholic Church had been robbed. The hon. Member then stated, that the Queen swore in her coronation oath to support the Protestant constitution of the country. The fact was, that the coronation oath contained nothing of the sort. No doubt the Queen swore to support the Church as by law established in England, and the Church as by law established in Scotland. There was not one word, however, in that oath respecting the Protestant constitution; and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had most satisfactorily shown that there was no such thing as a Protestant constitution. The hon. Member for Warwickshire seemed, indeed, altogether to forget that Ireland was a Catholic country; that the Established Church there belonged to about 800,000 Protestants only, and that there were 7,000,000 of Roman Catholics in Ireland—["Oh, oh!"]—At any rate there were upwards of 6,000,000. Surely, no hon. Gentleman would deny that the Roman Catholics were in an overwhelming preponderance. With regard to the report of the Commissioners on Maynooth, the conclusion to which they had arrived was precisely the same as that to which the Committee of the two Houses of Parliament had arrived a great many years ago, when the same question was discussed; and it was proved that the charge against Maynooth of being anti-national, disloyal, and dangerous to the State, was utterly groundless. The hon. Member said something about the Commissioners having been misled by the Jesuits. Who were the Jesuits? He would first tell the hon. Gentleman what a Jesuit was. The question was once asked of Dr. Johnson, and he answered, "He is a man, who is a cleverer fellow than the one who calls him so." That was a Jesuit. But it so happened, that though in that sense many of the witnesses examined before the Commissioners were Jesuits, still, in the strict sense of the word, not a single Jesuit gave evidence before the Commissioners—no, not one. That was a fact. There were, however, a few witnesses examined upon whom the hon. Member had placed some reliance. But they were men who had been driven out of the Catholic Church, because they had offended against the discipline of that Church; and how far the testimony of such persons was trustworthy he would leave the House to determine. He apprehended it would not weigh with that House against that of the Professors of the "Royal College of Maynooth," who had been appointed by the authority of the Crown, and of whom he would say that they were as loyal to the Crown as any hon. Gentleman he had then the honour to address. The hon. Gentleman had said that Maynooth diffused Ultramontane doctrines. Now, some of these Professors had to his (Mr. Bowyer's) mind, expressed opinions before the Commissioners which were not Ultramontane enough; and some of those opinions were more calculated to give satisfaction in that House than at Rome, and this he had stated to the professors themselves. The fact was, notwithstanding all the hon. Gentleman said, that Maynooth was not an Ultramontane college. The absurdities which were talked about by the witnesses upon whose statements the hon. Member relied were almost incredible; one of them going the length of asserting that the priests at Maynooth were not loyal men, inasmuch as before they prayed for the Queen they divested themselves of the maniple, which he said was the only ecclesiastical vestment that was not derived from Numa Pompilius! If the hon. Gentleman would tell the House something about these vestments of Numa Pompilius, he would not only afford much gratification to the House itself, but to the whole of the learned world. He would not trespass longer on the House, because he did not wish to enter into a discussion upon articles of faith and theological questions—matters quite unfit to be considered by such an assembly, although he had thought it right to answer some of the points of the hon. Gentleman. He trusted that the House would reject the hon. Gentleman's proposal by such a majority as would discourage him from again introducing discussions of this kind, which were most nauseous, not only to the Roman Catholic, but to many of the Protestant Members, who, although they might be compelled by the bigotry and ignorance of their constituents to vote against Maynooth, disapproved the bitterness and impropriety with which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and still more, his hon. collogue (Mr. Nowdegate), always treated this subject.

MR. T. CHAMBERS

said, he rose principally for the purpose of making a few remarks in reply to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), which were more worthy of notice from the position and character of that hon. and learned Gentleman than from their own intrinsic force. The hon. and learned Gentleman had commenced that speech with a condemnation of the course taken by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in bringing forward the Motion, and he had drawn a distinction between the speech of his hon. Friend and that of the hon. Member for Cornwall, with a view of showing that the taste of the seconder was better than the taste of the mover. In his (Mr. Chambers') opinion there was no force in the comparison. Nobody ought to know better than the hon. and learned Gentleman that any truth that was pertinent to the matter under discussion was always in good taste, however disagreeable it might prove to some parties, and certainly the last man in the House who ought to complain of the enunciation of unpalatable truths or of unpalatable fictions, as being in bad taste, was the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman had thought proper to indulge in censures on the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire, which must have been listened to with pain and surprise by any one who was acquainted with the character of that hon. Gentleman, and who knew how that character had been earned and how it had been maintained. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not confine his observations to questions of taste, but adduced arguments in support of his opposition to the Motion under the consideration of the House. He denied that the College of Maynooth had been founded by Protestants as a protection against Ultramontane doctrines, but that it had been founded as a precaution against the spread of the Gallican political sentiments of the French Revolution. That was, no doubt, a part of the truth; but it was not the whole truth. The fact was, that previously to the year 1795 Roman Catholic priests could not be educated in Ireland without violating the law, and they therefore went abroad to obtain that education which was denied them at home. But that became both illegal and impossible when the Revolution broke out, and the Continent being shut to them, a Protestant Parliament, acting rightly both politically and morally, altered the law, and made a provision for the education of those priests in their own country. They assented to the endowment of Maynooth, in order that the Roman Catholic priesthood might receive that education at home which they could not obtain abroad; but surely that did not support the conclusion that the endowment of Maynooth should be continued at the present day; because there was no longer anything to prevent Roman Catholics from maintaining for themselves establishments, either at home or abroad, for the education of their clergy. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield had gone on to contend that the endowment of Maynooth was a measure which had been adopted by Mr. Pitt for the purpose of cementing the union between Great Britain and Ireland, and he had further stated that it was a legacy transmitted to succeeding Parliaments by Mr. Pitt. If that were so, it was only another of the melancholy legacies transmitted by that Minister. But even if that were true, the Parliament of the present day was not obliged to accept that legacy—that damnosa hœreditas. The Act of Union provided that the assistance given to all religious and charitable institutions in Ireland at the time of its passing should not be disturbed for a period of twenty years; and there could be no violation of that engagement in a withdrawal of the grant to Maynooth more than half a century after the establishment of the union between the two kingdoms. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that for centuries this country had been persecuting the Roman Catholics of Ireland. No doubt they had been the objects of every species of cruelty and oppression which their English masters could devise; and he (Mr. Chambers) was very sorry for that: he readily admitted that the system practised towards the Irish Roman Catholics was very cruel, very abominable, very mischievous, and entirely useless for the purpose for which it had been adopted. But that was a fact which, as far as he could see, had nothing whatever to do with the continued endowment of Maynooth. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that it was the interest of the people of this country to maintain peace between Protestants and Roman Catholics. That was certainly true; but he (Mr. Chambers) believed that peace could not be maintained between Protestants and Roman Catholics so long as the endowment of Maynooth was left undisturbed. The people of England looked upon the question, not as one of metaphysics and theology, but as one of principle and plain honesty, and their decision had been arrived at long ago; and that decision they would most assuredly have registered by that House sooner or later, in the shape of a total repeal of the Act of 1845, for peace could only be maintained by the total abolition of the grant. The House of Commons had never laid down any general principle for its own guidance in reference to the question of religious endowments. The general and growing feeling of the country, however, was that they ought to make no such endowments, and that was a feeling which the House ought, in his opinion, to encourage. He would not rashly interfere with any existing endowment, but he would steadily resist the principle of making any further provision of that kind either at home or in the colonies. Another argument urged by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in opposition to the Motion was, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had offered us great assistance in our national struggles, and that it was not advisable we should produce among them the irritation by which a withdrawal of that grant must be accompanied. He (Mr. Chambers) admitted that Ireland was at present flourishing and prosperous; but he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that one of the objects which Sir Robert Peel sought to attain by the Act of 1845 was the growth of a more friendly feeling among the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland towards this country and its institutions; and after having reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman of that fact, he would ask him whether the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy during the last ten or twelve years showed that that object had been accomplished? Let them contrast the conduct of the Roman Catholic body, in 1795, with their conduct in recent times. At the former period the Roman Catholics had been, in the tone of their petitions and memorials to the Irish Parliament, humble and submissive; but they had within the last few years made an aggression on the established religion of the country such as had been unknown among us in any preceding age. That aggression, and the scenes which took place at elections in Ireland, showed but too plainly how little the Act of 1845 had contributed to win for us the favour and good will of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and that the college which was to produce priests favourable to England and her institutions had produced a Cardinal Wiseman and an hierarchy who had acted in bold defiance of the rights of our Sovereign. In making these remarks, he said nothing against the right of the Roman Catholics to the fullest freedom of worship. No doubt could exist that they were entitled to the freest exercise of their worship, and he would not have complained even of the Papal aggression if it could have been shown to be necessary in order that Roman Catholics might receive all the sacraments and comforts of their Church. Such was not the case, and a Protestant House of Commons, bound to maintain a Protestant constitution, was compelled to resist such an aggression. "There are higher moral considerations," said the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, "than any introduced by the hon. Member who made the present Motion, and my religion teaches me not to set myself up as a judge and condemner of any man." And then the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield accompanied that remark with certain observations upon the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. [Mr. ROEBUCK: I said that I would judge no man in his religion.] He was not aware that he had misrepresented the hon. and learned Member. But how did the hon. and learned Member's argument apply? The question was, not whether they should judge and condemn another man's religion, but whether they should continue to pay for its maintenance. The question was, whether, when he was called on to concur in a vote giving so many thousand pounds a year for the support of Maynooth, he was condemning another man's religion, if he acted up to his convictions and declined to do so. It was pseudo-charity, false liberality, and indifferentism, which made all religions alike, and it was an insult to require in those from whom they differed the same smooth, indefinite, and uncertain notions. That was not charity, and was an argument which would sustain no inference. It only served to put for a single moment the opponent of the man who used such an argument into an apparently false position, and to make him appear as a person who, while in reality vindicating truth, and therefore charity, was acting on "the weakness of his understanding and the bigotry of his heart"—phrases calculated to illustrate the taste of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. This question had been debated and decided in the country, and must be decided in that House. It was idle to say that it was a theological subject. It was not a theological subject, but a question of plain morals, which the English people understood, and would never cease to understand so long as they had the Bible in their possession, and the Bible they would continue to have until Popery should have been endowed and established in this country. He did not believe that the doctrines which had been quoted to the House that evening as proofs of the demoralising character of some of the books read in Maynooth were held by all Roman Catholics. By a beneficent dispensation of Providence no large class of men could be made so bad as the doctrines which might be taught by their recognised leaders. But the fact that such books as those referred to were read and were regarded as authorities in Maynooth afforded a strong argument, when the House was called on to judge respecting the college and the system of education pursued there. This House was the proper arena in which to judge of that system, and the books taught in the college constituted the best test of the education carried on there. Upon these principles he had arrived at the conclusion, that the time had come when, whatever might be done with the £26,000—which he was not desirous of taking from the Roman Catholics, and was willing to give to any one or more of their secular charities—the Maynooth endowment should cease, and when religious peace should be restored to this country so far as this question was concerned.

MR. SERJEANT O'BRIEN

desired that the grounds on which the Roman Catholic Members opposed the present Motion should not be misunderstood. It was not as a matter of pecuniary consideration that they supported the Maynooth endowment; for they did not come as suppliants to seek the bounty of the State, nor were they apprehensive that the withdrawal of the grant would affect the Roman Catholic religion. They, however, would view the success of the Motion as a violation of the rights guaranteed to the Roman Catholics by a solemn act of the Legislature. The grant had been for years a recognised, but inadequate consideration for the property of which the Catholic Church and people had been deprived; and its withdrawal would constitute an act of injustice the more galling on account of the offensive and unfounded charges which had been so recklessly made against the Catholic religion and faith. Independent of all considerations peculiar to the Roman Catholic body, they, on public and national grounds, and as subjects interested in the prosperity of the kingdom, deprecated the calamitous consequences which would result from giving the sanction of the Legislature to charges such as had been made that night, proclaiming that the Roman Catholic people should be regarded with suspicion and distrust, thereby placing them in antagonism with the rest of the Queen's subjects, and declaring that the tenets of their faith were inconsistent with loyalty and freedom. The general interests of the State were much more affected by the question than the peculiar interests of the Roman Catholics. He had no apprehension that the withdrawal of the grant would impede the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood, for the Catholic people were so much attached to their faith that they would provide for that object by making every pecuniary sacrifice in their power; and, supposing that their own resources proved insufficient, the assistance of the Catholic Church in other countries would not be withheld. Establishments for the purpose would be formed in foreign States, and every one of them would be a proof of the injustice and impolicy of British Legislation. When, therefore, they talked of the danger of the tenets of the Catholic Church, they should bear in mind that they would increase that danger by giving to the priesthood a foreign education and foreign habits, and causing them to feel gratitude towards those foreign countries which provided for them that education which their own country denied to them. Could it, then, be matter of surprise that the principle of this grant should have been adopted in 1795, and that every successive Government, however prejudiced against the Roman Catholic faith, should have felt the necessity of securing a domestic education for the Catholic priesthood? He would maintain that the object of the Legislature in the establishment of Maynooth had been attained, and that, therefore, it was the duty of every one, as a duty to the State, to support it. He should not enter into what was called the theological part of the subject, and should not discuss with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire garbled extracts of evidence; but he must observe on the inconsistency of the arguments which had been urged against this grant. They had admitted the Roman Catholics to all the privileges of the subjects of the realm; they had admitted them to seats in that House; they had confided to Roman Catholic soldiers the protection and honour of the country; and no one would say that they had proved themselves unworthy of their trusts. They had entrusted Roman Catholics with the administration of the laws, and they have not failed in their duty to their country. In all the discussions on this subject it had never once been shown—it had never been attempted to be shown—that the privileges conceded to the Roman Catholic laity had been in any one instance exercised injuriously to the State. He said, then, that the charges of disloyalty and immorality of their teaching alleged against the College of Maynooth had been proved to be groundless by the loyalty and good conduct of both the clergy and laity. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers), had said that the disendowment of Maynooth would produce religious peace. If he (Mr. Serjeant O'Brien) thought that such would be the case, and that these polemical discussions, which were so derogatory to the character of the House—these exhibitions of religious intolerance, in which, when the cause of religion was advocated, all religion was laid aside, could thereby be got rid of—he owned that, unjust and oppressive as was this measure, he should be somewhat consoled. But it was utterly delusive to hold out any such hope. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and his supporters would not be satisfied with the withdrawal of the Maynooth grant. They would make onslaughts upon the State payments to the Roman Catholic chaplains in the army and navy, and upon the State provision made for the religious wants of the Roman Catholic inmates of our gaols, asylums, and other public institutions. Those payments would be denounced as national sins and as pregnant with danger to the State. There would be a revival of these polemical discussions upon each occasion of the yearly Estimates being submitted to the House. The hon. Member for Hertford had alluded to our Colonies, but he (Mr. Serjeant O'Brien) apprehended that neither the zeal of that hon. and learned Gentleman nor of the hon. Member for Warwickshire would induce them to extend the principle of this measure to our Colonies. There were reasons which would render that course inconvenient, and which would incline them to extenuate the guilt of this national sin. Was it, then, because Ireland lay at our door, while Canada was far distant, because Ireland was more within our power than Colonies which lay beyond our reach, that she was to be treated more rigorously than they; and that a course was to be pursued towards her people and clergy which England would not adopt towards the unbelieving population of India? The Roman Catholics of Ireland had been told that they were aggressive and that they had increased their demands. Now, his belief was that if they had continued satisfied with the Act of 1795, they would have been unworthy of any grant at all. All that Ireland asked was that the same policy should be adopted towards her as had been adopted towards our colonial possessions, He called upon the House not to legislate exceptionally towards Ireland by withdrawing this grant, which, although small in amount, was important in principle. Let them not reverse that policy which had been sanctioned for sixteen years by their wisest statesmen and by every successive Administration. Let them oppose this measure, which was unworthy of an enlightened State, and which, although exasperating in its results, would be powerless but for evil—which, while it would fail to produce the results anticipated by its supporters, would create in the minds of the Irish people a deep, bitter sense of wrong and a distrust in the justice of the British Legislature.

MR. G. H. MOORE

said he fully appreciated and even felt sympathy for the sentiment which prevailed among the English people that it was unjust to call upon them to support a religion of which they disapproved, and on that ground he had some inclination to vote for the Motion, but more especially on the ground that if it were carried to its ultimate conclusion it must, as an inevitable corollary, lead to a similar dealing with other ecclesiastical establishments. A critical analysis, both of the agitation out of doors on this question and of the division that might take place in that House upon it, would tend to fortify the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that it was wrong to call upon one man to support the religion of another when he believed that religion to be contrary to the Word of God. The hon. Gentleman, however, thought it was right for the State to contribute to the support of the minority of the people of Ireland, consisting of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Unitarians, because all of these religions were, in his opinion, in harmony with the Word of God; but that it was sinful to contribute anything to the support of the religion of the vast majority, because he, forsooth! pronounced that religion to be contrary to the Word of God. He (Mr. Moore) would not argue theology with the hon. Gentleman (who, in respect of Protestantism, was exceedingly latitudinarian), because he did not believe that his opinions agreed with those of the people of England; and, as far as Ireland was concerned, he could afford to regard the hon. Gentleman's opinions with the same feelings as he would the relics of the mastodon and megatherium, and other animals of extinct species whose terrible tusks and gigantic proportions no longer existed to trample down their opponents. The hon. Gentleman himself betrayed a consciousness that his own opinions would not pass muster out of doors. He (Mr. Spooner) had stated that Protestantism was the established religion of this country, and that the Sovereign was bound by oath to maintain the Protestant religion. But he (Mr. Moore) interrupted that statement with something like an interpellation, upon which the hon. Gentleman remarked that he (Mr. Moore) had not read history. Now, Mr. Burke denied that Protestantism ever had been established as the religion of the State—he said it was Church-of-Englandism. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had told the House that before the English invasion the Irish people belonged to a religion which was similar or nearly so, to the Protestantism of the present day, and that tithes were established for the support of that religion. It was supposed by some—with whom he (Mr. Moore) did not concur—that the religion professed by the people of Ireland previously to the English invasion was not precisely similar to that of the Church of Rome; but there never was any doubt as to its not being represented in the smallest degree by the Protestantism of the present day. And even if it were it certainly was not supported by tithes, for tithes were not assigned to the Church until after the English invasion, and then they were assigned to the Roman Catholic Church. [Mr. SPOONER: I never mentioned the word "tithes."] But the hon. Gentleman spoke of the property of the Church, and he must, of course, be supposed to have alluded to tithes. But the Established Church had no property which had not been originally assigned to the Roman Catholic Church. That Church was at the Reformation despoiled of all its property, and for this robbery the grant to Maynooth was a tardy and paltry effort at restitution. The hon. Gentleman had told the House that wherever Catholics were dominant they endeavoured to oppress their fellow-men. That was rather a strange thing to say in the hearing of those who were acquainted with the events of the last 300 years. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. Chambers) asked what had the cruelty inflicted on the Irish people to do with the question? Did he deny that robbery and plunder were part of the wrongs to which they had been subjected? He said also he felt it was unjust that he should be called on to pay for a religion of which he did not approve, but the hon. Gentleman did not at all feel it hard that they, the whole people of Ireland, should be called on to support a religion of which they did not approve. In point of fact, stripping this question of all the false issues with which it had been overlaid by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and the hon. and learned Member for Hertford, the real difficulty that pressed on the common sense and the consciences of the people of Ireland was that they had to pay for the diffusion of a religion which they believed to be contrary to the Word of God, and of which they therefore disapproved. But that point the hon. Members had treated rather gingerly. The people of England and Ireland would not uphold the Established Church in Ireland; but the Conservative party did. The leaders of that party, however, were too wise to lend themselves to what might prove an amusing afterpiece to the more serious drama in which the noble Lord the Member for the City of London played the principal part a few years ago. It was only five years since that noble Lord was at the head of the Government of the country and the foremost man of a great party. He had won his great name, his position, and his office by deeds in the cause of civil and religious liberty, and when in that position it suddenly occurred to him that he would appeal to the dominant and arrogant intolerance of England in favour of civil and religious liberty. What was the result? He was eminently successful; his letter to the Bishop of Durham was called an admirable production, and his Ecclesiastical Titles Act an effective measure. He had with him almost the unanimous opinion of that House, but he had not with him the star of his House or the traditions of his party. What, he repeated, had been the result? The Bill that was carried with such triumph by that House, and received with so much satisfaction by the country, utterly broke down, and with it the Government of the noble Lord himself, in spite of the feeling of the House and the country; and as the result of the subsequent appeal to the people the only party found capable of governing the country through that House was that which had the courage to resist the arrogant demands of a dominant intolerance. He thought the example of the noble Lord ought to be an everlasting warning to the statesmen of England how they held a parley with the hollow phantom of religious fanaticism, which was half gloomy Puritanism and half "organised hypocrisy." The hon. Member might have a majority, but it would not be supported by one man who had held office or was worthy of holding office; and the people of England liked to know by whom, in the event of change, they were likely to be governed. For his own part, he (Mr. Moore) was indifferent as to the result of the Motion before the House. The grant to Maynooth was not a boon which the people of Ireland cared so much to retain. The Legislature of this country established that grant for its own and for British purposes under the guidance of Pitt and Peel; and they were now asked to do away with it on behalf of the two gentlemen whose names he regretted, for the sake of antithesis, that he was not at liberty to mention in the House of Commons.

MR. DRUMMOND

The question, Sir, now under the consideration of the House presents itself in two very distinct aspects. The first is the political aspect. This was a bargain between the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Ireland, and you cannot honestly break it. You may alter it, and may plead in so doing the change of time and circumstances; but if you do, it must be in order to make a change that may be more advantageous to the other party than to yourselves. I said last year I should certainly prefer this grant being given to the Roman Catholics that they might send their priests to be educated abroad, because I believe that would give us a better class of men as priests, and that they would get a better education at Rome than they did in Ireland. That, however, is a question for them to settle, and not for me. But, Sir, there is another point which it becomes the House to take into consideration. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) can scarcely conceive that this is a little isolated filching of another man's property. Is he not aware that he is asking the House to begin a new course of policy towards the Irish people, such as we have not pursued for the last sixty years? If it possible he can conceive that if he carried this question of the repeal of the grant to Maynooth the thing would be at an end? If he does not think that, surely he ought to have informed us what are the other results that must inevitably follow, and how he means to meet them. But it seems to me as if the hon. Gentleman was merely a sort of Pennsylvanian adopting a little policy of repudiation. Because he does not like his bargain he wants to be off. Why, such conduct as that is only worthy a ticket-of-leave man. He may remember, for he is fond of quoting texts of Scripture, that there is one which refers to the man that "sweareth to his neighbour and disappointeth him not, though it be to his own hurt." The hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is his duty to destroy popery in every possible way. Now, popery is like the shield of old of which we have heard, which had one colour on one side and another on the reverse; and is, therefore, black or white, as it is looked at from the one side or the other. I quite agree with him as to the Report which resulted from the recent Commission to inquire into the College of Maynooth; for certainly the worthy Nobleman at the head of that Commission proved himself utterly incapable and utterly ignorant of everything he was commissioned to inquire into; and, therefore, no sooner had he failed in the first piece of public business he ever had to perform, than they immediately made him a Cabinet Minister. That was an example of finding out the right man for the right place. Now, the hon. Gentleman says that the doctrines of the Romish priests are such as to render it unsafe to tolerate their teaching in this country. I grant everything he says on that subject, and I am not going to recant one word which I have ever said in reference to it. But it is rather cool for Irish Members to talk of the persecution of Roman Catholics in Ireland. In Spain they put to death any man who may presume to differ from them; and what have we lately read in the papers in reference to what has been done in France? the Roman Catholics would persecute again if they could; and so they will ever do. Do not suppose I am abandoning any of the opinions I have always held on these points. No such thing. I would not have the people of England imagine, either, that there is the smallest change in any of the most abominable claims put forward by the Romish Church. I must say, though, that I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner) talk about the difference between ultra-montane and cis-montane opinions. There never was such a thing. ["Oh!"] There never was such a difference. [A laugh.] Gentlemen may smile, but I again repeat that there never was such a thing. It is perfectly true that two or three French bishops did set up for a certain time a claim to what they called an independent Gallican Church, but Rome never tolerated it for a single moment. Then, again, the hon. Gentleman talked of Jesuits; but it is perfectly true what the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk observed, a Jesuit is only a cleverer man than another Papist—there is not a single doctrine advanced by the Jesuits which is not also a doctrine of the Roman Church. All the harm I wish the hon. Gentleman opposite is to read and study his own books. As for the Roman Catholics, I never met with a Roman Catholic gentleman who, when shown these works, was not horrified with the doctrines of his own Church. The hon. Gentleman talks about superstition. Is it possible that he knows so little of what is going on throughout the world as to believe that the tendency of men's minds at the present moment is towards superstition? The thing which is carrying away the Church, and Protestantism, and everything else is your German theology. Do you attempt to raise a cry against those foolish Puseyites? Why, it is you yourselves who are emasculating the Church of England. You have deprived it of everything which is the essential characteristic of a Church, and those essential characteristics are now found in this country in the Church of Rome alone. Yes, I say, you have denied and are denying more strongly every day the essential characteristic of a Church, which is the presence of God in its priesthood and in its sacraments. I know no Church recognised by you but the Romish Church which does stand as a witness, a faithful witness, before God as to these truths; and I would do anything rather than let that Church go down.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE

said, he believed that the case of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Henry Drummond) was the second in the history of the world in which a prophet intending to curse the people of God had been obliged to bless them—yes, obliged, by inspiration from some source or other, to pronounce a most decided judgment in their favour. And he wished the hon. Gentleman no greater harm than that which the earlier prophet had wished himself—"Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like to his." With reference to the question before the House, he must express his regret that he had not heard the speech in which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had introduced his Motion. The proposition on which the hon. Gentleman had on former occasions based his arguments, and to which he supposed he still adhered, was that it was wrong and a national sin to continue the endowment to Maynooth for the education of a Roman Catholic priesthood. Now, in justice to the hon. Gentleman, he must say that his proposition had never been fully met by those who were opposed to it. He (Serjeant Shee) would endeavour to do so, and would meet it with this counter proposition—that the hon. Gentleman and those who acted with him could not, consistently with their true principles, as members of the Established Church, be parties to the withdrawal of the grant which had been made by Sir Robert Peel in 1845. The principle that Church establishments should exist in this country was a fundamental part of our constitution. Such establishments existed in England, in Scotland, in Ireland, and in all the dominions of the British Crown. They might not always be complete and perfect Church establishments, but a permanent endowment provided by the law for the religious instruction of the people existed in every part of the kingdom. The Maynooth endowment was, to some extent, a Church establishment, for such an establishment must include an adequate provision for the education of the ministers of religion, and that endowment provided for the religious instruction of those who, it was known, must be the pastors of the great majority of the Irish people. Then, if it were a Church establishment, it must be tried by the test to which such establishments were always subjected—by the test of civil utility. The most distinguished divines of the hon. Gentleman's own persuasion had made civil utility the test by which the policy of all Church establishments was to be tried. Bishop Warburton and Dr. Paley had laid down that doctrine, and it only remained to see whether it could fairly be applied in the case of the grant which the hon. Gentleman sought to abolish. The civil utility to be answered by a Church establishment was the preservation and communication of religious knowledge. Religious instruction in youth, religious observance in mature years, were the best securities which Governments could have for obedience to human laws, for peace, order, industry, and the general well-being of nations. The man who loved God would honour the King. The man who so ordered his life as to be justified in the sight of God would be just in all his dealings with his neighbour. The man who feared to offend God by sin of any kind would be little likely to be guilty of those sins which are punished in courts of justice as crimes. This was the civil utility by which Church Establishments must be tried. If it could be proved that, in consequence of unequal laws, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had been precluded from providing the necessary education for their priesthood, and thus communicating that religious instruction to the people which was the best guarantee for the observance of the peace and well-being of society, they were not as Christian men at liberty to subvert an establishment by which that important object had been in any degree attained, unless they could show that they had provided for its attainment by other and more effectual means. He contended, in the first place, that their laws had not been, as suggested by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers), of a nature to enable the Roman Catholics of Ireland to provide for the education of their priesthood out of their private means. He need not look beyond the Maynooth Acts for the proof of this position. The preamble of the first of them, the Act of 1795, recited that "it was unlawful to endow any college or seminary for the education exclusively of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, and that it had been deemed expedient to erect a seminary with the view of providing education for the priesthood of that Church." Up to that recent period, therefore, it had not been lawful to erect a college for Roman Catholic teaching. Nay, even by the Act of 1845, which was the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, the privilege was confined within comparatively narrow limits, the trustees of Maynooth having by that Act for the first time been made a body corporate, with the power of purchasing land not exceeding the value of £3,000 per annum. Would the House believe it, at the present moment there was no other institution in connection with the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland which enjoyed the benefit of incorporation. The Corporation of Trinity College, Dublin, had an annual revenue of £40,000 from land given by the State, and a total revenue of £76,000 per annum; and there were numerous institutions in connection with the Church of England in that country which enjoyed all the benefits of large revenues and of incorporation. Such were the Royal English schools, diocesan schools, chartered schools, military and naval schools, bluecoat schools, greencoat schools, hospitals, infirmaries, associations for the discouragement of vice, societies for circulating the Holy Scriptures, trustees of the library of the Archbishop of Armagh, Trinity College, Dublin; and all archbishops, bishops, rectors, vicars, and perpetual curates of the Church of England, while, on the other side, there was only Maynooth College, which enjoyed the advantage of legal immortality by incorporation. But not only were they not incorporated, but every difficulty had been thrown in the way of their endowment by the Roman Catholics themselves. Every donation to Catholic establishments had, until a very recent period, been confiscated in the Irish Courts of Equity under Acts repealed only ten years ago, and applied to Protestant purposes. By the 3 Geo. III. c. 1, passed by the Irish Parliament in 1763, when all the inhabitants of Ireland were presumed by law to be Protestants, charitable donations and bequests contained in wills were required to be published in the Dublin Gazette within three months of probate obtained. By the 40 Geo. III. c. 75, a number of official persons, and among them all the Protestant archbishops and bishops of Ireland were incorporated by the name of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests. These Commissioners were authorised to sue "at law or equity for the recovery of every charitable donation and bequest which should be withheld, concealed or misapplied, and to apply the same when recovered to charitable and pious uses according to the intention of the donor, or in case it was inexpedient, unlawful, or impracticable, to apply the same strictly according to the directions of the donor; then to apply the same to such charitable and pious purposes as they should judge to be nearest and most conformable to the directions and intentions of the donor." Under these Acts, all donations and bequests for Catholic objects were applied as soon as discovered, to such lawful charitable and pious objects as the Commissioners judged to be nearest to the intentions of the donors—that is, to the purposes of the Protestant Established Church. Bequests for Catholic purposes were adjudged unlawful, because opposed to the policy of the English law of superstitious uses, 1 Edw. VI. c. 14, which, though never enacted in Ireland, was held to be in full force there, and acted upon every day until about thirty years ago, in the case of a bequest to a nunnery at Waterford for educational purposes, Lord Chancellor Manners refused to be bound by it and gave effect to the Catholic intentions of the testator. From that time, but little direct confiscation of Catholic charitable bequests had taken place, but Catholic foundations had continued to be without facilities or encouragement. One would have thought that in this enlightened age juster principles would have prevailed. The representation made in 1840 by the Roman Catholic Prelates to the Government of Lord Melbourne, and shortly after to that of Sir Robert Peel, that "they and their clergymen were trustees of very considerable funds, and that the legacies to them for charitable purposes had been and still were increasing to a very great extent," ought, as was hoped, to have obtained for Roman Catholics religious and educational privilege of incorporation. But the Charitable Donations and Bequests Act of 1844, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 97, passed in 1844, imposed fresh restraints upon the charities of Ireland, and left Catholic foundations without that advantage of incorporation which almost all Protestant institutions enjoyed. To one description only of Catholic charities, namely, bequests for the ministers of religion, for their residences and places of worship it professed to give facilities, by establishing a Board of Commissioners whom it authorised to become trustees for such objects. But excluding all other descriptions of charity from the benefit of that arrangement, it provided that no bequest of any interest in land for charitable purposes should be valid, if the will or deed containing the same was executed within three months from the death of the donor. This enactment applied no doubt to Protestant as well as Catholic institutions; but the former had already become rich and flourishing under the protection of the privileges they had long enjoyed. The Act, in truth, introduced into Ireland for the first time the restrictions of the English Mortmain Act. For those restrictions, the increased endowment of Maynooth granted in the following year and by the same Administration, was a very inadequate compensation. Besides, from the provisions of the English Mortmain Act—the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, all the colleges and houses of learning connected with them, and the colleges of Eton, Westminster, and Winchester, were excepted. There was no such exception in the Irish Mortmain Act in favour of the Catholic educational establishments which had been so long and so unjustly discouraged; so that during the first half of the last sixty years (to go no further back) it had been unlawful for the greater part of their fellow-subjects in Ireland to establish such an institution as Maynooth for themselves—and during the whole of those sixty years they had enjoyed none of those facilities for the creation and perpetuation of educational or religious foundations which Protestants in both countries possessed. He submitted, therefore, in the first place, that they could not as Christian men, withdraw the grant to Maynooth on the ground that the Roman Catholics of Ireland have had, and now have, by law, all necessary facilities for the establishment and endowment of such an institution. But, secondly, could the withdrawal of the grant be justified on the ground that the civil utility of communicating religious knowledge to the people had been provided for by other adequate means?

MR. BALL rose to order, and said that the greater part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was a mockery, and the hon. and learned Member was not speaking to the question.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE

was obliged to the hon. and learned Member interfering for his protection. He did not think he had been more interrupted than many hon. Members he had heard [renewed interruption]. He hoped they would permit him to suggest what it was material for them to know before going to a division.

The Irish Church Establishment enjoyed a revenue of £650,000, and if it had effected the object of an Established Church, there might be some ground for the Motion. Impossible to conceive anything more complete or efficient upon paper than the scheme for the appropriation of that large income provided by the Church Temporalities Act of 1833! It dealt with the whole ecclesiastical property of a country inhabited by a population of 7,944,000 souls, and contained not a word from which it could be suspected even that any portion of them were other than Protestants of the Episcopal Church of England and Ireland. And how stood the facts? In the most Protestant of the ecclesiastical provinces, Armagh, there were 638,000 Presbyterians— only 517,000 members of the Established Church, and 1,950,000 Roman Catholics. This was the extent to which the communication of religious knowledge to the people had been effected by means of the Established Church. In the three other provinces the failure was more remarkable, for out of a population of 4,817,000, the number who received spiritual instruction from the Established Church was only 334,000. ["Hear, hear!"] They cheered as if they did not believe it, while they ought to be ashamed of it. The Roman Catholics had received no benefit from the Established Church, because the Acts copied from the English Statute-book for establishing the Queen's supremacy, for the uniformity of divine Worship, and the use of the book of Common Prayer, had raised insuperable barriers between them and its communion. But for the priesthood educated at Maynooth, none of the ordinances of religion, held in both Churches to be essential or conducive to godly life and to that civil utility for which alone Church establishments exist—Baptism—Confirmation—Marriage—Holy Communion—Absolution from Sin—Public Prayer—Instruction and Exhortation, under the guidance and direction of an ordained Ministry, would be enjoyed by six millions of the Queen's subjects. They blamed Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues for making the grant to Maynooth permanent, while the truth was they had felt themselves bound as Christians and practical statesmen to provide in the interest of the whole empire for the religious instruction of the Catholics of Ireland. They talked about the endowment to Maynooth being a national sin; but after what he had said as to the impossibility of that Church administering religious ordinances to the people, how could they justify the withholding of the grant and the cessation of those ordinances? He had only one word more to say. In the debate of the year before last, it was stated that the Roman Catholics had declared they could do without Maynooth, and that the Roman Catholic prelates had passed a resolution to that effect. Now, a few days after that assertion was made, he had received letters from both the Roman Catholic Primates, denying that any such resolution had been come to, and stating that they believed the continuance of the endowment to be essential to the interests of the Roman Catholic Church and the adequate supply of priests for the Catholic parishes of Ireland.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he would detain the House for only a few moments, for he knew that the House was anxious to divide, and had felt the full force of the remark of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) that the greater part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was a mockery. But he rose to sweep away one fallacy which the hon. and learned Member had endeavoured to impose upon the House, and that was, that the Bill, leave to introduce which was asked, was intended to touch the property and corporation of Maynooth. There was no such provision in the Bill, which simply went to withdraw the annual endowment from the college. All the remarks of the hon. and learned Member, as to the hardships to be endured in respect to the operation of penal laws or disabilities upon Roman Catholics now repealed or removed, the hon. and learned Member had answered himself. Nor was his plea for the establishment of the seminaries of the Roman Church by incorporation, as essential to the due education of Roman Catholics more tenable. He admitted that the mortmain law in Ireland was less restrictive than that of England, but had forgotten to mention that even under the more restricted laws in England no less than eleven Roman Catholic Colleges were amply provided for, and instituted in a manner as perfect as considerations of State prudence would permit. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) had said that the administration of the noble Lord the Member for London fell because he had dared to pass the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and that no Government could stand in this country which should propose to withdraw the annual subsidy to Maynooth. He (Mr. Newdegate) now called on the people of this country to watch the division, and ascertain whether the House of Commons was as subservient to the Court of Rome, as the hon. Member had declared that all the Statesmen who had held office, or who expected to hold office, were and must be.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, I cannot but express the pain which I feel at the renewal of discussions which the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire opens up. It makes one almost fancy that we have gone back to the period when this House was the arena of contentions between those who were advocates for the removal of the disabilities of the Catholics and those who thought that such removal would be fatal to the constitution of the country. We were told, and I had hoped, that when the Catholic Emancipation Act was carried, we should hear no more of these theological and religious debates, and that we should know nothing of the religion of any Member unless we followed him to his place of worship on Sunday. I regret exceedingly that those anticipations have not been fulfilled, and that we are doomed to these periodical revivals of discussions upon matters which ought to remain a question between each man and his own conscience—of which his neighbour has no right to judge, and in which a deliberative assembly like this ought not, in my opinion, to engage. I would humbly submit to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that the main ground on which he founds his Motion is irreconcilable with those principles which I consider that he most tenaciously holds. The ground on which he rests his Motion is, that no man ought to contribute towards the maintenance of a religion to which he does not subscribe. Now, is the hon. Member an advocate for an Established Church? I am sure that he is—I am sure that there is no man in this House who more firmly adheres to the principle of an Established Church. As the hon. Gentleman, then, is a sincere and zealous Protestant, I would ask him, does he adhere to the principle of private judgment? does he believe that every man should form his religious opinions according to his view of the truth of the doctrines which he may hold? If he does hold the principle of private judgment, can he believe it possible that in a free country like this there can be identity of religious opinions, or that there shall not be a great variety of religious creeds? Why, Sir, the only ground upon which the hon. Gentleman could reconcile his adherence to an Established Church with the principle that no man should contribute to a religion which he does not profess must be, that there should be an overruling and tyrannical power compelling every man to belong to the Established Church, and not permitting any diversity of religious opinion in the country. I say, then, that the doctrine of the hon. Gentleman is utterly inconsistent with those fundamental principles which I am sure he, as a Protestant and a friend of the Established Church, must necessarily maintain. Sir, my objection to the Motion of the hon. Member, in the first place, is on the fact that to abolish the Maynooth endowment, and to repeal the Acts which he wishes us to abrogate, would be a breach of faith towards the Irish nation. It is perfectly true, as was stated, that the Catholics of Ireland are not dependent upon this grant for the means of educating their priesthood. There is no doubt that the wealth of Ireland would enable them to erect other establishments for the same purposes if the present endowment were taken away; but it would be an ungenerous act—it would be an act indicating a want of sympathy with those who deserve better treatment—it would be a breach of faith as connected with what passed at a former period if we were to adopt the Motion of the hon. Gentleman and withdraw the Maynooth grant. Upon that ground, if there wore no other, I would resist the Motion; but I resist it upon a broader ground than that. I resist it for considerations connected with the interests of the British Empire. Sir, the hon. Gentleman has invited me to read all the books of instruction which are used at Maynooth. I certainly have no intention of doing so; but, for argument, I will admit his assertion that there may be in those books things which we might wish might not be found there; and I will ask him—is there in the ordinary instruction of our schools and colleges, and in those classical books which are used there, nothing to be found which some persons might desire not to be submitted to the eyes and instilled into the minds of the youth of the country? Admitting, however, that there are passages in the Maynooth books which, in point of doctrine and principle, are objectionable, I have that confidence in the people and priesthood of Ireland that I do not fear their loyalty will be impaired by such errors; nor am I in a position to own that the confidence which I place in them has been at all lessened by the hostile criticisms of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. The main ground on which I call upon the House to maintain this grant is a regard for the interests of the United Kingdom. I hold, that if the grant were withdrawn, and the priesthood of Ireland were sent abroad for their education, they might receive a better education, but it would be a foreign one, and I wish them to have an Irish and native education. I care not what their religious opinions may be. That is for them to determine—not for me. I may differ from them on every point of their religious creed, but I hold it to be for the interests of the country that they should be educated at home—that they should be Irishmen in heart and feeling; and as long as they receive their instruction in their native land I am content to trust to the loyalty which belongs to their nation, and never to consent to the repeal of an endowment which is so closely connected with the peace and well-being of the Empire.

MR. SPOONER,

in reply, proceeded to answer two points raised in the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston). He held it to be a true Protestant principle to respect the right of private judgment. He would leave Roman Catholics full power to exercise their civil and religious rights, and he would let them educate their own people. All he protested against was, that, as there was an Established Church, the Government and Parliament of this country should foster and support a Church formed in direct opposition to that Protestant Church, which the Roman Catholics said they should never be contented until they had destroyed. The noble Lord talked of breach of faith. Why, there was the high authority of Sir Robert Peel and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, that no breach of faith was involved—that the endowment was a free gift, made with certain expectations which had not been realized.

MR. FORTESCUE moved the adjournment of the debate. [Cries of "No!" and "Divide!"]

MR. G. H. MOORE

saw no reason why the debate should be adjourned, except that some Gentleman might dread the success of the Motion, and some its defeat. The people of Ireland were prepared for either fortune, and he hoped the Government were so too.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he was prepared to go to a division; but, at the same time, if hon. Members wished to adjourn the debate, he would not object to their being gratified. [Cries of "No, no!"]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Main Question put.

The House divided:— Ayes, 159; Noes, 167: Majority 8.

List of the AYES.
Adderley, C. B.	Ball, E.
Agnew, Sir A.	Barnes, T.
Alcock, T.	Baxter, W. E.
Anderson, Sir J.	Bective, Earl of
Archdall, Capt. M.	Bell, J.
Bagge, W.	Bennet, P.
Baird, J.	Bentinck, G. W. P.
Baldock, E. H.	Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Bignold, Sir S.	Laing, S.
Blackburn, P.	Langton, W. G.
Blakemore, T. W. B.	Langton, H. G.
Bramley-Moore, J.	Lennox, Lord A. F.
Brocklehurst, J.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Buck, Col.	Lytton, Sir G. E. L. B.
Burghley, Lord	Mackie, J.
Butler, C. S.	MacGregor, James
Butt, G. M.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Cairns, H. M'C.	Matheson, A.
Campbell, Sir A. I.	Miall, E.
Carnac, Sir J. R.	Milligan, R.
Challis, Mr. Ald.	Michell, W.
Chambers, T.	Montgomery, Sir G.
Cheetham, J.	Moody, C. A.
Chelsea, Visct.	Morris, D.
Cholmondeley, Lord H.	Mowbray, J. R.
Cole, hon. H. A.	Mullings, J. R.
Colvile, C. R.	Mundy, W.
Compton, H. C.	Muntz, G. F.
Cowan, C.	Napier, rt. hon. J.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Newdegate, C. N.
Crook, J.	Nisbet, R. P.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Noel, hon. G. J.
Davies, D. A. S.	North, Col.
Davies, J. L.	Packe, C. W.
Davison, R.	Palmer, R.
Deedes, W.	Phillimore, J. G.
Dod, J. W.	Pigott, F.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Pilkington, J.
Duke, Sir J.	Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.
Duncan, G.	Raynham, Visct.
East, Sir J. B.	Repton, G. W. J.
Egerton, E. C.	Robertson, P. F.
Ellice, E.	Rushout, G.
Ewart, W.	Rust, J.
Farrer, J.	Seymour, W. D.
Fergus, J.	Shelley, Sir J. V.
Ferguson, J.	Shirley, E. P.
Fergusson, Sir J.	Sibthorp, Maj.
Floyer, J.	Smijth, Sir W.
Forester, rt. hon. Col.	Smith, J. B.
Freestun, Col.	Smith, W. M.
Fuller, A. E.	Somerset, Col.
Gallwey, Sir W. P.	Stafford, A.
Gilpin, Col.	Stafford, Marq. of
Greenall, G.	Stanhope, J. B.
Grogan, E.	Stracey, Sir H. J.
Gurney, J. H.	Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Gwyn, H.	Stuart, Capt.
Hadfield, G.	Sturt, C. N.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Sturt, H. G.
Hamilton, G. A.	Taylor, Col.
Hamilton, J. H.	Tempest, Lord A. V.
Hanbury, hon. C. S. B.	Thompson, G.
Hardy, G.	Tite, W.
Hastie, Alex.	Tollemache, J.
Hastie, Arch.	Tomline, G.
Heyworth, L.	Tyler, Sir G.
Hildyard, R. C.	Vance, J.
Hindley, C.	Verner, Sir W.
Horsfall, T. B.	Waddington, D.
Hotham, Lord	Waddington, H. S.
Johnstone, J.	Walcott, Adm.
Keating, H. S.	Warren, S.
Kennard, R. W.	Whiteside, J.
King, hon. P. J. L.	Whitmore, H.
King, J. K.	Wickham, H. W.
Kingscote, R. N. F.	Williams, W.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Knatchbull, W. F.	TELLERS.
Knightley, R.	Spooner, R.
Knox, hon. W. S.	Kendall, N.

List of the NOES.
Acton, J.	Hankey, T.
Adair, Col.	Harcourt, G. G.
Annesley, Earl of	Haytor, rt. hon. W. G.
Atherton, W.	Headlam, T. E.
Bagwell, J.	Heathcote, Sir W.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Henchy, D. O'C.
Ball, J.	Heneage, G. F.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.	Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Bass, M. T.	Higgins, Col. O.
Beamish, F. B.	Holford, R. S.
Beaumont, W. B.	Horsman, rt. hon. E.
Bellew, T. A.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Biddulph, R. M.	Hughes, H. G.
Black, A.	Hutchins, E. J.
Bland, L. H.	Hutt, W.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Ingham, R.
Bowyer, G.	Ingram, H.
Boyle, hon. W. G.	Jermyn, Earl
Brady, J.	Keating, R.
Brand, hon. H.	Kennedy, T.
Bruce, Lord E.	Kirk, W.
Bruce, H. A.	Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Buckley, Gen.	Langworthy, E. R.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Laslett, W.
Castlerosse, Visct.	Layard, A. H.
Clay, J.	Lennox, Lord H. G.
Clay, Sir W.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.
Clinton, Lord R.	Locke, J.
Clive, G.	Lockhart, A. E.
Cocks, T. S.	Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Codrington, Gen.	MacEvoy, E.
Cogan, W. H. F.	M'Cann, J.
Coote, Sir C. H.	M'Mahon, P.
Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.	Magan, W. H.
Deasy, R.	Maguire, J. F.
Dent, J. D.	Mangles, R. D.
De Vere, S. E.	Marjoribanks, D. C.
Devereux, J. T.	Massey, W. N.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Meagher, T.
Drummond, H.	Milner, Sir W. M. E.
Duff, G. S.	Moffatt, G.
Dunne, M.	Monck, Visct.
Dunne, Col.	Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Moore, G. H.
Emlyn, Visct.	Mowatt, F.
Esmonde, J.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Estcourt, T. H. S.	Murrough, J. P.
Ewart, J. C.	North, F.
Fagan, W.	O'Brien, P.
Feilden, Major	O'Brien, Sir T.
Fenwick, H.	O'Connell, Capt. D.
Ferguson, Sir R.	Oliveira, B.
FitzGerald, Sir J.	Osborne, R.
FitzGerald, rt. hon. J. D.	Otway, A. J.
Fitzwilliam, hon. C.W W.	Paget, C.
Forster, J.	Paget, Lord A.
Fortescue, C. S.	Palmerston, Visct.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.	Paxton, Sir J.
Goderich, Visct.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Gordon, hon. A.	Peel, Sir R.
Gower, hon. F. L.	Peel, F.
Grace, O. D. J.	Philipps, J. H.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Pinney, Col.
Greene, J.	Price, W. P.
Gregson, S.	Pritchard, J.
Grenfell, C. W.	Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Greville, Col. F.	Reed, Maj. J. H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Ricardo, J. L.
Grey, R. W.	Ricardo, O.
Halford, Sir H.	Rice, E. R.
Handcock, hon. Capt. H.	Ridley, G.

Roebuck, J. A.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Russell, F. C. H.	Vivian, H. H.
Russell, F. W.	Walter, J.
Sandon, Visct.	Watkins, Col. L.
Scholefield, W.	Wells, W.
Seymour, H. D.	Whitbread, S.
Smith, rt. hon. R. V.	Wilkinson, W. A.
Stanley, Lord	Williams, M.
Steel, J.	Williams, Sir W. F.
Sullivan, M.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Swift, R.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Talbot, C. R. M.	TELLERS.
Tottenham, C.	Shee, Serj.
Vernon, G. E. H.	O'Brien, J.