The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, he had given notice of the presentation of a number of petitions on the subject of Maynooth; he did not rise, however, to enter into the general question, but for a much more limited object. In common with many other noble Lords connected with Scotland, he daily received petitions from that country against the grant to Maynooth, and praying its immediate and absolute abolition. He considered it respectful to the petitioners—taking into account their numbers, character, and influence—that he should there state the grounds on which he was unable to support the prayer of their petitions. He considered the policy on which the College of Maynooth was originally founded as more than doubtful; and though a great alteration was made in the state of the question when Parliament consented to remove its endowment from the footing of an annual vote to that of a permanent endowment, he held that it was open to Parliament at any time to reconsider the question. But he observed that almost all these petitions proceeded upon one ground—that of principle—the question of policy was referred to perhaps but incidentally, and as of secondary importance; but almost all the petitions proceeded upon the principle that it was morally wrong to grant public money to support institutions connected with a religion in the truth of which they did not concur. Their Lordships might be disposed to think that this objection had already been sufficiently dealt with; and probably that was so. The principle, however, had been very widely received out of doors, and would materially affect the character of a future Parliament; and he was anxious to state why he could not give it his assent. He could not understand what idea the petitioners entertained of the composition of our Government or Legislature. If they considered this country as comprising only one religious community, or if the House of Commons—the legislative body charged with the distribution of the public funds—consisted only of members of one religious body, the views of the petitioners might be more easily understood. But he was unable to see how, in a country like this, cut up by religious divisions, and governed by a Legislature in which all religious bodies were represented, the Members of the Legislature could be considered individually responsible for sums of money being voted for the support of religious institutions of which all did not approve. It must be borne in mind that the endowment of Maynooth was not the only pecuniary endowment of religious institutions. He did not, of course, include the greatest—the Established Church—because he would never admit that its preservation stood on the same footing with the support of grants out of the public treasury. He alluded to grants of money out of the public purse, and would remind their Lordships of the Regium Donum to the Presbyterian clergy 495 of Ulster. It might be said that the differences between different Protestant churches were less than those which separated us from the Roman Catholics. But he was persuaded many in both Houses of Parliament would feel uncomfortable if they thought they were responsible for the endowment of the Presbyterian Church. If the principles, indeed, laid down by a certain section of the Anglican Church were pursued to their logical results, they would render them more reluctant to incur any responsibility for the support of Presbyterianism than Romanism. And so as to our Colonies, in which a similar principle was illustrated. Then, again, as to education. It was impossible to deny that the grants made out of the public money for the purposes of education were closely connected with religious teaching; and were, in fact, grants to the different religious bodies, specially in their character as such. It was impossible, without reversing the policy which had been pursued in this country on the subject for a long period to accede to the principle laid down by these petitioners. The question was purely one of policy; and he saw with great regret the course pursued in Scotland on this subject. In many cases pledges had been actually extorted from candidates requiring them to vote against the continuance of the endowment. In other cases, some of the most important constituencies were unable to unite in the support of con-didates in consequence of this question. He feared the result would be, in many cases, that inferior men would be chosen, and superior men shut out. He saw with pain men trying to square their opinions with the prejudices of the people they addressed; and it was always a melancholy spectacle to see men so paltering with their convictions for party purposes. By the Constitution of the realm their Lordships were elevated into the rank of hereditary legislators, removed above and beyond the temptations to these sacrifices of principle. That position imposed on them a corresponding responsibility. It was their part to come forward and express their opinions honestly on any great subject upon which popular feelings were excited; and when they thought that the course pursued was detrimental to the true policy of the country, firmly to protest against it. He reserved to himself the right of acting on his own opinion upon the question when the proper occasion arrived; but, he re- 496 peated, that he regretted this question should be agitated on grounds which must prove most offensive to their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and which went much further than the petitioners at all anticipated. The noble Duke them presented a great number of petitions from different parts of Scotland, praying for the repeal of the Maynooth College (Ireland) Act.