ADDRESS FOR PAPERS. (Hansard, 9 May 1870)

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, he desired to ask their Lordships' attention to a matter which, though of somewhat remote date, affected the character and honour of the British Crown and the British Government. It was a case which somewhat resembled that of 386 the Baron de Bode, with which their Lordships were formerly so familiar—at least in its primary elements; but there was this material difference, that the Baron de Bode was not a British subject, while the claimants in the present case were recognized British subjects. The Irish College at Paris was founded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth by an Irish ecclesiastic, and was from its establishment an essentially British institution. As such it was recognized, both by the British and by the French Governments, for in 1789, when the property of all ecclesiastical establishments was confiscated, the then head of the College presented a memorial to the French Government claiming exemption on the ground that it was a British institution and that its inmates were British subjects. That remonstrance was supported by the English Ambassador at Paris, and was successful, the property of the College remaining for a time untouched. When, however, the Reign of Terror set in all respect for property and privilege disappeared, the College was broken up, the Professors were treated as British subjects, arrested and sent back to this country, not being able to return and re-open the College till 1801. With the exception of that interval of four or five years, its existence had been an uninterrupted one, its object being to afford Irish Roman Catholics those means of education which the Penal Laws prevented them from enjoying in their own country. Now, in 1814 or 1815, claims were made by the British Government for the confiscation and loss of property sustained by British subjects, and a joint Commission was appointed to inquire into those claims by both countries; but ultimately the inquiry was conducted by British Commissioners exclusively, France having agreed to pay a lump sum estimated by the British Government for the claims then sent in. The claim of the Irish College was included in that estimate, and the British Government undertook to Liquidate out of that amount all claims. Some years afterwards the claim of the College was heard by the Commissioners, who decided against it. Claims were also made by the English Colleges which had existed at Paris, Douay, and elsewhere; but those institutions were on a totally different footing. They were not of the same antiquity as the Irish Col- 387 lege, and after the confiscation of their property they ceased to exist and were never revived. On their claims being rejected they appealed to the Privy Council; but the appeal was rejected on the ground that those Colleges were in the nature of French corporations, that they had no connection with England, and that their object was directly at variance with English law. After the lapse of some short time the Irish College also appealed; when the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Leach, instead of calling on the other side to argue the case, cut the matter short by ruling that it was concluded by the appeal of the English Colleges, and he accordingly dismissed it. Now, it was true that one objection—namely, that they were locally established in a foreign country—applied equally to the Irish and the English Colleges; for it was the very gist of the claim that they had property in a foreign country—namely, France—and had sustained injury which the British and French Governments had undertaken to compensate. The Irish College, however, had been supported by Irish funds, and had a clear right to be reimbursed. The decision of the Privy Council in 1825, delivered by Lord Eldon and other members, was based on a political principle, and Parliament had therefore a manifest right to review it. That principle was, that an institution for the education of Roman Catholic priests was contrary to British law—a strange doctrine, and one inconsistent with fact, considering that many years previously Maynooth had been established, and had continued to be supported by the British Parliament. Moreover, the Irish College had always been a loyal institution, and had sent forth, as it was still continuing to do, many eminent and learned men. In proof of this, he need only mention that an Irish. Prelate, known to many of their Lordships, and esteemed by all who knew him, Dr. Moriarty, was for four years its vice president. This would indicate the spirit in which it was conducted. On the re-establishment of the Bourbon dynasty in 1815, the French Government at once acknowledged its claim to exemption, as a foreign institution, from the financial superintendence of a Government administrator, which was obligatory on all French institutions, and a British subject, the Rev. Paul Long was appointed administrator 388 general. The decision of the Privy Council in the case of the English Colleges, by which that of the Irish College was governed, was given prior to Catholic emancipation, on the intolerant and persecuting principles which then prevailed; and now that the principle of religious equality had been adopted the English Government ought not to withhold the compensation paid by France of which it was still in possession, but to which it had no right. Nobody could doubt that if the institution had been a Protestant one the Commissioners would have made an award in its favour, or the Privy Council would, on appeal, have sustained the claim. He would now move for, Copies of the award of the Commissioners, of the judgment of the Privy Council, and of the judgment in the case of the English College at Douay, hoping that the matter would be considered by the Government, and that he should have no occasion to recall attention to it.

THE MAEQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
said, he would confine his answer to the history of the case, without following the noble Marquess into somewhat abstract arguments. In 1815 a Convention was concluded between this country and France, by which the latter created Rentes representing 3,500,000f. per annum, for the purpose of indemnifying British subjects who had suffered confiscation of property during the Revolution. In 1818 France created a further fund of 3,000,000f. for the same object. Out of these sums all sufferers were compensated who, in the first instance, established their claims before a joint Commission, and latterly before an English Commission. It was impossible that, as the noble Marquess had stated, the claims of the Irish College were not considered. All then existing claims were considered; a sort of rough average was made, and a round sum was claimed. 389 After this had been granted each case had to be decided, and the claim of the Irish College was brought forward and rejected. The noble Marquess was also incorrect in stating that the British Government were still in possession of part of this sum. In 1826, 700,000f. remained unaccounted for, which might have been appropriated by the Government; but they did not take advantage of the power they possessed under the 59 Geo. III.; and this residue remained subject to any claims omitted or made too late, till in 1845 Dr. Phillimore, the then sole surviving Commissioner, reported that the whole sum had been expended. Not a single penny of these Rentes, therefore, remained in the hands of the Government. He thought it was almost a pity that a matter decided by the Commissioners, and again by the Privy Council, should have been reopened. The Master of the Bolls in 1832 emphatically adhered to the judgment of Lord Gilford in the case of Douay College, and this, he should have thought, disposed of the case. Sir John Leach deemed himself bound by that analogous case.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICAEDE
maintained that Sir John Leach was in error in doing so.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
said, the Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment, gave two reasons—one that the Colleges were opposed to English law, which he (THE MARQUESS of Lansdowne) regarded as a questionable reason, on account of the material difference between English and Irish law; the other that they were French establishments, having been founded by the authority of the King of France. He held himself, therefore, precluded by the Douay judgment from any further consideration of the matter. Now, after this conclusive decision there was no reason for re-opening the subject; but there was no objection to produce the Papers moved for.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
remarked that the English Colleges were affiliated to French institutions, and ceased to exist at the Revolution, whereas; the Irish College was always an independent one, and continued in existence.